Prefixing on a Neo-Latin basis of coining

2.6.2 Prefixing on a Neo-Latin basis of coining

There are many prefixes, chiefly used in learned words or in scientific terminology, which have come into the language through borrowing from Modern Latin, as ante-, extra-, intra-/ meta, para – etc. The practice of word coining with there particles begins in the 16th century, but really develops with the progress of modern science only, i.e. in the 18th and esp the 19th century. With these particles there is a practical difficulty. They may represent 1) such elements as are prefixes (in the above meaning) in Latin or 6 reek, as a – (acaudal etc.), semi – (semi-annual), 2) such elements as exist as prepositions or particles with an independent word existence, as intra, circum / hyper, para, 3) such as are the stems of full words in Latin or 6 reek, as multi-, omni-/ astro-, hydro.

This last group is usually termed combining forms (OED Webster). In principle, the three groups are on the same footing from the point of view of English wf, as they represent loan elements in English with no independent existence as words. That macro-, micro – a. o. should be termed combining from while hyper-, hypro-, intro-, intra – a. o. are called prefixes by the OED, is by no means justified.

Only such pts as are prefixed to fool English words of generals, learned, scientific or technical character can be termed prefixes. Hyper-in hypersensitive is a prefix, but hyper – in hypertrophy is not, as-trophy is no word.

We cannot, however, under take to deal with all the prepositive elements occurring in English. Such elements as astro-, electro-, galato-, hepato-, oscheo – and countless others which are used in scientific or technical terminology have not been treated in this book. They offer a purely dictionary interest in any case. In the main, only those pts howe been considered that fall under the above groups 1) and 2) But we have also in duded a few prefixes which lie outside this scope, as prfs denoting number (poly-, multi-), the pronominal stem auto, which is used with many words of general character, and pts which are type – forming with English words of wider currency (as crypto-, neo-, pseudo-).

There is often competition between prefixes as there is between suffixes and in dependent words: over – and out – sometimes overlap, there is overlapping between un – (negative) and in-, un – (reversative), dis – and de-, between ante and pre-, super – and trans-, super – and supra.

 

2.6.3 The conceptual relations underlying prefixed words

A pre-particle or prefix combination may be based on three different conceptual patterns and accordingly present the prefixing three functional aspects: 1) the prefix has adjectival force (with sbs, as in anteroom, archbishop, co-hostess, ex-king); 2) the prefix has adverbial force (with adjectives and verbs, as in unconscious, hypersensitive, informal, overanxious/ unroll, revrite, mislay); 3) the prefix has prepositional force (as in prewar years, postgraduate studies, antiaircraft gun) afire, aflutter/anti-Nazi, afternoon/encage: sbs and vbs must be considered syntagmas with a zero determinate, the suffixs anti-Nazi, afternoon, encage being the respective determinants).

The preceding conceptual patterns are important in the determination of the stress: while a suffix. Based on an adjunct (primary relation tends to have two heavy stresses (as in arch – enemy)) or may even have the main stress on the prefix (as in subway), the prf. Has not more than a full middle stress in the other types.

 

2.6.4 The phonemic status of prefixes

The semi-independent, word-like status of prefixes also appears from their treatment in regard to stress. With the exception of regularly unstressed a – (as in afire, aflutter), be – (as in befriend), and em-, en – (as in emplace, encage) all prefixes have stress. To illustrate this important point a comparison with non-composite words of similar phonetic structure will be useful. If we compare the words re-full and repeat, morphemic re- / ri / in refill is basically characterized by presence of stress whereas non-morphemic re – [ri] is basically characterized by absence of stress. This is proved by the fact that under certain phonetically unpredictable circumstances, the phonemic stress of re-in re-full, though basically a middle stress, can take the form of heavy stress where as phonemic absence of stress can never rise to presence of stress. They refilled the tank may become they refilled the tank (for the sake of contrast) or they refilled the tank (for emphasis), but no such shift is conceivable for mono-morphemic repeat, incite, prefer etc. Which invariably maintain the pattern no stress/heavy stress.

 

2.7 Productive and non-productive affixes

The synchronic analysis of the preceding paragraph studies the present-day system and patterns characterized of the English vocabulary by comparing simultaneously existing words. In diachronic analysis Lexical elements are compared with those from which they have been formed and developed and their present productivity is determined. The diachronic study of vocabulary establishes whether the present morphological structure of each element of the vocabulary is due to the process of affixation or some other word-forming process, which took place within the English vocabulary in the course of its development, or whether it has some other source. The possible other sources are: (1) the borrowing of morphologically divisible words, e.g. i/-liter-ate from lat. Illiterates or litera-ture from lat litteratura: (2) reactivation, e.g. When in a number of Latin verbs harrowed in the second participle form with the suffix – at (us), this suffix became – ate (separate), and came to be understood as a characteristic mark of the infinitive; (3) False etymology: when a difficult, usually borrowed, word structure is destroyed in to some form suggesting a motivation, as, for instance, in the change of asparagus into sparrowgrass, or OF r and ME crevice into crayfish.

Synchronic analysis concentrates on structural types and treats word-formation as a system of rules, aiming at the creation of a consistent and complete theory by which the observed facts cab be classified, and the non-observed facts can be predicted. This aim has not been achieved as yet, so that a consistently synchronic description of the English language is still fragmentary still requires frequent revision. Diachronic analysis concentrating on word-forming possesses is more fully worked out.

All the foregoing treatment has been strictly synchronic i.e. only the present state of the English vocabulary has been taken into consideration. To have a complete picture of affixation, however one must be acquainted with the development of the stock of morphemes involved. A diachronic approach is thus indispensable.

The basic contrast that must be detalt with in this connection is the opposition of productive and non-productive affixes.

Conclusion

Affixation is the formation of words with the help of derivational affixes. Affixation is subdivided into prefixation and suffixation. Ex. if a prefix «dis» is added to the stem «like» (dislike) or suffix «ful» to «law» (lawful) we say a word is built by an affixation. Derivational morphemes added before the stem of a word are called prefixes (Ex. un+ like) and the derivational morphemes added after the stem of the word are called suffixes (hand+ ful). Prefixes modify the lexical meaning of the stem meaning i. e. the prefixed derivative mostly belongs to the same part of speech. Ex. like (v.) – dislike (v.).kind (adj.) – unkind (adj.) but suffixes transfer words to a different part of speech, ex. teach (v.) – teacher (n.). But new investigations into the problem of prefixation in English showed interesting results. It appears that the traditional opinion, current among linguists that prefixes modify only the lexical meaning of words without changing the part of speech is not quite correct. In English there are about 25 prefixes which can transfer words to a different part of speech. Ex. – head (n) – behead (v), bus(n) – debus(v), brown (adj) – embrown(u), title(n) – entitle(v), large (adj). – enlarge (v), camp(n). – encamp(u), war(n). – prewar (adj). If it is so we can say that there is no functional difference between suffixes and prefixes. Besides there are linguists¹ who treat prefixes as a part of word-composition. They think that a prefix has.he same function as the first component of a compound word. Other linguists² consider prefixes as derivational affixes which differ essentially from root–morphemes and stems. From the point of view of their origin affixes may be native and borrowed. The suffixes-ness, – ish, – dom, – ful, – less, – ship and prefixes be-, mis-, un-, fore-, etc are of native origin. But the affixes – able, – ment, – ation, – ism, – ist, re-, anti-, dis-, etc are of borrowed origin. They came from the Greek, Latin and French languages. Many of the suffixes and prefixes of native origin were independent words. In the course of time they have lost their independence and turned into derivational affixes. Ex. – dom, – hood. /O.E. had – state, rank, – dom (dom condemn, – ship has developed from noun «scipe» (meaning: state); the adjective forming suffix «-ly» has developed from the noun «lic» (body, shape). The prefixes out-, under-, over etc also have developed out of independent words.

Another problem of the study of affixes is homonymic affixes. Homonymic affixes are affixes which have the same sound form, spelling but different meanings and they are added to different parts of speech.

Ex. ful (1) forms adjectives from a noun: love (v) – loveful (adj/, man (n), – manful (adj).

– ful (2) forms adjective from a verb: forget (v.) – forgetful, (adj) thank (v.) – thankful (adj).

– ly(l) added to an adjective stem is homonymous to the adjective forming suffix – ly(2) which is added to a noun stem. Ex. quickly, slowly, and lovely, friendly.

The verb suffix-en (1) added to a noun and adjective stem is homonymous to the adjective forming suffix – en (2) which is added to a noun stem. Ex. to strengthen, to soften, and wooden, golden.

The prefix un – (l) added to a noun and a verb stem is homonymous to the prefix un – (2) which is added to an adj¬ective stem. Ex. unshoe, unbind, unfair, untrue.

In the course of the history of English as a result of borrowings there appeared many synonymous affixes in the language. Ex. the suffixes – er, – or, – ist, – ent, – ant, – eer, – ian, – man, – ee, – ess form synonymous affixes denoting the meaning «agent». Having the meaning of negation the prefixes un-, in-, non-, dis-, rnis – form synonymic group of prefixes. It is interesting to point out that the synonymous affixes help us to reveal different lexico–semantic groupings of words. Ex. the words formed by the suffixes – man, – er, – or, – ian, – ee, – eer, – ent, ant etc. belong to the lexico-semantic groupings of words denoting «doer of the action». The affixes may also undergo semantic changes, they may be polysemantic. Ex. the noun forming suffix «er» has the following meanings:

1) persons following some special trade and profession (driver, teacher, hunter); 2) persons doing a certain action at the moment in question (packer, chooser, giver); 3) tools (blotter, atomizer, boiler, transmitter).

The adjective forming suffix «-y» also has several meanings:

1) composed of, full of (bony, stony)

2) characterized by (rainy, cloudy)

3) having the character of resembling what the stem denotes (inky, bushy etc.)

Thus, affixes have different characteristic features.

The Comparative analysis of the English language with other languages showed that English is not so rich in suffixes as, for example, the Uzbek language. The total number of suffixes is 67 in English but the Uzbek suffixes are 171 and, vice versa, prefixation is more typical to the English language than Uzbek (Compare: 79:8)

In Uzbek there are following prefixes: be-, no-, ba, bo-, nim– By their origin the Uzbek affixes like English ones are divided into native and borrowed. The suffixes:chi, – gar, – zor, – li, – lik, – o’q are native suffixes but. – izm, – atsiya, bo, no-, namo-, – ki are of borrowed origin. The affixes may be divided into different semantic groups. These semantic groups of affixes may be different in different languages. For example, diminutive affixes in Uzbek are more than in English (see the table)

Diminutive	Suffixes
In English	In Uzbek
-ie (birdie), – let (cloudlet), – ting (wolf ling), – ette (mountainette), – ock (hillock), – y (Jony), – et (whippet), – kin (tigerkin),	-akay (yol-yolakay), alak(do’ngalak), – gina(qizgina), jon(dadajon)

As compared with the Uzbek language the negative affixes are more widely used in English.

In Uzbek: – siz (qo’lsiz), be – (berahm), no – (noxush)

In English: – less – (handless), a-, an – (anomalous); – un – (unkind) dis – (dislike), anti – (antibiotic), de – (decode), in – (innocent) ir – (irregular), im – (impossible), non – (nondeductive)

Though the number of Uzbek prefixes is very few (they are – 8) they are capable of changing words from one part of speech into another. Ex. adab. (n.)» – boadab(adj), hosil (n) – serhosil(adj)

There are different classifications of affixes in linguistic literature. Affixes may be divided into dead and living. Dead affixes are those which are no longer felt in Modern English as component parts of words. They can be singled out only by an etymological analysis. Ex.admit (fromL ad+mit-tere); deed, seed (-d) flight, bright(-t).

Living affixes are easily singled out from a word. Ex. freedom, childhood, marriage.

Living affixes are traditionally in their turn divided into productive and non-productive. Productive affixes are those which are characterized by their ability to make new words. Ex. – er (baker, lander (kosmik kema); – ist (leftist – (chap taraf)) – ism, – ish (baldish) – ing, – ness, – ation, – ee. – ry, – or – ance, ic are productive suffixes re-, un-non-, anti – etc are productive prefixes.

Non-productive affixes are those which are not used to form new words in Modern English. Ex, – ard, – cy, – ive, – en, – dom, – ship, – ful, – en, – ify etc are not productive suffixes; in, ir (im-), mis – dis-, are non-productive prefixes. These affixes may occur in a great number of words but if they are not used to form new words in Modern English they are not productive.

But recent investigations prove that there are no productive and non-productive affixes because each affix plays a certain role in wordformation. There are only affixes with different degrees of productivity, besides that productivity of affixes should not be mixed up with their frequency of occurence in speech. Frequency of affixes is characterised by the occurence of an affix in a great number of words. But productivity is the ability of a given suffix or prefix to make new words. An affix may be frequent but not productive, ex, the suffix «-ive» is very frequent but non-productive.

Some linguists distinguish between two types of prefixes:

1) those which are like functional words (such as prepositions or adverbs) (ex. out-, over-, up – .)

2) those which are not correlated with any independent words, (ex. un-, dis-, re-, mis-, etc).

Prefixes out-, over-, up-, under-, etc are considered as semibound morphemes. However, this view is doubtful because these prefixes are quite frequent in speech and like other derivational affixes have a generalized meaning. They have no grammatical meaning like the independent words. We think they are bound morphemes and should be regarded as homonyms of the corresponding independent words, ex. the prefix «out-» in outdoor, outcome, outbreak etc is homonymous to the preposition «out» in «out of door» and the adverb «out» in «He went out».

Prefixes and suffixes may be classified according to their meaning.

1) prefixes of negative meaning such as; de-, non-, un – in-, ir-, il-, im-, dis – (ex. defeat, decentralize, disappear, impossible, discomfort etc); 2) prefixes, denoting space and time relations: after, under-, for-, pre-, post-, over-, super – (ex, prehistory, postposition, superstructure, overspread, after¬noon, forefather); 3) prefixes denoting relation of an action such as: re – (ex. reread, remake).

Like prefixes the suffixes are also classified according to their meaning:

1) the agent suffixes: – er, – or, – ist, – ee etc. (baker, sailor, typist, employee); 2) appurtenance: – an, – ian, – ese (Arabian, Russian, Chinese, Japanese); 3) collectivity: – age, – dom, – hood, – ery (peasantry, marriage, kingdom, childhood); 4) dimi-nutiveness: – let, – ock, – ie etc (birdie, cloudlet, hillock); 5) quan-titativeness¹: – ful, – ous, – y, – ive, – ly, – some.

Suffixes may be divided into different groups according to what part of speech they form:

1) noun – forming, i. e. those which are form nouns: – er, – dom, – ness, – ation, – ity, – age, – ance. – ence, – ist, – hood, – ship, – ment etc; 2) adjective-forming: – able/, – ible/. – uble, – al, – ian, – ese, – ate, – ed, – ful, – ive, – ous, – y etc; 3) numeral-forming: – teen, – th, – ty etc; 4) verb-forming: – ate, – en, – ify, – ize etc.; 5) adverb-forming: – ly, – ward, – wise etc.

Suffixes may be added to the stem of different parts of speech. According to this point of view they may be:

1) those added to verbs: – er, – ing, – ment, – able; 2) those added to nouns: – less, – ish, – ful, – ist, some etc; 3) those added to adjectives: – en, – ly, – ish, – ness etc.

Suffixes are also classified according to their stylistic reference: 1) suffixes, which characterize neutral stylistic reference: – able, – er, – ing (ex. dancer, understandable (helping); 2) suffixes which characterize a certain stylistic reference:

– oid, – form, – tron etc (astroid, rhomboid, cruciform, cyclo¬tron etc).

Bibliography

1. Ginsburg R.S. et al. A Course in Modern English Lexicology. M., 1979 pp.72–82

2. Buranov, Muminov Readings on Modern English Lexicology T. O’qituvchi 1985 pp. 34–47

3. Arnold I.V. The English Word M. High School 1986 pp. 143–149

4. O. Jespersen. Linguistics. London, 1983, pp. 395–412

5. Jespersen, Otto. Growth and Structure of the English Language. Oxford, 1982 pp. 246–249

5. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Oxford 1964. pp. 147, 167, V.D. Arakin English Russian Dictionary M. Russky Yazyk 1978 pp. 23–24, 117–119, 133–134

7. Abayev V.I. Homonyms T. O’qituvchi 1981 pp. 4–5, 8, 26–29

8. Smirnitsky A.I. Homonyms in English M.1977 pp.57–59, 89–90

9. Dubenets E.M. Modern English Lexicology (Course of Lectures) M., Moscow State Teacher Training University Publishers 2004 pp. 17–31

10. Akhmanova O.S. Lexicology: Theory and Method. M. 1972 pp. 59–66

12. Burchfield R.W. The English Language. Lnd. 1985 pp. 45–47

13. Canon G. Historical Changes and English Wordformation: New Vocabulary items. N.Y., 1986. p. 284

14. Howard Ph. New words for Old. Lnd., 1980. p. 311

15. Sheard, John. The Words we Use. N.Y., 1954.p. 3

16. Maurer D.W., High F.C. New Words – Where do they come from and where do they go. American Speech. 1982.p. 171

17. Aпресян Ю.Д. Лексическая семантика. Омонимические средства языка. М. 1974. с. 46

18. Беляева Т.М., Потапова И.А. Английский язык за пределами Англии. Л. Изд-во ЛГУ 1971 С. 150–151

19. Арнольд И.В. Лексикология современного английского языка. М. Высшая школа 1959. с. 212–224

20. Виноградов В.В. Лексикология и лексикография. Избранные труды. М. 1977 с. 119–122

21. Bloomsbury Dictionary of New Words. M. 1996 с. 276–278

22. Hornby The Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. Lnd. 1974 с. 92–93, 111

23. Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English. Longman. 1981 pp. 23–25

24. Трофимова З.C. Dictionary of New Words and New Meanings. 'Павлин', 1993.

25. World Book Encyclopedia NY Vol 8 1993 p. 321

26 Internet: http://www.wikipedia.com/English/articles/homonymy.htm

27. Internet: http://www mpsttu.ru/works/english philology/ Э.М. Дубенец. Курс лекций и планы семинарских занятий по лексикологии английского языка

[1] See also: П A. Coболева, об ocновах слов, связанных отношениями конверсии. Сб «Иностранные языки в высшей школе», вып. 2, 1963.

[2] A paradigm is defined as the system of grammatical forms characteristic of a word.

[3] Historical lexicology shows how sometimes the stem becomes bound due to the internal changes in the stem that accompany the addition of affixes; cf. broad: breadth, clean: cleanly ['klenhj, dear: dearth [dε:θ ], grief : -.grievous.

1 S. Potter, Modern Linguistics, p. 81, London, 1957

1 The contribution of Soviet scholars to this problem is seen in the works by M. D. Stepanova, E. S. Koobryakova and many others. See: И.И. Иванова, О морфологической характеристике слова в современном английском языке, «Проблемы морфологического строя германских языков», М., 1963; Е.С. Кубрякова, Что такое словообразование, М., 1965; М.Д.Степанова, Методы синхронного анализа лексики, М.: 1968.

1H. Pilch, Comparative Constructions in English, "Language", vol. 41, No1, Jan.-March 1965, p. 40

1 Immediate constituents — pny of the two meaningful parts forming a larger lin­guistic unity.

2 L. Bloomfield, Language, London, 1935, p. 210.

3 See: E. O. Nida, Morphology. The Descriptive Analysis of Words, Ann Arbor, 1946 p. Fl.

1 2.S. Harris, Methods in Structural Linguistics, p. 163.

1 E. Nida, Morphology, University of Michigan Press, 1946, pp. 81-82.

2 A.H. Cмирнициский, Лексикология английского языка, M., 1956, с. 63.