AFFIXATION. ORIGIN OD DERIVATIONAL AFFIXES

Derivational affixes are of numerous derivatives in all parts of speech. Derivational affixes differ from affixational morphemes in their function within the word, in their distribution and in their meaning. Derivational affixes possess 2 basic functions: 1) that of stem-building. It?s the function of shaping a morphemic sequence, or a word-form or a phrase into the part of the word capable of taking a set of grammatical inflections and is conditioned by the part-of-speech meaning these morphemes possess. 2) that of word-building which is the function of repatterning a derivational base and building a lexical unit of a structural and semantic type different from the one represented by the source unit. The repatterning results in either transferring it into the stem of another part of speech or transferring it into another subset within the same part of speech. Semantically derivational affixes are characterized by a unity of part-of-speech meaning, lexical meaning and other types of morphemic meanings. The lexical meaning in derivational affixes also has its peculiarities , and may be viewed at different levels: 1) the lexical (denotational) meaning of generic type proper mostly not to an individual affix but to a set of affixes, forming a semantic subset. Resemblance: -ish, -like, --y, -ly; Absence: un-, -less. 2) on the other hand derivational affixes possess another type of lexical meaning ? an individual meaning. E.g.: -ish, -like, -y ? resemblance, but ?like conveys an overall resemblance, -ish ? likeness to the inner qualities of the object, -y ? likeness to outer shape. Derivational affixes semantically may be mono- (-ly) and polysemantic (-er).

In general, every affix can be described through the parameters, speaking about words: origin (native suf-xes - -ness, -ish; foreign prefixes ? dis-, ex-, non-), meaning (the doer of the action - -er, -ant; pejorative ? mis-, mel-), the stylistic reference (bookish - -oid, -tron, bi-; neutral ? -able, over-), the productivity.

Lexicology is primarily concerned with derivational affixes, the other group being the domain of grammarians. The derivational affixes in fact, as well as the whole problem of word-formation, form a boundary area between lexicology and grammar and are therefore studied in both.

Language being a system in which the elements of vocabulary and grammar are closely interrelated, our study of affixes cannot be complete without some discussion of the similarity and difference between derivational and functional morphemes.

The similarity is obvious as they are so often homonymous (for the most important cases of homonymy between derivational and functional affixes see p. 18). Otherwise the two groups are essentially different because they render different types of meaning.

Functional affixes serve to convey grammatical meaning. They build different forms of one and the same word. A word form, or the form of a word, is defined as one of the different aspects a word may take as a result of inflection. Complete sets of all the various forms of a word when considered as inflectional patterns, such as declensions or conjugations, are termed paradigms. A paradigm has been defined in grammar as the system of grammatical forms characteristic of a word, e. g. near, nearer, nearest; son, son?s, sons, sons? (see¹ p. 23).

Derivational affixes serve to supply the stem with components of lexical and lexico-grammatical meaning, and thus form⁴different words. One and the same lexico-grammatical meaning of the affix is sometimes accompanied by different combinations of various lexical meanings. Thus, the lexico-grammatical meaning supplied by the suffix -y consists in the ability to express the qualitative idea peculiar to adjectives and creates adjectives from noun stems. The lexical meanings of the same suffix are somewhat variegated: ?full of, as in bushy or cloudy, ?composed of, as in stony, ?having the quality of, as in slangy, ?resembling?, as in baggy, ?covered with?, as in hairy and some more. This suffix sometimes conveys emotional components of meaning. E.g.: My school reports used to say: ?Not amenable to discipline; too fond of organising,? which was only a kind way of saying: ?Bossy.? (M. Dickens) Bossy not only means ?having the quality of a boss? or ?behaving like a boss?; it is also a derogatory word.

This fundamental difference in meaning and function of the two groups of affixes results in an interesting relationship: the presence of a derivational affix does not prevent a word from being equivalent to another word, in which this suffix is absent, so that they can be substituted for one another in context. The presence of a functional affix changes the distributional properties of a word so much that it can never be substituted for a simple word without violating grammatical standard. To see this point consider the following familiar quotation from Shakespeare:

Cowards die many times before their deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once.

Here no one-morpheme word can be substituted for the words cowards, times or deaths because the absence of a plural mark will make the sentence ungrammatical. The words containing derivational affixes can be substituted by morphologically different words, so that the derivative valiant can be substituted by a root word like brave. In a statement like I wash my hands of the whole affair (Du Maurier) the word affair may be replaced by the derivative business or by the simple word thing because their distributional properties are the same. It is, however, impossible to replace it by a word containing a functional affix (affairs or things), as this would require a change in the rest of the sentence.

The American structuralists B. Bloch and G. Trager formulate this point as follows: ?A suffixal derivative is a two-morpheme word which is grammatically equivalent to (can be substituted for) any simple word in all the constructions where it occurs."¹

This rule is not to be taken as an absolutely rigid one because the word building potential and productivity of stems depend on several factors. Thus, no further addition of suffixes is possible after -ness, -ity, -dom, -ship and -hood.

A derivative is mostly capable of further derivation and is therefore homonymous to a stem. Foolish, for instance, is derived from the stem fool- and is homonymous to the stem foolish- occurring in the words foolishness and foolishly. Inflected words cease to be homonymous to stems. No further derivation is possible from the word form fools, where the stem fool- is followed by the functional affix -s. Inflected words are neither structurally nor functionally equivalent to the morphologically simple words belonging to the same part of speech. Things is different from business functionally, because these two words cannot occur in identical contexts, and structurally, because of the different character of their immediate constituents and different word-forming possibilities.

After having devoted special attention to the difference in semantic characteristics of various kinds of morphemes we notice that they are different positionally. A functional affix marks the word boundary, it can only follow the affix of derivation and come last, so that no further derivation is possible for a stem to which a functional affix is added. That is why functional affixes are called by E. Nida the outer formatives as contrasted to the inner formatives which is equivalent to our term derivational affixes.

It might be argued that the outer position of functional affixes is disproved by such examples as the disableds, the unwanteds. It must be noted, however, that in these words -ed is not a functional affix, it receives derivational force so that the disableds is not a form of the verb to disable, but a new word ? a collective noun.

A word containing no outer formatives is, so to say, open, because it is homonymous to a stem and further derivational affixes may be added to it. Once we add an outer formative, no further derivation is possible. The form may be regarded as closed.

The semantic, functional and positional difference that has already been stated is supported by statistical properties and difference in valency (combining possibilities). Of the three main types of morphemes, namely roots, derivational affixes and functional affixes (formatives), the roots are by far the most numerous. There are many thousand roots in the English language; the derivational affixes, when listed, do not go beyond a few scores. The list given in ?Chambers?s Twentieth Century Dictionary? takes up five pages and a half, comprising all the detailed explanations of their origin and meaning, and even then the actual living suffixes are much fewer. As to the functional affixes there are hardly more than ten of them. Regular English verbs, for instance, have only four forms: play, plays, played, playing, as compared to the German verbs which have as many as sixteen.

The valency of these three groups of morphemes is naturally in inverse proportion to their number. Functional affixes can be appended, with a few exceptions, to any element belonging to the part of speech they serve. The regular correlation of singular and plural forms of nouns can serve to illustrate this point. Thus, heart : : hearts; boy : : boys, etc. The relics of archaic forms, such as child : : children, or foreign plurals like criterion : : criteria are very few in comparison with these.

Derivational affixes do not combine so freely and regularly. The suffix -en occurring in golden and leaden cannot be added to the root steel-. Nevertheless, as they serve to mark certain groups of words, their correlations are never isolated and always contain more than two oppositions, e. g. boy : : boyish, child : : childish, book : : bookish, gold : : golden, lead : : leaden, wood : : wooden. The valency of roots is of a very different order and the oppositions may be sometimes isolated. It is for instance difficult to find another pair with the root heart and the same relationship as in heart : : sweetheart.

Knowing the plural functional suffix -s we know how the countable nouns are inflected. The probability of a mistake is not great.

With derivational affixes the situation is much more intricate. Knowing, for instance, the complete list of affixes of feminisation, i.e. formation of feminine nouns from the stems of masculine ones by adding a characteristic suffix, we shall be able to recognise a new word if we know the root. This knowledge, however, will not enable us to construct words acceptable for English vocabulary, because derivational affixes are attached to their particular stems in a haphazard and unpredictable manner. Why, for instance, is it impossible to call a lady-guest ? a guestess on the pattern of host : : hostess? Note also: lion : : lioness, tiger : : tigress, but bear : : she-bear, elephant : : she-elephant, wolf : : she-wolf; very often the correlation is assured by suppletion, therefore we have boar : : sow, buck : : doe, bull : : cow, cock : : hen, ram : : ewe.

Similarly in toponymy: the inhabitant of London is called a Londoner, the inhabitant of Moscow is a Muscovite, of Vienna ? a Viennese, of Athens ? an Athenian.

On the whole this state of things is more or less common to many languages; but English has stricter constraints in this respect than, for example, Russian; indeed the range of possibilities in English is very narrow. Russian not only possesses a greater number of diminutive affixes but can add many of them to the same stem: ???????, ?????????, ???????????, ?????????, ?????????, ???????????. Nothing of the kind is possible for the English noun stem boy. With the noun stem girl the diminutive -ie can be added but not -ette, -let, -kin / -kins. The same holds true even if the corresponding noun stems have much in common: a short lecture is a lecturette but a small picture is never called a picturette. The probability that a given stem will combine with a given affix is thus not easily established.

To sum up: derivational and functional morphemes may happen to be identical in sound form, but they are substantially different in meaning, function, valency, statistical characteristics and structural properties.

Affixation is the formation of new words with the help of derivational affixes

Affixation is generally defined as the formation of words by adding derivational affixes to different types of bases. Affixation is subdivided into suffixation and prefixation. A careful study of a great many suffixal and prefixal derivatives has revealed an essential difference between them. In Modern E. suffixation is mostly characteristic of a noun and adj. formation, while prefixation is mostly typical of verb formation. The distinction also rests on the role different types of meaning play in the semantic structure of the suffix and prefix. The part-of-speech meaning has a much greater significance in suffixes as compared to prefixes which possess it in a lesser degree. Due to it a prefix may be confined to one part of speech (unbutton, encage) or may function in more than one part of speech (overkind, to overfeed); unlike prefixes, suffixes as a rule function in any one part of speech often forming a derived stem of a different part of speech as compared with that of the base (careless-care). Prefixation is the formation of words with the help of prefixes. There are about 51 prefixes in the system of Modern English word-formation. There 2 types of prefixes that are to be distinguished: 1) those not correlated with any independent word (un-, post-, dis-) 2) those correlated with functional words (prepositions or preposition-like adverbs ? out-, up-, under-). Prefixes of the second type are qualified as semi-bound morphemes, which imply that they occur in speech in various utterances both as independent words and as derivational affixes (over the river ? to overpass). Diachronically distinction is made between prefixes of native and foreign origin. Synchronically prefixes may be classified: 1) according to the class of words they form (verb-forming ? to undo, noun-forming); 2) as to the type of lexical-grammatical character of the base they are added to into: deverbal (rewrite), denominal (ex-president), deadjectival (uneasy);3) as to the generic denotational meaning: negative prefixes (un-, non-, in-, dis-), resersative or private prefixes (un-, de-, dis-; untie, disconnect), perjorative prefixes (mis-, mal-, pseudo-), prefixes of time and order (fore-,pre-, post-,ex-), prefix of repetition re-, locative prefixes (super-, sub-, trans-); 5) according to their stylistic reference: neutral stylistic reference (out-, re-, under-) and those possessing quite a definite stylistic value (pseudo-, ultra-, uni-); 6) prefixes may be also classified as to the degree of productivity into highly-productive (re-), productive and non-productive (,-fore ? to foresee).

Suffixationis the formation of words with the help of suffixes. Suffixes usually modify the lexical meaning of the base and transfer words to a different part of speech. Suffixes may be classified: 1) the part of speech formed: noun-suffixes (-er, -ness), adj.-suffixes (-able, -ic), verb-suffixes (-en, -ize), adverb-suffixes (-ly,-ward). 2) according to the lexico-grammatical character of the base: deverbal (-er, -ment), denominal (-less,-ist), de-adj (-ly, -ish) 3) the criterion of sense expressed by a set of suffixes: the agent of an action (-er, -ant), appurtenance (-an, -ian, -es), collectivity (-age, -dom), diminutiveness (-let, -ling) 4) stylistic reference: neutral (-able, -er) and stylistic value (-oid, -aceous, -tron) 5) the degree of productivity. ( productive ? ly; -full; - ness; non-productive -ous, -th? famous, depth, -ard ? drunkard). ?origin ? tion,ment,able ? Roman; ist,ism,ize ? Greek; er,ful,less - native?

Derivational affixes are polysemantic (-y: 1) composed of, full of ? bony, 2) characterized by ? rainy, 3) having the character of ? bushy). They can also be synonymic ? ER-OR-IST ? ???? doer of the action?. Many homonymic derivational affixes can be found among those forming both different parts of speech and different semantic groupings within the same part of speech (-ly ? lovely/quickly ? the adj/adv forming suff. ? ful ? spoonful/beautiful ? noun/adj forming suff.). The degree of productivity very much depends on the structural, lexico-grammatical and semantic nature of bases and the meaning of the affix.

Affixes are usually divided into living and dead affixes. Living affixes are easily separated from the stem (care-ful). Dead affixes have become fully merged with the stem and can be singled out by a diachronic analysis of the development of the word (admit - L.- ad + mittere). Living affixes are in their turn divided into productive and non-productive affixes. In many cases the choice of the affixes is a means of differentiating meaning:

uninterested - disinterested distrust ? mistrust

Origin of Derivational Affixes

While examining the stock of derivational affixes in Modern English from the point of view of their origin distinction should first of all be made between native and foreign affixes, e.g. the suffixes -ness, -ish, -domand the prefixes be-, mis-, un-are of native origin, whereas such suffixes as -ation, -ment, -ableand prefixes like dis-, ex-, re-are of foreign origin.

Many of the suffices and prefixes of native origin were originally independent words. In the course of time they have gradually lost their independence and turned into derivational affixes. For instance, such noun-suffixes as -dom, -hood, -shipmay be traced back to words: -domrepresents the Old English noun domwhich meant ?judgement?; ?sentence?. The suffix -hoodgoes back to the OE, noun had,which meant ?state?, ?condition?; the adjective suffix -ly(e.g. manly, friendly)is also traced back to the OE. noun līc ? ?body?, ?shape?. Some suffixes are known to have originated as a result of secretion. An instance of the case is the suffix -lingoccurring in words like duckling, yearling, hireling,etc. The suffix is simply the extended form of the Old English suffix -ingand has sprung from words in which -ingwas tacked on to a stem ending in [1] as lỹtling.Many suffixes, however, have always been known as derivational affixes within the history of the English language, for instance -ish, -less-, -ness,etc.

The same is true of prefixes: some have developed out of independent words, e.g. out-, under-, over-,ethers have always functioned as derivational affixes, e.g. mis-, un-.

In the course of its historical development the English language has adopted a great many suffixes and prefixes from foreign languages. This process does not consist in borrowing derivational affixes as such. It is words that the language borrows from a foreign language and the borrowed words bring with them their derivatives formed after word-building patterns of this language. When such pairs of words as deriveand derivation, esteemand estimation, laudand laudationfound their way into the English vocabulary, it was natural that the suffix -ationshould be recognised by English speakers as an allowable means of forming nouns of action out of verbs. In this way a great many suffixes and prefixes of foreign origin have become an integral part of the system of word-formation in English. Among borrowed derivational affixes we find both suffixes, e.g. -able, -ible, -al, -age, -ance, -ist, -ism, -ess,etc., and prefixes, e.g. dis-, en[em]-, inter-, re-, non-and many others.

It is to be marked that quite a number of borrowed derivational affixes are of international currency. For instance, the suffix -istof Greek origin is used in many European languages to form a noun denoting ?one who adheres to a given doctrine or system, a political party, an ideology? or ?one, who makes a practice of a given action? (cf. socialist, communist, Marxist; artist, scenarist, realistand their Russian equivalents). Of international currency is also the suffix -ismof Greek origin used to form abstract nouns denoting ?philosophical doctrines, political and ?scientific theories,? etc. (e.g. materialism, realism, Darwinism).Such prefixes as anti-, pre-, extra-, ultra-are also used to coin new words in many languages, especially in political and scientific terminology (e.g. anti-fascist, pro-German, extra-territorial, transatlantic, ultra-violet).

The adoption of countless foreign words exercised a great influence upon the system of English word-formation, one of the result being the appearance of many hybrid words in the English vocabulary. The term hybrid words is, needless to say, of diachronic relevance only. Here distinction should be made between two basic groups:

1) Cases when a foreign stem is combined with a native affix, as in colourless, uncertain.After complete adoption the foreign stem is subject to the same treatment as native stems and new words are derived from it at a very early stage. For instance, such suffixes as -ful, -less, -nesswere used with French words as early as 1300;

2) Cases when native stems are combined with foreign affixes, such as drinkable, joyous, shepherdess.Here the assimilation of a structural pattern is involved, therefore some time must pass before a foreign affix comes to be recognised by speakers as a derivational morpheme that can be tacked on to native words. Therefore such formations are found much later than those of the first type and are less numerous. The early assimilation of -ableis an exception. Some foreign affixes, as -ance,-al, -ity,have never become productive with native stems.

Reinterpretation of borrowed words gave rise to affixes which may not have been regarded as such in the source language. For instance, -scapeoccurring in such words as seascape, cloudscape, mountainscape, moonscape,etc. resulted from landscapeof Dutch origin. The suffix -adedeveloped from lemonadeof French origin, giving rise to fruitade, orangeade, gingerade, pineappleade, etc.; thenoun electronof Greek origin contributed the suffix -tronvery widely used in coining scientific and technical terms, e.g. cyclotron, magnetron, synchrophasotron, thyratron,etc.

Date: 2016-06-12; view: 541