C H A P T E R I
The ways in which new words are formed, and the factors which govern their credence into the linguistic communication, are by and large taken really much for granted by the mean talker. To understand a word, it is non necessary to cognize how it is constructed, whether it is simple or complex, that is, whether or non it can be broken down into two or more components. We are able to utilize a word which is new to us when we find out what object or impression it denotes. Some words, of class, are more & # 8216 ; transparent & # 8217 ; than others. For illustration, in the words unfathomable
and indefinable
we recognize the familiar form of negative prefix + transitive word + adjective-forming postfix on which many words of similar signifier are constructed. Knowing the form, we can easy think their significances & # 8211 ; & # 8216 ; can non be fathomed & # 8217 ; and & # 8216 ; can non be described & # 8217 ; & # 8211 ; although we are non surprised to happen other similar-looking words, for case unstylish
and unfavorable
for which this analysis will non work. We recognize as & # 8216 ; transparent & # 8217 ; the adjectives unassuming
and unheard-of
, which taking for granted the fact that we can non utilize presuming
and heard-of
. We accept as rather natural the fact that although we can utilize the verbs to shriek
, to beat
and to
cornet
, we can non utilize the verbs to piano
and to violin
.
But when we meet new mintages, like tape-code
, freak-out
, shutup-ness
and beautician
, we may non readily be able to explicate our reactions to them. Inventions in vocabulary are capable of eliciting rather strong feelings in people who may otherwise non be in the wont of believing really much about linguistic communication. Quirk [ 1 ]
quotes some missive to the imperativeness of a familiar sort, written to protest about & # 8216 ; atrocious slang & # 8217 ; , such as dislocation
, & # 8216 ; vile & # 8217 ; words like transit
, and the & # 8216 ; atrociousness & # 8217 ; lay-by
.
Many linguists agree over the fact that the topic of word-formation has non until late received really much attending from descriptive syntacticians of English, or from bookmans working in the field of general linguistics. As a aggregation of different procedures ( intensifying, affixation, transition, backformation, etc. ) about which, as a group, it is hard to do general statements, word-formation normally makes a brief visual aspect in one or two chapters of a grammar. Valerie Adams emphasizes two chief grounds why the topic has non been attractive to linguists: its connexions with the non-linguistic universe of things and thoughts, for which words provide the names, and its ambiguous place as between descriptive and historical surveies. A few brief comments, which needfully present a much over-simplified image, on the class which linguistics has taken in the last hundred old ages will do this easier.
The 19th century, the period of great progresss in historical and comparative linguistic communication survey, saw the first claims of linguistics to be a scientific discipline, comparable in its methods with the natural scientific disciplines which were besides basking a period of exciting find. These claims rested on the elaborate survey, by comparative linguists, of formal correspondences in the Indo-germanic linguistic communications, and their realisation that such survey depended on the premise of certain natural & # 8216 ; Torahs & # 8217 ; of sound alteration. As Robins [ 2 ]
observes in his treatment of the linguistics of the latter portion of the 19th century:
The history of a linguistic communication is traced through recorded fluctuations in the signifiers and significances of its words, and linguistic communications are proved to be related by ground of their ownership of universes bearing formal and semantic correspondences to each other such as can non be attributed to mere opportunity or to recent adoption. If sound alteration were non regular, if word-forms were capable to random, incomprehensible, and unmotivated fluctuation in the class of clip, such statements would lose their cogency and lingual dealingss could merely be established historically by extralinguistic grounds such as is provided in the Romance field of linguistic communications descended from Latin.
The rise and development in the 20th century of synchronous descriptive linguistics meant a displacement of accent from historical surveies, but non from the thought of linguistics as a scientific discipline based on elaborate observation and the strict exclusion of all accounts depended on extralinguistic factors. Equally early as 1876, Henry Sweet had written:
Before history must come a cognition of what exists. We must larn to detect things as they are, without respect to their beginning, merely as a animal scientist must larn to depict accurately a Equus caballus or any other animate being. Nor would the mere statements that the modern Equus caballus is a descendent of a three-toed fen quadruped be accepted as an dog-tired description… Such nevertheless is the class being pursued by most antiquarian philologues. [ 3 ]
The most influential bookman concerned with the new linguistics was Ferdinand de Saussure, who emphasized the differentiation between external linguistics & # 8211 ; the survey of the effects on a linguistic communication of the history and civilization of its talkers, and internal linguistics & # 8211 ; the survey of its system and regulations. Language, studied synchronically, as a system of elements definable in relation to one another, must be seen as a fixed province of personal businesss at a peculiar point of clip. It was internal linguistics, stimulated by de Saussure & # 8217 ; s works, that was to be the chief concern of the twentieth-century bookmans, and within it there could be no topographic point for the survey of the formation of words, with its close connexion with the external universe and its deductions of changeless alteration. Any treatment of new formations as such means the forsaking of the rigorous differentiation between history and the present minute. As Harris expressed in his influential Structural
Linguisticss[ 4 ]
: & # 8216 ; The methods of descriptive linguistics can non handle of the productiveness of elements since that is a step of the difference between our principal and some future principal of the language. & # 8217 ; Leonard Bloomfield, whose book Language[ 5 ]
was the following work of major influence after that of de Saussure, re-emphasized the necessity of a scientific attack, and the consequent troubles in the manner of analyzing & # 8216 ; intending & # 8217 ; , and until the center of the nineteen-fifties, involvement was centered on the isolating of minimum sections of address, the description of their distribution relation to one another, and their organisation into larger units. The cardinal unit of grammar was non the word but a smaller unit, the morpheme.
The following major alteration of accent in linguistics was marked by the publication in 1957 of Noam Chomsky & # 8217 ; s Syntactic Structures[ 6 ]
. As Chomsky stated it, the purpose of linguistics was now seen to be & # 8216 ; to do grammatical accounts parallel in accomplishment to the behaviour of the talker who, on the footing of a finite and inadvertent experience with linguistic communication can bring forth and understand an indefinite figure of new sentences & # 8217 ; [ 7 ]
. The thought of productiveness, or creativeness, antecedently excluded from linguistics, or discussed in footings of chances in the attempt to keep the position of linguistic communication as bing in a inactive province, was seen to be of cardinal importance. But still word-formation remained a subject neglected by linguists, and for several good grounds. Chomsky made explicit the differentiation, cardinal to linguistics today ( and comparable to that made by de Saussure between langue
, the system of a linguistic communication, and word
, the set of vocalizations of the linguistic communication ) , between lingual competency, & # 8216 ; the speaker-hearer & # 8217 ; s cognition of his linguistic communication & # 8217 ; and public presentation, & # 8216 ; the existent usage of linguistic communication in concrete state of affairss & # 8217 ; [ 8 ]
. Linked with this differentiation are the impressions of & # 8216 ; grammaticalness & # 8217 ; and & # 8216 ; acceptableness & # 8217 ; ; in Chomsky & # 8217 ; s words, & # 8216 ; Acceptability is a construct that belongs to the survey of competency & # 8217 ; [ 9 ]
. A & # 8216 ; grammatical & # 8217 ; vocalization is one which may be generated and interpreted by the regulations of the grammar ; an & # 8216 ; acceptable & # 8217 ; vocalization is one which is & # 8216 ; absolutely natural and instantly comprehendible… and in no manner bizarre or bizarre & # 8217 ; [ 10 ]
. It is easy to demo, as Chomsky does, that a grammatical sentence may non be acceptable. For case, this is the cheese the rat the cat caught stole
appears & # 8216 ; bizarre & # 8217 ; and unacceptable because we have difficulty in working it out, non because it breaks any grammatical regulations. Generally, nevertheless, it is to be expected that grammaticalness and acceptableness will travel manus in manus where sentences are concerned.
The ability to do and understand new words is evidently every bit much a portion of our lingual competency as the ability to do and understand new sentences, and so, as Pennanen [ 11 ]
points out, & # 8216 ; it is an obvious spread in transformational grammars non to hold made proviso for handling word-formation. & # 8217 ; But, as we have already noticed, we may readily thing of words, like to piano
and to violin
, against which we can raise no regulation, but which are decidedly & # 8216 ; unacceptable & # 8217 ; for no obvious ground. The incongruence of grammaticality and acceptableness that is, is far greater where words are concerned than where sentences are concerned. It is so great, in fact, that the exercising of puting out the & # 8216 ; regulations & # 8217 ; for organizing words has so far seemed to many linguists to be out of questionable utility. The occasions on which we would hold to depict the end product of such regulations as & # 8216 ; grammatical but non-occurring & # 8217 ; [ 12 ]
are merely excessively legion. And there are farther troubles in handling new words like new sentences. A fresh word ( like enchiridion
or partial
) may pull unwelcome attending to itself and look to be the consequence of the breakage of regulations instead than of their application. And besides, the more accustomed to the word we become, the more likely we are to happen it acceptable, whether it is & # 8216 ; grammatical & # 8217 ; or non & # 8211 ; or possibly we should state, whether or non is was & # 8216 ; grammatical & # 8217 ; at the clip it was foremost formed
, since a new word one time formed, frequently becomes simply a member of an stock list ; its formation is a historical event, and the & # 8216 ; regulation & # 8217 ; behind it may so look irrelevant.
What precisely is a word? From Lewis Carroll onwards, this seemingly simple inquiry has bedeviled countless word fans, whether they are take parting in a game of Scrabble or composing an article for the Word Ways lingual magazine. To assist the reader make up one’s mind what constitutes a word, A. Ross Eckler [ 13 ]
suggests a ranking of words in diminishing order of admissibility. A logical manner to rank a word is by the figure of English-speaking people who can acknowledge it in address or authorship, but this is evidently impossible to determine. Alternatively, one can rank a word by its figure of happenings in a selected sample of printed stuff. H. Kucera and W.N. Francis ‘s Computational Analysis of Present-day English [ 14 ]
is based on one million words from beginnings in print in 1961. Unfortunately, the bulk of the words in Webster ‘s Unabridged [ 15 ]
make non look even one time in this digest & # 8211 ; and the words which do non look are the 1s for which a doctrine of ranking is most desperately needed. Furthermore, the written ranking will differ from the acknowledgment ranking ; coarsenesss and lewdnesss will rank much higher in the latter than in the former.
A elaborate, word-by-word ranking is an impossible dream, but a superior based on categories of words may be within our appreciation. Ross Eckler [ 16 ]
proposes the undermentioned categories: ( 1 ) words looking in one more standard English-language lexicons, ( 2 ) non-dictionary words looking in print in several different contexts, ( 3 ) words invented to make full a specific demand and looking but one time in print.
Most people are willing to acknowledge as words all uncapitalized, unlabelled entries in, say, Webster ‘s New International Dictionary, Third Edition ( 1961 ) . Intuitively, one recognizes that words become less admissible as they move in any or all of three waies: as they become more often capitalized, as they become the slang of smaller groups ( dialect, proficient, scientific ) , and as they become antediluvian or disused. These categories have no definite boundaries & # 8211 ; is a word last used in 1499 significantly more disused than a word last used in 1501? Is a word known to 100,000 chemists more admissible than a word known to 90,000 Mexicanos? Each linguist will put his ain boundaries.
The 2nd category consists of non-dictionary words looking in print in a figure of beginnings. There are many non-dictionary words in common usage ; some logologists would wish to pull a wider circle to include these. Such words can be loosely classified into: ( 1 ) neology and common words overlooked by dictionary-makers, ( 2 ) geographical topographic point names, ( 3 ) given names and family names.
Dmitri Borgmann [ 17 ]
points out that the well-known words uncashed
, ex-wife
and duty-bound
look in no lexicons ( since 1965, the first of these has appeared in the Random House Unabridged ) . Few people would except these words. Neologisms present a more awkward job since some may be so passing that they ne’er appear in a dictionary. Possibly one should read Pope ‘s pronouncement “ Be non the first by whom the new are tried, nor yet the last to put the old aside. ”
Large treasure-troves of geographic topographic point names can be found in The Times Atlas of the World [ 18 ]
( 200,000 names ) , and the Rand McNally Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide [ 19 ]
( 100,000 names ) . These are non all different, and some topographic point names are already dictionary words. All these can be easy verified by other readers ; nevertheless, some will experience uneasy approximately acknowledging as a word the name, say, of a little Albanian town which perchance has ne’er appeared in any English-language text outside of Atlass.
Given names appear in the appendix of many lexicons. Common given names such as Edward or Cornelia ought to be admitted every bit readily as common geographical topographic point names such as Guatemala, but this set does non add much to the logological reserve.
Family family names at first bloom look to be on the same terms as geographical topographic point names. However, one must be careful about beginnings. Biographic lexicons and Who ‘s Who are equal mentions, but one should be cautious mentioning family names looking merely in telephone directories. Once a telephone directory is supplanted by a ulterior edition, it is hard to turn up transcripts for verifying family name claims. Further, telephone directories are non immune to nonce names coined by endorsers for personal grounds. A good index of the comparative admissibility of family names is the figure of people in the United States bearing that family name. An estimation of this could be obtained from computing machine tapes of the Social Security Administration ; in 1957 they issued a booklet giving the figure of Social Security histories associated with each of the 1500 most common household names.
The 3rd and concluding category of words consists of time being words, those invented to make full a specific demand, and looking merely one time ( or possibly merely in the work of the writer prefering the word ) . Few philologues feel comfy about acknowledging these. Time being words range from mintages by James Joyce and Edgar Allan Poe ( X-ing a Paragraph ) to ejaculations in amusing strips ( Agggh! Yowie! ) . Ross Eckler and Daria Abrossimova suggest that misspellings in print should be included here besides.
In the book & # 8220 ; Beyond Language & # 8221 ; , Dmitri Borgmann proposes that the philologue be prepared to acknowledge words that may ne’er hold appeared in print. For illustration, Webster ‘s Second lists eudaemony every bit good as the entry “ Eudaimonia, eudaimonism, eudaimonist, etc. ” From this he concludes thatEUDAIMONY
must be and should be admitted as a word. Similarly, he can gestate of sentences incorporating the wordGRACIOUSLY ‘S
( “ There are ten gracefully ‘s in Anna Karenina ” ) andSAN DIEGOS
( “ See the lustre that the San Diegos of our state have brought to the US ” ) . In short, he argues that these words might credibly be used in an English-language sentence, but does non asseverate any existent use. His standard for the credence of a word seems to be its philological singularity (EUDAIMONY
is a short word incorporating all five vowels and Y ) .
The available lingual literature on the topic cites assorted types and ways of organizing words. Earlier books, articles and monographs on word-formation and vocabulary growing in general used to advert morphological, syntactic and lexico-semantic types of word-formation. At present the categorizations of the types of word-formation bash non, as a regulation, include lexico-semantic word-building. Of involvement is the categorization of word-formation agencies based on the figure of actuating bases which many bookmans follow. A differentiation is made between two big categories of word-building agencies: to Classify I belong the agencies of edifice words holding one actuating base ( e.g. the noun actor
is composed of the base do-
and the postfix -er
) , which Class II includes the agencies of edifice words incorporating more than one actuating base. They are all based on combination ( e.g. compounds letter-opener, e-mail, looking-glass
) .
Most linguists in particular chapters and manuals devoted to English word-formation consider as the main procedures of English word-formation affixation, transition and combination.
Apart from these, there is a figure of minor ways of organizing words such as back-formation, sound interchange, typical emphasis, onomatopoeia, blending, niping, acronymy.
Some of the ways of organizing words in contemporary English can be restored to for the creative activity of new words whenever the juncture demands & # 8211 ; these are calledproductive ways of forming words
, other ways of organizing words can non now produce new words, and these are normally termednon
–productive
orunproductive
. R. S. Ginzburg gives the illustration of affixation holding been a productive manner of organizing new words of all time since the Old English period ; on the other manus, sound-interchange must hold been at one clip a word-building agencies but in Modern English ( as we have mentioned above ) its map is really merely to separate between different categories and signifiers of words.
It follows that productiveness of word-building ways, single derivational forms and derivational affixes is understood as their ability of doing new words which all who speak English find no trouble in understanding, in peculiar their ability to make what are calledoccasional words
ornonce-words[ 20 ]
( e.g. lungful
( of fume ) , Dickensish
( office ) , collarless
( visual aspect ) ) . The term suggests that a talker coins such words when he needs them ; if on another juncture the same word is needed once more, he coins it afresh. Nonce-words are built from familiar linguistic communication stuff after familiar forms. Dictionaries, as a regulation, do non name occasional words.
The boundary line between productive and non-productive ways and agencies of word-formation as stated above is non, nevertheless, accepted by all linguists without modesty. Some linguists consider it necessary to specify the term productiveness of a word-building means more accurately. They hold the position that productive ways and agencies of word-formation are merely those that can be used for the formation of an limitless figure of new words in the modern linguistic communication, i.e. such means that & # 8220 ; cognize no bounds & # 8221 ; and easy organize occasional words. This divergency of sentiment is responsible for the difference in the lists of derivational affixes considered productive in assorted books on English lexicology.
However, recent probes seem to turn out that productiveness of derivational agencies is comparative in many respects. Furthermore there are no perfectly productive agencies ; derivational forms and derivational affixes possess different grades of productiveness. Therefore it is of import that conditions favoring productiveness and the grade if productiveness of a peculiar form or affix should be established. All derivational forms see both structural and semantic restraints. The fewer are the restraints, the higher is the grade of productiveness, the greater is the figure of new words built on it. The two general restraints imposed on all derivational forms are: the portion of address in which the form maps and the significance attached to it which conveys the regular semantic correlativity between the two categories of words. It follows that each portion of address is characterized by a set of productive derivational forms peculiar to it. Three grades of productiveness are distinguished for derivational forms and single derivational affixes: ( 1 )extremely productive
, ( 2 )productive
orsemi-productive
and ( 3 )non-productive
.
R. S. Ginzburg [ 21 ]
says that productiveness of derivational forms and affixes should non be identified with the frequence of happening in address, although there may be some interrelatedness between so. Frequency of happening is characterized by the fact that a great figure of words incorporating a given derivational affix are frequently used in address, in peculiar in assorted texts. Productivity is characterized by the ability of a given postfix to do new words.
In lingual literature there is another reading of derivational productiveness based on a quantitative attack. A derivational form or a derivational affix are qualified as productive provided there are in the word-stock tonss and 100s of derived words built on the form or with the aid of the postfix in inquiry. Therefore interpreted, derivational productiveness is distinguished from word-formation activity by which is meant the ability of an affix to bring forth new words, in peculiar occasional words or nonce-words. For case, the agent postfix & # 8211 ; er
is to be qualified both as a productive and as an active postfix: on the one manus, the English word-stock possesses 100s of nouns incorporating this postfix ( e.g. author, harvester, lover, smuggler
, etc. ) , on the other manus, the postfix & # 8211 ; er
in the form V
+ & # 8211 ; er
– Nitrogen
is freely used to coin an limitless figure of nonce-words denoting active agents ( e.g. interrupter, respecter, laugher, breakfaster
, etc. ) .
The adjectival postfix & # 8211 ; ful
is described as a productive but non as an active one, for there are 100s of adjectives with this postfix ( e.g. beautiful, hopeful, utile
, etc. ) , but no new words seem to be built with its aid.
For obvious grounds, the noun-suffix & # 8211 ; Thursday
in footings of this attack is to be regarded both as a non-productive and a non-active 1.
Now allow us see the basic ways of organizing words in the English linguistic communication.
Affixation
is by and large defined as the formation of words by adding derivational affixes to different types of bases. Derived words formed by affixation may be the consequence of one or several applications of word-formation regulation and therefore the roots of words doing up a word-cluster enter into derivational dealingss of different grades. The zero grade of derivation is ascribed to simple words, i.e. words whose root is homonymic with a word-form and frequently with a root-morpheme ( e.g. atom, hastiness, devote, dying, horror
, etc. ) . Derived words whose bases are built on simple roots and therefore are formed by the application of one derivational affix are described as holding the first grade of derivation ( e.g. atomic, headlong, devotedness
, etc. ) . Derived words formed by two back-to-back phases of coining possess the 2nd grade of derivation ( e.g. atomical, hurriedly, devotional
, etc. ) , and so forth.
In conformance with the division of derivational affixes into postfixs and prefixes affixation is subdivided intosuffixation
andprefixation
. Differentiation is of course made between prefixal and suffixal derived functions harmonizing to the last phase of derivation, which determines the nature of the immediate components of the form that signals the relationship of the derived word with its actuating beginning unit, e.g. unfair
( un
& # 8211 ; + merely
) , justify ( merely + & # 8211 ; ify
) , agreement ( arrange
+ & # 8211 ; ment ) , non-smoker ( non & # 8211 ; + tobacco user
) . Wordss like reappearance, unreasonable, denationalise
, are frequently qualified as prefixal-suffixal derived functions. R. S. Ginzburg [ 22 ]
insists that this categorization is relevant merely in footings of the constitutional morphemes such words are made up of, i.e. from the angle of morphemic analysis. From the point of position of derivational analysis, such words are largely either suffixal or prefixal derived functions, e.g. sub-atomic
= bomber
& # 8211 ; + ( atom + & # 8211 ; Intelligence Community
) , unreasonable = un & # 8211 ; + ( ground + & # 8211 ; able ) , denationalize = de & # 8211 ; + ( national + & # 8211 ; ize ) , discouragement = ( dis & # 8211 ; + bravery ) + & # 8211 ; ment
.
A careful survey of a great many suffixal and prefixal derived functions has revealed an indispensable difference between them. In Modern English, suffixation is largely characteristic of noun and adjectival formation, while prefixation is largely typical of verb formation. The differentiation besides rests on the function different types of intending drama in the semantic construction of the postfix and the prefix. The part-of-speech significance has a much greater significance in postfixs as compared to prefixes which possess it in a lesser grade. Due to it, a prefix may be confined to one portion of address as, for illustration, enslave, encage, unbutton
, or may work in more that one portion of address as over
& # 8211 ; in overkind, overfeed, overestimate
. Unlike prefixes, postfixs as a regulation map in anyone
portion of address frequently organizing a derived root of a different portion of address as compared with that of the base, e.g. careless & # 8211 ; attention ; suited & # 8211 ; suit
, etc. Furthermore, it is necessary to indicate out that a postfix closely knit together with a base forms a merger retaining less of its independency that a prefix which is as a general regulation more independent semantically, e.g. reading & # 8211 ; & # 8216 ; the act of one who reads & # 8217 ; ; & # 8216 ; ability to read & # 8217 ; ; and to re-read & # 8211 ; & # 8216 ; to read once more & # 8217 ;
.
Prefixation
is the formation of words with the aid of prefixes. The reading of the footings prefix and prefixation now steadfastly rooted in lingual literature has undergone a certain development. For case, some clip ago there were linguists who treated prefixation as portion of word-composition ( or intensifying ) . The greater semantic independency of prefixes as compared with postfixs led the linguists to place prefixes with the first component portion of a compound word.
At present the bulk of bookmans treat prefixation as an built-in portion of word-derivation sing prefixes as derivational affixes which differ basically both from root-morphemes and non-derivational prepositive morphemes. Opinion sometimes differs refering the reading of the functional position of certain single groups of morphemes which normally occur as first constituent parts of words. H. Marchand [ 23 ]
, for case, analyses words like to exaggerate, to undervalue
as compound verbs, the first constituent of which are locative atoms, non prefixes. In a similar manner he interprets words like income, looker-on, privy
measure uping them as compounds with locative atoms as first elements.
R. S. Ginzburg [ 24 ]
provinces there are about 51 prefixes in the system of Modern English word-formation.
Unlike suffixation, which is normally more closely jump up with the paradigm of a certain portion of address, prefixation is considered to be more impersonal in this regard. It is important that in lingual literature derivational postfixs are ever divided into noun-forming, adjective-forming and so on ; prefixes, nevertheless, are treated otherwise. They are described either in alphabetical order or sub-divided into several categories in conformity with their beginning, . Meaning or map and ne’er harmonizing to the portion of address.
Prefixs may be classified on different rules. Diachronically differentiation is made between prefixes of native and foreign beginning. Synchronically prefixes may be classified:
( 1 ) Harmonizing to the category of words they sooner signifier. Recent probes allow one to sort prefixes harmonizing to this rule. It must be noted that most of the 51 prefixes of Modern English map in more than one portion of address organizing different structural and structural-semantic forms. A little group of 5 prefixes may be referred to entirely verb-forming ( en & # 8211 ; , be & # 8211 ; , United Nations
& # 8211 ; , etc. ) .
( 2 ) As to the type of lexical-grammatical character of the base they are added to into: ( a ) deverbal, e.g. revision, outstay, overdo
, etc. ; ( B ) denominal, e.g. unbutton, detrain, ex-president
, etc. and ( degree Celsius ) deadjectival, e.g. uneasy, semiannual
, etc. It is interesting that the most productive prefixal form for adjectives is the 1 made up of the prefix United Nations
& # 8211 ; and the base built either on adjective roots or present and past participial, e.g. unknown, unsmiling, untold
, etc.
( 3 ) Semantically prefixes autumn into mono & # 8211 ; and polysemous.
( 4 ) As to the generic denotational significance there are different groups that are distinguished in lingual literature: ( a ) negative prefixes such as un & # 8211 ; , non & # 8211 ; , in & # 8211 ; , dis & # 8211 ; , a & # 8211 ; , im & # 8211 ; /in & # 8211 ; /ir & # 8211 ;
( e.g. employment
–
unemployment, politician
–
non-politician, right
–
incorrect, advantage
–
disadvantage, moral
–
amoral, legal
–
illegal
, etc. ) ; ( B ) reversative of privative prefixes, such as un & # 8211 ; , de & # 8211 ; , dis & # 8211 ; , dis
& # 8211 ; ( e.g. tie
–
untie, centralise
–
decentralize, connect
–
gulf
, etc. ) ; ( degree Celsius ) pejorative prefixes, such as myocardial infarction & # 8211 ; , mal
& # 8211 ; , imposter
& # 8211 ; ( e.g. calculate
–
miscalculate, map
–
malfunction, scientific
–
pseudo-scientific
, etc. ) ; ( vitamin D ) prefixes of clip and order, such as bow & # 8211 ; , pre & # 8211 ; , station & # 8211 ; , ex
& # 8211 ; ( e.g. see
–
foresee, war
–
pre-war, Soviet
–
post-Soviet, married woman
–
ex-wife
, etc. ) ; ( vitamin E ) prefix of repeat rhenium
& # 8211 ; ( e.g. make
–
redo, type
–
retype
, etc. ) ; ( degree Fahrenheit ) locative prefixes such as super
& # 8211 ; , sub & # 8211 ; , inter & # 8211 ; , trans
& # 8211 ; ( e.g. market
–
supermarket, civilization
–
subculture, national
–
international, Atlantic
–
trans-Atlantic
, etc. ) .
( 5 ) When viewed from the angle of their stylistic mention, English prefixes autumn into those characterized byimpersonal stylistic mention
and thosepossessing rather a definite stylistic value
. As no thorough lexico-stylistic categorization of English prefixes has yet been suggested, a few illustrations can merely be adduced here. There is no uncertainty, for case, that prefixes like un & # 8211 ; , out & # 8211 ; , over & # 8211 ; , re & # 8211 ; , under & # 8211 ;
and some others can be qualified as impersonal ( e. g. unnatural, unlace, outgrow, override, redo, underestimation
, etc. ) . On the other manus, one can barely neglect to comprehend the literary-bookish character of such prefixes as imposter & # 8211 ; , super & # 8211 ; , extremist & # 8211 ; , uni & # 8211 ; , Bi
& # 8211 ; and some others ( e. g. pseudo-classical, superstructure, ultra-violence, one-sided, bifocal
, etc. ) .
Sometimes one comes across braces of prefixes one of which is impersonal, the other is stylistically coloured. One illustration will do here: the prefix over & # 8211 ;
occurs in all functional manners, the prefix super & # 8211 ;
is curious to the manner of scientific prose.
( 6 ) Prefixs may be besides classified as to the grade of productiveness intohighly-productive, productive
andnon-productive
.
Suffixation
is the formation of words with the aid of postfixs. Suffixes normally modify the lexical significance of the base and reassign words to a different portion of address. There are postfixs nevertheless, which do non switch words from one portion of address into another ; a postfix of this sort normally trans & # 173 ; fers a word into a different semantic group, e. g. a concrete noun becomes an abstract one, as is the instance with kid & # 8212 ; childhood, friend & # 8212 ; friendly relationship
, etc.
Ironss of postfixs happening in derived words holding two and more suffixal morphemes are sometimes referred to in lexicography as com & # 173 ; lb postfixs: & # 8211 ; competently = & # 8211 ; able + & # 8211 ; ly
( e. g. productively, unreasonably
) & # 8211 ; ical & # 8211 ; ly
= & # 8211 ; ic + & # 8211 ; al + & # 8211 ; ly
( e. g. musically, critically
) ; & # 8211 ; ation = & # 8211 ; ate
+ & # 8211 ; ion
( e. g. captivation, isolation
) and some others. Compound postfixs do non ever show a mere sequence of two or more postfixs originating out of several back-to-back phases of derivation. Some of them get a new quality operating as a whole unit. Let us analyze from this point of position the postfix & # 8211 ; ation
in words like captivation, interlingual rendition, version
and the similar. Adaptation
expressions at first sight like a parallel to fascination, interlingual rendition
.
The latter nevertheless are first-degree derived functions built with the postfix & # 8211 ; ion
on the bases fascinate & # 8211 ; , translate & # 8211 ; .
But there is no base adaptate
& # 8211 ; ,
merely the shorter base adapt
& # 8211 ;
. Likewise damnation, disapprobation, formation
,
information
and many others are non matched by shorter bases stoping in & # 8211 ; ate
, but merely by still shorter 1s damn & # 8211 ; , condemn & # 8211 ; , organize & # 8211 ; , inform & # 8211 ; .
Therefore, the postfix & # 8211 ; ation
is a specific postfix of a composite nature. It consists of two postfixs & # 8211 ; ate
and & # 8211 ; ion
, but in many instances maps as a individual unit in first-degree derived functions. It is referred to in lingual litre & # 173 ; ature as a coalescent postfix or a group postfix. Adaptation
is so a deri & # 173 ; vative of the first grade of derivation built with the coalescent postfix on the base adapt & # 8211 ; .
Of involvement is besides the group-suffix & # 8211 ; manship
dwelling of the suffixes & # 8211 ; adult male
and & # 8211 ; ship
.
It denotes a superior quality, ability of making some & # 173 ; thing to flawlessness, e. g. authormanship, quotemanship, lipmanship,
etc.
It besides seems appropriate to do several comments about the morpho & # 173 ; logical alterations that sometimes accompany the procedure of uniting der & # 173 ; ivational morphemes with bases. Although this job has been so far insufficiently investigated, some observations have been made and some informations collected. For case, the noun-forming postfix & # 8211 ; einsteinium
for names of female existences brings about a certain alteration in the phonic form of the correlate male noun provided the latter terminals in & # 8211 ; er, & # 8211 ; or,
e.g. actress ( histrion ) , sculptress ( sculpturer ) , tigress ( tiger )
, etc. It may be easy observed that in such instances the sound[ & # 8706 ; ]
is contracted in the feminine nouns.
Further, there are postfixs due to which the primary emphasis is shifted to the syllable instantly predating them, e.g. brave ( bravery ) , stableness ( stable ) , probe ( look into
) , distinctive feature ( pecul & # 173 ; iar )
, etc. When added to a base holding the postfix & # 8211 ; able/ & # 8211 ; ible
as its com & # 173 ; ponent, the postfix & # 8211 ; ity
brings about a alteration in its phonic form, name & # 173 ; ly the vowel [ I ] is inserted between [ B ] and [ cubic decimeter ] , e. g. possible
–
possibility, mutable
–
changeableness,
etc. Some postfixs attract the primary emphasis on to themselves, there is a secondary emphasis on the first syllable in words with such postfixs, e. g. ’employ’ee ( em’ploy ) , govern’mental ( govern ) , ‘pictu’resque ( image
) .
There are different categorizations of postfixs in lingual literature, as postfixs may be divided into several groups harmonizing to different rules:
( 1 ) The first rule of categorization that, one might state, suggests itself is the portion of address formed. Within the range of the part-of-speech categorization postfixs of course fall into several groups such as:
a ) noun-suffixes, i.e. those organizing or happening in nouns, e. g. & # 8211 ; er, & # 8211 ; dom, & # 8211 ; ness, & # 8211 ; ation,
etc. ( instructor, Londoner, freedom, brightness, justi & # 173 ; fication,
etc. ) ;
B ) adjective-suffixes, i.e. those organizing or happening in adjectives, e. g. & # 8211 ; able, & # 8211 ; less, & # 8211 ; ful, & # 8211 ; Intelligence Community, & # 8211 ; ous,
etc. ( agreeable, careless, dubious, poetic, brave,
etc. ) ;
degree Celsiuss ) verb-suffixes, i.e. those organizing or happening in verbs, e. g. & # 8211 ; en, & # 8211 ; fy, & # 8211 ; ize ( darken, fulfill, harmonise
,
etc. ) ;
vitamin D ) adverb-suffixes, i.e. those organizing or happening in adverbs, e. g. & # 8211 ; ly, & # 8211 ; ward ( rapidly, eastward
,
etc. ) .
( 2 ) Suffixes may besides be classified into assorted groups harmonizing to the lexico-grammatical character of the base the affix is normally added to. Continuing from this rule one may split postfixs into:
a ) deverbal postfix ( those added to the verbal base ) , e. g. & # 8211 ; er, & # 8211 ; ing, & # 8211 ; ment, & # 8211 ; able,
etc. ( talker, reading, understanding, suited
,
etc. ) ;
B ) denominal postfixs ( those added to the noun base ) , e. g. & # 8211 ; less, & # 8211 ; ish, & # 8211 ; ful, & # 8211 ; ist, & # 8211 ; some,
etc. ( grip, infantile, mouthful, fiddler, problem & # 173 ; some
,
etc. ) ;
degree Celsiuss ) de-adjectival postfixs ( those affixed to the adjectival base ) , e. g. & # 8211 ; en, & # 8211 ; ly, & # 8211 ; ish, & # 8211 ; cape,
etc. ( blacken, easy, ruddy, brightness,
etc. ) .
( 3 ) A categorization of postfixs may besides be based on the standard of sense expressed by a set of postfixs. Continuing from this rule suf & # 173 ; holes are classified into assorted groups within the bounds of a certain portion of address. For case, noun-suffixes autumn into those denoting:
a ) the agent of an action, e. g. & # 8211 ; er, & # 8211 ; emmet ( baker, terpsichorean, suspect
,
etc. ) ;
B ) gear, e. g. & # 8211 ; an, & # 8211 ; ian, & # 8211 ; ese
,
etc.(
Arabian, Elizabethan, Russian, Chinese, Nipponese
,
etc. ) ;
degree Celsius ) collectivity, e. g. & # 8211 ; age, & # 8211 ; dom, & # 8211 ; ery ( & # 8211 ; ry ) ,
etc.(
freight rate, official & # 173 ; dom, peasantry
,
etc. ) ;
vitamin D ) minuteness, e. g. & # 8211 ; Internet Explorer, & # 8211 ; allow, & # 8211 ; ling
,
etc. (
birdie, girlie, cloudlet, squirreling, wolfing
,
etc. ) .
( 4 ) Still another categorization of postfixs may be worked out if one examines them from T
he angle of stylistic mention. Just like prefixes, postfixs are besides characterized by rather a definite stylistic mention falling into two basic categories:
a ) those characterized by impersonal stylistic mention such as & # 8211 ; able, & # 8211 ; er, & # 8211 ; ing
,
etc. ;
B ) those holding a certain stylistic value such as & # 8211 ; old, & # 8211 ; i/form, & # 8211 ; aceous, & # 8211 ; tron,
etc.
Suffixs with impersonal stylistic mention may happen in words of differ & # 173 ; ent lexico-stylistic beds. As for postfix of the 2nd category they are restricted in usage to quite definite lexico-stylistic beds of words, in peculiar to footings, e.g. rhomboid, asteroid, cruci & # 173 ; signifier, cyclotron, synchrophasotron
,
etc.
( 5 ) Suffixs are besides classified as to the grade of their productiveness.
Differentiation is normally made betweendead
andlife affixes
. Dead affixes are described as those which are no longer felt in Modern English as component parts of words ; they have so fused with the base of the word as to lose their independency wholly. It is merely by particular etymological analysis that they may be singled out, e. g. & # 8211 ; vitamin D
in dead, seed, & # 8211 ; le, & # 8211 ; cubic decimeter, & # 8211 ; el
in package, canvas, hut ; & # 8211 ; ock
in knoll ; & # 8211 ; lock
in marriage ; & # 8211 ; T
in flight, gift, tallness
.
It is rather clear that dead postfixs are irrelevant to contemporary English word-formation, they belong in its diachronic survey.
Populating affixes may be easy singled out from a word, e. g. the noun-forming postfix & # 8211 ; ness, & # 8211 ; dom, & # 8211 ; goon, & # 8211 ; age, & # 8211 ; ance
,
as in darkness, freedom, childhood, matrimony, aid
, etc. or the adjective-forming postfix & # 8211 ; en, & # 8211 ; ous, & # 8211 ; ive, & # 8211 ; ful, & # 8211 ; y
as in wooden, toxicant, active, hopeful, stony
, etc.
However, non all populating derivational affixes of Modern English possess the ability to coin new words. Some of them may be employed to coin new words on the goad of the minute, others can non, so that they are dif & # 173 ; ferent from the point of position of their productiveness. Consequently they fall into two basic categories & # 8212 ; productive and non-productive word-building affixes.
It has been pointed out that linguists disagree as to what is meant by the productiveness of derivational affixes.
Following the first attack all life affixes should be considered productive in changing grades from highly-productive ( e. g. & # 8211 ; er, & # 8211 ; ish, & # 8211 ; less, rhenium
& # 8211 ; ,
etc. ) to non-productive ( e. g. & # 8211 ; ard, & # 8211 ; cy, & # 8211 ; ive
, etc. ) .
Consequently it becomes of import to depict the restraints imposed on and the factors favoring the productiveness of affixational forms and single affixes. The grade of productiveness of affixational forms really much depends on the structural, lexico-grammatical and seman & # 173 ; tic nature of bases and the significance of the affix. For case, the analysis of the bases from which the postfix & # 8211 ; ize
can deduce verbs reveals that it is most productive with noun-stems, adjective-stems besides favour ifs produc & # 173 ; tivity, whereas verb-stems and adverb-stems do non, e. g. criticize ( critic ) , organize ( organ ) , enumerate ( point ) , mobilize ( Mobile ) , localize ( local )
,
etc. Comparison of the semantic construction of a verb in & # 8211 ; ize
with that of the base it is built on shows that the figure of average & # 173 ; ings of the root normally exceeds that of the verb and that its basic significance favours the productiveness of the postfix & # 8211 ; ize
to a greater grade than its fringy significances, e. g. to qualify & # 8212 ; character, to moralise & # 8212 ; moral, to dramatise & # 8212 ; play,
etc.
The intervention of certain affixes as non-productive of course besides de & # 173 ; pends on the construct of productiveness. The current definition of non-pro & # 173 ; ductive derivational affixes as those which can non hg used in Modern English for the coining of new words is instead obscure and possibly interpret & # 173 ; ed in different ways. Following the definition the term non-pro & # 173 ; ductive refers merely to the affixes improbable to be used for the forma & # 173 ; tion of new words, e. g. & # 8211 ; ous, & # 8211 ; Thursday, bow
& # 8211 ;
and some others ( celebrated, deepness, foresee
) .
If one accepts the other construct of productiveness mentioned above, so non-productive affixes must be defined as those that can non be used for the formation of occasional words and, accordingly, such affixes as & # 8211 ; dom, & # 8211 ; ship, & # 8211 ; ful, & # 8211 ; en, & # 8211 ; ify, & # 8211 ; ate
and many others are to be regarded as non-productive.
The theory of comparative productiveness of derivational affixes is besides corroborated by some other observations made on English word-form & # 173 ; ation. For case, different productive affixes are found in different peri & # 173 ; Doctor of Optometries of the history of the linguistic communication. It is highly important, for test & # 173 ; ple, that out of the seven verb-forming postfixs of the Old English period merely one has survived up to the present clip with a really low grade of productiveness, viz. the postfix & # 8211 ; en
( e. g. to soften, to darken, to whiten
) .
A derivational affix may go productive in merely one significance be & # 173 ; cause that significance is specially needed by the community at a particu & # 173 ; lar stage in its history. This may be good illustrated by the prefix de
& # 8211 ; in the sense of & # 8216 ; undo what has been done, change by reversal an action or procedure & # 8217 ; , e. g. deacidify ( pigment spray ) , decasualize ( dock labor ) , decentralize ( gov & # 173 ; ernment or direction ) , deration ( eggs and butter ) , de-reserve ( medi & # 173 ; cal pupils ) , desegregate ( colored kids ) ,
and so on.
Furthermore, there are instances when a derivational affix being non & # 173 ; productive in the non-specialized subdivision of the vocabulary is used to coin scientific or proficient footings. This is the instance, for case, with the postfix & # 8211 ; ance
which has been used to organize some footings in Electrical Engineering, e. g. electrical capacity, electric resistance, reactance
.
The same is true of the postfix & # 8211 ; ity
which has been used to organize footings in natural philosophies, and chemical science such as alkalinity, brightness, emissivity
and some others.
Conversion
, one of the chief ways of organizing words in Modern English is high & # 173 ; ly productive in refilling the English word-stock with new words. The term transition, which some linguists find unequal, re & # 173 ; fers to the legion instances of phonic individuality of word-forms, chiefly the alleged initial signifiers, of two words belonging to different parts of address. This may be illustrated by the undermentioned instances: work & # 8212 ; to work ; love & # 8212 ; to love ; paper & # 8212 ; to paper ; brief & # 8212 ; to brief
, etc.
As a regulation we deal with simple words, although there are a few exclusions, e.g. radio & # 8212 ; to wireless.
It will be recalled that, although inflectional classs have been great & # 173 ; ly reduced in English in the last eight or nine centuries, there is a conditioned emotional response & # 173 ; tain difference on the morphological degree between assorted parts of address, chiefly between nouns and verbs. For case, there is a distinct difference in Modern English between the noun physician
and the verb to sophisticate
& # 8212 ; each exists in the linguistic communication as a integrity of its word-forms and discrepancies, non as one signifier physician
.
It is true that some of the signifiers are iden & # 173 ; tical in sound, i.e. homonymic, but there is a great differentiation between them, as they are both grammatically and semantically different.
If we regard such word-pairs as physician & # 8212 ; to sophisticate, H2O & # 8212 ; to H2O, brief & # 8212 ; to brief
from the angle of their morphemic construction, we see that they are all root-words. On the derivational degree, nevertheless, one of them should be referred to deduce words, as it belongs to a different portion of address and is understood through semantic and structural dealingss with the other, i.e. is motivated by it. Consequently, the inquiry arises: what serves as a word-building agencies in these instances? It would look that the noun is formed from the verb ( or frailty versa ) without any morphological alteration, but if we probe deeper into the affair, we necessarily come to the decision that the two words differ in the paradigm. Thus it is the paradigm that is used as a word-building agency. Hence, we may specify transition as the formation of a new word through alterations in its parity & # 173 ; digm.
It is necessary to name attending to the fact that the paradigm plays a important function in the procedure of word-formation in general and non merely in the instance of transition. Therefore, the noun cooker
( in gas-cooker
) is formed from the word to cook non merely by the add-on of the postfix & # 8211 ; er
, but besides by the alteration in its paradigm. However, in this instance, the function played by the paradigm as a word-building agency is less obvious, as the word-build & # 173 ; ing postfix & # 8211 ; er
comes to the bow. Therefore, transition is characterized non merely by the usage of the paradigm as a word-building agencies, but by the formation of a new wordentirely
by agencies of altering its paradigm. Hence, the alteration of paradigm is the lone word-building agencies of con & # 173 ; version. As a paradigm is a morphological class transition can be described as a morphological manner of organizing words.
Intensifying
orword-composition
is one of the productive types of word-formation in Modern English. Composition like all other ways of deducing words has its ain distinctive features as to theagencies used, the nature of bases and their distribution, as to the scope of application, the range of seman & # 173 ; tic categories and the factors conducive to pro & # 173 ; ductivity.
Compounds, as has been mentioned elsewhere, are made up of two ICs which are both derivational bases. Compound words are inseparable vocabulary units. They are officially and semantically dependent on the component bases and the semantic dealingss between them which mirror the dealingss between the actuating units. The ICs of compound words represent bases of all three structural types. The bases built on roots may be of different grade of complexness as, for illustration,
week-end, office-man & # 173 ; agement, postage-stamp, aircraft-carrier, fancy-dress-maker,
etc. How & # 173 ; of all time, this complexness of construction of bases is non typical of the majority of Modern English compounds.
In this connexion attention should be taken non to confound compound words with polymorphous words of secondary derivation, i.e. derived functions built harmonizing to an affixial form but on a compound root for its base such as, e. g. school-mastership ( [ n + n ] + suf ) , ex-housewife ( prf + [ n + n ] ) , to weekend, to foreground
( [ n + n ] + transition ) .
Structurally
compound words are characterized by the specif & # 173 ; ninety-nine order and agreement in which bases follow one another. Theorder
in which the two bases are placed within a compoundis
stiff & # 173 ; ly fixed
in Modern English and it is the 2nd IC that makes the head-member of the word, i.e. its structural and semantic Centre. The head-member is of basic importance as it preconditions both the lexico-grammatical and semantic characteristics of the first constituent. It is of inter & # 173 ; est to observe that the difference between roots ( that serve as bases in com & # 173 ; lb words ) and word-forms they coincide with is most obvious in some compounds, particularly in compound adjectives. Adjectives like long, broad, rich
are characterized by grammatical signifiers of grades of comparing thirster, wider, richer
.
The corresponding stems working as bases in compound words lack grammatical independency and signifiers proper to the words and retain merely the part-of-speech significance ; therefore com & # 173 ; lb adjectives with adjective roots for their 2nd constituents, e. g. age-long, oil-rich, inch-wide
,
make non organize grades of comparing as the compound adjectival oil-rich
does non organize them the manner the word rich
does, but conforms to the general regulation of polysyllabic adjectives and has analytical signifiers of grades of comparing. The same difference be & # 173 ; tween words and roots is non so noticeable in compound nouns with the noun-stem for the 2nd constituent.
Phonetically
compounds are besides marked by a specific construction of their ain. No phonemic alterations of bases occur in composing but the compound word acquires a new emphasis form, different from the emphasis in the motivation words, for illustration words key
and hole
or hot
and house
each possess their ain emphasis but when the roots of these words are brought together to do up a new compound word, ‘keyhole
& # 8212 ; & # 8216 ; a hole in a lock into which a key fits & # 8217 ; , or ‘hothouse
& # 8212 ; & # 8216 ; a het edifice for turning delicate workss & # 8217 ; , the latter is given a different emphasis form & # 8212 ; a integrity emphasis on the first constituent in our instance. Compound words have three emphasis forms:
a ) a high or unity emphasis on the first constituent as in ‘honeymoon, ‘doorway
, etc.
B ) a dual emphasis, with a primary emphasis on the first constituent and a weaker, secondary emphasis on the 2nd constituent, e. g. ‘blood- & # 1467 ; vas, ‘mad- & # 1467 ; physician
, ‘washing- & # 1467 ; machine
, etc.
degree Celsius ) It is non infrequent, nevertheless, for both ICs to hold degree emphasis as in, for case, ‘arm-‘chair, ‘icy-‘cold, ‘grass-‘green
, etc.
Diagrammatically
most compounds have two types of spelling & # 8212 ; they are spelt either solidly or with a dash. Both types of spelling when accompanied by structural and phonic distinctive features serve as a sufficient indicant of inseparability of compound words in contradis & # 173 ; tinction to phrases. It is true that hyphenated spelling by itself may be sometimes deceptive, as it may be used in word-groups to stress their phraseological character as in e. g. daughter-in-law, man-of-war, brother-in-arms
or in longer combinations of words to bespeak the Se & # 173 ; divinatory integrity of a twine of words used attributively as, e.g. , I-know-what-you’re-going-to-say look, we-are-in-the-know slang, the young-must-be-right attitude.
The two types of spelling typical of com & # 173 ; lbs, nevertheless, are non stiffly observed and there are legion fluc & # 173 ; tuations between solid or hyphenated spelling on the one manus and enchantment & # 173 ; ing with a interruption between the constituents on the other, particularly in nominal compounds of the n+n
type. The spelling of these compounds varies from writer to writer and from dictionary to dictionary. For illustration, the words war-path, war-time, money-lender
are spelt both with a hy & # 173 ; phen and solidly ; blood-poisoning, money-order, wave-length, war-ship
& # 8212 ; with a dash and with a interruption ; underfoot, in so far, underhand
& # 8212 ; solidly and with a interruption [ 25 ]
. It is notable that new compounds of this type tend to solid or hyphenated spelling. This incompatibility of spelling in com & # 173 ; lbs, frequently accompanied by a degree emphasis form ( every bit typical of word-groups ) makes the job of separating between compound words ( of the n + N
type in peculiar ) and word-groups particularly dif & # 173 ; ficult.
In this connexion it should be stressed that Modern English nouns ( in the Common Case, Sg. ) as has been universally recognized possess an prenominal map in which they are on a regular basis used to organize numer & # 173 ; ous nominal phrases as, e. g. peace old ages, rock stairss, authorities office
,
etc. Such variable nominal phrases are semantically to the full derivable from the significances of the two nouns and are based on the homogenous prenominal semantic dealingss unlike compound words. This system of nominal phrases exists side by side with the particular and legion category of nominal compounds which as a regulation carry an extra semantic com & # 173 ; ponent non found in phrases.
It is besides of import to emphasize that these two categories of vocabulary units & # 8212 ; compound words and free phrases & # 8212 ; are non merely opposed but besides stand in close correlate dealingss to each other.
Semantically
compound words are by and large motivated units. The mean & # 173 ; ing of the compound is first of all derived from the combined lexical significances of its constituents. The semantic distinctive feature of the derivational bases and the semantic difference between the base and the root on which the latter is built is most obvious in compound words. Compound words with a common second or first constituent can function as illustra & # 173 ; tions. The root of the word board
is polysemous and its multiple mean & # 173 ; ings serve as different derivational bases, each with its ain selective scope for the semantic characteristics of the other constituent, each organizing a separate set of compound words, based on specific derivative dealingss. Therefore the base board
intending & # 8216 ; a level piece of wood square or oblong & # 8217 ; makes a set of compounds chess-board, notice-board, key-board, diving-board, foot-board, sign-board ;
compounds paste-board, composition board
are built on the base significance & # 8216 ; midst, stiff paper & # 8217 ; ; the base board & # 8211 ;
intending & # 8216 ; an writer & # 173 ; ized organic structure of work forces & # 8217 ; , forms compounds school-board, board-room
.
The same can be observed in words built on the polysemous root of the word pes
.
For illustration, the basal pes & # 8211 ;
in foot-print, foot-pump, foothold, foot-bath, foot-wear
has the significance of & # 8216 ; the terminal portion of the leg & # 8217 ; , in foot-note, foot-lights, foot-stone
the basal pes
& # 8211 ; has the significance of & # 8216 ; the lower portion & # 8217 ; , and in foot-high, foot-wide, footrule
& # 8212 ; & # 8216 ; step of length & # 8217 ; . It is obvious from the above-given illustrations that the significances of the bases of compound words are mutualist and that the pick of each is delimited as in variable word-groups by the nature of the other IC of the word. It therefore may good be said that the combination of bases serves as a sort of minimum interior context separating the peculiar single lexical significance of each constituent. In this connexion we should besides retrieve the significance of the differential significance found in both constituents which becomes particularly obvious in a set of compounds incorporating iden & # 173 ; tical bases.
Compound words can be described from different points of position and consequently may be classified harmonizing to different rules. They may be viewed from the point of position:
( 1 ) of general relationship and grade of semantic independency of constituents ;
( 2 ) of the parts of address compound words represent ;
( 3 ) of the agencies of composing used to associate the two ICs to & # 173 ; gether ;
( 4 ) of the type of ICs that are brought together to organize a compound ;
( 5 ) of the correlate dealingss with the system of free word-groups.
From the point of position of grade of Se & # 173 ; divinatory independency there are two types of relationship between the ICs of com & # 173 ; lb words that are by and large recognized in lingual literature: the dealingss of coordination and subordination, and consequently compound words fall into two categories:coordinating compounds
( frequently termed copulative or linear ) andsubordinative
( frequently termed deciding ) .
Incoordinative
compounds the two ICs are semantically every bit of import as in fighter-bomber, oak-tree, girl-friend, Anglo-Amer & # 173 ; ican
. The component bases belong to the same category and & # 1090 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1081 ; frequently to the same semantic group. Coordinating compounds make up a comparati & # 173 ; vely little group of words. Coordinating compounds fall into three groups:
a )Reduplicative
compounds which are made up by the rhenium & # 173 ; request of the same base as in goody-goody, even, clandestine, pooh-pooh
. They are all merely partly motivated.
B ) Compounds formed by fall ining thephonically variated rhythmic twin signifiers
which either alliterate with the same initial consonant but vary the vowels as in chitchat, zigzag, sing-song,
or rime by changing the initial consonants as in clap-trap, a walky-talky, chaotic
. This subgroup stands really much apart. It is really of & # 173 ; ten referred to pseudo-compounds and considered by some linguists irrelevant to productive word-formation owing to the dubious morphem & # 173 ; ninety-nine position of their constituents. The constitutional members of compound words of this subgroup are in most instances alone, carry really obscure or no lexical significance of their ain, are non found as roots of independently working words. They are motivated chiefly through the rhythmic doubling of notional sound-clusters.
Coordinating compounds of both subgroups ( a, B ) are largely restrict & # 173 ; erectile dysfunction to the conversational bed, are marked by a heavy affectional charge and possess a really little grade of productiveness.
degree Celsius ) The bases oflinear
compounds such as a queen-bee, an actor-manager
, unlike the compound words of the first two subgroups, are b
