Derivative structure

The analysis the morphemic composition of words defines the ultimate meaningful constituents (UCs), their typical sequence and arrangement, but it does not reveal the hierarchy of morphemes making up the word, neither does it reveal the way a word is constructed, nor how a new word of similar structure should be understood. The morphemic analysis does not aim at finding out the nature and arrangement of ICs which underlie the structural and the semantic type of the word, e.g. words unmanly and discouragement morphemically are referred to the same type as both are segmented into three UCs representing one root, one prefixational and one suffixational morpheme. However the arrangement and the nature

of ICs and hence the relationship of morphemes in these words is different—in unmanly the prefixational morpheme makes one of the ICs, the other IC is represented by a sequence of the root and the suffixational morpheme and thus the meaning of the word is derived from the relations between the ICs un- and manly- ('not manly'), whereas discouragement rests on the relations of the IC discourage- made up by the combination of the prefixational and the root-morphemes and the suffixational morpheme -ment for its second IC ('smth that discourages'). Hence we may infer that these three-morpheme words shourd be referred to difierent derivational types: unmanly to a prefixational and discouragement to a suffixational derivative.

The nature, type and arrangement of the ICs of the word is known as its derivative structure. Though the derivative structure of the word is closely connected with its morphemic or morphological structure and often coincides with it, it differs from it in principle.

§ 7. Derivative Relations. According to the derivative structure all words fall into two big classes: simplexes or simple, non-derived words and complexes or derivatives. Simplexes are words which derivationally cannot be segmented into ICs. The morphological stem of simple words, i.e. the part of the word which takes on the system of grammatical inflections is semantically non-motivated[81] and independent of other words, e.g. hand, come, blue, etc. Morphemically it may be monomorphic in which case its stem coincides with the free root-morpheme as in, e.g., hand, come, blue, etc. or polymorphic in which case it is a sequence of bound morphemes as in, e.g., anxious, theory, public, etc.

Derivatives are words which depend on some other simpler lexical items that motivate them structurally and semantically, i.e. the meaning and the structure of the derivative is understood through the comparison with the meaning and the structure of the source word. Hence derivatives are secondary, motivated units, made up as a rule of two ICs, i.e. binary units, e.g. words like friendliness, unwifely, sehoolmasterish, etc. are made up of the ICs friendly+ -ness, un-+wifely, schoolmaster+-ish. The ICs are brought together according to specific rules of order and arrangement preconditioned by the system of the language. It follows that all derivatives are marked by the fixed order of their ICs.

The basic elementary units of the derivative structure of words are: derivational bases, derivational affixes and derivational patterns which differ from the units of the morphemic structure of words (different types of morphemes). The relations between words with a common root but of different derivative structure are known as derivative relations. The derivative and derivative relations make the subject of study at the derivational level of analysis; it aims at establishing correlations between different types of words, the structural and semantic patterns
words are built on, the study also enables one to understand how new words appear in the language.

The constituents of the derivative structure are functional units, i.e. units whose function is to indicate relationship between different classes of words or differently-behaving words of the same class and to signal the formation of new words. It follows that derivational functions are proper to different linguistic units which thus serve as ICs of a derivative. It must be also noted that the difference between classes of words is signalled by both the derivative structure of the word, or to be more exact by the stem it shapes, and by the set of paradigmatic inflections that this structure presupposes. For example, the nominal class of words to which derivatives like historian, teacher, lobbyist are referred is signalled by both the derivative structure, i.e. the unity of their ICs history+-ian, teach+-er lobby+-ist shaping the stems of these words—and the nominal set of paradigmatic inflections which these stems precondition, i.e. historian(0), historian(s), historian('s), historian(s'). The class of words like enrich, enlarge is likewise signalled by their derivative structure (en-+rich, en-+large) and the verbal set of paradigmatic inflexions. Hence the paradigmatic systems of different classes of words have, among their functions, the function of distinguishing the formal make-up of word classes. It follows that the paradigmatic system of inflections in cases of meaningful absence of the IC which determines the class membership of the motivated stem functions as the sole indication of its derived nature.[82]

§ 8. Derivational Bases

A derivational base as a functional unit is defined as the constituent to which a rule of word-formation is applied. It is the part of the word which establishes connection with the lexical unit that motivates the derivative and determines its individual lexical meaning describing the difference between words in one and the same derivative set, for example the individual lexical meaning of words like singer, rebuilder, whitewasher, etc. which all denote active doers of action, is signalled by the lexical meaning of the derivational bases sing-, rebuild-, whitewash- which establish connection with the motivating source verb.

Structurally derivational bases fall into three classes: 1) bases that coincide with morphological stems of different degrees of complexity, e.g. dutiful, dutifully; day-dream, to day-dream, day dreamer; 2) bases that coincide with word-forms; e.g. paper-bound, unsmiling, unknown; 3) bases that coincide with wоrd-grоups of different degrees of stability, e.g. second-rateness, flat-waisted, etc.

1. Bases built on stems of different degree of complexity make the largest and commonest group of components of derivatives of various classes, e.g. un-button, girl-ish, girlish-ness, colour-blind-ness, еx-filmstar, etc. Bases of this class are functionally and semantically distinct from all kinds of stems. Functionally, the morphological stem is the part of the word which is the starting point for its forms, it is the

part which semantically presents a unity of lexical and functional meanings thus predicting the entire grammatical paradigm. The stem remains unchanged throughout all word-forms, it keeps them together preserving the identity of the word. Thus the stems in the above-given words are ex-filmstar, unbutton which remain unchanged in all the forms of each word as, e.g., ex-filmstar(0), ex-filtnstar(s), ex-filmstar('s), ex-filmstar('s). Stems are characterized by a phonetic identity with the word-form that habitually represents the word as a whole (the common case singular, the infinitive, etc.).

A derivational base unlike a stem does not predict the part of speech of the derivative, it only outlines a possible range and nature of the second IC and it is only the unity of both that determines the lexical-grammatical class of the derivative. A derivational base is the starting-point for different words and its derivational potential outlines the type and scope of existing words and new creations. The nominal base for example, hand- gives rise to nouns, e.g. hand-rail, hand-bag, shorthand, handful, to adjectives, e.g. handy, or verbs, e.g. to hand. Similarly the base rich- may be one of the ICs of the noun richness, the adjective gold-rich, or the verb to enrich.

Semantically the stem stands for the whole semantic structure of the word, it represents all its lexical meanings. A base, semantically, is also different in that it represents, as a rule, only one meaning of the source word or its stem. The derivatives glassful and glassy, e.g., though connected with the stem of the same source word are built on different derivational bases, as glassful is the result of the application of the word-formation rule to the meaning of the source word 'drinking vessel or its contents', whereas glassy—to the meaning 'hard, transparent, easily-broken substance'. Derivatives fiery, fire-place, to fire, fire-escape, firearm, all have bases built on the stem of the same source noun fire, but the words like fire-escape fire-engine and fire-alarm are semantically motivated by the meaning 'destructive burning', the words firearms, ceasefire, (to) fire are motivated by another meaning 'shooting', whereas the word fiery (as in fiery speech, eyes) is motivated by the meaning 'strong emotion, excited feeling'. The same difference can be exemplified by the words starlet, starry, starlike, starless which are all motivated by the derivational base meaning 'a heavenly body seen in the night as distant point of light', as compared to stardom, starlet, to star motivated by the base meaning 'a person famous as actor, singer' though both represent the same morphological stem of the word star.

Stems that serve as this class of bases may themselves be different morphemically and derivationally thus forming derivational bases of different degrees of complexity which affects the range and scope of their collocability and their derivational capacity. Derivationally the stems may be:

a) simple, which consist of only one, semantically nonmotivated constituent. The most characteristic feature of simple stems in Modern English is the phonetic and graphic identity with the root-morpheme and the word-form that habitually represents the word as a whole.

As has been mentioned elsewhere[83] simple stems may be both monomorphic units and morphemic sequences made up of bound and pseudo-morphemes, hence morphemically segmentable stems in such words as pocket, motion, retain, horrible, etc. should be regarded as derivationally simple.

b) derived stems are semantically and structurally motivated, and are the results of the application of word-formation rules; it follows that they are as a rule binary, i.e. made up of two ICs, and polymorphic, e.g. the derived stem of the word girlish is understood on the basis of derivative relations between girl and girlish; the derived stem of a greater complexity girlishness is based on the derivative relations between girlish and girlishness. This is also seen in to weekend, to daydream which are derived from the nouns week-end and day-dream and are motivated by the derivative relations between the noun and the verb.[84] Derived stems, however, are not necessarily polymorphic. It especially concerns derivatives with a zero IC, i.e. meaningful absence of the derivational means in which case the distinction between the stem of the source word and the motivated stem of the derivative is signalled by the difference in paradigmatic sets of inflections which they take.[85]

For example, the stem of the verb (to) parrot, though it consists of one overt constituent and is a one-morpheme word, should be considered derived as it is felt by a native speaker as structurally and semantically dependent on the simple stem of the noun parrot and because it conveys a regular relationship between these two classes of words—verbs and nouns[86]. The same is true of the stems in such words as (to) winter, a cut, a drive, etc.

c) compound stems are always binary and semantically motivated, but unlike the derived stems both ICs of compound stems are stems themselves. The derivative structure and morphemic composition of each IC may be of different degree of complexity, for example, the compound stem of the noun match-box consists of two simple stems, the stem of the noun letter-writer—of one simple and one derived stem, and the stem aircraft-carrier — of a compound and derived stem. The structural complexity of the derivational bases built on derived and compound stems is a heavy constraint imposed on the collocability and semantic freedom of these bases and consequently on their derivative potential. Compare, for example, the derivational capacity of the simple stem girl, which can give rise to girly, girlish, girlless, girl-friend, and the limited capacity of girlish which gives only girlishness and girlishly.

2. The second class of derivational bases is made up of word-forms. It is obvious that word-forms functioning as parts of the word lose all syntactic properties they possess in independent use. This class of bases is confined to verbal word-forms—the present and the past participles— which regularly function as ICs of non-simple adjectives, adverbs and nouns. The colfocability of this class of derivational bases is confined to
just a few derivational affixes such as the prefix un-, the suffix -ly, in e.g. unnamed, unknown, unwrapped, etc., smilingly, knowingly, etc. The derivational bases in question may be also collocated with other bases which coincide only with nominal and adjectival stems, e.g. mockingbird, dancing-girl, ice-bound, time-consuming, ocean-going, easy-going, etc.

3. The third class of derivational bases is made up of word-groups. Free word-groups make up the greater part of this class of bases. Like word-forms, word-groups serving as derivational bases lose their morphological and syntactic properties proper to them as self-contained lexical units.Bases of this class also allow of a rather limited range of collocability, they are most active with derivational affixes in the class of adjectives and nouns, e.g. in words like blue-eyed, long-fingered, old-worldish, dogooder, second-rateness, etc.

Thus, we may conclude that each class of bases, though it makes use of one of the structural units of vocabulary, is distinct from it and differs from it both in form and meaning. The greater the degree of structural complexity of the base the more limited its derivative potential.

§ 9. Derivational Affixes. Derivational affixes are ICs 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 l\\o basic functions: 1) that of stem-building which is common to all affixational morphemes: derivational and non-derivational. It is 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;[87] 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. For example, the derivational suffix -ness applied to bases of different classes shapes derived stems thus making new words. In kindliness, girlishness, etc. it repatterns the adjectival stems kindly-, girlish-, in second-rate-ness, allatonceness it turns the phrases second rate, all at once into stems and consequently forms new nouns. In most cases derivational affixes perform both functions simultaneously shaping derived stems and marking the relationship between different classes of lexical items. However, certain derivational affixes may in individual sets of words perform only one function that of stem-building. The derivational suffix -ic for example performs both functions in words like historic, economic, classic as it is applied to bases history-, economy-, class- and forms stems of words of a different part of speech. But the same suffix -ic in public, comic, music performs only its stem-building function shaping in this case asimp1e

stem.[88] The same is true of the suffix -ous in such words as joyous, courageous, famous as compared with anxious, conscious, curious. Stem-building is the common function shared by both derivational and non-derivational morphemes, but with the non-derivational morphemes it is the only structural function. Besides, the non-derivational affixes shape only simple stems, for example, the morpheme -id in stupid, rapid, acid, humid; the morpheme -ish in publish, distinguish, languish. It follows that non-derivational morphemes are not applied to stems, but only to root-morphemes or morpheme sequences.

Semantically derivational affixes are characterized by a unity of part-of-speech meaning, lexical meaning and other types of morphemic meanings[89] unlike non-derivational morphemes which, as a rule, lack the lexical type of meaning. It is true that the part-of-speech meaning is proper in different degrees to the derivational suffixes and prefixes. It stands out clearly in derivational suffixes but it is less evident in prefixes; some prefixes lack it altogether, in others it is very vague and in this case it finds expression in the fact that these prefixes tend to function in either nominal or verbal parts of speech. Prefixes like en-, un-, de-, out-, be-, unmistakably possess the part-of-speech meaning and function as verb classifiers when they make an independent IC of the derivative, e.g. deice, unhook, enslave; derivational prefixes a-, un-possess the adjectival part-of-speech meaning, e.g. unhesitating, unknown, unkind, etc., amoral, asynthetic, asymmetric, etc. In prefixes со-, under-, mis- this type of meaning is vague but they tend to be active in one part of speech only: со- in nominal parts of speech (i.e. nouns and adjectives), e.g. copilot, co-star, co-president; mis-and under- are largely verbal prefixes, e.g. underwork, underdo, underfeed, etc. The prefix over-evidently lacks the part-of-speech meaning and is freely used both for verbs and adjectives, the same may be said about non-, pre-, post-. The lexical meaning in derivational affixes also has its peculiarities and may be viewed at different levels.[90]

1) Тhe 1exica1 (denotational) meaning of a generiс type proper mostly not to an individual affix but to a set of affixes, forming a semantic subset such as, for example, the meaning of resemblance found in suffixes -ish, -like, -y, -ly (spiderish, spiderlike, spidery); the causative meaning proper to the prefix en- (enslave, enrich), the suffixes -ize, -(i)fy (brutalize, formalize, beautify, simplify, etc.); the meaning of absence conveyed by the prefix un- and the suffix -less; the meaning of abstract quality conveyed by the suffixes -ness, -ity, etc.

2) On the other hand derivational affixes possess another type of lexical meaning—an individual meaning shared by no other affix and thus distinguishing this particular affix from all other members of the same semantic group. For example, suffixes -ish, -like, -y all have the meaning of resemblance, but -like conveys an overall resemblance,

ish conveys likeness to the inner, most typical qualities of the object, -y in most cases conveys likeness to outer shape, form, size of the object. Suffixes -er, -ist both possess the meaning of the agent, but the distinguishing feature of the suffix -er is that it conveys the meaning of the active doer (animate or inanimate), whereas -ist conveys the meaning of profession (flutist, biologist) and followers of principles and beliefs (socialist, leftist) and thus has the meaning only of human beings. Derivational affixes semantically may be both mono- and polysemantic.

Derivational affixes are highly selective and each is applied to a speciffc set of bases which is due to the distributional type of meaning found in all affixes. All affixes are selective as to the structural peculiarities of bases (their morphemic, derivational, phonological and etymological features), some in addition are highly responsive to the lexical-semantic properties of the bases they are collocated with. For example, the adjectival suffix -able is collocated with verbal bases with practically no semantic constraints imposed on them. On the other hand the adjective-forming suffix -ful1 is restricted in its collocability to nominal bases of abstract meaning (useful, beautiful), while its homonym the noun-forming -ful2 also" collocating with nominal bases chooses bases of concrete meaning and within this class only nouns which have in their semantic structure a semantic component 'container' (chestful, lungful, bagful).

§ 10. Semi-Affixes

There is a specific group of morphemes whose derivational function does not allow one to refer them unhesitatingly either to the derivational affixes or bases. In words like half-done, half-broken, half-eaten and ill-fed, ill-housed, ill-dressed the ICs half- and ill- are given in linguistic literature different interpretations: they are described both as bases and as derivational prefixes. The comparison of these ICs with the phonetically identical stems in independent words ill and half as used in such phrases as to speak ill of smb, half an hour ago makes it obvious that in words like ill-fed, ill-mannered, half-done the ICs ill- and half- are losing both their semantic and structural identity with the stems of the independent words. They are all marked by a different distributional meaning which is clearly revealed through the difference of their collocability as compared with the collocability of the stems of the independently functioning words. As to their lexical meaning they have become more indicative of a generalizing meaning of incompleteness and poor quality than the individual meaning proper to the stems of independent words and thus they function more as affixational morphemes similar to the prefixes out-, over-, under-, semi-, mis- regularly forming whole classes of words. Besides, the high frequency of these morphemes in the above-mentioned generalized meaning in combination with the numerous bases built on past participles indicates their closer ties with derivational affixes than bases. Yet these morphemes retain certain lexical ties with the root-morphemes in the stems of independent words and that is why are felt as occupying an intermediate position,[91] as morphemes that are changing their
class membership regularly functioning as derivational prefixes but still retaining certain features of root-morphemes. That is why they are sometimes referred to as semi-affixes. To this group we should also refer well- and self- (well-fed, well-done, self-made), -man in words like postman, cabman, chairman, -looking in words like foreign-looking, alive-looking, strange-looking, etc.

§ 11. Derivational Patterns. Neither bases nor affixes alone can predict all the structural and semantic properties of words the ICs of which they may be. It is the combination of bases and affixes that makes up derivatives of different structural and semantic classes. Both bases and affixes due to the distributional meaning they possess show a high degree of consistency in their selection and are collocated according to a set of rules known as derivational patterns. A derivational pattern is a regular meaningful arrangement, a structure that imposes rigid rules on the order and the nature of the derivational bases and affixes that may be brought together. A pattern is a generalization, a scheme indicative of the type of ICs, their order and arrangement which signals the part of speech, the structural and semantic peculiarities common to all the individual words for which the pattern holds true. Hence the derivational patterns (DP) may be viewed as classifiers of non-simple words into structural types and within them into semantic sets and subsets. DPs are studied with the help of distributional analysis at different levels. Patterns of derivative structures are usually represented in a generalized way in terms of conventional symbols: small fetters v, n, a, d, пит stand for the bases which coincide with the stems of the respective parts of speech: verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, numerals; ved, ving stand for the bases which are the past and present participles respectively. In words of the long-fingered or sit-inner type the derivational bases are represented by bracketed symbols of the parts of speech making up the corresponding collocations, for example (a+n)+ +-ed), (v+d)+er.

DPs may represent derivative structure at different levels of generalization:

a) at the level if structural types specifying only the class membership of ICs and the direction of motivation, such as a+-sf→ N, prf-+n→V, prf-+n→N, n+-sf→N, n+-sf→V, etc. In terms of patterns of this type, known as structural formulas,[92] all words may be classified into four classes: suffixal derivatives, e.g. friendship, glorified, blackness, skyward; prefixal derivatives, e.g. rewrite, exboxer, non-smoker, "unhappy, etc.; conversions, e.g. a cut, to parrot, to winter, etc.; compound words key-ring, music-lover, wind-driven, etc. But derivational formulas are not indicative either of any one lexical-grammatical or lexical class of words, as, for example, the formula a+-sf may equally represent suffixal nouns as in blackness, possibility and verbs, as in sharpen, widen, or adjectives as in blackish.

b) derivative structure and hence derivative types of words may be represented at the level of structural patterns which specify the base class-

es and individual affixes thus indicating the lexical-grammatical and
lexical classes of derivatives within certain structural classes of words. DPs of this level are based on the mutual interdependence of individual affixes and base classes and may be viewed in terms of each. The suffixes refer derivatives to specific parts of speech and lexical subsets as, for example, v+-er→N signals that the derivatives built on this pattern are deverbal nouns which represent a semantic set of active agents, denoting both animate and inanimate objects, e.g. reader, runner, singer, unlike, for example, denominal nouns with the underlying pattern n+-er→N which stands for agents denoting residents or occupations, e.g. Londoner, villager, gardener. The DP n+-ish→A signals a set of adjectives with the lexical meaning of resemblance, whereas a+-ish→A signals adjectives meaning a small degree of quality, etc.

c) DPs may be specified as to the lexical-semantic features of both ICs. DPs of this level specify the semantic constraints imposed upon the set of derivatives for which the pattern is true and hence the semantic range of the pattern. For example, the nominal bases in the pattern n+-ess→N are confined to nouns having in their semantic structures a component 'a male animate being', e.g. lioness, traitress, stewardess, etc.; the nominal bases in n+-ful2→N are limited by nouns having a semantic component 'container', e.g. lungful, earful, mouthful, whereas in n+-ful1→A the nominal bases are confined to nouns of abstract meaning. The same is true of the pattern n+-y→A which represents different semantic sets of derivatives specified by semantic constraints imposed on both the bases and the suffix: nominal bases denoting living beings are collocated with the suffix -y meaning 'resemblance', e.g. birdy, spidery, catty, etc., but nominal bases denoting material, parts of the body attract another meaning of the suffix -y that of 'considerable amount, size' resulting in the adjectives like powdery, grassy, leggy, starry, etc.

It follows that derivational patterns may be classified into two types— structural pattern (see b, above) and structural-semantic pattern (see c).

§12. Derivafional Types of Words. According to their derivational structure words fall into two large classes: simple, non-derived words or simplexes and derivatives or complexes. Complexes are classified according to the type of the underlying derivational pattern into: derived and compound words. Derived words fall into affixational words, which in their turn must be classified into suffixal and prefixal derivatives, and conversions. Each derivational type of words is unequally represented in different parts of speech.

Comparing the role each of these structural type of words plays in the language we can easily perceive that the clue to the correct understanding of their comparative value lies in a careful consideration of 1) the importance of each type in the existing word-stock and 2) their frequency value in actual speech. Of the two factors frequency is by far the most important. According to the available word counts in different parts of speech, we find that derived words numerically constitute the largest class of words in the existing word-stock, derived nouns comprise approximately 67% of the total number and adjectives about 86%, whereas

compound nouns make about 15% and adjectives only about 4%; Simple words come to 18% in nouns, i.e. a trifle more than the number of compound words; in adjectives simple words come to approximately 12%.[93]

But if we now consider the frequency value of these types of words in actual speech, we cannot fail to see that simple words occupy a predominant place in English. According to recent frequency counts, about 60% of the total number of nouns and 62% of the total number of adjectives in current use are simple words. Of the total number of adjectives and nouns, derived words comprise about 38% and 37% respectively while compound words comprise an insignificant 2% in nouns and 0.2% in adjectives.[94] Thus it is the simple, non-derived words that constitute the foundation and the backbone of the vocabulary and that are of paramount importance in speech. It should also be mentioned that non-derived words are characterized by a high degree of collocability and a complex variety of meanings in contrast with words of other structural types whose semantic structures are much poorer. Simple words also serve as basic parent forms motivating all types of derived and compound words. At the same time it should be pointed out that new words that appear in the vocabulary are mostly words of derived and compound structure.

§ 13. Historical changeability of Word-Structure

Neither the morphemic nor the derivational structure of the word remains the same but is subject to various changes in the course of time. Changes in the phonetic and semantic structure and in the stress pattern of polymorphic words may bring about a number of changes in the morphemic and derivational structure. Certain morphemes may become fused together or may be lost altogether. As a result of this process, known as the process of simplification, radical changes in the structure of the word may take place: root-morphemes may turn into affixational or semi-affixational morphemes, polymorphic words may become monomorphic, compound words may be transformed into derived or even simple words. There is no doubt, for instance, that the Modern English derived noun friendship goes back to the Old English compound freondscipe in which the component scipe was a root-morpheme and a stem of the independently functioning word. The present-day English suffixes -hood, -dom, -like are also known to have developed from root-morphemes. The noun husband is a simple monomorphic word in Modern English, whereas in Old English it was a compound word consisting of two bases built on two stems hus-bond-a.

Sometimes the spelling of some Modern English words as compared with their sound-form reflects the changes these words have undergone. The Modern English word cupboard judging by its sound-formt ['k*b*d] is a monomorphic non-motivated simple word. Yet its spelling betrays its earlier history. It consisted of two bases represented by two monomorphic stems [k p] and [bo:d] and was pronounced ['k p,bo:d]; it signified

'a board to put cups on'; nowadays, however, having been structurally transformed into a simple word, it denotes neither cup nor board as may be seen from the phrases like a boot cupboard, a clothes cupboard. A similar course of development is observed in the words blackguard ['blæga:d] traced to ['blæk,ga:d], handkerchief ['hæηkэt∫if] that once was ['hænd, kэt:∫if ], etc. In the process of historical development some word-structures underwent reinterpretation without radical changes in their phonemic shape; there are cases when simple root-words came to be understood as derived consisting of two ICs represented by two individual items, e.g. beggar, chauffeur, editor. The reinterpretation of such words led to the formation of simple verbs like to edit, to beg, etc.

§ 14. Summary and Conclusions. 1. There are two levels of approach to the study of word-structure: the level of morphemic analysis and the level of derivational or word-formation analysis.

2. The basic unit of the morphemic level is the morpheme defined as the smallest indivisible two-facet language unit.

3. Three types of morphemic segmentability of words are distinguished in linguistic literature: complete, conditional and defective. Words of conditional and defective segmentability are made up of full morphemes and pseudo (quasi) morphemes. The latter do not rise to the status of full morphemes either for semantic reasons or because of their unique distribution.

4. Semantically morphemes fall into root-morphemes and affixational morphemes (prefixes and suffixes); structurally into free, bound and semi-free (semi-bound) morphemes.

5. The structural types of words at the morphemic level are described in terms of the number and type of their ICs as monomorphic and polymorphic words.

6. Derivational level of analysis aims at finding out the derivative types of words, the interrelation between them and at finding out how different types of derivatives are constructed.

7. Derivationally all words form two structural classes: simplexes, i.e. simple, non-derived words and complexes, or derivatives. Derivatives fall into: suffixal derivatives, prefixal derivatives, conversions and compounds. The relative importance of each structural type is conditioned by its frequency value in actual speech and its importance in the existing word-stock.

Each structural type of complexes shows preference for one or another part of speech. Within each part of speech derivative structures are characterized by a set of derivational patterns.

8. The basic elementary units of the derivative structure are: derivational bases, derivational affixes, derivational patterns.

9. Derivational bases differ from stems both structurally and semantically. Derivational bases are built on the following language units: a) stems of various structure, b) word-forms, c) word-groups or phrases. Each class and subset of bases has its own range of collocability and shows peculiar ties with different parts of speech.

10. Derivational affixes form derived stems by repatterning derivational bases. Semantically derivational affixes present a unity of lexical meaning and other types of meaning: functional, distributional and differential unlike non-derivational affixes which lack lexical meaning.

11. Derivational patterns (DP) are meaningful arrangements of various types of ICs that can be observed in a set of words based on their mutual interdependence. DPs can be viewed in terms of collocability of each IC. There are two types of DPs—structural that specify base classes and individual affixes, and structural-semantic that specify semantic peculiarities of bases and the individual meaning of the affix. DPs of different levels of generalization signal: 1) the class of source unit that motivates the derivative and the direction of motivation between different classes of words; 2) the part of speech of the derivative; 3) the lexical sets and semantic features of derivatives.

V. Word-Formation

VARIOUS WAYS OF FORMING WORDS

§ 1. Various Types and Ways. The available linguistic literature on the of Forming Words subject cites various types and ways of forming words. Earlier books, articles and monographs on word-formation and vocabulary growth in general both in the Russian language and in foreign languages, in the English language in particular, used to mention morphological, syntactic and lexico-semantic types of word-formation. At present the classifications of the types of word-formation do not, as a rule, include lexico-semantic word-building. Of interest is the classification of word-formation means based on the number of motivating bases which many scholars follow. A distinction is made between two large classes of word-building means:

To Class I belong the means of building words having one motivating base. To give an English example, the noun catcher is composed of the base catch- and the suffix -er, through the combination of which it is morphologically and semantically motivated.[95]

Class II includes the means of building words containing more than one motivating base. Needless to say, they are all based on compounding (cf. the English compounds country-club, door-handle, bottle-opener, etc., all having two bases through which they are motivated). Most linguists in special chapters and manuals devoted to English word-formation consider as the chief processes of English word-formation affixation, conversion and compounding. Apart from these a number of minor ways of forming words such as back-formation, sound interchange, distinctive stress, sound imitation, blending, clipping and acronymy are traditionally referred to Word-Formation. Another classification of the types of word-formation worked out by H. Marchand is also of interest. Proceeding from the distinction between full linguistic signs and pseudo signs[96] he considers two major groups: 1) words formed as grammatical syntagmas, i.e. combinations of full linguistic signs which are characterized by morphological motivation such as do-er, un-do, rain-bow; and 2) words which are not grammatical syntagmas, i.e. which are not made up of full linguistic signs. To the first group belong Compounding, Suffixation, Prefixation, Derivation by a Zero Morpheme[97] and Back-Derivation, to the second—Expressive Symbolism, Blending, Clipping, Rime and Ablaut Gemination,[98] Word-Manufacturing.[99] It is characteristic of both groups that a new coining is based on a synchronic relationship between morphemes.

§2. Word-Formation. Definition. Basic Peculiarities. In the present book we proceed from the understanding of Word-Formation and the classification of word-formation types as found in A. I. Smirnitsky's book on English Lexicology.

Word-Formation is the system of derivative types of words and the process of creating new words from the material avail able in the language after certain structural and semantic formulas and patterns. For instance, the noun driver is formed after the pattern v+-er, i.e. a verbal stem + the noun-forming suffix -er. The meaning of the derived noun driver is related to the meaning of the stem drive- 'to direct the course of a vehicle' and the suffix -er meaning 'an active agent': a driver is 'one who drives'(a carriage, motorcar, railway engine, etc.). Likewise compounds resulting from two or more stems joined together to form a new word are also built on quite definite structural and semantic patterns and formulas, for instance adjectives of the snow-white type are built according to the formula n+a, etc. It can easily be observed that the meaning of the whole compound is also related to the meanings of the component parts. The structural patterns with the semantic relations they signal give rise to regular new creations of derivatives, e.g. sleeper, giver, smiler or soot-black, tax-free, etc.

In comformity with structural types of words described above[100] the following two types of word-formation may be distinguished: word-derivation and word-composition (or compounding). Words created bу word-derivation have in terms of word-formation analysis only one derivational base and one derivational affix, e.g. cleanness (from clean), to overestimate (from to estimate), chairmanship (from chairman), openhandedness (from openhanded), etc. Some derived words have no derivational affixes, because derivation is achieved through conversion[101], e.g. to paper (from paper), a fall (from to fall), etc. Words created by word-composition have at least two bases, e.g. lamp-shade, ice-cold, looking-glass, daydream, hotbed, speedometer, etc.

Within the types, further distinction may be made between the ways of forming words. The basic ways of forming words in word- derivation, for instance, are affixation and conversion.

It should be noted that the understanding of word-formation as expounded here excludes semantic word-building as well as shortening, sound- and stress-interchange which traditionally are referred, as has been mentioned above, to minor ways of word-formation. By semantic word-building some linguists understand any change in word-meaning, e.g. stock—'the lower part of the trunk of a tree'; 'something lifeless or stupid'; 'the part of an instrument that serves as a base', etc.; bench— 'a long seat of wood or stone'; 'a carpenter's table', etc. The majority of linguists, however, understand this process only as a change in the meaning[102] of a word that may result in the appearance of homonyms, as is the

case with flower—'a blossom' and flour—'the fine meal', 'powder made from wheat and used for making bread'; magazine—'a publication' and magazine—'the chamber for cartridges in a gun or rifle', etc. The application of the term word-formation to the process of semantic change and to the appearance of homonyms due to the development of polysemy seems to be debatable for the following reasons:

As semantic change does not, as a rule, lead to the introduction of a new word into the vocabulary, it can scarcely be regarded as a word-building means. Neither can we consider the process a word-building means even when an actual enlargement of the vocabulary does come about through the appearance of a pair of homonyms. Actually, the appearance of homonyms is not a means of creating new words, but it is the final result of a long and labourious process of sense-development. Futhermore, there are no patterns after which homonyms can be made in the language. Finally, diverging sense-development results in a semantic isolation of two or more meanings of a word, whereas the process of word-formation proper is characterized by a certain semantic connection between the new word and the source lexical unit. For these reasons diverging sense-development leading to the appearance of two or more homonyms should be regarded as a specific channel through which the vocabulary of a language is replenished with new words and should not be treated on a par with the processes of word-formation, such as affixation, conversion and composition.

The shortening of words also stands apart from the above two-fold division of word-formation. It cannot be regarded as part of either word-derivation or word-composition for the simple reason that neither the derivational base nor the derivational affix can be singled out from the shortened word (e. g. lab, exam, Euratom, V-day, etc.).

Nor are there any derivational patterns new shortened words could be formed on by the speaker. Consequently, the shortening of words should not be regarded as a way of word-formation on a par with derivation and compounding.

For the same reasons, such ways of coining words as acronymy, blending, lexicalization and some others should not be treated as means of word-formation. Strictly speaking they are all, together with word-shortening, specific means of replenishing the vocabulary different in principle from affixation, conversion and compounding.

What is said above is especially true of sound- and stress-interchange (also referred to as distinctive stress). Both sound- and stress-interchange may be regarded as ways of forming words only diachronically, because in Modern English not a single word can be coined by changing the root-vowel of a word or by shifting the place of the stress. Sound-interchange as well as stress-interchange in fact has turned into a means of distinguishing primarily between words of different parts of speech and as such is rather wide-spread in Modern English, e.g. to sing—song, to live—life, strong—strength, etc. It also distinguishes between different word-forms, e.g. man—men, wife—wives, to know—knew, to leave—left, etc.

Sound-interchange falls into two groups: vowel-interchange and consonant-interchange.

By means of vowel-interchange we distinguish different parts of speech, e.g. full—to fill, food—to feed, blood—to bleed, etc. In some cases vowel-interchange is combined with affixation, e.g. long—length, strong—strength, broad—breadth, etc. Intransitive verbs and the corresponding transitive ones with a causative meaning also display vowel-interchange, e. g. to rise—to raise, to sit—to set, to lie—to lay, to fall— to fell.

The type of consonant-interchange typical of Modern English is the interchange of a voiceless fricative consonant in a noun and the corresponding voiced consonant in the corresponding verb, e.g. use—to use, mouth—to mouth, house—to house, advice—to advise, etc.

There are some particular cases of consonant-interchange: [k]—[t∫]: to speak—speech, to break—breach; [s]—(d]: defence—to defend; offence—to offend; [s]—[t]: evidence—evident, importance—important, etc. Consonant-interchange may be combined with vowel-interchange, e.g. bath—to bathe, breath—to breathe, life—to live, etc.

Many English verbs of Latin-French origin are distinguished from the corresponding nouns by the position of stress. Here are some well-known examples of such pairs of words: 'export n—to ex'port v; 'import n—to im'port v; 'conduct n—to con'duct v; 'present n—to pre'sent v; 'contrast n—to con'trast v; 'increase n—to in'crease v, etc.

Stress-interchange is not restricted to pairs of words consisting of a noun and a verb. It may also occur between other parts of speech, for instance, between adjective and verb, e.g. 'frequent a—to fre'quent v; 'absent a—to ab'sent v, etc.

§3. Word-formation the Subject of Study. Word-formation is that branch of Lexicology which studies the derivative structure of existing words and the patterns on which a language, in this case the English language, builds new words. It is self-evident that word-formation proper can deal only with words which are analysable both structurally and semantically, i.e. with all types of Complexes.[103] The study of the simple word as such has no place in it. Simple words however are very closely connected with word-formation because they serve as the foundation, the basic source of the parent units motivating all types of derived and compound words. Therefore, words like writer, displease, atom-free, etc. make the subject matter of study in word-formation, but words like to write, to please, atom, free are not irrelevant to it.

Like any other linguistic phenomenon word-formation may be studied from two angles—synchronically and diachronically. It is necessary to distinguish between these two approaches, for synchronically the linguist investigates the existing system of the types of word-formation while diachronically he is concerned with the history of word-building. To illustrate the difference of approach we shall consider affixation. Diachronically it is the chronological order of formation of one word from some other word that is relevant. On the synchronic plane a derived word is regarded as having a more complex structure than its correlated word
regardless of the fact whether it was derived from a simpler base or a more complex base. There are cases in the history of the English language when a word structurally more complex served as the original element from which a simpler word was derived. Those are cases of the process called back-formation (or back-derivation)[104], cf. beggar—to beg; editor— to edit; chauffeur—to chauff and some others. The fact that historically the verbs to beg, to edit, etc. were derived from the corresponding agent-nouns is of no synchronous relevance.

While analysing and describing word-formation synchronically it is not enough to extract the relevant structural elements from a word, de-scribe its structure in terms of derivational bases, derivational affixes and the type of derivative patterns, it is absolutely necessary to determine the position of these patterns and their constituents within the structural-semantic system of the language as a whole. Productivity of a derivative type therefore cannot be overlooked in this description.

§4. Productivity of Word-Formation Means. Some of the ways of forming words in present-day English can be resorted to for the creation of new words whenever the occasion demands—these are called productive ways of forming words, other ways of forming words cannot now produce new words, and these are commonly termed non-productive or unproductive. For instance, affixation has been a productive way of forming words ever since the Old English period; on the other hand, sound-interchange must have been at one time a word-building means but in Modern English, as has been mentioned above, its function is actually only to distinguish between different classes and forms of words.

It follows that productivity of word-building ways, individual derivational patterns and derivational affixes is understood as their ability of making new words which all who speak English find no difficulty in understanding, in particular their ability to create what are called о с-casional words or nonce-words.[105] The term suggests that a speaker coins such words when he needs them; if on another occasion the same word is needed again, he coins it afresh. Nonce-words are built from familiar language material after familiar patterns.[106] Needless to say dictionaries do not as a rule record occasional words. The following words may serve as illustration: (his) collarless (appearance), a lungful (of smoke), a Dickensish (office), to unlearn (the rules), etc.

The delimitation between productive and non-productive ways and means of word-formation as stated аbove is not, however, accepted by all linguists without reserve. Some linguists consider it necessary to define the term productivity of a word-building means more accurately. They hold the view that productive ways and means of word-formation are only those that can be used for the formation of an unlimited number of new words in the modern language, i.e. such means that "know no bounds"
and easily form occasional words. This divergence of opinion is responsible for the difference in the lists of derivational affixes considered productive in various books on English Lexicology.

Recent investigations seem to prove however that productivity of derivational means is relative in many respects. Moreover there are no absolutely productive means; derivational patterns and derivational affixes possess different degrees of productivity. Therefore it is important that conditions favouring productivity and the degree of productivity of a particular pattern or affix should be established. All derivational patterns experience both structural and semantic constraints. The fewer are the constraints the higher is the degree of productivity, the greater is the number of new words built on it. The two general constraints imposed on all derivational patterns are—the part of speech in which the pattern functions and the meaning attached to it which conveys the regular semantic correlation between the two classes of words. It follows that each part of speech is characterized by a set of productive derivational patterns peculiar to it. Three degrees of productivity are distinguished for derivational patterns and individual derivational affixes: l)highly-productive, 2) productive or semi-productive and 3) non-productive.

Productivity of derivational patterns and affixes should not be identified with frequency of occurrence in speech, although there may be some interrelation between them. Frequency of occurrence is characterized by the fact that a great number of words containing a given derivational affix are often used in speech, in particular in various texts. Productivity is characterized by the ability of a given suffix to make new words.

In linguistic literature there is another interpretation of derivational productivity based on a quantitative approach.[107] A derivational pattern or a derivational affix are qualified as productive provided there are in the word-stock dozens and hundreds of derived words built on the pattern or with the help of the suffix in question. Thus interpreted, derivational productivity is distinguished from word-formation activity by which is meant the ability of an affix to produce new words, in "particular occasional words or nonce-words. To give a few illustrations. The agent suffix -er is to be qualified both as a productive and as an active suffix: on the one hand, the English word-stock possesses hundreds of nouns containing this suffix (e.g. driver, reaper, teacher, speaker, etc.), on the other hand, the suffix -er in the pattern v+-er→ N is freely used to coin an unlimited number of nonce-words denoting active agents (e.g., interrupter, respecter, laugher, breakfaster, etc.).

The adjective suffix -ful is described as a productive but not as an active one, for there are hundreds of adjectives with this suffix (e.g. beautiful, hopeful, useful, etc.), but no new words seem to be built with its help.

For obvious reasons, the noun-suffix -th in terms of this approach is to be regarded both as a non-productive and a non-active one.

§ 5. Summary and Conclusions.

1. Word-formation is the process of creating words from the material available in the language after certain structural and semantic formulas and patterns.

2. As a subject of study English word-formation is that branch of English Lexicology which studies the derivative structure of words and the patterns on which the English language builds new words. Like any other linguistic phenomenon, word-formation may be studied synchronically and diachronically.

3. There are two types of word-formation in Modern English: word-derivation and word-composition. Within the types further distinction is made between the various ways and means of word-formation.

4. There is every reason to exclude the shortening of words, lexicalization, blending, acronymy from the system of word-formation and regard them and other word-forming processes as specific means of vocabulary replenishment.

5. Sound- and stress-interchange in Modern English are a means of distinguishing between different words, primarily between words of different parts of speech.

6. The degree of productivity and factors favouring it make an important aspect of synchronic description of every derivational pattern within the two types of word-formation.

Three degrees of productivity are distinguished for derivational patterns and individual derivational affixes: l) highly-productive, 2) productive or semi-productive and 3) nоn - produсtive.

Поиск по сайту: