WORD-FORMATION PATTERNS: WORD-DERIVATION

If we approach the problem of words’ morphemic composition in terms of item and arrangement, we should be sure words are segmented into parts on the bases of patterns that can be traced in other words. If we concern ourselves with the methodology of item and process, we are interested in productivity of word-building patterns and the relationships between words which are seen as processes of derivation.

Historic development bring to life new concepts and things calling for new names described as neologisms, occasional or potential words. Not every of them becomes a part of the vocabulary according to some concepts.

The concept of lexical morphological category (A.I. Smirnitsky) is very close to the word-formation rule (R. Quirk) as they both relate to the distinction of actual and potential words, productivity and non-productivity of certain patterns. The concept of lexicalisation (G. Leech) describes the way the results of the derivation of new senses of established words are condensed into a single word. There are two types of lexicalisation: primary lexicalisations, which refer to conceptual divisions or perceptions as singled out by human mind in the process of classifying the world, and secondary lexicalisations, i.e., compound words.

Word-formation is the process of creating words from the material available after certain structural and semantic patterns. There two types of word-formation in Modern English: word-derivation (includes affixation and conversion) and word-composition (compounding). In case of derivation one stem is used in the process of word-formation; compounding implies usage of two or more stems; a special way is shortening, which may involve one or several stems.

Affixation as a way of word formation.

Affixation (prefixation and suffixation) is the formation of words by adding derivational affixes to bases. Suffixal and prefixal derivatives are different as suffixation is mostly characteristic of the noun (white ness, sing er) and adjective formation while prefixation is typical of the verb-formation (to re -read).

Classifications of derivational affixes are based on different principles such as: the part of speech formed; the lexico-grammatical character of the stem the affix is added to; its meaning; its stylistic reference; the degree of productivity; the origin of the affix.

The part of speech formed ( noun-prefixes and suffixes - swimm er, free dom, happi ness, justific ation); adjective - agree able, help less, help ful, poet ic; verb - en able, un button; dark en, satis fy, harmon ize; adverb -quick ly, east ward).

The lexico-grammatical character of the stem the affix is added to ( deverbal - speak er, read ing, agree ment, suit able; re -write, over do, out stay; denominal - un button, ex -president; hand less, child ish, trouble some; de-adjectival (and participles) - un easy, un smiling, un seen; black en, slow ly, redd ish, bright ness).

Affixational meaning (prefixes: negative - un grateful, non- political, dis advantage, a moral (ill - before [l], im - before [p,m], ir before [r], in before any other sound); prefixes of time - pre -war, post- war, ex- president; repetition - re -write; suffixes: the agent of the action - bak er, defend an t; appurtenance - Arab ian, Chin ese; collectivity - peasant ry, king dom; diminitiveness - girl ie, cloud let, wolf ling).

Stylistic reference (neutral - un natural, over see; cap able, sing er; of certain stylistic reference - pseudo- classical, super structure).

The origin of the affix ( - ness, -ish, -dom,; be-, mis-, un - are of native origin and many were originally independent words (hood - had - «state, condition»); ation, -ment, -able; dis-, ex-, re - are of foreign origin.

The degree of productivity is 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: highly-productive, productive or semi-productive, non-productive.

There are quite a number of polysemantic, homonymous and synonymous derivational affixes in English. Polysemy is illustrated by the suffix -y having the following meanings: 1) composed of, full of - bony, stony; 2) characterized by - rainy, cloudy; 3) resembling what the base denotes - bushy, inky). Homonymy may be represented in the cases when the adverb-suffix -ly added to the adjectival bases (quickly, slowly) is homonymous to the adjective-suffix -ly added to the noun-bases (lovely, friendly). The suffix -er of native origin denoting the agent is synonymous to the suffix -ist of Greek origin (teach er, journal ist ).

Words that are made up of elements derived from two or more different languages are called hybrids ( unmistakable - un ( En) + mis (En) + tak (Scand) + able (Fr)).

Conversion as a Way of Word-formation.

Conversion is the process of coining a new word in a different part of speech and with a different distribution but without adding any derivative element (a doctor - to doctor, wireless - to wireless). As the result, the two words are homonymous, having the same morphological structure and belonging to different parts of speech. A grammatical homonymy of two words of different parts of speech does not necessarily indicate conversion. It may be the result of the loss of ending. In case of conversion a new word acquires new semantic and grammatical characteristics as compared with the original word, and these changes find their expression in the new syntactical functions of the word formed.

Conversion is a very productive way of forming new words, chiefly verbs, and not so often nouns. As a rule, conversion involves monosyllabic words of a simple morphological structure [ a tube - to tube ], but words with affixes are quite possible [ a commission - to commission ]. The productivity of conversion in forming verbs from nouns is explained by the fact that in modern English there are no competitive ways as composition is almost non-existing, and affixation is extremely scarce. There exist only three verb-forming suffixes which can be combined with a noun-stem [ ate, ise, ity ], but they are stylistically limited to learned and technical formations. In most cases no verb is formed by means of conversion if there is a suffix-verb in the language. Still there are some instances when from one and the same stem verbs are derived both by means of conversion and affixation [ to mature / to maturate, to character / to characterise ]. Such verbs, as a rule, differ in their semantic structure and sphere of usage [ to mature - созреть; доводить до зрелости; to maturate - нагноиться; to character - запечатлевать; to characterise - характеризовать; служить отличительным признаком ]. Nouns are usually derived from verb-stems [ to smoke - a smoke ]. Such formations frequently make part of verb-noun combinations [ to have a smoke, to take a walk, to have a look ].

The derived word and the deriving one are connected semantically, thus in case of polysemy every meaning of polysemantic verbs and nouns formed by conversion is conditioned by the respective meaning of the previous time [ a lecture: лекция, нотация, to lecture: читать лекцию, нотацию ]. But sometimes words derived by means of conversion develop new meanings independently [ to floor: смутить, сразить, заставить замолчать ]. But as a matter of fact, the semantic relations between the derived and the deriving words are varied and sometimes complicated: the verb signifies the act accomplished by means of the theme, denoted by the noun [ a finger - to finger: касаться пальцем; a hand - to hand: помогать ]; the verb may have the meaning «to act as the person denoted by the noun» [ a monkey - to monkey: дурачиться ]; the derived verbs having the meaning «to travel by the thing denoted by the noun» [ a train - to train; a bus - to bus ]; ]; the derived verbs having the meaning «to spend, to pass time» denoted by the noun [ winter - to winter; a weekend - to weekend ]. Derived nouns denote either an act [ a smoke ], or the result of an action [ a cut, a find ].

Different Conceptions of Conversion.

The nature and the character of conversion have been the subject of linguistic discussion since 1891, when H.Sweet first used the term in his book. Conversion is treated differently. Some linguists (A.I. Smirnitskey) define it as morphological (zero affixation, change in paradigm), others as morphological-syntactic way of forming words (zero affixation, difference in paradigms, and change of the syntactic function of the word [ I need some paper. - He is papering his room. ]). Still others, especially in the UK and the USA (e.g., O. Jesperson), consider conversion as a purely syntactic way of word-formation. This approach is known as a functional one, according to which conversion is a special shift from one part of speech to the other. These linguists say that in modern English a word may function as two different parts of speech, and we no longer distinguish parts of speech. This approach can’t be justified as it is common knowledge that English vocabulary is strictly subdivided into parts of speech.

Criteria for Derivation Within Conversion.

There are several criteria of semantic derivation within conversion. The most universal are the semantic and the frequency criteria. The criterion of semantic derivation is based on semantic relations within conversion pairs: the semantic relations of the pair crowd - to crowd are the relations of an object and an action characteristic of the object, which leads one to the conclusion that the verb crowd is the derived member; in the pair to take-take the noun is the derived member, because the relations between them are those of an action and the result of it). The frequency criterion is based on the frequency of occurrence when a lower frequency value testifies to the derived character of a word in question (to answer (63%) - answer (35%), to joke (8%) - joke (82%)).

Synchronically conversion is a type of derivative correlation between two words making a conversion pair. Diachronically conversion is a way of forming new words on the analogy of the semantic patterns available in the language [ to phone, to wire ] distinguished from homonymy due to the disappearance of inflections [ answer(andswaru) - to answer(andswarian ].

Поиск по сайту: