Шпаргалка по "Иностранному языку"

The origin

While examining the stock of derivational affixes in Modern English from the point of view of their origin distinction should first of all be made between:

• native affixes (the suffixes -ness, -ish, -dom and the prefixes be-, mis-, un- are of native origin)
• foreign affixes (suffixes as -ation, -ment, -able and prefixes like dis-, ex-, re- are of foreign origin)

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

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

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

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

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

1. Cases when a foreign stem is combined with a native affix, as in colourless, uncertain. After complete adoption the foreign stem is subject to the same treatment as native stems and new words are derived from it at a very early stage. For instance, such suffixes as -ful, -less, -ness were used with French words as early as 1300;
2. Cases when native stems are combined with foreign affixes, such as drinkable, joyous, shepherdess. Here the assimilation of a structural pattern is involved, therefore some time must pass before a foreign affix comes to be recognised by speakers as a derivational morpheme that can be tacked on to native words. Therefore such formations are found much later than those of the first type and are less numerous. The early assimilation of -able is an exception. Some foreign affixes, as -ance, -al, -ity, have never become productive with native stems.

Reinterpretation of borrowed words gave rise to affixes which may not have been regarded as such in the source language. For instance, -scape occurring in such words as seascape, cloudscape, mountainscape, moonscape, etc. resulted from landscape of Dutch origin. The suffix -ade developed from lemonade of French origin, giving rise to fruitade, orangeade, gingerade, pineappleade, etc.; the noun electron of Greek origin contributed the suffix -tron very widely used in coining scientific and technical terms, e.g. cyclotron, magnetron, synchrophasotron, thyratron, etc.

Productivity

Distinction is usually made between:

• dead affixes,
• living 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 independence completely. It is only by special etymological analysis that they may be singled out, e.g. -d in dead, seed, -le, -1, -el in bundle, sail, hovel; -ock in hillock; -lock in wedlock; -t in flight, gift, height. It is quite clear that dead suffixes are irrelevant to present-day English word-formation, they belong in its diachronic study.

Living affixes may be easily singled out from a word, e.g. the noun-forming suffixes -ness, -dom, -hood, -age, -ance, as in darkness, freedom, childhood, marriage, assistance, etc. or the adjective-forming suffixes -en, -ous, -ive, -ful, -y as in wooden, poisonous, active, hopeful, Stony, etc. However, not all living derivational affixes of Modern English possess the ability to coin new words. Some of them may be employed to coin new words on the spur of the moment, others cannot, so that they are different from the point of view of their productivity. Accordingly they fall into two basic classes — productive and non-productive word-building affixes.

It has been pointed out that linguists disagree as to what is meant by the productivity of derivational affixes.

Following the first approach all living affixes should be considered productive in varying degrees from highly-productive (e.g. -er, -ish, -less, re-, etc.) to non-productive (e.g. -ard, -cy, -ive, etc.).

Consequently it becomes important to describe the constraints imposed on and the factors favouring the productivity of affixational patterns and individual affixes. The degree of productivity of affixational patterns very much depends on the structural, lexico-grammatical and semantic nature of bases and the meaning of the affix. For instance, the analysis of the bases from which the suffix -ise (-ize) can derive verbs reveals that it is most productive with noun-stems, adjective-stems also favour its productivity, whereas verb-stems and adverb-stems do not, e.g. criticise (cf. critic), organise (cf. organ), itemise (cf. item), mobilise (cf. mobile), localise (cf. local), etc. Comparison of the semantic structure of a verb in -ise (-ize) with that of the base it is built on shows that the number of meanings of the stem usually exceeds that of the verb and that its basic meaning favours the productivity of the suffix -ise (-ize) to a greater degree than its marginal meanings, cf. to characterise — character, to moralise — moral, to dramatise — drama, etc.

The treatment of pertain affixes as non-productive naturally also depends on the concept of productivity. The current definition of non-productive derivational affixes as those which cannot be used in Modern English for the coining of new words is rather vague and may be interpreted in different ways. Following the definition the term non-produсtive refers only to the affixes unlikely to be used for the formation of new words, e.g. -ous, -th, fore- and some others (cf. famous, depth, to foresee).

If one accepts the other concept of productivity mentioned above, then non-productive affixes must be defined as those that cannot be used for the formation of occasional words and, consequently, such affixes as -dom, -ship, -ful, -en, -ify, -ate and many others are to be regarded as non-productive.

The degree of productivity of a suffix or, to be more exact, of a derivational affix in general may be established on a statistical basis as the ratio of the number of newly-formed words with the given suffix to the number of words with the same suffix already operating in the language. To give an illustration, we shall take the suffix –ise (-ize). The dictionaries of new words compiled by P. Berg (1953) and M. Reifer (1958) as well as the Addenda section of Webster’s New International Dictionary (1958) contain 40 new verbs built up with the help of the suffix –ise (-ize). On the other hand, The Thorndike Century Junior Dictionary (1941) has 127 verbs derived by means of the same suffix. Consequently, the productivity measure of the suffix –ise (-ize) is 40: 127=0.315. A similar examination of the verb-suffixes -ate, -en, -ify yields the following results characterising the productivity measure of each of the verbs: the suffix -ate — 0.034, the suffix -en — 0.018 and the suffix -ify — 0.017. Thus, these figures lead one to the conclusion that the suffix –ise (-ize) is the most productive of the four under investigation and that the suffix -ate is more productive than -en and -ify.

The theory of relative productivity of derivational affixes is also corroborated by some other observations made on English word-formation. For instance, different productive affixes are found in different periods of the history of the language. It is extremely significant, for example, that out of the seven verb-forming suffixes of the Old English period only one has survived up to the present time with a very low degree of productivity, namely the suffix -en (cf. to soften, to darken, to whiten).

A derivational affix may become productive in just one meaning because thai meaning is specially needed by the community at a particular phase in its history. This may be well illustrated by the prefix de- in the sense of ‘undo what has been done, reverse an action or process’, E.g., deacidify (paint spray), decasualise (dock labour), decentralise (government or management), deration (eggs and butter), de-reserve (medical students), desegregate (coloured, children), and so on.

Furthermore, there are cases when a derivational affix being nonproductive in the non-specialised section of the vocabulary is used to coin scientific or technical terms. This is the case, for instance, with the suffix -ance which has been used to form some terms in Electrical Engineering, e.g. capacitance, impedance, reactance. The same is true of the suffix -ity which has been used to form terms in physics and chemistry such as alkalinity, luminosity, emissivity and some others.

 

Префиксация в английском языке

Prefixation is the formation of words with the help of prefixes. The interpretation of the terms prefix and prefixation now firmly rooted in linguistic literature has undergone a certain evolution. For instance, some time ago there were linguists who treated prefixation as part of word-composition (or compounding). The greater semantic independence of prefixes as compared with suffixes led the linguists to identify prefixes with the first component part of a compound word.

At present the majority of scholars treat prefixation as an integral part of word-derivation regarding prefixes as derivational affixes which differ essentially both from root-morphemes and non-derivational prepositive morphemes. Opinion sometimes differs concerning the interpretation of the functional status of certain individual groups of morphemes which commonly occur as first component parts of words. H. Marchand, for instance, analyses words like to overdo, to underestimate as compound verbs, the first components of which are locative particles, not prefixes. In a similar way he interprets words like income, onlooker, outhouse qualifying them as compounds with locative particles as first elements.

There are about 51 prefixes in the system of Modern English word-formation.

According to the available word-counts of prefixal derivatives l the greatest number are verbs — 42.4%, adjectives comprise 33,5% and nouns make up 22.4%. To give some examples.-

prefixal verbs: to enrich, to coexist, to disagree, to undergo, etc.;

prefixal adjectives: anti-war, biannual, uneasy, super-human, etc.;

prefixal nouns: ex-champion, co-author, disharmony, subcommittee, etc.

Proceeding from the three types of morphemes that the structural classification involves 2 two types of prefixes are to be distinguished:

1. those not correlated with any independent word (either notional or functional), e.g. un-, dis-, re-, pre-, post-, etc.; and
2. those correlated with functional words (prepositions or preposition like adverbs), e.g. out-, over-, up-, under-, etc.

Prefixes of the second type are qualified as semibound morphemes, which implies that they occur in speech in various utterances both as independent words and as derivational affixes, e.g. ‘over one’s head’, ‘over the river’ (cf. to overlap, to overpass); ‘to run out’, ‘to take smb out’ (cf. to outgrow, to outline); ‘to look up’, ‘hands up’ (cf. upstairs, to upset); ‘under the same roof, ‘to go under’ (cf. to underestimate, undercurrent), etc.

It should be mentioned that English prefixes of the second type essentially differ from the functional words they are correlated with:

• like any other derivational affixes they have a more generalised meaning in comparison with the more concrete meanings of the correlated words (see the examples given above); they are characterised by a unity of different denotational components of meaning — a generalised component common to a set of prefixes and individual semantic component distinguishing the given prefix within the set.
• they are deprived of all grammatical features peculiar to the independent words they are correlated with;
• they tend to develop a meaning not found in the correlated words;
• they form regular sets of words of the same semantic type.

Of late some new investigations into the problem of prefixation in English have yielded interesting results. It appears that the traditional opinion, current among linguists, that prefixes modify only the lexical meaning of words without changing the part of speech is not quite correct with regard to the English language. In English there are about 25 prefixes which can transfer words to a different part of speech in comparison with their original stems. Such prefixes should perhaps be called conversive prefixes, e.g. to begulf (cf. gulf n), to debus (cf. bus n); to embronze (cf. bronze n), etc. If further investigation of English prefixation gives more proofs of the conversive ability of prefixes, it will then be possible to draw the conclusion that in this respect there is no functional difference between suffixes and prefixes, for suffixes in English are also both conversive (cf. hand — handless) and non-conversive (cf. father — fatherhood, horseman — horsemanship, etc.).

Classification

Unlike suffixation, which is usually more closely bound up with the paradigm of a certain part of speech, prefixation is considered to be more neutral in this respect. It is significant that in linguistic literature derivational suffixes are always divided into noun-forming, adjective-forming, etc. Prefixes, however, are treated differently. They are described either in alphabetical order or subdivided into several classes in accordance with their origin, meaning or function and never according to the part of speech.

Prefixes may be classified on different principles. Diachronically distinction is made between prefixes of native and foreign origin. Synchronically prefixes may be classified:

1. according to the class of words they preferably form. Recent investigations, as has been mentioned above, allow one to classify prefixes according to this principle. It must be noted that most of the 51 prefixes of Modern English function in more than one part of speech forming different structural and structural-semantic patterns. A small group of 5 prefixes may be referred to exclusively verb-forming (en-, be-, un-, etc.). The majority of prefixes (in their various denotational meanings) tend to function either in nominal parts of speech (41 patterns in adjectives, 42 in nouns) or in verbs (22 patterns);
2. as to the type of lexical-grammatical character of the base they are added to into:
• a) deverbal, e. g. rewrite, outstay, overdo, etc.;
• b) denominal, e.g. unbutton, detrain, ex-president, etc.
• c) deadjectival, e.g. uneasy, biannual, etc. It is of interest to note that the most productive prefixal pattern for adjectives is the one made up of the prefix un- and the base built either on adjectival stems or present and past participle, e.g. unknown, unsmiling, unseen, etc.;
3. semantically prefixes fall into mono- and polysemantic;
4. as to the generic denotational meaning there are different groups that are distinguished in linguistic literature:
• a) negative prefixes, such as: un₁-, non-, in-, dis₁-, a-, e.g. ungrateful (cf. grateful), unemployment (cf. employment), non-politician (cf. politician), non-scientific (cf. scientific), incorrect (cf. correct), disloyal (cf. loyal), disadvantage (cf. advantage), amoral (cf. moral), asymmetry (cf. symmetry), etc. It may be mentioned in passing that the prefix in- occurs in different phonetic shapes depending on the initial sound of the base it is affixed to; in other words, the prefixal morpheme in question has several allomporphs, namely il- (before [l]), im- (before [p, m],) ir- (before [r]), in- in all other cases, e.g. illegal, improbable, immaterial, irreligious, inactive, etc.;
• b) reversative or privative prefixes, such as un₂-, de-, dis₂-, e.g. untie (cf. tie), unleash (cf. leash), decentralise (cf. centralise), disconnect (cf. connect), etc.;
• c) pejorative prefixes, such as mis-, mal-, pseudo-, e.g. miscalculate (cf. calculate), misinform (cf. inform), maltreat (cf. treat), pseudo-classicism (cf. classicism), pseudo-scientific (cf. scientific), etc.;
• d) prefixes of time and order, such as fore-, pre-, post-, ex-, e.g. foretell (cf. tell), foreknowledge (cf. knowledge), pre-war (cf. war), post-war (cf. war), post-classical (cf. classical), ex-president (cf. president);
• e) prefix of repetition re-, e.g. rebuild (cf. build), re-write (cf. write), etc;
• f) locative prefixes, such as super-, sub-, inter-, trans-, e.g. super-structure (cf. structure), subway (cf. way), inter-continental (cf. continental), trans-atlantic (cf. Atlantic), etc. and some other groups;
5. when viewed from the angle of their stylistic reference English prefixes fall into those characterised by neutral stylistic reference' and those possessing quite a definite stylistic value. As no exhaustive lexico-stylistic classification of English prefixes has yet been suggested, a few examples can only be adduced here. There is no doubt, for instance, that prefixes like un₁-, un₂-, out-, over-, re-, under- and some others can be qualified as neutral prefixes, e.g., unnatural, unknown, unlace, outnumber, oversee, resell, underestimate, etc. On the other hand, one can hardly fail to perceive the literary-bookish character of such prefixes as pseudo-, super-, ultra-, uni-, bi- and some others, e.g. pseudo-classical, superstructure, ultra-violet, unilateral, bifocal, etc. Sometimes one comes across pairs of prefixes one of which is neutral, the other is stylistically coloured. One example will suffice here: the prefix over- occurs in all functional styles, the prefix super- is peculiar to the style of scientific prose.
6. prefixes may be also classified as to the degree of productivity into
• highly-productive,
• productive,
• non-productive.

 

Конверсия, подходы к изучению конверсии, диахронический и синхронический подходы  к проблеме конверсии

Conversion, one of the principal ways of forming words in Modern English is highly productive in replenishing the English word-stock with new words. The term conversion, which some linguists find inadequate, refers to the numerous cases of phonetic identity of word-forms, primarily the so-called initial forms, of two words belonging to different parts of speech. This may be illustrated by the following cases: work — to work; love — to love; paper — to paper; brief — to brief, etc. As a rule we deal with simple words, although there are a few exceptions, e.g. wireless — to wireless.

It is fairly obvious that in the case of a noun and a verb not only are the so-called initial forms (i.e. the infinitive and the common case singular) phonetically identical, but all the other noun forms have their homonyms within the verb paradigm, cf. (my) work [wэ:k]) — (I) work [wэ:k]; (the) dog’s [dogz] (head) — (many) dogs [dogz] — (he) dogs [dogz], etc.

It will be recalled that, although inflectional categories have been greatly reduced in English in the last eight or nine centuries, there is a certain difference on the morphological level between various parts of speech, primarily between nouns and verbs. For instance, there is a clear-cut difference in Modern English between the noun doctor and the verb to doctor — each exists in the language as a unity of its word-forms and variants, not as one form doctor. It is true that some of the forms are identical in sound, i.e. homonymous, but there is a great distinction between them, as they are both grammatically and semantically different.

If we regard such word-pairs as doctor — to doctor; water — to water; brief — to brief from the angle of their morphemic structure, we see that they are all root-words. On the derivational level, however, one of them should be referred to derived words, as it belongs to a different part of speech and is understood through semantic and structural relations with the other, i.e. is motivated by it. Consequently, the question arises: what serves as a word-building means in these cases? It would appear that the noun is formed from the verb (or vice versa) without any morphological change, but if we probe deeper into the matter, we inevitably come to the conclusion that the two words differ in the paradigm. Thus it is the paradigm that is used as a word-building means. Hence, we may define conversion as the formation of a new word through changes in its paradigm. It is necessary to call attention to the fact that the paradigm plays a significant role in the process of word-formation in general and not only in the case of conversion. Thus, the noun cooker (in gas-cooker) is formed from the word to cook not only by the addition of the suffix -er, but also by the change in its paradigm. However, in this case, the role played by the paradigm as a word-building means is less obvious, as the word-building suffix -er comes to the fore. Therefore, conversion is characterised not simply by the use of the paradigm as a word-building means, but by the formation of a new word sоlelу by means of changing its paradigm. Hence, the change of paradigm is the only word-building means of conversion. As a paradigm is a morphological category conversion can be described as a morphological way of forming words. The following indisputable cases of conversion have bееn discussed in linguistic literature:

1. formation of verbs from nouns and more rarely from other parts of speech, and
2. formation of nouns from verbs and rarely from other parts of speech.

Opinion differs on the possibility of creating adjectives from nouns through conversion. In the so-called “stone wall” complexes the first members are regarded by some linguists as adjectives formed from the corresponding noun-stems by conversion, or as nouns in an attributive function by others, or as substantival stems by still others so that the whole combination is treated as a compound word. In our treatment of conversion on the pages that follow we shall be mainly concerned with the indisputable cases, i.e. deverbal substantives and denominal verbs.

Conversion has been the subject of a great many linguistic discussions since 1891 when H. Sweet first used the term in his New English Grammar. Various opinions have been expressed on the nature and character of conversion in the English language and different conceptions of conversion have been put forward.