И. В. Арнольд

• Название: И. В. Арнольд
• Анкор: Arnold - The English Word.doc
• Дата: 09.03.2017
• Размер: 1.82 Mb.
• Имя файла: Arnold - The English Word.doc
• Тип: Учебник; #3589
• страница: 11 из 36

§ 5.4 DERIVATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL AFFIXES

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

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

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

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

Derivational affixes serve to supply the stem with components of lexical and lexico-grammatical meaning, and thus form⁴different words. One and the same lexico-grammatical meaning of the affix is sometimes accompanied by different combinations of various lexical meanings. Thus, the lexico-grammatical meaning supplied by the suffix -y consists in the ability to express the qualitative idea peculiar to adjectives and creates adjectives from noun stems. The lexical meanings of the same suffix are somewhat variegated: ‘full of, as in bushy or cloudy, ‘composed of, as in stony, ‘having the quality of, as in slangy, ‘resembling’, as in baggy, ‘covered with’, as in hairy and some more. This suffix sometimes conveys emotional components of meaning.
87
E.g.: My school reports used to say: “Not amenable to discipline; too fond of organising,” which was only a kind way of saying: “Bossy.” (M. Dickens) Bossy not only means ‘having the quality of a boss’ or ‘behaving like a boss’; it is also a derogatory word.

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

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

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

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

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

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


_____________________

¹ See: Bloch B. and Trager G. Outline of Linguistic Analysis. Baltimore, 1942 P. 84.

88
After having devoted special attention to the difference in semantic characteristics of various kinds of morphemes we notice that they are different positionally. A functional affix marks the word boundary, it can only follow the affix of derivation and come last, so that no further derivation is possible for a stem to which a functional affix is added. That is why functional affixes are called by E. Nida the outer formatives as contrasted to the inner formatives which is equivalent to our term derivational affixes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

89
With derivational affixes the situation is much more intricate. Knowing, for instance, the complete list of affixes of feminisation, i.e. formation of feminine nouns from the stems of masculine ones by adding a characteristic suffix, we shall be able to recognise a new word if we know the root. This knowledge, however, will not enable us to construct words acceptable for English vocabulary, because derivational affixes are attached to their particular stems in a haphazard and unpredictable manner. Why, for instance, is it impossible to call a lady-guest — a guestess on the pattern of host : : hostess? Note also: lion : : lioness, tiger : : tigress, but bear : : she-bear, elephant : : she-elephant, wolf : : she-wolf; very often the correlation is assured by suppletion, therefore we have boar : : sow, buck : : doe, bull : : cow, cock : : hen, ram : : ewe.

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

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

To sum up: derivational and functional morphemes may happen to be identical in sound form, but they are substantially different in meaning, function, valency, statistical characteristics and structural properties.
§ 5.5 THE VALENCY OF AFFIXES AND STEMS. WORD-BUILDING PATTERNS AND THEIR MEANING

Another essential feature of affixes that should not be overlooked is their combining power or valenсу and the derivational patterns in which they regularly occur.

We have already seen that not all combinations of existing morphemes are actually used. Thus, unhappy, untrue and unattractive are quite regular combinations, while seemingly analogous *unsad, *UN-FALSE, *unpretty do not exist. The possibility of a particular stem taking a particular affix depends on phono-morphological, morphological and semantic factors. The suffix -ance/-ence,¹for instance, occurs only after b, t, d, dz, v, l, r, m, n: disturbance, insistence, independence, but not after s or z: condensation, organisation.

_____________________

¹ These are allomorphs. See § 5.7.

90
It is of course impossible to describe the whole system. To make our point clear we shall take adjective-forming suffixes as an example. They are mostly attached to noun stems. They are: ed (barbed), -en (golden), -ful (careful), -less (careless), -ly (soldierly), -like (childlike), -y (hearty) and some others. The highly productive suffix -able can be combined with noun stems and verbal stems alike (clubbable, bearable). It is especially frequent in the pattern un- + verbal stem + -able (unbearable). Sometimes it is even attached to phrases in which composition and affixation are simultaneous producing compound-derivatives (unbrushoffable, ungetatable). These characteristics are of great importance both structurally and semantically.

Their structural significance is clear if we realise that to describe the system of a given vocabulary one must know the typical patterns on which its words are coined. To achieve this it is necessary not only to know the morphemes of which they consist but also to reveal their recurrent regular combinations and the relationship existing between them. This approach ensures a rigorously linguistic basis for the identification of lexico-grammatical classes within each part of speech. In the English language these classes are little studied so far, although an inquiry into this problem seems very promising.¹

It is also worthy of note that from the information theory viewpoint the fact that not every affix is capable of combining with any given stem makes the code more reliable, protects it from noise,² mistakes, and misunderstanding.

The valency of stems is not therefore unlimited. Noun stems can be followed by the noun-forming suffixes: -age (bondage), -dom (serfdom), -eer/-ier (profiteer, collier), -ess (waitress), -ful (spoonful), -hood (childhood), -ian (physician), -ics (linguistics), -iel-y (daddy), -ing (flooring), -ism (heroism), -ist (violinist), -let (cloudlet), -ship (friendship)-, by the adjective-forming suffixes: -al/-ial (doctoral), -an (African), -ary (revolutionary), -ed (wooded), -ful (hopeful), -ic/-ical (historic, historical), -ish (childish), -like (businesslike), -ly (friendly), -ous/-ious/-eous (spacious), -some (handsome), -y (cloudy)’, verb-forming suffixes: -ate (aerate), -en (hearten), -fy/-ify (speechify), -ise (sympathise).

Verbal stems are almost equal to noun stems in valency. They combine with the following noun-forming suffixes: -age (breakage), -al (betrayal), -ance/-ence (guidance, reference), -ant/-ent (assistant, student), -ee (employee), -er/-or (painter, editor), -ing (uprising), -ion/-tion/-ation (action, information), -ment (government). The adjective-forming suffixes used with verbal stems are: -able/-ible (agreeable, comprehensible), -ive/-sive/-tive (talkative), -some (meddlesome).

Adjective stems furnish a shorter list: -dom (freedom), -ism (realism), -ity/-ty (reality, cruelty), -ness (brightness), -ish (reddish), -ly (firmly), •ate (differentiate), -en (sharpen), -fy/-ify (solidify).

_____________________

¹ See the works by I.V. Arnold, T.M. Belyaeva, S.S. Khidekel, E.S. Koobryakova, O.D. Meshkov, I.K. Arhipov and others.

² Noise as a term of the theory of information is used to denote any kind of interference with the process of communication.

91
The combining possibilities (or valency) are very important semantically because the meaning of the derivative depends not only on the morphemes of which it is composed but also on combinations of stems and affixes that can be contrasted with it. Contrast is to be looked for in the use of the same morpheme in different environment and also in the use of different morphemes in environments otherwise the same.

The difference between the suffixes -ity and -ism, for instance, will become clear if we compare them as combined with identical stems in the following oppositions: formality : : formalism : : humanity : : humanism; reality : : realism. Roughly, the words in -ity mean the quality of being what the corresponding adjective describes, or an instance of this quality. The resulting nouns are countable. The suffix -ism forms nouns naming a disposition to what the adjective describes, or a corresponding type of ideology. Being uncountable they belong to a different lexico-grammatical class.

The similarity on which an opposition is based may consist, for the material under consideration in the present paragraph, in the sameness of suffix. A description of suffixes according to the stem with which they are combined and the lexico-grammatical classes they serve to differentiate may be helpful in the analysis of the meanings they are used to render.

A good example is furnished by the suffix -ish, as a suffix of adjectives. The combining possibilities of the suffix -ish are vast but not unlimited. Boyish and waspish are used, whereas *enemish and *aspish are not. The constraints here are of semantic nature. It is regularly present in the names of nationalities, as for example: British, Irish, Spanish.¹ When added to noun stems, it forms adjectives of the type ‘having the nature of with a moderately derogatory colouring: bookish, churlish, monkeyish, sheepish, swinish. Childish has a derogatory twist of meaning, the adjective with a good sense is childlike. A man may be said to behave with a childish petulance, but with a childlike simplicity. Compare also womanly ‘having the qualities befitting a woman’, as in womanly compassion, womanly grace, womanly tact, with the derogatory womanish ‘effeminate’, as in: womanish fears, traitors to love and duty (Coleridge).

With adjective stems the meaning is not derogatory, the adjective renders a moderate degree of the quality named: greenish ‘somewhat green’, stiffish ‘somewhat stiff, thinnish ‘somewhat thin’. The model is especially frequent with colours: blackish, brownish, reddish. A similar but stylistically peculiar meaning is observed in combinations with numeral stems: eightyish, fortyish and the like are equivalent to ‘round about eighty’, ‘round about forty’. E. g.: “What’s she like, Min?” “Sixtyish. Stout. Grey hair. Tweeds. Red face.” (McCrone)

In colloquial speech the suffix -ish is added to words denoting the time of the day: four-o'clockish or more often fourish means ‘round about four o'clock’. E. g.: Robert and I went to a cocktail party at Annette’s. (It was called “drinks at six thirty'ish” — the word “cocktail” was going out.) (W. Cooper).
_____________________

¹ But not all nationalities. E. g. Russian, Italian, Chinese, Japanese.
92
The study of correlations of derivatives and stems is also helpful in bringing into relief the meaning of the affix. The lexico-grammatical meaning of the suffix -ness that forms nouns of quality from adjective stems becomes clear from the study of correlations of the derivative and the underlying stem. A few examples picked up at random will be sufficient proof: good : : goodness; kind : : kindness; lonely : : loneliness; ready : : readiness; righteous : : righteousness; slow : : slowness.

The suffixes -ion (and its allomorphs -sion and -tion) and -or are noun-forming suffixes combined with verbal stems. The opposition between them serves to distinguish between two subclasses of nouns: abstract nouns and agent nouns, e. g. accumulation : : accumulator; action : : actor; election : : elector; liberation : : liberator; oppression : : oppressor; vibration : : vibrator, etc. The abstract noun in this case may mean action, state or result of action remaining within the same subclass. Thus, cultivation denotes the process of cultivating (most often of cultivating the soil) and the state of being cultivated. Things may be somewhat different with the suffix -or, because a cultivator is ‘a person who cultivates¹ and ‘a machine for breaking up ground, loosening the earth round growing plants and destroying weeds’. Thus two different subclasses are involved: one of animate beings, the other of inanimate things. They differ not only semantically but grammatically too; there exists a regular opposition between animate and inanimate nouns in English: the first group is substituted by he or she, and the second by the pronoun it. In derivation this opposition of animate personal nouns to all other nouns is in some cases sustained by such suffixes as -ard/-art (braggart), -ist (novelist) and a few others, but most often neutralised. The term neutralisation may be defined as a temporary suspension of an otherwise functioning opposition. Neutralisation, as in the word cultivator, is also observed with such suffixes as -ant, -er that also occur in agent nouns, both animate and inanimate. Cf. accountant ‘a person who keeps accounts’ and coolant ‘a cooling substance’; fitter ‘mechanic who fits up all kinds of metalwork’ and shutter (in photography) ‘a device regulating the exposure to light of a plate of film’; runner ‘a messenger’ and ‘a blade of a skate’.

Structural observations such as these show that an analysis of suffixes in the light of their valency and the lexico-grammatical subclasses that they serve to differentiate may be useful in the analysis of their semantic properties. The notions of opposition, correlation and neutralisation introduced into linguistics by N. Trubetzkoy prove relevant and helpful in morphological analysis as well.

The term word-building or derivational pattern is used to denote a meaningful combination of stems and affixes that occur regularly enough to indicate the part of speech, the lexico-semantic category and semantic peculiarities common to most words with this particular arrangement of morphemes.¹ Every type of word-building (affixation, composition, conversion, compositional derivation, shortening, etc.) as well as every part of speech have a characteristic set of

_____________________

¹ See also: Ginzburg R.S. etal. A Course in Modern English Lexicology. P. 103.

93
patterns. Some of these, especially those with the derivational suffix -ish, have already been described within this paragraph. It is also clear from the previous description that the grouping of patterns is possible according to the type of stem, according to the affix or starting with some semantic grouping.¹

The grouping of patterns, their description and study may be based on the same principle of explanatory transformations that we have used for componential analysis in Chapter 3 (see §3.6).

Let us turn again to affixation and see how the dictionary defines words with the prefix un-:

unaccented a —without an accent or stress

unbolt v — to remove the bolt of, to unlock

unconcern n — lack of concern

undo v — to reverse the effect of doing

unfailing a — not failing, constant

These few examples show that the negative prefix un- may be used in the following patterns:

I. un- + an adjective stem un- + Part. I stem un- + Part. II stem

}

with the meaning ‘not’, ‘without’, ‘the opposite of'

II. un- + averbal stem — with the meaning of ‘to reverse the action as

the effect of...'

III. un- + a verbal stem which is derived from a noun stem — with the

reversative meaning ‘to release from'

IV. un- + a noun stem shows the lack of the quality denoted

The examples for pattern I are: uncertain, unfair, unbelievable, unconscious, unbalanced, unknown, unborn, unbecoming’, for pattern II: unbend, unbind, unpack, unwrap; for pattern III: unhook, unpack, unlock, unearth.

With noun stems (pattern IV) un- is used very rarely. E. g. unpeople ‘people lacking the semblance of humanity’, unperson ‘a public figure who has lost his influence’.

These cases of semantic overlapping show that the meaning or rather the variety of meanings of each derivational affix can be established only when we collect many cases of its use and then observe its functioning within the structure of the word-building patterns deduced from the examples collected. It would be also wrong to say that there exists a definite meaning associated with this or that pattern, as they are often polysemantic, and the affixes homonymous. This may be also seen from the following examples. A very productive pattern is out-+ V = Vt. The meaning is ‘to do something faster, better, longer than somebody or something’. E. g. outdo, out-grow, out-live, outnumber,
_____________________

¹ As for instance, a numeral stem + -ish with ages has the meaning ‘approximately so many years old’: fiftyish, sixtyish, seventyish, and has a colloquial connotation.
94
outplay. The number of possible combinations is practically unlimited. The spelling, whether hyphenated, solid or separate is in many cases optional. When formed not on verbs but on names of persons it means ‘to surpass this person in something that is known as his special property’. The classical example is “to out-Herod Herod” (Shakespeare) ‘to outdo sb in cruelty’.¹

On the other hand, the same formal pattern out-+V may occur with the locative out- and produce nouns, such as outbreak or outburst. The second element here is actually a deverbal noun of action.

The above examples do not exhaust the possibilities of patterns with out- as their first element. Out- may be used with verbal stems and their derivatives (outstanding), with substantives (outfield), with adjectives (outbound) and adverbs (outright).

The more productive an affix is the more probable the existence alongside the usual pattern of some semantic variation. Thus, -ee is freely added to verbal stems to form nouns meaning ‘One who is V-ed’, as addressee, divorcee, employee, evacuee, examinee, often paralleling agent nouns in -er, as employer, examiner. Sometimes, however, it is added to intransitive verbs; in these cases the pattern V+-ee means ‘One who V-s’ or ‘One who has V-ed’, as in escapee, retiree. In the case of bargee ‘a man in charge of a barge’ the stem is a noun.

It may also happen that due to the homonymy of affixes words that look like antonyms are in fact synonyms. A good example is analysed by V.K. Tarasova. The adjectives inflammable and flammable are not antonyms as might be supposed from their morphological appearance (cf. informal : : formal, inhospitable : : hospitable) but synonyms, because inflammable is ‘easily set on fire’. They are also interchangeable in non-technical texts. Inflammable may be used figuratively as ‘easily excited’. Flammable is preferred in technical writing.

The fact is that there are two prefixes in-. One is a negative prefix and the other may indicate an inward motion, an intensive action or as in the case of inflame, inflammable and inflammation have a causative function.²

It is impossible to draw a sharp line between the elements of form expressing only lexical and those expressing only grammatical meaning and the difficulty is not solved by introducing alongside the term motivation the term word-formation meaning.

To sum up: the word-building pattern is a structural and semantic formula more or less regularly reproduced, it reveals the morphological motivation of the word, the grammatical part-of-speech meaning and in most cases helps to refer the word to some lexico-grammatical class, the components of the lexical meaning are mostly supplied by the stem.

_____________________

¹ Herod — the ruler of Judea, at the time of Christ’s birth was noted for his despotic nature and cruelty.

² V.K. Tarasova studies the possibilities of this homonymy of the word inflammable when she comments on the poem by Ogden Nash entitled “Philology, Etymology, You Owe Me an Apology”.

95