Affixation in modern english

A pre-particle or prefix combination may be based on three different conceptual patterns and accordingly present the prefixing three functional aspects: 1) the prefix has adjectival force (with sbs, as in anteroom, archbishop, co-hostess, ex-king); 2) the prefix has adverbial force (with adjectives and verbs, as in unconscious, hypersensitive, informal, overanxious/ unroll, revrite, mislay); 3)

the prefix has prepositional force (as in prewar years, postgraduate studies, antiaircraft gun) afire, aflutter/anti-Nazi, afternoon/encage: sbs and vbs must be considered syntagmas with a zero determinate, the suffixs anti-Nazi, afternoon, encage being the respective determinants).

The preceding conceptual patterns are important in the determination of the stress: while a suffix. Based on an adjunct (primary relation tends to have two heavy stresses (as in arch – enemy)) or may even have the main stress on the prefix (as in subway), the prf. Has not more than a full middle stress in the other types.

2.6.4 The phonemic status of prefixes

The semi-independent, word-like status of prefixes also appears from their treatment in regard to stress. With the exception of regularly unstressed a – (as in afire, aflutter), be – (as in befriend), and em-, en – (as in emplace, encage) all prefixes have stress. To illustrate this important point a comparison with non-composite words of similar phonetic structure will be useful. If we compare the words re-full and repeat, morphemic re- / ri / in refill is basically characterized by presence of stress whereas non-morphemic re – [ri] is basically characterized by absence of stress. This is proved by the fact that under certain phonetically unpredictable circumstances, the phonemic stress of re-in re-full, though basically a middle stress, can take the form of heavy stress where as phonemic absence of stress can never rise to presence of stress. They refilled the tank may become they refilled the tank (for the sake of contrast) or they refilled the tank (for emphasis), but no such shift is conceivable for mono-morphemic repeat, incite, prefer etc. Which invariably maintain the pattern no stress/heavy stress.

2.7 Productive and non-productive affixes

The synchronic analysis of the preceding paragraph studies the present-day system and patterns characterized of the English vocabulary by comparing simultaneously existing words. In diachronic analysis Lexical elements are compared with those from which they have been formed and developed and their present productivity is determined. The diachronic study of vocabulary establishes whether the present morphological structure of each element of the vocabulary is due to the process of affixation or some other word-forming process, which took place within the English vocabulary in the course of its development, or whether it has some other source. The possible other sources are: (1) the borrowing of morphologically divisible words, e.g. i/-liter-ate from lat. Illiterates or litera-ture from lat litteratura: (2) reactivation, e.g. When in a number of Latin verbs harrowed in the second participle form with the suffix – at (us), this suffix became – ate (separate), and came to be understood as a characteristic mark of the infinitive; (3) False etymology: when a difficult, usually borrowed, word structure is destroyed in to some form suggesting a motivation, as, for instance, in the change of asparagus into sparrowgrass, or OF r and ME crevice into crayfish.

Synchronic analysis concentrates on structural types and treats word-formation as a system of rules, aiming at the creation of a consistent and complete theory by which the observed facts cab be classified, and the non-observed facts can be predicted. This aim has not been achieved as yet, so that a consistently synchronic description of the English language is still fragmentary still requires frequent revision. Diachronic analysis concentrating on word-forming possesses is more fully worked out.

All the foregoing treatment has been strictly synchronic i.e. only the present state of the English vocabulary has been taken into consideration. To have a complete picture of affixation, however one must be acquainted with the development of the stock of morphemes involved. A diachronic approach is thus indispensable.

The basic contrast that must be detalt with in this connection is the opposition of productive and non-productive affixes.

Conclusion

Affixation is the formation of words with the help of derivational affixes. Affixation is subdivided into prefixation and suffixation. Ex. if a prefix «dis» is added to the stem «like» (dislike) or suffix «ful» to «law» (lawful) we say a word is built by an affixation. Derivational morphemes added before the stem of a word are called prefixes (Ex. un+ like) and the derivational morphemes added after the stem of the word are called suffixes (hand+ ful). Prefixes modify the lexical meaning of the stem meaning i. e. the prefixed derivative mostly belongs to the same part of speech. Ex. like (v.) – dislike (v.).kind (adj.) – unkind (adj.) but suffixes transfer words to a different part of speech, ex. teach (v.) – teacher (n.). But new investigations into the problem of prefixation in English showed 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. In English there are about 25 prefixes which can transfer words to a different part of speech. Ex. – head (n) – behead (v), bus(n) – debus(v), brown (adj) – embrown(u), title(n) – entitle(v), large (adj). – enlarge (v), camp(n). – encamp(u), war(n). – prewar (adj). If it is so we can say that there is no functional difference between suffixes and prefixes. Besides there are linguists1 who treat prefixes as a part of word-composition. They think that a prefix has.he same function as the first component of a compound word. Other linguists2 consider prefixes as derivational affixes which differ essentially from root–morphemes and stems. From the point of view of their origin affixes may be native and borrowed. The suffixes-ness, – ish, – dom, – ful, – less, – ship and prefixes be-, mis-, un-, fore-, etc are of native origin. But the affixes – able, – ment, – ation, – ism, – ist, re-, anti-, dis-, etc are of borrowed origin. They came from the Greek, Latin and French languages. Many of the suffixes and prefixes of native origin were independent words. In the course of time they have lost their independence and turned into derivational affixes. Ex. – dom, – hood. /O.E. had – state, rank, – dom (dom condemn, – ship has developed from noun «scipe» (meaning: state); the adjective forming suffix «-ly» has developed from the noun «lic» (body, shape). The prefixes out-, under-, over etc also have developed out of independent words.

Another problem of the study of affixes is homonymic affixes. Homonymic affixes are affixes which have the same sound form, spelling but different meanings and they are added to different parts of speech.

 Скачать реферат