28. The prefixational system in Eng. W.-b.

Prefixation is the formation of words with the help of prefixes. 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. There are about 51 prefixes in the system of Modern English word-formation.

According to the available word-counts of prefixal derivatives 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.

the number of prefixal derivatives within a certain part of speech is in inverse proportion to the actual number of prefixes: 22 form verbs, 41 prefixes make adjectives and 42 — nouns.

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.; 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.

English prefixes of the second type essentially differ from the functional words they are correlated with: a)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. b)they are deprived of all grammatical features peculiar to the independent words they are correlated with; c)they tend to develop a meaning not found in the correlated words; d)they form regular sets of words of the same semantic type.

Synchronically prefixes may be classified:

1)according to the class of words they preferably form.

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. and c) deadjectival, e.g. uneasy, biannual, 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: un-, non-, in-, dis-, a-, e.g. ungrateful, unemployment, non-politician, non-scientific, incorrect, disloyal, amoral.

b)reversative or privative prefixes, such as un-, de-, dis-, e.g. untie, unleash, decentralise, disconnect, etc.;

c)pejorative prefixes, such as mis-, mal-, pseudo-, e.g. miscalculate, misinform, maltreat, pseudo-classicism, pseudo-scientific, etc.;

d)prefixes of time and order, such as fore-, pre-, post-, ex-, e.g. foretell, foreknowledge, pre-war, post-war, post-classical, ex-president;

e) prefix of repetition re-, e.g. rebuild, re-write, etc;

f) locative prefixes, such as super-, sub-, inter-, trans-, e.g. super- structure, subway, inter-continental, trans-atlantic, etc. and some other groups;

5) stylistic prefixes. prefixes like un-, un-, out-, over-, re-, under- and some others can be qualified as neutral prefixes, such prefixes as pseudo-, super-, ultra-, uni-, bi- e.g. pseudo-classical, superstructure, ultra-violet, unilateral, bifocal don’t have literary-bookish character.

32 Typical semantic patterns in conversion: n-v, v-n, adv-v, adj-v.

As one of the two words within a conversion pair is semantically derived from the other we can enumerate the following typical semantic relations.

I. Verbs converted from nouns (denominal verbs).

If the noun refers to some object of reality (both animate and inanimate) the converted verb may denote:

1) action characteristic of the object, e.g. ape n — ape v — ‘imitate in a foolish way’; butcher n — butcher v — ‘kill animals for food, cut up a killed animal’;

2) instrumental use of the object, e.g. screw n — screw v — ‘fasten with a screw’; whip n — whip v — ’strike with a whip’;

3) acquisition or addition of the object, e.g. fish n — fish v — ‘catch or try to catch fish’; coat n — ‘covering of paint' — coat v — ‘put a coat of paint on’;

4) deprivation of the object, e.g. dust n — dust v — ‘remove dust from something’; skin n — skin v — ’strip off the skin from’; etc.

II. Nouns converted from verbs (deverbal substantives).

The verb generally referring to an action, the converted noun may denote:

1) instance of the action, e.g. jump v — jump n — ’sudden spring from the ground’; move v — move n — ‘a change of position’;

agent of the action, e.g. help v — help n — ‘a person who helps’ bore v — bore n — ‘a person that bores’; cheat v — cheat n — ‘a person who cheats’

1) place of the action, e.g. drive v — drive n — ‘a path or road along which one drives’; walk v — walk n — ‘a place for walking’;

2) object or result of the action, e.g. peel v — peel n — ‘the outer skin of fruit or potatoes taken off; find v — find и — ’something found,” esp. something valuable or pleasant’; etc.

30. Origin of conversion

Conversion is highly productive in the formation of verbs, especially from compound nouns. 20th century new words include a great many verbs formed by conversion, e.g. to motor — ‘travel by car’; to phone — ‘use the telephone’; to wire — ’send a telegram’ etc. A diachronic survey of the present-day stock of conversion pairs reveals, however, that not all of them have been created on the semantic patterns just referred to. Some of them arose as a result of the disappearance of inflections in the course of the historical development of the English language due to which two words of different parts of speech, e.g. a verb and a noun, coincided in pronunciation. This is the case with such word-pairs, for instance, as love n (OE. lufu) — love v (OE. lufian); work n (OE. wēōrc) — work v (OE. wyrcan); answer n (OE. andswaru) — answer v (OE. andswarian) and many others. For this reason certain linguists consider it necessary to distinguish between homonymous word-pairs which appeared as a result of the loss of inflections and those formed by conversion. The term conversion is applied then only to cases like doctor n — doctor v; brief a — brief v that came into being after the disappearance of inflections, word-pairs like work n — work v being regarded exclusively as cases of homonymy. Other linguists share Prof. Smirnitsky’s views concerning discrimination between conversion as a derivational means and as a type of word-building relations between words in Modern English. Synchronically in Modern English there is no difference at all between cases like taxi n — taxi v and cases like love n — love v from the point of view of their morphological structure and the word-building system of the language. In either case the only difference between the two words is that of the paradigm: the historical background is here irrelevant. It should be emphatically stressed at this point that the present-day derivative correlations within conversion pairs do not necessarily coincide with the etymological relationship. For instance, in the word-pair awe n — awe v the noun is the source, of derivation both diachronically and synchronically, but it is quite different with the pair mould v — mould n: historically the verb is the derived member, whereas it is the other way round from the angle of Modern English (cf. the derivatives mouldable, moulding, moulder which have suffixes added to verb-bases). A diachronic semantic analysis of a conversion pair reveals that in the course of time the semantic structure of the base may acquire a new meaning or several meanings under the influence of the meanings of the converted word. This semantic process has been termed reconversion in linguistic literature

31 Mechanism of derivation in conversion.

In linguistics, conversion, also called zero derivation, is a kind of word formation; specifically, it is the creation of a word from an existing word without any change in form.

Conversion pairs are distinguished by the structural identity of the root and phonetic identity of the stem of each of the two words. Simultaneously we deal with pairs of words related through conversion. Stem carries quite a definite part-of-speech meaning; for instance, within the word-cluster to dress — dress — dresser — dressing — dressy, the stem dresser — carries not only the lexical meaning of the root-morpheme dress-, but also the meaning of substantivity, the stem dressy- the meaning of quality, etc.

What is true of words whose root and stem do not coincide is also true of words with roots and stems that coincide. The stems of two words making up a conversion pair cannot be regarded as being the same or identical: the stem hand- of the noun hand, for instance, carries a substantival meaning together with the system of its meanings, such as: 1) the end of the arm beyond the wrist; 2) pointer on a watch or clock; 3) worker in a factory; 4) source of information, etc.; the stem hand- of the verb hand has a different part-of-speech meaning, namely that of the verb, and a different system of meanings: 1) give or help with the hand, 2) pass, etc. Thus, the stems of word-pairs related through conversion have different part-of-speech and denotational meanings. Being phonetically identical they can be regarded as homonymous stems.

It will be recalled that the same kind of non-correspondence is typical of the derived word in general. To give but two examples, the part-of-speech meaning of the stem blackness — is that of substantivity, whereas the root-morpheme black-denotes a quality; in simple words the lexical meaning of the root corresponds to the part-of-speech meaning of the stem. Thus, by analogy with the derivational character of the stem of a derived word it is natural to regard the stem of one of the two words making up a conversion pair as being of a derivational character as well. The essential difference between affixation and conversion is that affixation is characterised by both semantic and structural derivation (e.g. friend — friendless, dark — darkness, etc.), whereas conversion displays only semantic derivation, i.e. hand — to hand, fall — to fall, taxi — to taxi, etc.; the difference between the two classes of words in affixation is marked both by a special derivational affix and a paradigm, whereas in conversion it is marked only by paradigmatic forms.

37 Polysemy of composition patterns.

The derivational patterns in compounds may be monosemantic, and polysemantic.2 If we take the pattern п+а -> A snow-white, world-wide, air-sick, we shall see that the pattern has two different meanings which may be interpreted: a) through semantic relations of comparison between the components as in world-wide — ‘wide as the world’, snow-white — ‘as white as snow’, etc. and b) through various relations of adverbial type (circumstantial) as in road-weary — ‘weary of the road’, colour-blind — ‘blind to colours’, etc. The structural pattern n+n -> N that underlies compound nouns is also polysemantic and conveys different semantic relations such as relations of purpose, e.g. bookshelf, bed-room, relations of resemblance, e.g. needle-fish, bowler-hat, instrumental or agentive relations, e.g. steamboat, windmill, sunrise, dogbite.

The polysemy of the structure often leads to a certain freedom of interpretation of the semantic relations between the components and consequently to the polysemy of the compound.