CHAPTER 1. WORD-FORMATION AND SEMANTIC MECHANISMS 6
1.1 Language change 6
1.2 History of word-formation study 8
1.3 Semantic change. Typesmechanisms of semantic change 16
CHAPTER II. WORD-FORMATION IN MODERN ENGLISH 18
2.1 Processes of word-making in English 18
2.2 Word – formation in English 22
CHAPTER III. WORD-FORMATION IN MODERN RUSSIAN 27
3.1 Principles of word-formation in the Russian language 27
3.2 Word-formation in the Russian language 29
Работа № 4094. Это ОЗНАКОМИТЕЛЬНАЯ ВЕРСИЯ работы, цена оригинала 1000 рублей. Оформлен в программе Microsoft Word.
Language is a principal means used by human beings to exchange information and communicate with each other. We use language to discuss a wide range of topics which distinguishes us with animals. In other words language is a vital tool of communication. In order to share ideas and feelings effectively besides using gestures intonation in speech… a large vocabulary is also considered as a useful way. The more vocabularies you have the clearer and more accurate ideas you express. And one of the most common ways to enrich vocabulary is word formation. It is a study of words dealing with construction or formation of words in a certain language. As a learner of English and an English teacher in the future we do this research to mention the similarities and differences between English and Russian word formation.
The object of the research is word formation understood as a certain direction in linguistics.
The subject of the research is features of word formation in the English and Russian languages.
The aim of our research is to study features of word formation in the English and Russian languages.
For accomplishing the aim the following issues were formulated
1. to define the concept of word formation
2. to figure out means of word formation
3. to research English and Russian word-formation processes and semantic mechanisms
4. to analyze word-formation and semantic mechanisms in English and in Russian.
Methods of research
1. the study of scientific literature
2. the study of on-line recourses
3. descriptive method
4. comparative method
The information in this paper will be helpful in getting a deeper look upon word formation in the two languages English and Russian.
CHAPTER 1. WORD-FORMATION AND SEMANTIC MECHANISMS
1.1 Language change
All languages change. The changes of language affect all areas of its use. There are different types of language change phonetic changes lexical changes semantic changes and syntactic changes Aitchison 2001. For centuries people have speculated about the causes of language change. The problem is not one of thinking up possible causes but of deciding which to take seriously.
There are many factors that force a language to develop and change. The causes of language change which are necessary for the existence and development of communication can be divided into two categories. They are ‘external’ and ‘internal’. External sociolinguistic factors are social factors outside the language system. Internal psycholinguistic factors are linguistic and psychological factors which exist in the structure of the language and the minds of the speakers.
There are many factors that affect the rate of language change. The more members of the community are creative and loyal to the new and the more they use the new forms of a word or a phrase the faster their language changes. If most members of the community try to use only correct language and preserve stability the more slowly their language mutates. If some form of pronunciation is preferred and is used most frequently or a figure of speech becomes the most desirable then this form is absorbed and becomes the primary. ―The important thing to remember about change is that as long as people are using a language that language will undergo some change. [1 p. 25]. Technology with its constant development is a good example of an external factor. When something new appears in the world of technology then a special term is needed to describe it. An example of an external factor is the ever-changing developments of technology. Another example of an external factor would be fashion. The imitation of certain words through different social groups will spread new fashionable and socially desirable terms. Fashionable things will come and go but some characteristics of a term may stay in the language creating a recognised lexical term. For example after the Russian Revolution of 1917 upper class pronunciations of Russian suddenly became undesirable and people tried to hide their ―inappropriate‖ pronunciation Aitchison 2001.
Foreign influences can change the language due to the borrowings of words or semantics from foreign languages. This factor can affect the following
1 Phonology – the study of the sound system of a language [6 p. 754].
2 Lexis – the totality of vocabulary items in a language including all forms having lexical meaning or grammatical function [6 p. 431].
3 Structural change — a change in syntactic structure resulting from the application of a transformational rule. [6 p. 894].
In the world of the Internet users especially teenagers tend to use unique expressions. An Internet writer usually does not think about the process of creating new words or word-formation process and creates them by chance to improve the expressiveness and attract more attention. As a consequence of this process more and more new words appear. Due to the speed and capabilities of the Internet the new words spread around the world and get into other languages mutating again and again under the influence of different grammars to new words acquiring a new meaning. Internet communities which develop the culture of Internet slang and memes become the creators of hundreds of different words without even knowing it by what they leave an impact on the language. In order to examine how Internet slang is changing how new words are created it is first necessary to find out what the definition of word-formation is and why it has recently become so interesting [14 p. 195]
1.2 History of word-formation study
The ways in which new words are formed and the factors which govern their acceptance into the language are generally taken very much for granted by the average speaker. To understand a word it is not necessary to know how it is constructed whether it is simple or complex that is whether or not it can be broken down into two or more constituents. We are able to use a word which is new to us when we find out what object or notion it denotes. Some words of course are more transparent than others. For example in the words unfathomable and indescribable we recognize the familiar pattern of negative prefix + transitive word + adjective-forming suffix on which many words of similar form are constructed. Knowing the pattern we can easily guess their meanings – cannot be fathomed and cannot be described – although we are not surprised to find other similar-looking words for instance unfashionable and unfavourable for which this analysis will not work. We recognize as transparent the adjectives unassuming and unheard-of which taking for granted the fact that we cannot use assuming and heard-of. We accept as quite natural the fact that although we can use the verbs to pipe to drum and to trumpet we cannot use the verbs to piano and to violin.
But when we meet new coinages like tape-code freak-out shutup-ness and beautician we may not readily be able to explain our reactions to them. Innovations in vocabulary are capable of arousing quite strong feelings in people who may otherwise not be in the habit of thinking very much about language. Quirk quotes some letter to the press of a familiar kind written to protest about horrible jargon such as breakdown vile words like transportation and the atrocity lay-by.
Many linguists agree over the fact that the subject of word-formation has not until recently received very much attention from descriptive grammarians of English or from scholars working in the field of general linguistics. As a collection of different processes compounding affixation conversion backformation etc. about which as a group it is difficult to make general statements word-formation usually makes a brief appearance in one or two chapters of a grammar. Valerie Adams emphasizes two main reasons why the subject has not been attractive to linguists its connections with the non-linguistic world of things and ideas for which words provide the names and its equivocal position as between descriptive and historical studies. A few brief remarks which necessarily present a much over-simplified picture on the course which linguistics has taken in the last hundred years will make this easier.
The nineteenth century the period of great advances in historical and comparative language study saw the first claims of linguistics to be a science comparable in its methods with the natural sciences which were also enjoying a period of exciting discovery. These claims rested on the detailed study by comparative linguists of formal correspondences in the Indo-European languages and their realization that such study depended on the assumption of certain natural laws of sound change. As Robins observes in his discussion of the linguistics of the latter part of the nineteenth century
The history of a language is traced through recorded variations in the forms and meanings of its words and languages are proved to be related by reason of their possession of worlds bearing formal and semantic correspondences to each other such as cannot be attributed to mere chance or to recent borrowing. If sound change were no regular if word-forms were subject to random inexplicable and unmotivated variation in the course of time such arguments would lose their validity and linguistic relations could only be established historically by extralinguistic evidence such as is provided in the Romance field of languages descended from Latin.
The rise and development in the twentieth century of descriptive linguistics meant a shift of emphasis from historical studies but not from the idea of linguistics as a science based on detailed observation and the rigorous exclusion of all explanations depended on extralinguistic factors. As early as 1876 Henry Sweet had written
We must learn to observe things as they are without regard to their origin just as a zoologist must learn to describe accurately a horse or any other animal. Nor would the mere statements that the modern horse is a descendant of a three-toed marsh quadruped be accepted as an exhausted description… Such however is the course being pursued by most antiquarian philologists.
The most influential scholar concerned with the new linguistics was Ferdinand de Saussure who emphasized the distinction between external linguistics – the study of the effects on a language of the history and culture of its speakers and internal linguistics – the study of its system and rules. Language studied synchronically as a system of elements definable in relation to one another must be seen as a fixed state of affairs at a particular point of time. It was internal linguistics stimulated by de Saussures works that was to be the main concern of the twentieth-century scholars and within it there could be no place for the study of the formation of words with its close connection with the external world and its implications of constant change. Any discussion of new formations as such means the abandonment of the strict distinction between history and the present moment. As Harris expressed in his influential StructuralLinguistics The methods of descriptive linguistics cannot treat of the productivity of elements since that is a measure of the difference between our corpus and some future corpus of the language. Leonard Bloomfield whose book Language was the next work of major influence after that of de Saussure re-emphasized the necessity of a scientific approach and the consequent difficulties in the way of studying meaning and until the middle of the nineteen-fifties interest was centered on the isolating of minimal segments of speech the description of their distribution relative to one another and their organization into larger units. The fundamental unit of grammar was not the word but a smaller unit the morpheme.
The next major change of emphasis in linguistics was marked by the publication in 1957 of Noam Chomskys Syntactic Structures. As Chomsky stated it the aim of linguistics was now seen to be to make grammatical explanations parallel in achievement to the behavior of the speaker who on the basis of a finite and accidental experience with language can produce and understand an indefinite number of new sentences. The idea of productivity or creativity previously excluded from linguistics or discussed in terms of probabilities in the effort to maintain the view of language as existing in a static state was seen to be of central importance. But still word-formation remained a topic neglected by linguists and for several good reasons. Chomsky made explicit the distinction fundamental to linguistics today and comparable to that made by de Saussure between langue the system of a language and parole the set of utterances of the language between linguistic competence the speaker-hearers knowledge of his language and performance the actual use of language in concrete situations. Linked with this distinction are the notions of grammaticalness and acceptability in Chomskys words Acceptability is a concept that belongs to the study of competence. A grammatical utterance is one which may be generated and interpreted by the rules of the grammar an acceptable utterance is one which is perfectly natural and immediately comprehensible… and in no way bizarre or outlandish. It is easy to show as Chomsky does that a grammatical sentence may not be acceptable. For instance this is the cheese the rat the cat caught stole appears bizarre and unacceptable because we have difficulty in working it out not because it breaks any grammatical rules. Generally however it is to be expected that grammaticalness and acceptability will go hand in hand where sentences are concerned.
The ability to make and understand new words is obviously as much a part of our linguistic competence as the ability to make and understand new sentences and so as Pennanen points out it is an obvious gap in transformational grammars not to have made provision for treating word-formation. But as we have already noticed we may readily thing of words like to piano and to violin against which we can invoke no rule but which are definitely unacceptable for no obvious reason. The incongruence of grammaticality and acceptability that is is far greater where words are concerned than where sentences are concerned. It is so great in fact that the exercise of setting out the rules for forming words has so far seemed to many linguists to be out of questionable usefulness. The occasions on which we would have to describe the output of such rules as grammatical but non-occurring are just too numerous. And there are further difficulties in treating new words like new sentences. A novel word like handbook or partial may attract unwelcome attention to itself and appear to be the result of the breaking of rules rather than of their application. And besides the more accustomed to the word we become the more likely we are to find it acceptable whether it is grammatical or not – or perhaps we should say whether or not is was grammatical at the time it was first formed since a new word once formed often becomes merely a member of an inventory its formation is a historical event and the rule behind it may then appear irrelevant.
What exactly is a word From Lewis Carroll onwards this apparently simple question has bedeviled countless word buffs whether they are participating in a game of Scrabble or writing an article for the Word Ways linguistic magazine. To help the reader decide what constitutes a word A. Ross Eckler suggests a ranking of words in decreasing order of admissibility. A logical way to rank a word is by the number of English-speaking people who can recognize it in speech or writing but this is obviously impossible to ascertain. Alternatively one can rank a word by its number of occurrences in a selected sample of printed material. H. Kucera and W.N. Francis’s Computational Analysis of Present-day English is based on one million words from sources in print in 1961. Unfortunately the majority of the words in Webster’s Unabridged do not appear even once in this compilation – and the words which do not appear are the ones for which a philosophy of ranking is most urgently needed. Furthermore the written ranking will differ from the recognition ranking vulgarities and obscenities will rank much higher in the latter than in the former.
A detailed word-by-word ranking is an impossible dream but a ranking based on classes of words may be within our grasp. Ross Eckler proposes the following classes 1 words appearing in one more standard English-language dictionaries 2 non-dictionary words appearing in print in several different contexts 3 words invented to fill a specific need and appearing but once in print.
Most people are willing to admit as words all uncapitalized unlabeled entries in say Webster’s New International Dictionary Third Edition 1961. Intuitively one recognizes that words become less admissible as they move in any or all of three directions as they become more frequently capitalized as they become the jargon of smaller groups dialect technical scientific and as they become archaic or obsolete. These classes have no definite boundaries – is a word last used in 1499 significantly more obsolete than a word last used in 1501 Is a word known to 100000 chemists more admissible than a word known to 90000 Mexican-Americans Each linguist will set his own boundaries.
The second class consists of non-dictionary words appearing in print in a number of sources. There are many non-dictionary words in common use some logologists would like to draw a wider circle to include these. Such words can be broadly classified into 1 neologisms and common words overlooked by dictionary-makers 2 geographical place names 3 given names and surnames.
Dmitri Borgmann points out that the well-known words uncashed ex-wife and duty-bound appear in no dictionaries since 1965 the first of these has appeared in the Random House Unabridged. Few people would exclude these words. Neologisms present a more awkward problem since some may be so ephemeral that they never appear in a dictionary. Perhaps one should read Pope’s dictum Be not the first by whom the new are tried nor yet the last to lay the old aside.
Large treasure-troves of geographic place names can be found in The Times Atlas of the World 200000 names and the Rand McNally Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide 100000 names. These are not all different and some place names are already dictionary words. All these can be easily verified by other readers however some will feel uneasy about admitting as a word the name say of a small Albanian town which possibly has never appeared in any English-language text outside of atlases.
Given names appear in the appendix of many dictionaries. Common given names such as Edward or Cornelia ought to be admitted as readily as common geographical place names such as Guatemala but this set does not add much to the logological stockpile.
Family surnames at first blush appear to be on the same footing as geographical place names. However one must be careful about sources. Biographical dictionaries and Who’s Who are adequate references but one should be cautious citing surnames appearing only in telephone directories. Once a telephone directory is supplanted by a later edition it is difficult to locate copies for verifying surname claims. Further telephone directories are not immune to nonce names coined by subscribers for personal reasons. A good index of the relative admissibility of surnames is the number of people in the United States bearing that surname. An estimate of this could be obtained from computer tapes of the Social Security Administration in 1957 they issued a pamphlet giving the number of Social Security accounts associated with each of the 1500 most common family names.
The third and final class of words consists of nonce words those invented to fill a specific need and appearing only once or perhaps only in the work of the author favoring the word. Few philologists feel comfortable about admitting these. Nonce words range from coinages by James Joyce and Edgar Allan Poe X-ing a Paragraph to interjections in comic strips Agggh Yowie. Ross Eckler and Daria Abrossimova suggest that misspellings in print should be included here also.
In the book “Beyond Language” Dmitri Borgmann proposes that the philologist be prepared to admit words that may never have appeared in print. For example Webster’s Second lists eudaemony as well as the entry Eudaimonia eudaimonism eudaimonist etc. From this he concludes that EUDAIMONY must exist and should be admitted as a word. Similarly he can conceive of sentences containing the word GRACIOUSLY’S There are ten graciously’s in Anna Karenina and SAN DIEGOS Consider the luster that the San Diegos of our nation have brought to the US. In short he argues that these words might plausibly be used in an English-language sentence but does not assert any actual usage. His criterion for the acceptance of a word seems to be its philological uniqueness EUDAIMONY is a short word containing all five vowels and Y.
The available linguistic literature on the subject cites various types and ways of forming words. Earlier books articles and monographs on word-formation and vocabulary growth in general used to mention morphological syntactic and lexico-semantic types of word-formation. At present the classifications of the types of word-formation do not as a rule include lexico-semantic word-building. Of interest is the classification of word-formation means based on the number of motivating bases which many scholars follow. A distinction is made between two large classes of word-building means to Class I belong the means of building words having one motivating base e.g. the noun doer is composed of the base do- and the suffix -er which Class II includes the means of building words containing more than one motivating base. They are all based on compounding e.g. compounds letter-opener e-mail looking-glass.
Most linguists in special chapters and manuals devoted to English word-formation consider as the chief processes of English word-formation affixation conversion and compounding.
Apart from these there is a number of minor ways of forming words such as back-formation sound interchange distinctive stress onomatopoeia blending clipping acronymy.
Some of the ways of forming words in present-day English can be restored to for the creation of new words whenever the occasion demands – these are called productive ways of forming words other ways of forming words cannot now produce new words and these are commonly termed non-productive or unproductive. R. S. Ginzburg gives the example of affixation having been a productive way of forming new words ever since the Old English period on the other hand sound-interchange must have been at one time a word-building means but in Modern English as we have mentioned above its function is actually only to distinguish between different classes and forms of words.
It follows that productivity of word-building ways individual derivational patterns and derivational affixes is understood as their ability of making new words which all who speak English find no difficulty in understanding in particular their ability to create what are called occasional words or nonce-words e.g. lungful of smoke Dickensish office collarless appearance. The term suggests that a speaker coins such words when he needs them if on another occasion the same word is needed again he coins it afresh. Nonce-words are built from familiar language material after familiar patterns. Dictionaries as a rule do not list occasional words.
The delimitation between productive and non-productive ways and means of word-formation as stated above is not however accepted by all linguists without reserve. Some linguists consider it necessary to define the term productivity of a word-building means more accurately. They hold the view that productive ways and means of word-formation are only those that can be used for the formation of an unlimited number of new words in the modern language i.e. such means that “know no bounds” and easily form occasional words. This divergence of opinion is responsible for the difference in the lists of derivational affixes considered productive in various books on English lexicology.
Nevertheless recent investigations seem to prove that productivity of derivational means is relative in many respects. Moreover there are no absolutely productive means derivational patterns and derivational affixes possess different degrees of productivity. Therefore it is important that conditions favouring productivity and the degree if productivity of a particular pattern or affix should be established. All derivational patterns experience both structural and semantic constraints. The fewer are the constraints the higher is the degree of productivity the greater is the number of new words built on it. The two general constraints imposed on all derivational patterns are the part of speech in which the pattern functions and the meaning attached to it which conveys the regular semantic correlation between the two classes of words. It follows that each part of speech is characterized by a set of productive derivational patterns peculiar to it. Three degrees of productivity are distinguished for derivational patterns and individual derivational affixes 1highly productive 2 productive or semi-productive and 3 non-productive.
R. S. Ginzburg says that productivity of derivational patterns and affixes should not be identified with the frequency of occurrence in speech although there may be some interrelation between then. Frequency of occurrence is characterized by the fact that a great number of words containing a given derivational affix are often used in speech in particular in various texts. Productivity is characterized by the ability of a given suffix to make new words.
In linguistic literature there is another interpretation of derivational productivity based on a quantitative approach. A derivational pattern or a derivational affix are qualified as productive provided there are in the word-stock dozens and hundreds of derived words built on the pattern or with the help of the suffix in question. Thus interpreted derivational productivity is distinguished from word-formation activity by which is meant the ability of an affix to produce new words in particular occasional words or nonce-words. For instance the agent suffix –er is to be qualified both as a productive and as an active suffix on the one hand the English word-stock possesses hundreds of nouns containing this suffix e.g. writer reaper lover runner etc. on the other hand the suffix –er in the pattern v + –er à N is freely used to coin an unlimited number of nonce-words denoting active agents e.g. interrupter respecter laugher breakfaster etc..
During the last 30 years word-formation has been a very interesting topic. Study of word-formation processes can bring a lot of new things to the linguistics such as the prediction of development tendencies in languages could contribute to the enrichment and the evolution of language and make a significant benefit to the study of foreign as well as the native languages. However due to a lack of methodology and almost complete absence of the background study of this aspect so far there is no single theory of the word-formation so this field of study is still an open topic [5 p. 154]
So far there is no complete theory of the formation of words. The complexity is that word-formation has always been considered from a synchronic or diachronic point of view while both these concepts have a right to exist. English grammar did not embrace the word until the 1970s. English and American structuralism [9 p. 71] was not interested in the word as in a unit because the main subjects of the study were smaller units. Transformational Generative Grammar was also not interested in the word because it studied larger units. It was thought that the sentence was not made of words but of morpheme units smaller than a word. And the word itself did not matter because it was not considered a separate type of unit.
Study of word-formation became topical only in 1970 with the publication of Noam Chomskys Review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Since then different linguists have considered the formation of words from very different perspectives from the phonological point of view the syntactic point of view and from the semantic point of view [15 p. 219]
1.3 Semantic change. Typesmechanisms of semantic change
Semantic change is a change in the meaning of a word. Changes in meaning are as common as changes in form. Like the latter they can be internally or externally motivated. Every word has a variety of senses and connotations which can be added removed or altered over time [19 p 61]. The alteration of meaning occurs because words are constantly used and what is intended by speakers is not exactly the same each time. If a different intention for a word is shared by the speech community and becomes established in usage then a semantic change has occurred. There are different types of change which will be discussed presently. The most neutral way of referring to change is simply to speak of semantic shift which is to talk of change without stating what type it is
Typesmechanisms of semantic change
1 Extension or widening is a type of semantic change where all features are dropped out. Widening may result in either more homonymy or in more polysemy. Semantic widening broadens the meaning of a word. This process is also called generalization. Some factors that affect semantic widening are linguistic factors psychological factors sociocultural factors and culturalencyclopedic factors. Free Online English Dictionary 2013.
a guy — Guido Guy Fawkes was the leader of the plot to blow up the English Houses of Parliament. The word guy eventually came to mean a person of grotesque appearance. Over time the word came to mean a man or a boy.
b cool — the slang word that meant a jargon of jazz musicians. Over time it began to mean a general word to describe something preferable or interesting English Slang Dictionary.
2 Narrowing or specialisation restriction is a type of semantic change when due to decreased range of meaning a word can be used appropriately only in fewer contexts than before Free Online English Dictionary 2013. In other words semantic narrowing is the shift in which words refer to a more specific class of items or objects or the process by which a word’s meaning becomes less general than its earlier meaning. The process by which semantic narrowing occurs is called specialization. Specialization is a 20 process by which the meaning of a word shifts from the general to the specific definition. Free Online English Dictionary 2013.
a girl — originally meant a person of any gender but now means a female person.
b deer — originally meant a four-legged beast but now means an animal of specific family.
c wife – originally meant a woman nowadays means married woman.
3 Metonymy From the Greek the change of name can be defined as a figure of speech in which a word or a phrase is used to describe another word or a phrase. Metonymy can be also a separate rhetorical strategy of naming or describing something using not direct but associated words. Dictionary Encyclopedia and Thesaurus 2013.
The White House says chemical weapon was used in Syria. – here The White House is used instead of The US government.
The pen is mightier than the sword. — pen here means written word while sword stands for use of weapons.
4 Metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or a phrase is used to describe something it is not literally connected to. Free Online English Dictionary 2013.
Time is a thief – this is a metaphor which means that time passes by and steals our lifetime.
His head was about to explode – this metaphor indicates that the man was very exhausted or nervous. But literally it means that his head was highly explosive which cannot be real.
I feel blue means I feel sad but the literal meaning of it is not logical.
5 Meiosis from the Greek to make smaller is a figure of speech that is used to make a term or a name less significant or to make something or someone smaller in size or position. available on www.thefreedictionary.com.
CHAPTER II. WORD-FORMATION IN MODERN ENGLISH
2.1 Processes of word-making in English
Word-fоrmatiоn has sоme features that can be cоnsidered frоm variоus pоints оf view mоrphemic structural оr semantic.оm themоrphemic aspect the analysis is limited tо stating the number and type оf mоrphemes that make up the wоrd оr hоw the wоrds are maid the wоrd girlishness may be analysed intо three mоrphemes the rооt — girl — and twо suffixes — ishand — ness».The mоrphemic classificatiоn оf wоrds is as fоllоws оne rооt mоrpheme — a rооt wоrd girl оne rооt mоrpheme plus оne оr mоre affixes — a derived wоrd girlish girlishness twо оr mоre stems — a cоmpоund wоrd girl-friend twо оr mоre stems and a cоmmоn affix — a cоmpоund derivative оld-maidish. The mоrphemic analysis establishes оnly the ultimate cоnstituents that make up the wоrd.
A structural wоrd-fоrmatiоn analysis prоceeds further it studies the structural cоrrelatiоn with оther wоrds the structural patterns оr rules оn which wоrds are built.
This is dоne with the help оf the principle оf оppоsitiоns i.e. by studying the partly similar elements the difference between which is functiоnally relevant in оur case this difference is sufficient tо create a new wоrd. Girl and girlish are members оf a mоrphemic оppоsitiоn. They are similar as the rооt mоrpheme — girl — is the same. Their distinctive feature is the suffix — ish. Due tо this suffix the secоnd member оf the оppоsitiоn is a different wоrd belоnging tо a different part оf speech. This binary оppоsitiоn cоmprises twо elements.
Structurally new vоcabulary items represent twо types оf lexical units wоrds e.g. blackоut micrоfilm-reader unfreeze and wоrd-grоups mоstly phraseоlоgical units e.g. blооd bank — a place where blооd plasma are stоred atоmic pile — reactоr etc.» [4 p. 67].оrds in their turn cоmprise variоus structural types
1.- simple wоrds e.g. jeep- a small light mоtоr vehicle esp. fоr military use zebra — street crоssing-place marked by black and white stripes
2.- derived wоrds such as cоllabоratiоnist stem + suffix — оne whо in оccupied territоry wоrks helpfully with the enemy centrism — a middle-оf-the rоad оr a mоderate pоsitiоn in pоlities a preppie slang — a student оr graduate оf a preparatоry schооl
3.- cоmpоunds e.g. cоrpsman — a member оf a hоspital squad trained tо administer first aid tо wоunded servicemen script-shоw — a serial prоgram оn radiо and televisiоn hоuse-husband American English — a married man whо manages a hоusehоld. The analysis оf new wоrds fоr their derivatiоnal structure shоws a marked predоminance оf derived and cоmpоund wоrds and a rather small number оf simple wоrds [5 p. 37].оrd-grоups cоmprise a cоnsiderable part оf vоcabulary extensiоn. Structurally the bulk оf the wоrd-grоups belоng tо theattributive-nоminal type built оn the A +N attribute + nоun and N + N nоun +nоun fоrmulas e.g.frequency mоdulatiоn jet engine tоtal war Cоmmоn Marketeer machine time etc.
Wоrd-grоups and different types оf wоrds are unequally distributed amоng variоus lexical stylistic grоups оf the vоcabulary with a predоminance оf оne оr anоther type in every grоup. Fоr example new wоrds in the field оf science are mоstly оf derived and cоmpоund structure but the technical sectiоn оf the vоcabulary extensiоn is characterised by simple wоrds» [6 p. 49]. The greater part оf wоrd-grоups is fоund amоng scientific and technical terms the pоlitical layer оf vоcabulary is rather pооr in wоrd-grоups. Besides this peculiar distributiоn оf different types оf wоrds every type acquires its оwn specific peculiarity in different lexical stylistic grоups оf the vоcabulary fоr example althоugh derived wоrds are typical bоth оf scientific and technical terms wоrds fоrmed by cоnversiоn are fоund mоstly amоng technical terms.
Semantic analysis deals with semantic structure оf the new wоrds which are fоrmed frоm оthers..V. Ginzburg mentiоns that new vоcabulary items in Mоdern English belоng оnly tо the nоtiоnal parts оf speech i.e. оnly tо nоuns verbs and adjectives оf these nоuns are mоst numerоus [1 p. 183].
New vоcabulary units are as a rule mоnоsemantic and mоst оf them are marked by peculiar stylistic value — they primarily belоng tо the specialised vоcabulary. Neutral wоrds and phrases are cоmparatively few. Terms used in variоus fields оf science and technique make the greater part оf new wоrds.
Semantic wоrd-building can be divided intо shоrtening sоund — and stress-interchange which traditiоnally are referred tо minоr ways оf wоrd-fоrmatiоn». [7 p. 87] By semantic wоrd-building sоme linguists understand any change оf wоrd-meaning e.g. stоck — the lоwer part оf the trunk оf a tree sоmething lifeless оr stupid the part оf an instrument that serves as a base etc. bench- a lоng seat оf wооd оr stоne a carpenter’s table etc. The majоrity оf linguists hоwever understand this prоcess оnly as a change in the meaning оf a wоrd that may result in the appearance оf hоmоnyms as is the case withflоwer-a blоssоm andflоur-the fine meal pоwder made frоm wheat and used fоr making bread magazine-a publicatiоn and magazine-the chamber fоr cartridges in a gun оr rifle etc. The applicatiоn оf the term wоrd-fоrmatiоn tо the prоcess оf semantic change and tо the appearance оf hоmоnyms due tо the develоpment оf pоlysemy seems tо be debatable fоr the fоllоwing reasоns as semantic change dоes nоt as a rule lead tо the intrоductiоn оf a new wоrd intо the vоcabulary it can scarcely be regarded as a wоrd-building means» [8 p. 112].
Оne оf the features оf wоrd-fоrmatiоn is an aspect оf prоductivity. All types оf wоrd-fоrmatiоn can be divided intо prоductive and nоn-prоductive. Prоductive ways are used mоre оften fоr fоrming new wоrds. Fоr instance affixatiоn has been a prоductive way оf fоrming wоrds ever since the Оld English periоd оn the оther hand sоund-interchange must have been at оne time a wоrd-building means but in Mоdern English its functiоn is actually оnly tо distinguish between different classes and fоrms оf wоrds.
Prоductivity оf wоrd-building ways individual derivatiоnal patterns and derivatiоnal affixes is understооd as their ability оf making new wоrds which all whо speak English find nо difficulty in understanding in particular their ability tо create what are called оccasiоnal wоrds оr nоnce-wоrds» [9 p. 48]. The term suggests that a speaker cоins such wоrds when he needs them if оn anоther оccasiоn the same wоrd is needed again he cоins it afresh. Nоnce-wоrds are built frоm familiar language material after familiar patterns. The fоllоwing wоrds may serve as illustratiоn his cоllarlessappearance alungful оf smоke aDickensishоffice tо unlearn the rules etc. [10 p. 183]оductivity оf derivatiоnal means is relative in many respects. Mоreоver there are nо absоlutely prоductive means derivatiоnal patterns and derivatiоnal affixes pоssess different degrees оf prоductivity. Therefоre it is impоrtant that cоnditiоns favоuring prоductivity and the degree оf prоductivity оf a particular pattern оr affix shоuld be established.
Three degrees оf prоductivity are distinguished fоr affixes I highly-prоductive 2 prоductive оr semi-prоductive and 3 nоn-prоductive» [11 p. 57].оductive affixes are thоse used tо fоrm new wоrds in the periоd in questiоn.mоst prоductive prefixes in Mоdern English are de — decоntaminate re — rethink pre — prefabricate nоn — nоn-оperatiоnal un — unfunny anti — antibiоtic.
mоst prоductive English suffixes are
Nоun-fоrming suffixes-er manager — ing fighting — ness sweetness — atiоn autоmatiоn — ee evacuee — оr reactоr — ics cyberneticsAdjective-fоrming suffixes-able tоlerable — ish smartish — ed learned — less jоblessVerb-fоrming suffixes-ize vitaminize — ate оxidateAdverb-fоrming suffixes-ly equally.
Nоn-prоductive affixes are the affixes which are nоt able tо fоrm new wоrds in the periоd in questiоn. Nоn-prоductive affixes are recоgnized as separate mоrphemes and pоssess clear-cut semantic characteristics. Nоn-prоductive suffixes in English are as fоllоws
Nоun-fоrming suffixes-th truth — hооd sisterhооd — ship cshоlarshipAdjective-fоrming suffixes-ful peaceful — ly sickly — sоme tiresоmeVerb-fоrming suffixes-en strengthenaffix may lооse its prоductivity and then becоme prоductive again in the prоcess оf wоrd-fоrmatiоn. This was happened tо the suffix — dоm. Fоr a lоng periоd оf time it was nоn-prоductive but in the last years it gоt a new lease оf life sо that a great amоunt оf wоrds was cоined with its help serfdоm slavedоm etc.
The prоductivity оf an affix shоuld nоt be cоnfused with its frequency оf оccurrence. The frequency is understооd as the existence in the vоcabulary оf a great number оf wоrds cоntaining the affix. An affix may оccur in hundred оf wоrds but it is nоt used fоr wоrd-fоrmatiоn. Fоr example the adjective suffix — ful is met in many wоrds beautiful hоpeful trustful useful but there are nо new wоrds with it. [12 p. 75]
2.2 Word – formation in English
The expression word-formation or word-making or word-building means the process of creating or forming words out of sequences of morphemes or words. In English word-formation has got a great importance because the resources of this language have been enriched by this phenomenon as well as by borrowings from various other languages. New words have continued to be made from old ones and have thus added to the existing store of words or vocables.
Various processes of word-making have been at work in English the chief of which are
1. Compounding or Composition
3. Conversion or Functional shift
4. Reduction Subtraction or Shortening
5. Making of Abbreviations and Acronyms
7. Making of Proper Names from the Common ones
10. Coinage and Root-creation
Given below is a discussion of these processes
i Compounding or composition
Words that cannot be rendered into a simpler form are termed simple or primary words or roots. Boy eat fit sad and log are some such words.
When a word or vocable is formed by joining two or more words or vocables each of which may be used separately as well it is called a compound word. Holiday holy+day breakthrough break+through bedroombed+room dotpen dot+pen and necktie neck+tie are some examples of compound words.
Often compounds are made up of more than two words e.g. man-of-war son-in-law none-the-less gnard-of-honour etc.
Except the articles all the parts of speech word-classes can be used to make compounds e.g. blacksmith Adj+N. homesick N+Adj. yourselfPro.+N. undergo Adv.+Vb. upon Prepo.+Prepo. outcome Prepo.+Vb..
Compound words are of two kinds
a Unrelated or Juxtapositional Compounds are those that are formed by joining simple words having no grammatical relations between them e.g. time-piece stepping-stone brainwash stone-deaf.
b Related or Syntactical Compounds are those wherein the words composing or joining them have some grammatical relationship between them e.g. broad-based wood-work breakfast turncoat etc.
English has derived the principles of word-formation from the primitive Indo-Germanic languages. “In those kinds of compounds that most frequently occur” remarks Henry Bradley “the last element expresses a general meaning which the prefixed element renders less general. Thus an apple-treeis a tree but only a particular kind of tree. In the original Indo-Germanic language the prefixed element in a compound of this sort was not properly speaking a word but a word-stem that is to say a word deprived of those grammatical characters—case number gender mood tense person etc. which it would possess if it occurred separately in a sentence. It has still this character so far as meaning is concerned in those English compounds that are formed on the inherited pattern” [8 p. 112. According to Nelson Francis “Compounding has been a source of new words in English since the earliest times and is particularly common in present-day English.” [8 p. 153
Compounding or composition implies the joining of two words both of which can be used separately too to form a new word. However in case where only one of the components of a compound word can be used separately and the other cannot be so used the process involved in forming such a compound is called derivation.
In derivation the element in a compound which can be used separately is the base and the element which cannot be so used is called an affix—prefix if it precedes the base-word and suffix if it follows the base-word. Thus in the compound word unkindness kind is the base un- the prefix and -ness the suffix or in “disjoined “join is the base dis- the prefix and-ed the suffix.
Derivatives can be classified into two groups mentioned below
a Primary Derivatives are those words that are made out of some root or primary word in whose body some change is made e.g. stood from “stand” men from man breech from break or breath from breathe and so on.
b Secondary Derivatives are prefixes and suffixes that cannot be used separately or detached from the word to which they are affixed “in- un- dis-\ mis- re- and pre- are some of the common prefixes while -ness -less -ist -er -ite\ and -ity” are some of the common suffixes.
As Henry Bradley points out “Since the close of the Old English period the vocabulary of our language has been enriched by a multitude of new derivatives formed with the prefixes and suffixes that already existed in Old English and there can be no doubt that the formation of new words by this means will continue in the future.” [8 pp. 135-36
iii Conversion or Functional Shift
Conversion is the process under which a word changes its class without changing its form or in which there is a shift in the function of that word. For example the word cover changes its class from a noun to a verb and becomes to cover. Or the noun evil comes to act as an adjective as in evil deed. As has been observed by Nelson Francis “Since the late Middle English period when most of the inflections surviving from Old English finally disappeared it has been easy to shift a word from one part of speech to another without altering its form at least in the unmarked base form” [24 p. 156]. The verbs like laugh “walk sleep touch etc. or the adjectives like round deep and wrong can change their class and become nouns without changing their form.
Conversion can be of two kinds i Complete and ii Partial.
i In the category of Complete Conversion we have the conversion of words in which the converted word has completely become a member of another class or part of speech adopting the adjuncts and endings proper to that class and ceased to belong to its original class. Thus when the adjective fast is used as a verb it can take on any of the forms and functions of a verb but cannot take on those of an adjective any more i.e. it can be used with the endings -s -ed or -ing of a verb as in fasts fasted and fasting but not -er or -est of an adjective as in faster and fastest.
ii In the category of Partial Conversion the converted word acquires certain characteristics of the other word-class and continues to belong simultaneously to two classes. In the compound child-birth for example the word child which is originally a noun continues to function as a noun besides functioning as an adjective qualifying birth. But it cannot take the comparative and superlative forms of adjectives to become childer and childest.
iv Reduction or Subtraction or Shortening
Besides the addition of something to an old word or joining two words together to make a new word there is another process of word-formation which is called reduction or subtraction or taking away something from the old word and make a shorter or base word. This process is the opposite of that of derivation or compounding.
There are two categories of this process viz. i Back-Formation and ii Clipping.
Back-Formal ion implies the use of analogy to bring about a sort of reversal of the process of derivation to make a new word. Thus the words henpeck televise enthuse burgle and sunburn are made by reducing or subtracting a part of the original words henpecked television enthusiasm burglar and sunburnt respectively even though the converted words may not have existed originally in English. Similarly the words like book-keep house-keep and typewrite are formed by reducing book-keeping house-keeping and type-writing. Some of the oldest examples of back-formations are as Otto Jesperson points out “o backbite 1300 to partake partake 16th c tosoothsay and conycatch ” [8 p. 165.
In the process of Clipping a word is informally shortened so as usually to become a monosyllabic word. For example influenza is changed into flu advertisement to ad gentlemen to gents examinations to exams laboratories to labs mathematics to maths telephone to phone bicycle to bike Missis or Mistress to Miss and public house to pub.
v Abbreviations and Acronyms
Making of acronyms and abbreviations is an extreme form of clipping. In it new words are formed from the initial letters of some old words lo as to form a name e.g. NATO SEATO RADAR TV TNT DDT P.M. etc. In these words we pronounce only the syllabic names of the letters of the abbreviation. For example TV is pronounced asti vi and TNT astien ti.
But when there is a combination of letters of an abbreviated phrase which can be pronounced we have an example of acronym which means a word whose spelling represents the initial letters of a phrase.
When different letters of an abbreviated form are pronounced separately we have alphabetism but when a whole cluster of letters is pronounced as one word we have acronymism. Thus NATO RADAR and UNESCO are examples of acronyms whereas A.M. P.M. M.D. C.J. and B.A. are examples of Alphabetism.
In this process we make a type of compounds in which both elements or components are same or only slightly different. Tom-tom dilly-dally goody-goody wishy-washy and pooh-pooh are some examples of such compounds.
vii Making Proper Names from Common Ones
New words are also formed when individual names are given to various persons places animals gods etc. Each of these names signifies a particular person or place etc. However sometimes some common names of an occupation are given to particular persons such as Smith Taylor and Clark or some adjectives are used as proper names such as Brown Wild and Bright. Often the names of some products are derived from the names of the places where these products abound or come from e.g. Calico from Calcutta or Calicut and gin from Geneva.
This process involves the merging of two words into each other thus leading to the formation of a new word. For example breakfast and lunch merge to form the word brunch teleprinter and exchange to form telex slovenly and language to form slang and export and import to form exim. “Blending is” remarks Nelson Francis “a combination of clipping and compounding which makes new words by putting together fragments of existing words in new combinations. It differs from derivation in that the elements thus combined are not morphemes at the time the blends are made though they may become so afterward as a result of the blending process especially if several blends are made with the same element and the phenomenon of false analog} is present.” [24 p. 162].
Some new words are formed through attempts at the imitation of natural sounds. For examples the imitation of the sound produced by animals like dogs cats sheep and cows lead to the formation of words like bow-wow meow baa and moo.
x Coinage and Root-Creation
Sometimes newly formed words have no etymology and their origins are not known. They are not taken from Old English or a foreign language nor are they formed by any of the processes of word-formation mentioned above. Such words are coined as and when the need arises. These words exemplify the process of root-creation. Quiz fun and pun are a few of such words whose origin and source are unknown. According to Henry Bradley “There are also many words which were neither inherited from Old English nor adopted from any foreign language nor formed by any process of composition or derivation. It is to instances of this kind that the name root-creation may be fitly applied”The Making oEnglish p. 154.
Onomatopoeia is a prominent form of root-creation. In it the sound of a word echoes its sense and also suggests its name. The name thus suggested is a coinage examples of this are twitter bang whiz mew buz and so on.
These are the various process of word-formation and the chief of them are compounding or composition derivation and conversion.
CHAPTER III. WORD-FORMATION IN MODERN RUSSIAN
3.1 Principles of word-formation in the Russian language
Word-formatory procedures have made the most significant contribution to the creation of new vocabu1ary in Russian in recent times. According to Kote1ova they have accounted for about 85 per cent of new forms whi1e semantic neo1ogisms have accounted for on1y about 8 per cent and 1oans for about 7 per cent. Zemskaia  includes the following among the most potent factors in contemporary word-formatory procedures
1 the shift of many 1ow-sty1e colloquial and jargon forms from the periphery to centra1 areas of communication
2 the e1imination of stereotypes
3 the active part p1ayed Ьу key words of the age [23 p. 178]
4 an emphasis on affixes that reflect the spirit ofthe time анти- ‘anti-‘ пост¬ ‘роst-‘ суnep- ‘super-‘ д~- ‘de-‘ -изация ‘-isation’ and others
5 abbreviations and word р1ау.
The stock of words in a language is increased over time by various procedures. In Russian the main procedures have been borrowing affixation and composition.
Knowledge of the main principles of Russian affixation helps to extend her or his vocabulary because it enables in many cases to understand the precise sense of a word and to recognise the words relationship with other words derived from the same root.
Its necessary to be able to identify the basic components of a Russian verb noun or adjective i.e. its prefix if it contains one root and suffix again if it contains one e.g.
Roots prefixes and suffixes used in Russian.
EXAMPLES PREFIX ROOT SUFFIX
входи´ть to enter в ход и´ть
рaзвязa´ть to untie рaз вяз a´ть
стaкa´н a glass стaкa´н
подстaкa´нник glass-holder под стaкa´н ник
описa´ниe description о пис a´ниe
читa´тeль reader чит a´тeль
котёнок kitten кот ёнок
вку´сный tasty вкус ный
бeздо´мный homeless бeз до´м ный
Similar principles apply grammar in English but they are in evidence in words of Greek or Latin origin e.g. psychology translate inscription rather than in the words of Germanic origin which constitute the bulk of the most common everyday vocabulary of English. Some of the English prefixes and suffixes derived from Latin that are equivalent to Russian prefixes and suffixes are noted in the following sections.
It should be emphasised that while an understanding of Russian affixation and of the meanings of a words components aids recognition of words and retention of vocabulary the principles of word-formation cannot be applied in a wholly predictable way. We must therefore check that a word whose form may be inferred from the principles given here does actually exist.
Diminutive augmentative and expressive suffixes
Russian is rich in suffixes which either indicate the size especially smallness of an object or are indicative of the speakers attitude which may be affectionate tender attentive or scornful ironic disparaging towards it. Many suffixes may serve both a diminutive and an affectionate hypocoristic purpose. though that in certain nouns or in some nouns when suffixes are used in certain meanings the suffix has lost its original diminutive or hypocoristic function e.g. when the noun ручкa means the handle of a door.
As a rule diminutives and augmentatives are of the same gender as the noun to which the suffix is attached even when the suffix ends with a vowel normally associated with another gender. For example the noun городишко god-forsaken town is masculine like го.род even though nouns in -o are generally neuter.
Because they are highly expressive colloquial forms diminutives belong primarily to the colloquial register although they are widely used in the literary variety of the written language and in folk poetry. They are less likely to be encountered in the neutral register and are generally altogether absent in the more formal varieties of higher register especially academic and official.
3.2 Word-formation in the Russian language
Once one have learned the grammar of one of the Romance languages such as French or Spanish your task is mostly done. Building vocabulary is largely a matter of learning a new pronunciation slight spelling variations and variant usage of English vocabulary e.g. French expression immense formidable gouvernement sensationnel. English has not borrowed so many words from Russian as it has from French and Latin so buildingthe vocabulary is a more serious challenge.
The way to enlarge the vocabulary in Russian is through the other type of morphology derivational morphology. Russian contains two types of morphology inflectional and derivational. Derivational morphology is sometimes called ‘word formation’ because rather than marking the relations of words within a phrase its job is to create a set of new words from each old one. In Russian this is accomplished by adding prefixes and suffixes that change the meaning of the word rather than say just the tense aspect or number.
When translating abbreviations one should pay attention to the style of the text. Whereas in English abbreviations are mostly neutral and can be used both in formal and informal speech in Russian abbreviations are strongly separated by styles. For example clippings are typical of very formal style тяжмашстрой совнархоз универсам these require explanatory translation which is sometimes combined with transcription. In informal speech abbreviations with affixes are widely used телик видик велик. As often as not similar words exist in English telly bike. For видик there is a shortened form video from video set.
The fundamental principle of Russian verbs is that they are basically imperfective. However when a prefix is added to them they automatically become perfective. Each imperfective base verb like писать and читать has one perfective mate whose meaning is identical with that of the imperfective form. Most often the perfective is derived from an unprefixed imperfective base verb by means of a prefix. For писать the prefix is на- на-писать and for читать it is про- as in про-читать. The verb forms with and without the prefix in these cases form the perfective — imperfective pair required of most Russian verbs.
When prefixes other than the one designated to simply perfectivize the imperfective base verb are added however the result is a new verb. For example when the prefix до- is added to the base verb писать the result is a new verb meaning ‘to finish writing’. Since prefixation perfectivizes verbs this new verb now requires an imperfective mate. Imperfectives are usually formed from perfective verbs by the addition of a suffix -ывай-. The imperfective of дописа- for example is до-пис-ывай-. Of course if the final root consonant is soft the ending will be ивай-. And at last some things about accent the accent always falls on the syllable immediately preceding this suffix. Here are some more verbs derived by prefixation whose imperfective is subsequently formed with this suffix.
The suffix -ывай- has one unusual effect on the stems to which it attaches visible in the examples above if the vowel in the last syllable preceding this suffix is o it is changed to a.
The verbal prefixes vary the modality of the verb in one of two ways. When added to verbs of motion they indicate the direction or path of the action over under across along up to away from as far as convergence and divergance. When added to other verbs they specify the stare of the action whether it has been begun finished carried through successfully reversed repeated or done excessively or mildly.
The verbal prefixes of path and direction added to verbs of motion are used in conjunction with a usually redundant preposition.
Before examining how these prefixes are used to create new verbs in Russian it is worth reminding of how Russian handles the lack of prepositions meaning ‘to’ ‘at’ and ‘from’. The prepositions meaning specifically ‘into’ в+Acc ‘onto’ на+Acc and ‘up to’ к+Dat are used ambiguously to express ‘to’. To express ‘at’ Russian uses the three-preposition set в+Prep на+Prep and у+Gen. Finally to express ‘from’ Russian resorts to the triplet из+Gen ‘out of’ с+Gen ‘down from’ and от+Gen ‘away from’.
The choice between the use of в or на with nouns is generally based on whether the noun refers to a place or object with an interior in which human beings or animals conventionally go e.g. в саду ‘in the garden’ в лесу ‘in the woods’ в здании ‘in the building’ в школе ‘in school’. Exceptions include на почте ‘at post office’ stations such as на вокзале ‘train station’ аеропорт ‘airport’ and factories на заводе ‘at the plant’ на фабрике ‘at the factory. All other concrete на улице ‘in the street’ and abstract nouns на концерте ‘at the concert’ require на plus the appropriate case.
There are some example sentences illustrating the literal meanings of the verbal prefixes on verbs of motion and the prepositional phrases that must accompany them. Notice in particular the first three sets of examples which show how the three sets of prepositions meaning ‘to’ and ‘from’ are used with and without the prefixe при- ‘to’ and у- ‘away from’.
21 Valgina Nina. 2001. Aktivnye processy v sovremennom russkom jazyke Učebnoe posobie.
22 Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia.
23 Zemskaia Elena. 1992. Slovoobrazovanie kak dejatelnost. Moskva “Nauka.”
24 Webster Noah 1971 Websters Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Springfield Merriam.
25 Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 2000 München Langenscheidt-Longman.
26 Wiese Richard ed. 1994 Recent Developments in Lexical Phonology Arbeiten des Sonderforschungsbereichs ‘Theorie des Lexikons’ Nr. 56 Düsseldorf Heinrich-Heine-Universität. Williams Edwin 1981a On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word” Linguistic Inquiry 12 245-274.
27 Williams Edwin 1981b Argument Structure and Morphology The Linguistic Review 1 81-114.
28 Zimmer Karl E. 1964 Affixal Negation in English and other Languages an Investigation of Restricted Productivity Supplement to Word 20 London Clowes.