A course In Modern English Lexicology

´ contrast n — to con´trast v; ´ increase n — to inćrease v, etc.
Stress-interchange is not restricted to pairs of words consisting of a noun and a verb. It may also occur between other parts of speech, for instance, between adjective and verb, e.g. ´frequent a — to fre´quent v;
´ absent a — to abśent v, etc.
W o r d - f o r m a t i o n is that branch of
§ 3. Word-Formation as
the Subject of Study Lexicology which studies the derivative structure of existing words and the patterns on which a language, ‘in this case the English language, builds new words. It is self-evident that word-formation proper can deal only with words which are analysable both structurally and semantically, i.e. with all types of Complexes.1 The study of the simple word as such has no place in it. Simple words however are very closely connected with word-formation because they serve as the foundation, the basic source of the parent units motivating all types of derived and compound words. Therefore, words like writer, displease, atom-free, etc. make the subject matter of study in word-formation, but words like to write, to please, atom, free are not irrelevant to it.
Like any other linguistic phenomenon word-formation may be studied from two angles — synchronically and diachronically. It is necessary to distinguish between these two approaches, for synchronically the linguist investigates the existing system of the types of word-formation while diachronically he is concerned with the history of word-building. To illustrate the difference of approach we shall consider affixation. Diachronically it is the chronological order of formation of one word from some other word that is relevant. On the synchronic plane a derived word is regarded as having a more complex structure than its correlated word 1 See ‘Word-Structure’, § 12, p. 104.
111
regardless of the fact whether it was derived from a simpler base or a more complex base. There are cases in the history of the English language when a word structurally more complex served as the original element from which a simpler word was derived. Those are cases of the process called back-formation (or back-derivation) 1, cf. beggar — to beg; editor — to edit; chauffeur — to chauff and some others. The fact that historically the verbs to beg, to edit, etc. were derived from the corresponding agent-nouns is of no synchronous relevance.
While analysing and describing word-formation synchronically it is not enough to extract the relevant structural elements from a word, describe its structure in terms of derivational bases, derivational affixes and the type of derivative patterns, it is absolutely necessary to determine the position of these patterns and their constituents within the structural-semantic system of the language as a whole. Productivity of a derivative type therefore cannot be overlooked in this description.
Some of the ways of forming words in pre-
§ 4. Productivity sent-day English can be resorted to for the of Word-Formation
creation of new words whenever the occasion
demands — these are called p r о d u с t i v e ways of formi n g w o r d s , other ways of forming words cannot now produce new words, and these are commonly termed n o n - p r o d u c t i v e or unp r o -
d u c t i v e . For instance, affixation has been a productive way of forming 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 has been 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 о с-c a s i o n a l w o r d s or nonce-wоrds.2 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.3 Needless to say dictionaries do not as a rule record occasional words. The following words may serve as illustration: (his) collarless (appearance), a lungful (of smoke), a Dickensish (office), to unlearn (the rules), etc.
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"
1 See ‘Introduction’, § 2.
2 Prof. A. I. Smirnitsky calls them «потенциальные слова» (potential words) in us book on English Lexicology (p. 18).
3 See” also ‘Various Aspects ...’, § 8, p. 184.
112
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.
Recent investigations seem to prove however 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 of 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 characterised by a set of productive derivational patterns peculiar to it. Three degrees of productivity are distinguished for derivational patterns
and
individual
derivational
affixes:
l )
h i g h l y -
p r o d u c t i v e , 2) p r o d u c t i v e or s e m i - p r o d u c t i v e and 3) n o n - p r o d u c t i v e .
Productivity of derivational patterns and affixes should not be identified with frequency of occurrence in speech, although there may be some interrelation between them. Frequency of occurrence is characterised by the fact that a great number of words containing a given derivational af-f i x are often used in speech, in particular in various texts. Productivity is characterised 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.1 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. To give a few illustrations. 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. driver, reaper, teacher, speaker, etc.), on the other hand, the suffix -er in the pattern v+-er -> N is freely used to coin an unlimited number of nonce-words denoting active agents (e.g., interrupter, respecter, laugher, breakfaster, etc.).
The adjective suffix -ful is described as a productive but not as an active one, for there are hundreds of adjectives with this suffix (e.g. beautiful, hopeful, useful, etc.), but no new words seem to be built with its help.
For obvious reasons, the noun-suffix -th in terms of this approach is to be regarded both as a non-productive and a non-active one.
1 See E. С. Кубрякова. Что такое словообразование. М., 1965, с. 21.
113
1. Word-formation is the process of creating
§ 5. Summary
and Conclusions words from the material available in the language after certain structural and semantic formulas and patterns.
2. As a subject of study English word-formation is that branch of English Lexicology which studies the derivative structure of words and the patterns on which the English language builds new words. Like any other linguistic phenomenon, word-formation may be studied synchronically and diachronically.
3. There are two types of word-formation in Modern English: word-derivation and word-composition. Within the types further distinction is made between the various ways and means of word-formation.
4. There is every reason to exclude the shortening of words, lexicalisation, blending, acronymy from the system of word-formation and regard them and other word-forming processes as specific means of vocabulary replenishment.
5. Sound- and stress-interchange in Modern English are a means of distinguishing between different words, primarily between words of different parts of speech.
6. The degree of productivity and factors favouring it make an important aspect of synchronic description of every derivational pattern within the two types of word-formation.
Three degrees of productivity are distinguished for derivational patterns
and
individual
derivational
affixes:
l )
h i g h l y -
p r o d u c t i v e ,
2)
p r o d u c t i v e
or
s e m i -
p r o d u c t i v e and 3) n о n - p r o d u с t i v e .
Affixation