part of standard English. Clipping is different from back-formation;
back-formation may change the part of speech or the word’s meaning,
whereas clipping creates shortened words from longer words, but does
not change the part of speech or the meaning of the word. Back-
formation is the process of creating a new word by removing actual or
supposed affixes.The term back-formation is given by James Murray in
84
1889. For example, the noun ‘resurrection’ was borrowed from Latin ,
and the verb ‘resurrect’ was then back-formed hundreds of years later
from it by removing the suffix ‘-ion’.This segmentation of ‘resurrecion’
into ‘resurrect’ was possible because English had examples of Latinate
words in the form of ‘verb’ and ‘verb +ion’ pairs, such as
‘opine/opinion’. These became the pattern for many more such pairs,
where a verb derived from a Latin supine stem and a noun ending in ‘–
ion’ entered the language together , such as ‘insert/insertion,
project/projection’.
Analysis of the structure of the English and native languages
demonstrates some similarities and distinctions in word formation
process. Similarities: productivity of affixation forming new words ,
existence of lots of derived words and productivity of affixation
which change words from one part of speech into another, word
formation by compounding. The distinction is that in Russian
conversion is not well developed. Conversion is observed in the Uzbek
language: tilla (noun) - rangli temir, tilla (adjective) soat , but it is not
so productive. Word formation by conversion is productive in English:
round (noun), round (verb), round ( adjective), smoke - to smoke, play
– to play , gaze – to gaze.
Self-control questions: 1. What means of word formation do you know?
2. What are the main types of morphological word- formation?
3. What is the distinctive feature of the English word-formation
concerning native languages?
4. What is the distinctive feature of the Uzbek word- formation
concerning English and Russian languages?
5. Why is word- formation by conversion is productive in the
English language.
6. What similarities are observed in word-formation of the English
and native languages.
7.Why can’t we express grammatical meaning by the change of the
place of the stress in the English and Uzbek languages?
8. Can we form new words by the change of the place of the stress
in the English and Uzbek languages?
9.Why has the typological character of the English word structure
changed in the cause of historical development?
10.Has the typological character of the Uzbek word structure
85
changed in the cause of historical development?
11.Why hasn’t the typological character of the Uzbek language
changed in the cause of historical development?