Education of the republic of uzbekistan state world languages university english faculty

2.2. Prefixation: classification of prefixes and their productivity
Prefixation is another type of affixation. Some linguists distinguish between two types of prefixes: 1) those which are like functional words (such as prepositions or adverbs), e.g., out-, over-, up-, etc. 2) those which are not correlated with any independent words, e.g., un-, dis-, re-, mis-, etc. Prefixes out-, over-, up-, under-, etc are considered as semibound morphemes. However, this view is doubtful because these prefixes are quite frequent in speech and like other derivational affixes have a generalized meaning. They have no grammatical meaning like the independent words. We think they are bound morphemes and should be regarded as homonyms of the corresponding independent words. For example, the prefix «out-» in outdoor, outcome, outbreak etc is homonymous to the preposition «out» in «out of door» and the adverb «out» in «He went out». Prefixes and suffixes may be classified according to their meaning. I) prefixes of negative meaning such as: de- non-, un- in-, ir-, il-, im-, dis- (For example. defeat, decentralize, disappear, impossible, discomfort etc); 2) prefixes, denoting space and time relations: after-, under-, for-, pre-, post-, over-, super- ( prehistory, postposition, superstructure, overspread, afternoon, forefather); 3) prefixes denoting relation of an action such as: re- (reread, remake). Unlike suffixation, which is usually more closely bound up with the paradigm of a certain part of speech, prefixation is considered to be more neutral in this respect. It is significant that in linguistic literature derivational suffixes are always divided into noun-forming, adjective-forming, etc. Prefixes, however, are treated differently. They are described either in alphabetical order or subdivided into several classes in accordance with their origin, meaning or function and never according to the part of speech. Prefixes may be classified on different principles. Diachronically distinction is made between prefixes of native and foreign origin. Synchronically prefixes may be classified: 1) According to the class of words they preferably form. Recent investigations, as has been mentioned above, allow one to classify prefixes according to this principle. It must be noted that most of the 51 prefixes of Modern English function in more than one part of speech forming different structural and structural-semantic patterns. A small group of 5 prefixes may be referred to exclusively verb-forming (en-, be-, un-, etc.). The majority of prefixes (in their various denotational meanings) tend to function either in nominal parts of speech (41 patterns in adjectives, 42 in nouns) or in verbs (22 patterns); 2) According to the type of lexical-grammatical character of the base they are divided 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. It is of interest to note that the most productive prefixal pattern for adjectives is the one made up of the prefix un- and the base built either on adjectival stems or present and past participle, e.g. unknown, unsmiling, unseen, 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: un1-, non-, in-, dis1-, a-, e.g. ungrateful (cf. grateful), unemployment (cf. employment), non-politician (cf. politician), non-scientific (cf. scientific), incorrect (cf. correct), disloyal (cf. loyal), etc. It may be mentioned in passing that the prefix in- occurs in different phonetic shapes depending on the initial sound of the base it is affixed to; in other words, the prefixal morpheme in question has several allomorphs, namely il- (before [l]), im- (before [p, m],) ir- (before [r]), in- in all other cases, e.g. illegal, improbable, immaterial, irreligious, inactive, etc.; b) reversative or privative prefixes, such as un2-, de-, dis2-, e.g. untie (cf. tie), unleash (cf. leash), decentralise (cf. centralise), etc.; c) pejorative prefixes, such as mis-, mal-, pseudo-, e.g. miscalculate (cf. calculate), misinform (cf. inform), maltreat (cf. treat), pseudoclassicism (cf. classicism), etc.; d) prefixes of time and order, such as fore-, pre-, post-, ex-, e.g. foretell (cf. tell), foreknowledge (cf. knowledge), pre-war (cf. war), post-war (cf. war), etc. e) prefix of repetition re-, e.g. rebuild (cf. build), re-write (cf. write), etc;
f) locative prefixes, such as super-, sub-, inter-, trans-, e.g. superstructure (cf. structure), subway (cf. way), inter-continental (cf. continental), trans-atlantic (cf. Atlantic), etc. and some other groups; 5) when viewed from the angle of their stylistic reference English prefixes fall into those characterised by n e u t r a l s t y l i s t i c r e f e r e n c e and those possessing a d e f i n i t e s t y l i s t i c v a l u e. There is no doubt, for instance, that prefixes like un-,out-, over-, re-, under- and some others can be qualified as neutral prefixes, e.g., unnatural, unknown, unlace, outnumber, oversee, resell, underestimate, etc. On the other hand, one can hardly fail to perceive the literarybookish character of such prefixes as pseudo-, super-, ultra-, uni-, bi- and some others, e.g. pseudo-classical, superstructure, ultra-violet, unilateral, bifocal, etc. 6) prefixes may be also classified as to the degree of productivity into highly-productive, productive and non-productive.
Like prefixes, the suffixes are also classified according to their meaning: 1) the agent suffixes: -er, -or, -ist, -ee etc. (baker, sailor, typist, employee); 2) appurtenance: -an, -ian, -ese (Arabian, Russian, Chinese, Japanese); 3) collectivity: -age, -dom, -hood, -ery (peasantry, marriage, kingdom, childhood); 4) diminutiveness: -let, -ock, -ie etc (birdie, cloudlet, hillock); 5) quantitativeness: - ful, -ous, -y, -ive, -ly, -some. There are different classifications of suffixes in linguistic literature, as suffixes may be divided into several groups according to different principles: 1) The first principle of classification that, one might say, suggests itself is the part-of-speech meaning. Within the scope of the part-of-speech classification suffixes naturally fall into several groups such as: a) noun-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in nouns, e.g. -er, - dom, -ness, ation, etc. (teacher, Londoner, freedom, brightness, justification, etc.); b) adjective-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in adjectives, e.g. -able, -less, -ful, -ic, -ous, etc. (agreeable, careless, doubtful, poetic, courageous, etc.);
c) verb-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in verbs, e.g. -en, -fy, - ise (-ize) (darken, satisfy, harmonise, etc.); d) adverb-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in adverbs, e.g. -ly, - ward (quickly, eastward, etc.). 2) Suffixes may also be classified into various groups according to the lexico-grammatical character of the base the affix is usually added to. Proceeding from this principle one may divide suffixes into: a) deverbal suffixes (those added to the verbal base), e.g. -er, -ing, -ment, -able, etc. (speaker, reading, agreement, suitable, etc.); b) denominal suffixes (those added to the noun base), e.g. -less, -ish, -ful, -ist, some, etc. (handless, childish, mouthful, violinist, troublesome, etc.); c) de-adjectival suffixes (those affixed to the adjective base), e.g. -en, -ly, -ish, ness, etc. (blacken, slowly, reddish, brightness, etc.). 3) A classification of suffixes may also be based on the criterion of sense expressed by a set of suffixes. Proceeding from this principle suffixes are classified into various groups within the bounds of a certain part of speech. For instance, noun-suffixes fall into those denoting: a) the agent of an action, e.g. -er, -ant (baker, dancer, defendant, etc.); b) appurtenance, e.g. -an, -ian, -ese, etc. (Arabian, Elizabethan, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc.); c) collectivity, e.g. -age, -dom, -ery (-ry), etc. (freightage, officialdom, peasantry, etc.); d) diminutiveness, e.g. -ie, -let, -ling, etc. (birdie, girlie, cloudlet, squireling, wolfling, etc.). 4) Still another classification of suffixes may be worked out if one examines them from the angle of stylistic reference. Just like prefixes, suffixes are also characterised by quite a definite stylistic reference falling into two basic classes: a) those characterised by neutral stylistic reference such as -able, -er, - ing, etc.; b) those having a certain stylistic value such as -oid, -i/form, -aceous, -tron, etc.