AIMS, PRINCIPLES OF MORPHEMIC AND WORD-FORMATION

ANALYSES. AFFIXES

If the analysis is limited to studying the number and type of morphemes that make up the
word, it is referred to as morphemic. E.g. girlishness must be analyzed into three

morphemes: root – girl, suf – ish and – ness. The morphemic classification of words is as

follows: one root morpheme – a root word (girl), one root morpheme plus one or more

affixes – a derived word (girlishness) two or more stems – a compound word ( girl-friend) ,

two or more stem and a common affix – a compound derivate (old-maidish). A structural
word-formation studies structural correlation with other words, the structural patterns or
rules on which words are built. Due to the suffix, the second number of the opposition is a
different word belonging to a different part of speech. This binary opposition comprises two
elements. A correlation is a set of binary opposition.
Child- ----- woman ------------boy
Childish womanish boyish
L. Bloomfield first suggested the analysis into immediate constituents. Immediate
Constituents (IC) mean any of the two meaningful parts forming a larger linguistic unity.
The main opposition dealt with the opposition of stem and affix. It is a kind of segmentation
revealing not the history of the word but its motivation, i.e. the data of the listener has to go
by in understanding it. The procedure generally employed for the purposes of segmenting
words into the constituent morphemes is the method of Immediate and Ultimate
Constituents. This method is based on a binary principle, i.e. each stage of the procedure
involves two components of the word immediately breaks into. At each stage, these two
components are referred to as the Immediate Constituents (ICs). Each IC at the next stage of
analysis is in turn broken into two smaller meaningful elements. The analysis is completed
when we arrive at constituents incapable of further division, i.e. morphemes. In terms of the
method employed, these are referred to as the Ultimate (უკანასკნელი,ზღვრული)
Constituents (UCs). Uc is an element of a construction that cannot be further divided into
grammatical constituents: the morphemes of an utterance are usually considered to be its

ultimate constituents. For example the noun friendliness is first segmented into the IC
 friendly reoccurring in the adjectives friendly-looking and friendly and the -ness found
in a countless number of nouns, such as happiness, darkness, unselfishness, etc. The IC -ness
is at the same time a UC of the noun, as it cannot be broken into any smaller elements
possessing both sound-form and meaning. Needless to say that the ICs friend -and -ly are
both UCs of the word under analysis.
The morphemic analysis according to the IC and UC may be carried out based on two
principles: the so-called root principle and the affix principle. According to the affix
principle, the segmentation of the word into its constituent morphemes is based on the
identification of an affix morpheme within a set of words. For example, the identification of
the suffix morpheme -less leads to the segmentation of words like useless, hopeless,

merciless, etc., into the suffix morpheme -less and the root-morphemes within a word. The
identification of the root-morpheme agree- in the words agreeable, agreement,

disagree makes it possible to split these words into the root -agree- and the affix
morphemes -able, - ment, dis-. As the pattern showing the interdependence of all the
constituents segregated at various stages, Arnold obtains the following formula:
un + { {gent – le}man + } + -ly }
Breaking a word into its immediate constituents, we observe in each cut the structural
order of the constituents (which may differ from their actual sequence)
A box – like diagram presenting the four cuts described looks as follows:
un - gentlemanly

Un –gentleman -ly

Un – gentle –man –ly

Un gent –le man – ly

Structural pattern analysis can be carried out by proportional oppositions:

ungentlemanly gentlemanly
This correlation reveals the pattern un+adjective stem. The next stem is similar, only this
time it is the prefix that is taken away:
gentlemanly
gentleman
 This shows that this adjective is derived according to the pattern noun stem+ly. The above
procedure is an elementary case of the transformational analysis , in which the semantic
similarity or difference of words is revealed by the possibility or impossibility of
transforming them according to a prescribed model. Transformational analysis of the words
unassertive (adv) and re-declassify (verb):
Adv
V

A
V

A V

V N
un assert ive ly re de class ify

Morphemes of the second order are affixes. Depending upon whether they precede the

root or follow it, we distinguish prefixes and suffixes. Morphemes may have variants
distinguished by their sound forms; these are called allomorph of the same morpheme.
Allomorphs are the phonemic variants of the given morpheme e.g. il-,im-,ir-, are the

allomorphs of the prefix in- (illiterate, important, irregular, inconstant). Allomorphs

occur among prefixes. Two or more sound forms of a stem existing under conditions of

complementary distribution may also be regarded as allomorphs, as for instance in long –

length; excite – excitation.

Morphosemantic units are of two kinds: designators, corresponding to the root

morpheme and formators, corresponding to affixes. The designators are determined by the
formator, e.g. the root writ‘- determined by the formators er‘ or ing‘, produces different
words: writer, writing. The ―v+er model, containing two sememes (action+agent), is highly
productive, i.e. it is able to produce a noun denoting the doer from any verb stem.
As for affixes, as they have part of speech meaning, they can be classified into nominal,
verbal, adjectival and adverbial affixes.
Lexical meaning in affixes can be more or less concrete; it is rather concrete in the suffix
―er, which points to the doer, in the suffix ―ful denoting the presence of quality; but in
the suffixes----ment,--tion the lexical meaning is very general, pointing merely to
abstractions, here the part of speech meaning is more important. Morphemes, like words,
contain denotative and expressive semantic units. In some cases, suffixes having the same
 denotative meaning e.g. of similarity, as in -ly, ish contain different expressive
units:
womanly- positive evaluation, womanish-derogatory evolution.
Derivation is the formation of the words by adding derivational (word building) affixes to
stone. Functional affixes serve to convey grammatical meaning. They build different forms
of one and the same word.
A derivative is always capable of further derivation and is therefore homonymous to a
stem. – Foolish, foolishness, foolishly. A functional affix marks the word boundary; it
can only follow the affix of derivation is possible for a stem to which a functional affix is
added.
Different morphemes are characterized by contrastive distribution, i.e. if they occur in
the same environment they signal different meanings, e.g. The suffixes -able and –ed, are
different morphemes, not allomorphs because adjectives in –able mean ―capable of
being‖, whereas –ed as a suffix of adjectives has a resultant force. In some cases the
difference is not very clear, e.g. –ic, -ical are different affixes, the first a simple one, the
second a group affix.

Some Difficulties of Morphemic Analysis

The morphemic analysis of derivatives presents no difficulties when the structural model
of words is ―free stem + affix e.g. ―pref + stem + suffix, where the stem can be simple

( dis
+ color), derived (discover + y) or compound (assistant – professor + ship).
However words containing bound stems cause difficulties and differences of opinion
among the linguists as to their nature e.g. incomprehensible has a bound stem – prehene
which even the native speaker will not recognize as a meaningful unit of the English
language, unless he remembers his Latin ( prehendere - to grasp). Such words as –

conceive, deceive, receive, contain, detain, retain – may be considered as bound as it is

built on the model – prefix + bound stem; they are bimorphemic. The morphemes in
these words also have distributional meaning; the order in which they occur is determined
by the structural pattern ―prefix + stem‖ and they can not make a word if placed in another
order: ceive + re. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish the free morpheme from the

bound one as in the words borrowed from Latin and Greek: e.g. helicopter, pteropus

(tropical bird), diptera (two-winged fly), -pte-r meaning wing. Bible, bibliography,
bibliophile, _bibl- meaning
book; prefer, infer, defer, confer, transfer, -fer- meaning bear, bring, send;
Here is just a small part of that network:
 Refer prefer defer transfer
reduce conduce deduce induce
revoke convoke invoke provoke
reserve preserve conserve deserve
relate collate translate
remit commit transmit
pretend contend intend
revolve devolve involve
Derivation may be prefixal or suffixal. From the viewpoint of ordinary morphemic

analysis, we may say that the same words are prefixal-suffixal derivatives: e.g. unreasonable.
Suffixation and prefixation are not equally characteristic of different parts of speech.
Suffixation is more typical of noun and adjective formation. Prefixation is more typical of
verbs. Prefixes modify the lexical meaning of a word, but as a rule, the derived word

remains within the same part of speech: ―usual and ―unusual are both adjectives. As for
suffixes, it not only modifies the lexical meaning of the word, but also transposes it as a rule,

to another part of speech, e.g. home-homeless (n + less =adj).

It should be noted, however, that some prefixes transfer words to different parts of

speech, while some suffixes do not:

e.g. war (n) – pre-war (adj), head (n) – behead (v), friend (n) – befriend (v), bitter(adj0
– embitter (v), in this case prefixes are said to be convertive, brother (n) – brotherhood
(n), state (n) – statehood (n) – statesmanship (n), where the suffixes are non-convertive.
There are three principal approaches to morphology. Each try to capture the distinctions
above in different ways. These are,
• Morpheme-based morphology, which makes use of an Item-and-Arrangement

approach; word-forms are analyzed as sequences of morphemes.

• Lexeme-based morphology, which normally makes use of an Item-and-Process
approach; a word-form is said to be the result of applying rules that changes a word-form or
stem in order to produce a new one.
• Word-based morphology, which normally makes use of a Word-and-Paradigm
approach.
 In morpheme-based morphology, Lexeme-based morphology is (usually) an Item-and-
Process approach. Instead of analyzing a word-form as a set of morphemes arranged in
sequence,. An inflectional rule takes a stem, changes it as is required by the rule, and
outputs a word-form; a derivational rule takes a stem, changes it as per its own
requirements, and outputs a derived stem; a compounding rule takes word-forms, and
similarly outputs a compound stem.
The Item-and-Process approach bypasses the difficulties inherent in the Item-and-

Arrangement approaches. Faced with a plural like geese, one is not required to assume a null
morpheme: while the plural of dog is formed by affixing -s, the plural of goose is formed
simply by altering the vowel in the stem-geese.
Word-based morphology theory takes paradigms as a central notion. Instead of stating
rules to combine morphemes into word-forms, or to generate word-forms from stems,
word-based morphology states generalizations that hold between the forms of inflectional
paradigms.

Prefixes
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 aspect. 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
A small group of prefixes may be referred to exclusively verb-forming (en-, be-, un-, etc.)
The majority of prefixes (in their various denotative meanings) tend to function either in
nominal parts of speech (41 patterns in adjectives, 42in nouns) or in verbs (22 patterns); 2)
As to the type of lexical-grammatical character of the base they are added to into:
a) De-verbal, e. g. rewrite, outstay, overdo, etc.
b) De-nominal, e.g. unbutton, detrain, ex-president, etc.
c) De-adjectival, e.g. uneasy, biannual, etc.
 3) Semantically prefixes fall into mono- and polysemantic
4) As to the generic denotative 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 (cf. politician), non-scientific (cf. scientific), incorrect (cf. correct), disloyal
(cf. loyal), disadvantage (cf. advantage), amoral (cf. moral), asymmetry (cf. symmetry), etc.
b)Reversative or privative prefixes, such as un-, de-, dis- e.g. untie (cf. tie), unleash (cf.

leash), decentralize (cf. centralize), disconnect (cf. connect), etc.

c) Pejorative prefixes, such as mis-, mal-, pseudo-, e.g. miscalculate (cf. calculate),
misinform (cf. inform), maltreat (cf. treat)
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 post-classical

(cf. classical), ex-president (cf. president);
e) Prefix of repetition re-, e.g. rebuild (cf. build), re-write (cf. write)
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 characterized by neutral stylistic reference and those possessing quite a
definite stylistic value. As no exhaustive lexico-stylistic classification of English prefixes has
yet been suggested, a few examples can only be adduced here. 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 literary-bookish character of such

prefixes as pseudo-, super-,, ultra-, uni-, bi- and some others, e.g. pseudo-classical,
superstructure, ultra- violet, unilateral, bifocal, etc.
Sometimes one comes across pairs of prefixes one of which is neutral, the other is
stylistically coloured. One example will suffice here: the prefix over-occurs in all functional
styles, the prefix super- is peculiar to the style of scientific prose.
6) Prefixes may be also classified as to the degree of productivity into highly productive,
productive, and non-productive.
 The semantic effect of a prefix may be termed adverbial, because it may modify the stem
for manner, time, place, degree, etc. Thus, mis – means ―wrongly‖ ―badly‖ modifying the
verb stem for manner, ―pre – ― and ―post‖ – refer to time, pre – war, post –
graduate―ante also refers to time – antecedent, antedate ―in, ―ab, ―a, ―out refer to
place – inter, abduct, outlaw.
Prefixes may be classified according to their origin (Germanic, Romance, Greek) to their
meaning (negative and non-negative), to their function in expressing time, relations, space
relations, degree, etc. or according to whether they are productive or not. We also have to

take into consideration the existence of allomorphs (in – im, il, ir) (en, em) and cases of

homonymy in prefixes (neg. unkind and untie)

Some difficulties concern with 1) the prefixes which are not easy to distinguish between

derivatives and compound words or between derivatives and root words – after, in, off,
on, over, under, with (afternoon, onlooker) 20 borrowed morphemes – amphi, ana, cata,
exo, en, hypo, meta, sina (Greek), ab, ad, amb (Latin) – e.g. amphitheatre.
The prefix equi- means ―equal or ―equally.Equi- is from the Latin prefix aequi-, which

came from Latin aequus meaning ―equal. Thus equidistant means ―equally
distant.Equi- often occurs in words with Latin elements. For example, equinox means
―having the night equal (to the day), from Latin nox, ―night.

Suffixes. As we have already mentioned, suffixes modify the lexical meaning of words
and as a rule shift words to another part of speech. If a suffix does not do that, it shifts a

word to another semantic group, e.g. child – childhood.

Such suffixes as –ably (reasonable) are regarded as compounds; the much used suffix –

ation is actually a combination of two –ate + tion but when it is added to a stem that does
not end in –ate, e.g. adapt + ation it functions as a single composite suffix (translate –
translat + ion)
Some grammatical suffixes become lexicalized and should be regarded as derivational
affixes: e.g. custom – customs, which is not the plural of ―custom, but another word. Some
suffixes have allomorphs (-able, -ible, _ant, -ent). Suffixes may be homonymous, such as –
ly of adjectives and ly of adverbs, or –ish in bluish and – ishin ―fortyish where it makes
an adjective out of numeral meaning ―approximately‖, ―about‖. Synonymous suffixes such
as
–er and –ist both denote persons: teacher, violinist. The suffix –er of Germanic origin, is
added to verb stem, while the suffix –ist of Latin origin borrowed in the 16th century is
added to noun stem.
Suffixes have been classified according to their origin, word class (part of speech) they
serve to form their frequency, productivity and other characteristics.
1) The first principle of classification that, one might say, suggests itself is the part of

speech formed. Within the scope of the word class (part-of-speech) classification suffixes
naturally fall into several groups:
a) Noun-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in nouns, e.g. age, ance,/ence, ant/ent,
dom, ee, eer, ess, hood, ing, ion/sion/tion/ation, ism/icism, ist, ment, ness, ship, ity; -er, ,
- ness, etc. (teacher, Londoner, freedom, brightness, justification, etc.);
Adjective-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in adjectives, e.g. - able,/ible/uble, al, ic,

ical, ant/ent, ary, ate/ete, ed/d, ful, ian, ive, ish, less, like, ly, ous/ious, some, y; etc.
(agreeable, careless, doubtful, poetic, courageous, etc.);
b) Verb-suffixes e.g. those forming or occurring in verbs, e.g. ate, er, en, fy/ify, ize, ish;
(darken, satisfy, harmonize, etc.);
c) Adverb-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in adverbs, e.g .- ly, ward/wards, wise;
(quickly, eastward, etc.).
d) Numeral-forming suffixes: fold, teen, ty, th; (tenth, sixteen, twenty..)

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) De-verbal suffixes (those added to the verbal base), e.g. -er, -ing, -ment, -able, etc.

(speaker, reading, agreement, suitable, etc.);

b) De-nominal 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.).

A lexical and grammatical class may be defined as a class of lexical elements possessing
the same lexical and grammatical meaning and a common system of forms in which the
grammatical categories inherent in these units are expressed. The elements of one class are
 substituted by the same prop-words, and are characterized by identical morphological
patterns and a common set of derivational affixes.
Suffixes characterized by stylistic reference. a) Those characterized 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.
3) Suffixes classified to the degree of their productivity.
Another point to be considered is opposition of productive and unproductive affixes. The
affixes that are able at present to form new words are said to be productive, those that have
lost this ability are unproductive even though there are very many words that were formed

with these affixes at earlier stages of the language e.g. ful – adj. forming suffix is now
unproductive.
Productive prefixes: de – (decontrol), anti – (antifascist), pre – (preview), non

(nonobjective), re (reconvert), un
(unfunny).
Within the parts of speech, suffixes have been classified semantically according to lexical
and grammatical groups and according to the types of stems, they are added to.
4) From the point of view of etymology, affixes are subdivided into two main classes: the
native affixes and the borrowed affixes. The most important native suffixes are:d, y, dom,
ed, en, fold, ful, hood, ing, ish, less, like, lock, ly, ness, oc, red, ship, some, teen, th,
ward, wise.
The suffixes of foreign origin are classified according to their source into Latin (-able,

ible, and/ent) French (age, ance/ence, ancy/ence, ard, ate, sy) Geek (ist, ism),
etc.
The term borrowed affixes is not very exact, as part of affixes are never borrowed as such,
but only as part of loan words. Many of the borrowing affixes are international and occur
not only in the English but in several other European languages as well. The table in
appendix 1 gives examples of especially frequent native and loan affixes.
Words that are made up of elements derived from two or more different languages are

called hybrids. They have various combinations of morphemes coming from Latin, French
and Greek and of native origin. E.g. readable has an English root and a suffix that is derived
from the Latin –abilis and borrowed through French. There are also many hybrid
compounds, such as blackguard (English + Fr.) or schoolboy (Gr. + Engl.). English is
very rich of hybrids; readable has an English root and a suffix that is derived from the
Latin –
abilis and borrowed through French. English stem+-able. Cf. answerable, eatable,
likable, usable. Its variant with the native negative prefix un- is also worthy of note:
un-+English stem+-able. The examples for this are: unanswerable, unbearable,
unforeseeable, unsalable, unbelievable.
Valency of affixes is understood as their capability to be combined with certain bases.
For example, adjective forming suffixes are mostly attached to nominal bases. They are:
-en (golden\. -ful (meaningful). -less (careless), -ly (soldierly). -like (childlike e). The
highly productive suffix -able, however, can he combined with nominal and verbal
bases alike
<honorable.
advisable).
Observation of the English vocabulary, which is probably richer in hybrids than that
of any other European language, shows a great variety of patterns. In some cases,the
borrowed affixes are used with native stems, or vice versa. A word can simultaneously
contain borrowed and native affixes.
Splinters or semi-affixesare the result of clipping the end or the beginning of a word
and producing a number of new words on the analogy with the primary word- group. For
example, there are many words formed with the help of the splinter/semi-affix
mini/maxi(apocopy produced by clipping the word “miniature”),such asminiplane,
minijet, minicycle, minicar, mini-radio, maxi-series, maxi-sculpture, maxi-taxi. Burger
(a bun cut into two parts)Hamburger, bacon-burger, beef-burger, cheeseburger, fish-
burger.Watergate (a political scandal, corruption) Irangate, Westlandgate, shuttlegate,
milliongate . Napper was formed by clipping the beginning of the wordkidnapper,
busnapper; Quake is used to form new words with the meaning ofshaking, agitation:
earthquake, Marsquake, Moonquake, youthquake. Scape is a clipping of the
wordlandscape: moonscape, streetscape, townscape, and seascape.