Affixation in modern english

Introduction
 
Themeactually. Word – building is one of the main ways of enriching vocabulary.Affixation is one of the most productive ways of word building throughout thehistory of English. The main function of affixation in Modern English is toform one part of speech from another; the secondary function is to change thelexical meaning of the same part of speech. As we are future teacher must knowthe rules of word – formation. It will help us to teach our students. Besidesif we know affixes we can easily form new words while we are writing orspeaking,
Theaims and purposes of the work. The goal of the work is based on detailedstudy of affixation, which play important role in word – formation. Accordingto this general aim the following particular tasks are put forward:
1. to classify affixes.
2. to classify the affixes according to its structure and semantics.
3. to show productive ways of word – building process of the Englishlanguage.
Thescientific novelty of the work. Novelty of the qualification work isdetermined by the necessity o the study of affixation which form a large layerof word – building process. And studying the productive ways of affixes inModern English.
Thepractical value. The practical value of the research is that material andthe results of the given qualification work can serve the material fortheoretical course of lexicology, stylistics, typology as well as can be usedfor practical lessons in translation, home reading, conversational practice andcurrent events.
Literatureoverview. While writing present qualification work I used the books writtenby great scholars such as: The English Word by Arnold I.V, A Course ofLexicology by Ginzburg R.S, A Course of lexicology by Buronov J.B. Besidesabove mentioned literatures I took information from Internet, Work BookEncyclopedia.
Thestructure of the work. Present qualification work consists ofIntroduction, main part, conclusion and the list of used literatures. 
1. Main part 1.1 Morphemes, free and bound forms
If we describe a word as an autonomousunit of language in which a particular meaning is associated with a particularsound complex and which is capable of a particular grammatical employment andable to form a sentence by itself we have the possibility to distinguish itfrom the other fundamental language unit, namely, the morpheme.
A morpheme is also an association of agiven meaning with a given sound pattern. But unlike a word it is notautonomous. Morphemes occur in speech only as constituent parts of words, notindependently, although a word may consist of a single morpheme. Nor are theydivisible into smaller meaningful units. That is why the morpheme may bedefined as the minimum meaningful language unit.
The term morpheme is derived from Gr morphe'form'+ eme. Linguists to denote the smallest unit or the minimum distinctivefeature have adopted the Greek suffix – eme. (Cf. phoneme, sememe). Themorpheme is the smallest meaningful unit of form. A form in these cases is arecurring discrete unit of speech.
A form is said to be free if it may standalone without changing its meaning; if not, it is a bound form, so calledbecause it is always bound to something else. For example, if we compare thewords sportive and elegant and their parts, we see that sport, sportive,elegant may occur alone as utterances, whereas eleg – – ive, – ant are boundforms because they never occur alone. A word is, by L. Bloomfield's definition,a minimum free form. A morpheme is said to be either bound or free. Thisstatement' should be taken with caution. It means that some morphemes arecapable of forming words without adding other morphemes: that is, they arehomonymous to free forms.
According to the role they play inconstructing words, morphemes are subdivided into roots and affixes. The latterare further subdivided, according to their position, into prefixes, suffixesand infixes, and according to their function and meaning, into derivational andfunctional affixes, the latter also called endings or outer formatives.
When a derivational or functional affix isstripped from the word, what remains is a stem (or a stem base). The stemexpresses the lexical and the part of speech meaning.[1]For the word hearty and for the paradigm heart (Sing.) – hearts (Pl.)[2]the stem may be represented as heart– This stem is a single morpheme, itcontains nothing but the root, so it is a simple stem. It is also a free stembecause it is homonymous to the word heart.
A stem may also be defined as the part ofthe word that remains unchanged throughout its paradigm. The stem of theparadigm hearty – heartier – (the) heartiest is hearty– It is a free stem, butas it consists of a root morpheme and an affix, it is not simple but derived.Thus, a stem containing one or more affixes is a derived stem. If afterdeducing the affix the remaining stem is not homonymous to a separate word ofthe same root, we call it a bound stem. Thus, in the word cordial 'proceedingas if from the heart', the adjective-forming suffix can be separated on theanalogy with such words as bronchia/, radial, social. The remaining stem,however, cannot form a separate' word by itself: it is bound. In cordially and cordiality,on the other hand, the stems are free.
Bound stems are especially characteristicof loan words. The point may be illustrated by the following French borrowings:arrogance, charity, courage, coward, distort, involve, notion, legible and tolerable,to give but a few.[3] After thesuffixes of these words are taken away the remaining elements are: arrog-,char-, cour-, cow-, – tort, – voIve, nat-, leg-, toler-, which do notcoincide with any semantically related independent words.
Roots-are main morphemic vehicles of a givenidea in a given language at a given stage of its development. A root may bealso regarded as the ultimate constituent element which remains after theremoval of all functional and derivational affixes and does not admit anyfurther analysis. It is the common element of words within a word-family. Thus,– heart – is the common root of the following series of words: heart, hearten,dishearten, heartily, heartless, hearty, heartiness, sweetheart, heart-broken,kind-hearted, whole-heartedly, etc. In some of these, as, for example, in hearten,there is only one root; in others the root – heart is combined with some otherroot, thus forming a compound like sweetheart.
It will at once be noticed that the rootin English is very often homonymous with the word. This fact is of fundamentalimportance as it is one of the most specific features of the English languagearising from its general grammatical system on the one hand, and from itsphonemic system on the other. The influence of the analytical structure of thelanguage is obvious. The second point, however, calls for some explanation.Actually the usual phonemic shape most favoured in English is one singlestressed syllable: bear, find, jump, land, man, sing, etc. This does not givemuch space for a second morpheme to add classifying Lexico-grammatical meaningto the lexical meaning already present in the root-stem, so theLexico-grammatical meaning must be signaled by distribution. In the phrases amorning's drive, a morning's ride, a morning's walk the words drive, ride andwalk receive the Lexico-grammatical meaning of. a noun not due to the structureof their stems, but because they are preceded by a noun in the Possessive case.
An English word does not necessarilycontain formatives indicating to what part of speech it belongs. This holdstrue even with respect to inflexible parts of speech, i.e. nouns, verbs,adjectives. Not all roots are free forms, but productive roots, i.e. rootscapable of producing new words, usually are. The semantic realization of anEnglish word is therefore very specific. Its dependence on distribution isfurther enhanced by the widespread occurrence of homonymy both among rootmorphemes and affixes. Note how many words in the following statement might beambiguous if taken in isolation: A change of work is as good as a rest.
The above treatment of the root is purelysynchronic, as we have taken into consideration only the facts of present-dayEnglish. But the same problem of the morpheme serving as the main signal of agiven lexical meaning is studied in etymology, i.e. in that branch oflinguistics which deals with the origin and development of words tracing themback to their earliest determinable source. When approached thus historicallyor diachronically the word heart will be classified as Common Germanic. Onewill look for cognates, i.e. words descended from a common ancestor. Thecognates of heart are the Latin cor, whence cordial 'hearty', 'sincere', and socordially and cordiality; also the Greek kardia, whence English cardiaccondition. The cognates outside the English vocabulary are the Russian сердце, the German Herztthe Spanish corazon and somе other words.
To emphasize the difference between thesynchronic and the diachronic treatment, we shall call the common element ofcognate words in different languages not their root but their radical element.An interesting example of historical treatment may be found in Potter's book.1Potter shows that the same radical element s-d is to be recognized in theEnglish monosyllables sit, seat, soot and nest. The radical element is s-d, thevowels may be different. Potter distinguishes five grades: (1) – sed – as inLatin sedere, whence the English sedentary 'requiring much sitting','physically inactive' (sedentary work, sedentary person) and sediment 'the partthat settles to the bottom of a liquid'. From sedare, sedat (the causative of sedere)the English vocabulary has sedate 'quiet', 'calm' and its derivatives: sedately,sedateness, sedative; supersede is 'to sit above', hence 'to replace'. Thismeaning developed, as Potter explains, at the time when seats at schools wereassigned by quality of work, so if a pupil surpassed another he superseded him.The verb sit belongs to this group also, being developed from Common Germanic setjan.(2) The variant – – sod – is represented by the Past Tense sat, (3) [-se:d] –is observed in Mode seat
These two types of approach, synchronicand diachronic, give rise to two different principles of arrangingmorphologically related words into groups. In the first case series of wordswith a common root morpheme in which derivatives are opposable to theirunsuffixed and unprefixed bases, are combined cf. heart, hearty, etc..Thesecond grouping results in families of historically cognate words, cf. heart,cor (Lat), etc.
Unlike roots, affixes are always boundforms. The difference between suffixes and prefixes, it will be remembered, isnot confined to their respective position, suffixes being «fixed after» andprefixes «fixed before» the stem. It also concerns their function and meaning.
A suffix is a derivational morphemefollowing the stem and forming a new derivative in a different part of speechor a different word class, cf. – en, – y, – less in hearten, hearty, heartless.When both the underlying and the resultant forms belong to the same part ofspeech, the suffix serves to differentiate between Lexico-grammatical classesby rendering some very general lexico-grammatical meaning. For instance, both –ify and – er are verb suffixes, but the first characterizes causative verbs,such as horrify, purify, whereas the second is mostly typical of frequentativeverbs: flicker, shimmer, twitter and the like.
If we realize that suffixes render themost general semantic component of the word's lexical meaning by marking thegeneral class of phenomena to which the referent of the word belongs, thereason why suffixes are as a rule semantically fused with the stem standsexplained.
A prefix is a derivational morphemestanding before the root and modifying meaning, cf. to hearten – to dishearten.It is only with verbs and statives that a prefix may serve to distinguish onepart of speech from another, like in earth n–unearth v, sleep n – asleep (stative).
Preceding a verb stem, some prefixesexpress the difference between a transitive and an intransitive verb: stay vand outstay (smb) v t. With a few exceptions prefixes modify the stem for time (pre-tpost-), place (in-, ad-), negation (un-, dis-) and remain semantically ratherindependent of the stem.
An infix is an affix placed with in theword, like – n – in stand. The type is not productive.
An affix should not be confused with acombining form. A combining form is also a bound form but it can bedistinguished from an affix historically by the fact that it is always borrowedfrom another language, namely, from Latin or Greek, in which it existed as afree form, i.e. a separate word, or also as a combining form. Thus, thecombining form cyclo – and its variant cycl – are derived from the Greek word kuklos'circle', giving the English word cyclic. The French adjective mat 'bad' givesthe English combining form mat-, as in malnutrition. The same mean ing weobserve in the Greek combining form kako – derived homkakos 'bad' (cacophony 'illsound', cacoepy 'bad pronunciation’). They differ from all otherborrowings in that they occur in compounds and derivatives that did not existin their original language but were formed only in modern times in English,Russian, French, etc. Cf. polyclinic, polymer; stereophonic, stereoscopic,telemechanics, television. Combining forms are mostly international.Descriptively a combining form differs from an affix because it can occur asone constituent of a form whose only other constituent is an affix, as incyclic1.
1.2 Aims and principles ofmorphemic and word-formation analysis
A synchronic description of the Englishvocabulary deals with its present-day system and its patterns of word-formationby comparing words simultaneously existing in it.
If the analysis is limited to stating thenumber and type of morphemes that make up the word, it is referred to asmorphemic. For: instance, the word girlishness may be analysed into threemorphemes: the root – girl – and two suffixes – ish and – ness. The morphemicclassification of words is as follows: one root morpheme– a root word (girl), oneroot morpheme plus one or more affixes – a derived word (girlish, girlishness),two or more stems– a compound word (girl-friend), two or more stems and acommon affix – a compound derivative (old-maidish). The morphemic analysisestablishes only the ultimate constituents that make up the word.
A structural word-formation analysisproceeds further; it studies the structural correlation with other words, thestructural patterns or rules on which words are built.
This is done with the help of theprinciple of oppositions, i.e. by studying the partly similar elements, thedifferences between which are functionally relevant; in our case thisdifference is sufficient to create a new word. Girl and girlish are members ofa morphemic opposition. They are similar as the root morpheme – girl – is thesame. Their distinctive feature is the suffix – ish. Due to this suffix thesecond member of the opposition is a different word belonging to a differentpart of speech. This binary opposition comprises two elements.
A correlation is a set of binaryoppositions. It is composed of two subsets formed by the first and the secondelements of each couple, i.e. opposition. Each element of the first set iscoupled with exactly one element of the second set and vice versa. Each secondelement may be derived from the corresponding first element by a general rulevalid for all members of the relation.1
Observing the proportional opposition:
child = woman= monkey = spinster = book
childish womanish monkeyish spinsterish bookish
it is possible to conclude that there isin English a type of derived adjectives consisting of a noun stem and thesuffix – ish. Observation also shows that the stems are mostly those of animatenouns, and permits us to define the relationship between the structural patternof the word and its meaning. Any one word built according to this patterncontains a semantic component common to the whole group, namely: 'typical of,or having the bad qualities of.
In the above example the results ofmorphemic analysis and the structural word-formation analysis practicallycoincide. There are other cases, however, where they are of necessityseparated. The morphemic analysis is, for instance, insufficient in showing thedifference between the structure of inconvenience v and impatience n; itclassifies both as derivatives. From the point of view of word-formationpattern, however, they are fundamentally different. It is only the second thatis formed by derivation. Compare:
impatience n = patience n= corpulence n
impatient a patient a corpulent a
The correlation that can be establishedfor the verb inconvenience is different, namely:
inconvenience v = pain v =disgust v = anger v = delight v
inconvenience n pain n disgust n anger ndelight n
Here nouns denoting some feeling or stateare correlated with verbs causing this feeling or state, there being nodifference in stems between the members of each separate opposition. Whetherdifferent pairs in the correlation are structured similarly or differently isirrelevant. Some of them are simple root-words, others are derivatives; theymight be compounds as well. In terms of word-formation we state that the verb inconveniencewhen compared with the noun inconvenience shows relationships characteristic ofthe process of conversion. Cf. to position where the suffix – tion does notclassify this word as an abstract noun but shows it is derived from one. Thisapproach also affords a possibility to distinguish between compound wordsformed by composition and those formed by other processes. The words honeymoon nand honeymoon v are both compounds, containing two free stems, yet the first isformed by composition: honey n+moon n=honeymoon n, and the second byconversion: honeymoon n>honeymoon v. The treatment remains synchronicbecause it is not the origin of the word that is established but its presentcorrelations in the vocabulary and the patterns productive in present-dayEnglish.
The analysis into immediate constituentsdescribed below permits us to obtain the morphemic structure and provides thebasis for further word-formation analysis.
Analysis into immediateconstitute
A synchronic morphological analysis ismost effectively accomplished by the procedure known as the analysis intoimmediate constituents1 (IC's). First suggested by L.Bloomfield2 it was later developed by manylinguists.3 The main opposition dealt with is theopposition of stem and affix. It is a kind of segmentation revealing not thehistory of the word but its motivation, i.e. the data the listener has to go byin understanding it. It goes without saying that unmotivated words and wordswith faded motivation have to be remembered and understood as separate signs,not as combinations of other signs.
The method is based on the fact that aword characterized by morphological divisibility (analysable into morphemes) isinvolved in certain structural correlations. This means that, as Z. Harris putsit, «the morpheme boundaries in an utterance are determined not on the basis ofconsiderations interior to the utterance, but on the basis of comparison withother utterances. The comparisons are controlled, i.e. we do not merely scanvarious random utterances but seek utterances which differ from our originalone only in stated portions. The final test is in utterances which are onlyminimally different from ours. «1
A sample analysis which has become almostclassical, being repeated many times by many authors, is Bloomfield's analysisof the word ungentlemanly. As the word is convenient we take the same example.Comparing this word with other utterances the listener recognizes the morpheme un-asa negative prefix because he has often come across words built on the patternun-adjective stem: uncertain, unconscious, uneasy, unfortunate, unmistakable,unnatural. Some of the cases resembled the word even more closely; these were: unearthly,unsightly, untimely, unwomanly and the like. One can also come across theadjective gentlemanly. Thus, at the first cut we obtain the following immediateconstituents: un + gentlemanly. If we continue our analysis we see thatalthough gent occurs as a free form in low colloquial usage, no such word as lemanlymay be found either as a free or as a bound constituent, so this time we haveto separate the final morpheme. We are justified in so doing as there are manyadjectives following the pattern noun stem+ly, such as womanly, masterly,scholarly, soldierly with the same semantic relationship of 'having the qualityof the person denoted by the stem'; we also have come across the noun gentlemanin other utterances, The two first stages of analysis resulted in separating afree and a bound form: 1) un + gentlemanly, 2) gentleman + ly. The third cuthas its peculiarities. The division into gent-+-leman is obviously impossibleas no such patterns exist in English, so the cut is gentle+man. A similarpattern is observed in nobleman, and so we state adjective stem + – man. Now,the element man may be differently classified as a semi – affixoras a variant of the free form man. The word gentle is open to discussion. It isobviously divisible from the etymological viewpoint: gentle
If, however, we compare the adjective gentlewith such adjectives as brittle, fertile, fickle, juvenile, little, noble,subtle and some more containing the suffix – le-ile added to a bound stem, theyform a pattern for our case. The bound stem that remains is present in thefollowing group: gentle, gently, gentleness, genteel, gentile, gentry, etc.
One might observe that our procedure oflooking for similar utterances has shown that the English vocabulary containsthe vulgar word gent that has been mentioned above, meaning 'a personpretending to the status of a gentleman' or simply 'man', but then there is nosuch structure as noun stem + – le, so the word gent should be interpreted as ahomonym of the bound stem in question.
To sum up: as we break the word we obtainat any level only two IC's, one of which is the stem of the given word. All thetime the analysis is based on the patterns characteristic of the Englishvocabulary. As a pattern showing the interdependence of all the constituentssegregated at various stages we obtain the following formula:
Un – + {[(gent -+ – le) + – man]+ – ly-}
Breaking a word into its immediateconstituents we observe in each cut the structural order of the constituents(which may differ from their actual sequence). Furthermore we shall obtain onlytwo constituents at each cut, the ultimate constituents, however, can bearranged according to their sequence in the word: un-un – + gent-+ – le +-man+-ly.
We can repeat the analysis on theword-formation level showing not only the morphemic constituents of the wordbut also the structural pattern on which it is built, this may be carried outin terms of proportional oppositions. The main requirements are essentially thesame: the analysis must reveal patterns observed in other words of the samelanguage, the stems obtained after the affix is taken away should correspond toa separate word, the segregation of the derivational affix is based onproportional oppositions of words having the same affix with the same lexicaland lexico-grammatical meaning. Ungentlemanly, then, is opposed not to ungentleman(such a word does not exist), but to gentlemanly, Other pairs similarlyconnected are correlated with this opposition. Examples are:
ungentlemanly = unfair = unkind =unselfish
gentlemanly fair kind selfish
This correlation reveals the patternun-+adjective stem.
The word-formation type is defined asderivation. The sense of un-as used in this pattern is either simply 'not', ormore commonly 'the reverse of, with the implication of blame or praise.
The next step is similar, only this timeit is the suffix that is taken away:
gentlemanly = womanly =scholarly
gentleman woman scholar
The series shows that these adjectives arederived according to the pattern noun stem-Mi/. The common meaning of thenumerator term is 'characteristic of (a gentleman, a woman, a scholar).
The analysis into immediate constituentsas suggested in American linguistics has been further developed in the abovetreatment by combining a purely formal procedure with semantic analysis. Asemantic check means, for instance, that we can distinguish the type gentlemanlyfrom the type monthly, although both follow the structural pattern noun stem+-ly.The semantic relationship is different, as – ly is qualitativein the first case and frequentative in the second, i.e. monthly means'occurring every month'.
This point is confirmed by the followingcorrelations: any adjective built on the pattern personal noun stem+-ly isequivalent to 'characteristic of or 'having the quality of the person denotedby the stem'.
gentlemanly→ having thequalities of a gentleman
masterly→ having the qualities of amaster
soldierly → having the qualities ofa soldier
womanly→ having the qualities of awoman
Monthly does not fit into thisseries, so we write:
monthly ↔ having the qualities of amonth
On the other hand, adjectives of thisgroup, i.e. words built on the pattern stem of a noun denoting a period of time+-ly are all equivalent to the formula 'occurring every period of time denotedby the stem':
monthly→ occurring every month
hourly → occurring every hour
yearly → occurring every year
Gentlemanly does not show this sortof equivalence, the transform is obviously impossible, so we write:
gentlemanly ↔*occurring everygentleman
The above procedure of showing the processof word-formation is an elementary case of the transformational analysis, inwhich the semantic similarity or difference of words is revealed by thepossibility or impossibility of transforming them according to a prescribedmodel and following certain rules into a different form, called their 'transform.The conditions of equivalence between the original form and the transform areprefixed. In our case the conditions to be fulfilled are the sameness ofmeaning and of the kernel morpheme. Transformational analysis will be discussedin the chapter on Methods of Linguistic Study. E.O. Nida1discusses another complicated case: untruly might, it seems, be divided bothways, the IC's being either un-+truly or untrue-^–ly. – Yet observingother utterances we notice that the prefix un~ is but rarely combined withadverb stems and very freely with adjective stems; examples have already beengiven above. So we are justified in thinking that the IC's are untrue+-ly. Otherexamples of the same pattern are: uncommonly, unlikely.
There are, of course, cases, especiallyamong borrowed words, that defy analysis altogether; such are, for instance, calendar,nasturtium or chrysanthemum. The analysis of other words may remain open orunresolved. Some linguists, for example, hold the view that words like pocket cannotbe subjected to morphological analysis. Their argument is that though we arejustified in singling out the element – et, because the correlation may beconsidered regular (hog: hogget, lock: locket), the meaning of the suffix beingin both cases distinctly diminutive, the remaining part pock – cannot beregarded as a stem as it does not occur anywhere else. Others, like Prof. A, I.Smirnitsky, think that the stem is morphologically divisible if at least one ofits elements can be shown to belong to a regular correlation.2
Controversial issues of this nature do notinvalidate the principle of analysis into immediate constituents. The secondpoint of view seems more convincing. To illustrate it, let us take the word hamlet'a small village'. No words with this stem occur in present-day English, but itis clearly divisible diachronically, as it is derived from OFr hamelet ofGermanic origin, a diminutive of hamel, and a cognate of the English noun home.We must not forget that hundreds of English place names end in – ham, like Shoreham,Wyndham, etc. Nevertheless, making a mixture of historical and structuralapproach will never do. If we keep to the second, and look for recurringidentities according to structural procedures, we shall find the words booklet,cloudlet, flatlet, leaflet, ringlet, tоwnlet etc. In all these – let is a clearlydiminutive suffix which does not contradict the meaning of hamlet. Smirnitsky'sapproach is, therefore, supported by the evidence afforded by the languagematerial.and also permits us to keep within strictly synchronic limits.
Another example of the same naturediscussed by a number of authors is the word ceiling. Does it contain onemorpheme or two? It may, be argued that ceiling should at present be considereda root word, because the root ceil – is no longer current, and the speaker nolonger understands it as a covering or lining of the roof, although theexistence of the words covering and lining is, as we have seen, sufficient initself to consider the word divisible. There are, however, other words in whichthe same suffix performs a similar function. Thus, in flooring, decking,piping, paving, etc, – ing is equivalent to the semi-affix – work, so that framingis synonymous with frame-work.
There is also one more procedure thathelps differentiation and can be offered as a test. This is substitution withinsimilar or identical contexts. This testifies in favour of taking ceiling asconsisting of two morphemes, since one may contrast ceiling and flooring. S.Potter quotes the following example: Every apartment is floored with sandal andceiled with nacre.
This permits us to make one moreconclusion, namely, that in lexicological analysis words may be grouped notonly according to their root morphemes but according to affixes as well.
2. Second part
 
2.1Derivation and functional affixes
Lexicology is primarily concerned withderivational affixes, the other group being the domain of grammarians. Thederivational affixes in fact, as well as the whole problem of word-formation,form a boundary area between lexicology and grammar and are therefore studiedin both.
Language being a system in which theelements of vocabulary and grammar are closely interrelated, our study ofaffixes cannot be complete without some discussion of the similarity anddifference between derivational and functional morphemes.
The similarity is obvious as they are sooften homonymous. Otherwise the two groups are essentially different becausethey render different types of meaning.
Functional affixes serve to conveygrammatical meaning. They build different forms of one and the same word. Aword-form, or the form of a word, is defined as one of the different aspects aword may take as a result of inflection. Complete sets of all the various formsof a word when considered as inflectional patterns, such as declensions orconjugations, are termed paradigms. A paradigm is therefore defined as thesystem of grammatical forms characteristic of a word, e.g. near, nearer,nearest; son, son's, sons, sons'.
Derivational affixes serve to supply thestem with components of lexical and lexico-grammatical meaning, and thus formdifferent words. One and the same lexico-grammatical meaning of the affix issometimes accompanied by different combinations of various lexical meanings.Thus, the lexico-grammatical meaning supplied by the suffix – y consists in theability to express the, qualitative idea peculiar to adjectives and createsadjectives from noun stems. The lexical meanings of the same suffix aresomewhat variegated: 'full of, as in bushy or cloudy, 'composed of, as in stony,'having the quality of, as in slangy, 'resembling', as in baggy and some more.This suffix sometimes conveys emotional components of meaning. E.g. My schoolreports used to say: «Not amenable to discipline; too fond of organizing» whichwas only a kind way of saying: «Bossy?» (M. DICKENS) Bossy not only means'having the quality of a boss' or 'behaving like a boss'; it is also an unkindderogatory word.
This fundamental difference in meaning andfunction of the two groups of affixes results in an interesting relationship:the presence of a derivational affix does not prevent a word from beingequivalent to another word, in which this suffix is absent, so that they can besubstituted for one another in context. The presence of a functional affixchanges the distributional properties of a word so much that it can never besubstituted for a simple word without violating grammatical standard. To seethis point consider the following familiar quotation from Shakespeare:
Cowards die many times before theirdeaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
Here no one-morpheme word can besubstituted for the words cowards, times or deaths because the absence of aplural mark will make the sentence ungrammatical. The words containingderivational affixes can be substituted by morphologically different words, sothat the derivative valiant can be substituted by a root word like brave.
2.2Semi-Affixes and Boundary cases between derivation and inflection
Thereare cases, however, where it is very difficult to drawer hard and fast linebetween roots and affixes on the one hand, and derivational affixes and inflexional formatives on the other. The distinction between these has causedmuch discussion and is no easy matter altogether.
Thereare a few roots in English which have developed great combining ability in theposition of the second element of a word and a very general meaning similar tothat of an affix. They receive this name because semantically, functionally,structurally and statistically they behave more like affixes than like roots.Their meaning is as general. They determine the lexicon-grammatical class theword belongs to. Cf sailor: seaman, where – man is asemi-affix.
Anotherspecific group is farmed by the adverb-forming suffix – ly, followingadjective stems, and the noun-forming suffixes: – ing, – ness, –er and by – ed added to a combination of two stems: fainthearted,long legged. By their almost unlimited combining possibilities (highvaliancy) and the almost complete fusion of lexical and lexicon-grammaticalmeaning they resemble inflectional formatives. The derivation with thesesuffixes is so regular and the meaning and function of the derivatives so obviousthat such derivatives are very often considered not worth an entry in thedictionary and therefore omitted as self-evident. Almost every adjective stemcan produce an adverb with the help of – ly and an abstract noun bytaking up the suffix – ness. Every verbal stem can produce the name ofthe doer by adding – er and the name of the process or its result byadding – ing. A suffix approaching those in productivity is – ishdenoting a moderate degree of the quality named in the stem. Therefore thesewords are explained in dictionaries by referring the reader to the underlyingstem. For example, in Concise Oxford dictionary we read: «womanliness–thequality of being womanly; womanized in senses of the verb; womanishly-ina womanish manner; womanly adv-in a womanly manner, womanishness-thequality or state of being womanish.»
Theseaffixes are remarkable for their high valence also in the formation of compoundderivatives corresponding to free phrases. Examples are: every day:everydayness.
2.3Allomorphs
Thecombining from allo-from Greek allo «other» is used in linguistic terminologyto denote elements of a group whose members together constitute a structuralunit of the language (allophones, allomorphs). Thus, for example, – ion/ – tion / – sion / – ation are the positional variants ofthe same suffix. To show this they are taken together and separated by thesign/. They do not differ in meaning or function but shav a slight differencein sound from depending on the final phoneme of the preceding stem. They areconsidered as variants of one and the same morpheme and called its allomorphs.Descriptive linguistics deals with the regularities in the distributionalrelations among the features and elements of speech, i. e. their occurrencerestively to each other within utterances. The approach to the problem isconsequently based on the principles of distributional analysis.
Anallomorph is defined as a positional variant of a morpheme occurring ina specific environment and so characterized by complementarydistribution. Complementary distribution is said to take placehen two linguistic variants cannot appear in the same environment. Thus, stemsending in consonants take as a rule – ation (liberation); stemsending in pt, however, take – tion (corruption) and thefinal t becomes fused with the suffix.
Differentmorphemes are characterized by, contrastive distribution, i.e. ifthey occur in the same environment they signal different meanings. The suffixes– able and – ed, for instance are different morphemes, notallomorphs, because adjectives in – able mean «capable of being»:measurable «capable of being measured», whereas – ed as a suffix ofadjectives has a resultant force: measured «marked by due proportion», as themeasured beauty of classical Greek art; hence also «rhythmical» and «regular inmovement», as in the measured from of verse, the measured tread.
Insame cases the difference is not very clear-cut – ic and – ical,for example, are two different affixes, the first a simple one, the second agroup affix; they are characterized by contrastive, distribution. That is, manyadjectives have both the – ic and – ical form, often without a distinction inmeaning COD points out, that the suffix – ical shows a vaguer connectionwith what is indicated by the stem: comic paper but comical story.However, the distinction between them is not very sharp.
Allomorphswill also occur among prefixes. Their form then depends on the initials of thestem with which the will assimilate. A prefix such as im-occurs beforebilabials (impossible), its allomorph ir-before r (irregular),il-before l (illegal). It is in – before all other consonants andvowels (indirect, inability).
Twoor more sound forms of a stem existing under conditions of complementarydistribution may also be regarded as allomorphs, as, for instance, in long a:length n, excite y: excitation, n.
InAmerican descriptive linguistics allomorphs are treated on a purely semanticbasis, so that not only [iz] in dishes, [z] in dreams and [s] in dreamsand [s] in books, which are allomorphs in the sense given above, butalso formally unrelated [in] in oxen, the vowed modification in tooth:teeth and zero suffix in many sheep, are considered to beallomorphs of the same morpheme on the strength of the sameness of theirgrammatical meaning. This surely needs some serious re-thinking, as within thatkind of approach morphemes cease to be linguistic units combining the twofundamental aspects of form and meaning and become pure abstractions. The veryterm morpheme (from the 6 reek morphe «form») turns in to a misnomerbecause all connection with form is lost. Allomorphs there sore arephonetically conditioned positional variants of the same derivational orfunctional morpheme (suffix, root or suffix) identical in meaning and functionand differing in sound only insomuch, as their complementary distribution producesvarious phonetic assimilation effects.
2.4Suffixation
 
2.4.1Classification of suffixes
Dependingon purpose of research, various classifications of suffixes have been used andsuggested. Suffixes have been classified according to their origin, parts ofspeech they served to form, their frequency, productivity and othercharacteristics.
Withinthe parts of speech suffixes have been classified semantically according to lexico-grammaticalgroups, and last but not least, according to the types of stems they are addedto.
Inconformity with our primarily synchronic approach it seems convenient to beginwith the classification according to the part of speech in which the most frequentsuffixes of present-day English occur. They will be listed accordingly togetherwith words illustrating their possible semantic force.
Itshall be, noted that diachronic approach would view the problem ofmorphological analysis differently, for example, in the word completethey would look for the traces of the Latin complet-us.
Noun-formingsuffixes:
– age(bondage, breakage, mileage, vicarage); – ance/ – ence (assistance, reference);– ant/ – ent (disinfectant, student); – dom (kingdom, freedom, officialdom); – ee(employee); – eer (profiteer); – er (writer, type-writer); – ess (actress,lioness); – hood (manhood); – ing (building, meaning, washing); – ion, – sion, –tion, ation (rebellion, creation, tension, explanation); – ism/ – icism(heroism, criticism); – ist (novelist, communist); – ment (government,nourishment); – nees (tenderness); – ship (friendship); – (i) ty (sonority).
Adjective-formingsuffixes:
– able/– ible/ – uble (unbearable, audible, soluble); – al (formal); – ic (poetic); – ical(ethical); – ant/ – ent (repentant, dependent); – ary (revolutionary); – ate/ –ete (accurate, complete); – ed/ – d (wooded); – ful (delightful); – ian(African, Australian); – ish (Irish, reddish, childish); – ive (active); – less(useless); – like (lifelike); – ly (manly); – ous/ ious (tremendous, curious); –some (tiresome); – y (cloudy, dressy).
Numeral-formingsuffixes:
– fold(twofold); – teen (fourteen); – th (seventh); – ty (sixty)
Verb-formingsuffixes:
– ate(facilitate); – er (glimmer); – en (shorten); – fy/ – ify (terrify, speechify,solidify); – ize (equalize); – ish (establish).
Adverb-formingsuffixes:
– ly(coldly); – ward/ – wards (upward, northwards); – wise (likewise).
Ifwe change our approach and become interested in the lexico-grammatical meaningthe suffixes serve to signalize, we obtain within each part of speech moredetailed lexico-grammatical classes or subclasses.
Alexico-grammatical class may be defined as a class of lexical elementspossessing the same lexico-grammatical meaning and a common system of forms inwhich the grammatical categories inherent in these units are expressed. Theelements of one class are substituted by the same prop-words the term prop-wordis a term of syntax. It denotes a word whose main function is to provide thestructural completeness of a word-group. A prop-word or an an aphonic wordstands for another word already said or written. Personal pronouns he orshe substituting nouns class them as personal nouns for either male orfemale beings.
Thewords one, do and to are the most specifically Englishexamples of prop-words. Compare the various functions of do and toin the Following: «Even if I did go, couldn’t do any good» Charlespaused and said: «I m afraid that I want you to». «Why do you? (SAAU)» andcharacterized by identical morphological patterns and a common set ofderivational affixes. Taking up nouns we can subdivide them into properand common nouns. Among common nouns we shall distinguish personalnames, names of other animate beings, collective nouns, falling into severalminor groups, material nouns, abstract nouns and names of things.
Abstractnouns are signaled by the following suffixes:
– age,– ance/ – ence, – ancy/ – ensy, – dom, – hood, – ing, – ion/ – tion/ – ation, –ism, – ment, – ness, – ship, – th, – ty.
Seeexamples above.
Personalnouns that are emotionally neutral occur with the following suffixes: – an(grammarian), – ant/ – ent (servant, student), – arian (vegetarian), – ee(examinee), – er (porter), – ician (musician), – ist (linguist), – ite(sybarite), – or (inspector), and a few others.
Femininesuffixes may be classed as a subgroup of personal noun suffixes. These are fewand not frequent: – ess (actress), – ine (heroine), – rix (testatrix), – ette(suffragette).
Theabove classification should be accepted with caution. It is true that in apolysemantic word at least one of the variants witl show the class meaningsignaled by the affix. There may be other variants, however, whose differentmeaning will be signaled by a difference in distribution, and these will belongto some other lexico-grammatical class. C.f. settlement, translationdenoting a process and its result, or beauty which, when denotingqualities that give pleasure to the eye or to the mind, is an abstract noun,but occurs also as a personal noun denoting a beautiful woman. The word witnessis more often used in its several personal meanings that (in accordance with itssuffix) as an abstract noun meaning evidence or «testimony». The coincidence oftwo classes in the semantic structure of some words may be almost regular.Collectivity, for instance may be signaled by such suffixes as – dom, –ery, – hood, – ship. It must be borne in mind, however, thatwords with these suffixes are poly semantic and show a regular correlation ofthe abstract noun denoting state and a collective noun denoting a group ofpersons of whom this state is characteristic. CF. knighthood.
Alongsidewith adding some lexico-grammatical meaning to the stem, certain suffixescharge it with emotional force. They may be derogatory: – ard (drunkard);– ling (underling); – ster (gangster); – ton(simpleton). These seem to be more numerous in English that the suffixesof endearment.
Emotionallycoloured diminutive suffixes rendering also endearment differ from thederogatory suffixes in that they are used to name not only persons but thingsas well. This point may be illustrated by the suffix – y/ – ie/ – ey: auntie,cabbie (cabman), daddie, but also: hanky (handkerchief), nightie(nightgown). Other suffixes that express smallness are – en (chicken): –kin/ kins (mannikin); – let (booklet); – ock(hillcack); et (cornet).
Theconnotation of same diminutive suffixes is not one or endearment but of someoutlandish elegance and novelty, particularly in the case of the borrowedsuffix – ette (kitchenette, launderette, lecturette, maisonette,etc). The diminutive suffixes being not very productive, there is a tendency toexpress the same meaning by the semiaffix mini–: mini-bus, mini-car,mini-crisis, mini-skirt, etc. Which may be added to wordsdenoting both objects situations.
Asuffix is a derivative final element which as or formely was productive informing words. A suffix has semantic value, but it does not occur as anindependent speech unit.
2.4.2Suffixes and endings
Itis necessary to point out the similarity and difference between derivative andfunctional morphemes. Morphologically, two words such as citizen and citizenryare formed after the same principle of root plus affix. At first sight, theconceptual structure also looks very much alike: the-s of citizens andthe – ry of citizenry both express the idea of plurality,collectivity. But the difference in valued is one between grammatical functionand lexical meaning. The – s of citizens is the inflectional formativeof the grammatical category «plural» where – ry forms a class of wordswith the semantic basis «group», collectivity of…».
Asuffixal derivative is primarily a lexical form. It is a two-morpheme wordwhich behaves like a one-morpheme word in that it is «grammatically equivalentto any simple word in all the constructions where it occurs» (Bloch-Trager, OLA54). An inflected word is primarily a grammatical form which does not meet therequirements just stated. While in a sentence such as this citizenry feelsinsulted we could substitute the simple, one-morpheme words crowd, multitude,nation for bi-morphemic citizenry without any change in thebehavior of the other members of the sentence, replacement by the two-morphemeword citizens would involve a change of this to these andof feels to feel. The formatives – er, – est asexpressing degree of comparison are endings, not suffixes. In a sentence suchas Paul is older than Peter we could not substitute any one-morphemeword for bi-morphemic old-er whereas in he is rather o l dish the adj oldcan take the place of old-ish. It will also be interesting to note thedifferent phonetic make-up of comparatives and super lateness compared withderived adjectives. Youngish, longish betray the morphemeboundary before – ish in that the final consonant does not change beforethe initial vowel of the derivative suffix whereas in younger, longerthe consonants are treated as standing in medial position in unit words, justlike finger or clangor, [jg] being the ante vocalic (and antesonantic) allophone of [j].
 
2.4.3The origin of suffixes
Asto the origin of suffixes, there are two ways in which a suffix may come intoexistence: 1) the suffix was once an independent word but is no longer one; 2)the suffix has originated as such, usually as a result of secretion. Case 1)applies to a few native suffixes only. The suffixes – dem and hoodare independent words still in OE, so the process where by a second-wordbecomes a suffix can be observed historically. An instance of case 2) is thesuffix – ling which is simply the extended form of suffix – ingin words whose stem ended in – l.
Hall-waybetween second-words and suffixes are certain second elements which are stillfelt to be words though they are no longer used in isolation: – monger, wrightand-wise exist only as second parts of suffixs. I have treated them assemi suffixes. The fact that a word is frequently used as the second element ofa suffix gives us no right to call it a suffix. Thus the following are notsuffixes: – caster (as in broadcaster, gamecaster, newscaster),fiend (as in the AE words cigarette fiend, opium-fiend, absinthe-fiend,cocaine – fiend etc…), craft (as in witchcraft, leechcrajt,prestaraft, statecraft, smith raft, mother craft),or – proof (as in bomb-, fire-, rain-, sound-, water-,hole kiss-, humor-etc. proof) which Jazzperson wrongly terms one.
Thecontact of English with various foreign languages has led to the adoption ofcountless foreign words. In the process, many derivative morphemes have alsobeen introduced, suffixes as well as prefixes. As a consequence, we have manyhybrid types of composites. We have to distinguish between two basing groups. Aforeign word is combined with a native affix, as in dear-ness, un-button.Just as the in production of a foreign word is an essentially uncomplicatedmatter, so is its combination with a native derivative element. As nostructural problem is involved in the use of a foreign lexical unit, it can betreated like native words. This is the reason why native prefixes and suffixes wereadded to French words almost immediately after the words had been introduced.Suffixes such as – ful, – less, ness were early used with Frenchwords so we find faithful, faithless, clearness and othersrecorded by 1300. The case is different with foreign affixes added to nativewords. Here, the assimilation of a structural pattern is involved, not merelythe adoption of a lexical unit. Before the foreign affix can be used, a foreignsyntagma must have come to be familiar with speakers so that the pattern ofanalysis may be imitated and the dependent morpheme be used with native words.This is much more complicated. When it does happen, such formations are foundmuch later than those of the first type. This is to be regarded as a generallinguistic phenomenon. It explains why combinations of the types break-age,hindr-ance, yeoman-ry crop up much later and the less numerous.The early assimilation of – able is exceptional. Some foreign affixes,as – ance, – al (type arrival), ity have never becomeproductive with native words.
Themajority of foreign suffixes owe their existance to the reinterpretation ofloons. When a foreign word comes to be analyzed as a composite, a syntagma, itmay acquire derivative force. The syntagmatic character of a word there fore isa precondition for the development of a derivative morpheme.
Fromlandscape (which is Du landsdap) resulted scrape which isalmost entirely used as the second element of suffixs, as in seascape1799 and later earths cape, cloudscape, sands cape, mountainscape, moonscape, parks cape, skyscape, waterscape,house-scape, roads-cape,mindscape. Bottlegger attractedbooklegger one trading in obscene books, foodlegger«illicit food-seller, meatlegger, tirelegger» (usedat a time when things were rationed in US).
Theword hierarchy attracted squir(e) archy 1804, which does not,however, mean that there is a suffix – arohy. The attraction is prob dueto the rime only, and other coinages have not been made.
AnotherAE suffix is-eteria with meaning «shop, store, establishment». Thestarting-point is prob. Mexican Spanish cafeteria which passed intoAmerican English (first used about 1898). As it was immediately analyzable inAmerican English, with the first element interpreted as an allomorph of [kafi]it attected a good number of words (chiefly since 1930). Mencken has about 50words, such as basketeria, caketeria, candyteria, cleaneteria,luncheteria, drygoodsteria,drugteria, fruiteria, shoeteria,chccolateria, furnitureteria. The original implication was «placewhere articles are sold on the self-service plant» (so in the recent coinage gas-a-teria,Life International). The only common word, however, is cafeteria,stressed as indicated.
Theprocess of secretion requires some more comment. The basic principle is that ofre-interpretation: but there are several ways in which re-interpretationoccurs.
1).A suffix may be analyzed by the general speaker as having two contituentelements, the basis as an independent morpheme and the suffix as a derivativeelement. This is the case of the preceding types lemonade and land-scape.This process of direct re-interpretation is the form secretion commonlyassumes.
2).A suffix is not made up of two constituent elements as far as the generalspeaker is concerned. If aristocracy, democracy, plutocracyyield more or less jocular words such as landocracy, mobocracy, cottoncracy,this is due to a meeting and blending of two heterogeneous structural systems:a certain structural element of one linguistic system is isolated andintroduced into another linguistic system. The speaker with a knowledge ofGreek isolates – ocracy «rule» in a series of 6 reek-coined words andintroduces it as a derivative element into the structural system of English.But dependent structural elements are tied up with certain morphologicconditions of the linguistic system to which they belong and cannot there forebe naturally transplanted, unlike words, which are independent lexicalelements, not subject to any specific morphological conditions. Such coinagesare felt to be hybrids by the word-coiner himself, so the process is not usedfor serious purposes as a rule. Admittance of such foreign derivative elementsis also impeded by the fact that they bear no resemblance to any morpheme withwhich the hearer of the hybrid suffix is familiar. The linguistic situation isdifferent with foreign-coined words of which one element is immediatelyassociated with a morpheme of the hearers language. Words like barometer,thermometer are automatically connected with the independent word materwhose unstressed allomorph the words contain. This explains the rise and currencyof speedometer, cream ometer and quite recent drunkometer.
Butotherwise, hybrid coinages of this derivative pattern will always have alimited range of currency or the tinge of faketiousness, as bumpology,bumposopher (both jocular from hump «protuberance on the cranium as the signof special mental faculies»), storiology, weather logy, dollolaty a.o. Parallel to the above words in – ocracy are such in – ocrat, asmobocrat bancrat bankocrat. Very similar to the case of barometer / speedomoter is that of the American suffix – fest. Fom the German words Sincerestand Turn fest, which were first used in the early 50 s in U.S. a seriesof other words were derived, such as smoke fest, walkfest, eatfest,stuntfest, bookfest, gabfest. The element – festwas obviously interpreted as the allomorph of feast. The word cavalcadewas re-interpreted as containing the element caval-» horse» and thesuffix-cade «parade» and attracted such coining as aerocade, aquacade(on a Latin basis of coining), autocade, camelcade, motorcade (ona native basis of coining), recent words which may not stand the test of time.From the word panorama the characteristic ending-rama wassecreted with the meaning «pageant, show» and has recently led to such words ascinerama, motorama, autorama.
Sometimesignorant but pretentious people take to coining words, re-interpreting foreignword in their own way. They vaguely feel that there is some characteristictermination in a 6 reek or Latin word which they then attach to some Englishbasis to give the c.b.a «learned» tinge. As a result, we get barbarisms in-athon,coined after Marathon, such as danceathon, swimathon etg,in-thorium, such as corsetorium, lubritorium etc.
Thus,the rise of suffix illustrated by types aristocracy/ landocracy, barometer/speedometer and others treated in the preceding passage can stay out pfaccounted for suffixal derivation.
Thereis yet a third way in which suffixes may arise. Words of apparently only oneconstituent element may develop derivative morphemes. If we take such a word ashamburger, we observe that it has attracted other coining like cheeseburger,bufburger, fishburger. The analysis of the word cannot be, as one mayfeel tempted to assume, that of ham and burger as there is no hamin the humburger. So the word cheeseburger has not arisen fromre-interpretation. What has taken place is a shortening of the morpheme hamburgerinto a fore-clipped – burger, this part being taken as representative ofthe semantic elements contained in hamburger. The suffix cheeseburgerthere fore is a clipped word for non-existent cheese hamburger. Parallelto – burger words are such in – furture, as shrimpfurder, krautfurter,chicenfurter. In election campaign words such as Hoovercrat, Willkiecrat,– crat was short for democrat. The word telegram 1852 gaverise to cablegram, radiogram, pidgeongram, lettergramwhere – gram is short for telegram/ Tnr diminutive suffix – lingprginated in the same way. Wolfling «young wolf» is a blend pf wol fand,young-ling «young animal»
 
2.4.4Nominal and verbal suffixes
InME there are nominal and verbal suffixes. The suffixs – fold, – mostand –ward form words which are used both as adjectives and adverbs.
Themeaning of a suffix is conditioned by the particular semantic character of thebasis to which the suffix is attached, also by the linguistic circumstances inwhich the coinage is made. In general parlance, a fiver is a bill offive (dollars or pounds), in crikret, jargon it is a hit for five, in schoollife it may denote a boy who always scrapes through with a five. A greeningis a green variety of apple or pear, but a whiting is a white variety offish. For other possibilities see – er and – ing, for instance.Some concepts are apt to be represented by suffixes in many languages as thoseof condition (state, quality etc), appurtenance, collectivity, endearment agenta.o, but theoretically there is no telling what concept may not develop to findexpression in a suffix. French has a suffix – ier (type pommier)to denote fruit trees, there I – ile for the idea of stable for demostic animals, 0.6 has a suffix – it is (type nephritis) meaning disease.These have no parallels in English, or in German either. But no intrinsiclinguistic principle is involved in the absence of such morphemes. The rise ofnew suffix in English goes to corroborate this.
Anew words are needed with regard to adverbal derivatives. Adeverbal derivativeis not fundamentally different from a cpd whose first member is a verb stem, soas in the case of denominal suffixes, a great number of meanings are possible.In practice, however, the possibilities are much restricted. Deverbal suffixesexpress grammatical functions than semantic concepts, and the usualimplications are «act, fact, instance of…» (arrival, quidanse, warning),sometimes «state of…» (starvation, bewilderment), «agent»(personal or impersonal: baker, eraser, disinfectant), «personalobject» (direct or indirect, only with – ee, transferee, draftee),«object of result» (breakade, savings), «plase» (settlement,brewery, lodgings). Similar considerations apply to derivation by a zeromorpheme (pickpocket, blackaut, look).
 
2.5The valency of affixes and stems
Anotheressential feature of affixes that should not be overlooked is their combiningpower or valency, i.e. the types of types of the stems with whichthey they occur.
Wehave already seen that not all combinations of existing morphemes are actuallyused. This, unhappy, untrue and unattractive are quite regularcombinations, while seemingly analogous unsad, unfalse, un-prettyseems unusual. The possibility of particular stem taking a particular affixdepends on phonomor-phological, morphological and semantic factors. The suffixance – ence, for instance, occurs onli after b, t, d, dz, v, l, r, m, n,: disturbance,insistence, indepence, but not after s or z: condensation,organization.
Itis of course impossible to describe the whole system. To make our point clearwe shall take adjectives as an example. The adjective-forming suffixes aremostly attached to noun stems. They are: – ed (barbed), – en (golden), –ful (careful), – less (careless), – ly (soldierly), – like (childlike), – y(hearty) and some others. The highly productive suffix-able can be combinedwith noun stems and verbal stems alike (clubbable). It is especially frequentin the pattern in the pattern un – + verbal stem + able (unbearable).Sometimes it is even attached to phrases producing compound derivatives (unbrushoffable,ungetatable). These characteristics are of great importance bothstructurally and semantically.
Theirstructural significance is clear if we realize that to describe the system of agiven vocabulary one must know the typical patterns on which its words arecoined. To achieve this it is necessary not only to know the morphemes of whichthey consist but also to reveal their recurrent+ regular combinations and therelationship existing between them. This approach ensures a rigorouslylinguistic basis for the identification of lexico-grammatical classes withineach part of speech. In the English language these classes are so far littlestudied, although inquiry info this problem seems very promising and begins toaffect attention.
Itis also worthy of note that from the viewpoint of the information theory thefact that not every affix is capable of combining with any given stem makes thecode more reliable, protects it from noise. Noise as a term of the theoryof information is used to denote any kind of interference with the process ofcommunication, mistakes, and misunderstanding.
Thevaliancy of stems is not therefore unlimited. Noun stems can be followed by thenoun-forming suffixes: – age (bondage), – dom (serfdom), – eer, – ier(profitter, collier), ess (waitress), – ful (spoonful), – hood (childhood), – ian(physician), ics (linguistics), – ie / – y (daddy), – ing (flooring), – ism(heroism), – ist (violinist), – let (cloudlet), – ship (friendship); by theadjective-forming suffixes: – a/ – ial (doctoral), – an (African), – ary(revolutionary), – ed (wooded), – ful (hopeful), – ic, – ical (historic,historical), – ish (childish), – like (businesslike), – ly (friendly)/ – ous/ –ious/ – eous (spacious), – some (handsome), – y (cloudy); verb – formingsuffixes: – ate (aerate), – en (hearten), – fy/, – ify (speechify), – ize(sympathize).
Verbalstems are almost equal to noun stems in valiancy. They combine with thefollowing noun-forming suffixes: – age (breakage), – al (betrayal), – ance/ – ense(guidance, reference), – ant/ – ent (assistant, student), – ee (evacuee), – er/– or (painter, editor), – ing (uprising), – ion/ – tion/ ation (action,information), – ment (government). The adjective – forming suffixes used withverbal stems are: – able/ – ible (agreeable, comprehensible), – ive/ – sive/ – tive(talkative), – some (meddlesome).
Adjectivestems furnish a shorter list: – dom (freedom), – ism (realism), – ity/ – ty (reality,cruelty), – ness (brightness), ish (reddish), – ly (firmly), – ate(differentiate), – en (sharpen), – fy/ – ify (solidify).
Thecombining possibilities (or valiancy) are very important semantically becausethe meaning of the derivative depends not only on the morphemes of Wichita’scomposed but also on combinations of stave and affix that can be contrastedwith it. Contrast is to be local for in the use of the same morpheme indifferent environment and also in the use of different morphemes in environmentsotherwise the same.
Thedifference between the suffixes – ity and – ism, for instance, willbecome clear if we compare them as combined with identical stems in thefollowing oppositions: formality: formalism: humanity: humanist:reality: realism. Roughly, the words in – ity mean thequality of being what the corresponding adjective describes, or an instance ofthis quality. The resulting nouns are countable. The suffix – ism formsnouns, naming a disposition to what the adjective describes or a correspondingtype of ideology. Beng uncountable they belong to a differentlexico-grammatical class.
Thesimilarity on which an apposition is based may consist, for the material underconsideration in the present paragraph, in the sameness of a suffix. A descriptionof suffixes according to the stems with which they are combined and thelexico-grammatical classes they serve to differentiate may be helpful in theanalysis of the meanings they are used to render.
Agood example is furnished by the suffix – ish, as a suffix ofadjectives. The combining possibilities of the suffix – ish are vast butnot unlimited. Boyish and waspish are used, where as enmeshand aspish are not. The constraints here are of semantic nature. It isregularly present in the names of nationalities as for example: British, Irish,Spanish. When added to noun stems, it formes adjectives of the type «having thenature of with a moderately derogatory colouring» bookish, churlish,monkeyish, sheepish, swinish. Chidish has aderogatory twist of meaning, the adjective with a good sense is childlike.A man may be said to behave with a childish petulance, but with a childlikesimplicity. Compare also womanly having the qualities befitting awoman, as in womanly compassion, womanly grace, womanly tact,with the derogatory womanish effeminate as in: Womanish tears, traitorsto love and duty. (Cole ridge).
Withadjective stems the meaning is not derogatory, the adjective renders a moderatedegree of the quality named: greenish somewhat green, stiffishsomewhat stiff, thinnish somewhat thin. The model is especially frequentwith colours: blackish, brownish, reddish. A similar butstylistically peculiar meaning is observed in combinations with numeral stems. eightyish,fortyish and the like are equivalent to round about eighty, round aboutforty: Whats she like, Min? «Sixtyish Stout Grey hair.Tweeds. Red face.» (MCCRONE)
Incolloquial speech the suffix – ish is added to words denoting the timeof the day: four-oclockish or more often fourish means roundabout four o’clock For example: Robert and I went to a cocktail party atAnnette’s. (Ituas called «drinks at six thirty ish» – the word «cocktail»was going out). (W. COOPER).
Thestudy of correlations of derivatives and stems is also helpful in bringing intorelief the meaning of the affix. The lexico-grammatical meaning of the suffix–nessthat forms nouns of quality from adjective stems becomes clear from the studyof correlations of the derivative and the underlying stem. A few examplespicked up at random will be sufficient proof: good: goodness: kind:kindness: lonely: loneliness: ready: readiness:righteous: righteousness: slow:slowness.
Thesuffixes – ion (and its allomorphs) and – or arenoun-forming suffixes combined with verbal stems. The opposition between themserves to distinguish between two subclasses of noun abstract noun and agentnouns, e.g. accumulation: accumulator; action:actor;election:elector; liberation:liberator, oppressor;vibration:vibrator, etc. The abstract noun in this case may meanaction, state or result of action remaining within the same subclass. Thus, cultivationdenotes the process of cultivating (most often of cultivating the soil) and thestate of being cultivated. Things may be somewhat different, with the suffix –or because a cultivator is a person who cultivates and a machine forbreaking up ground, loosening the earth round growing plants and destroyingweeds. Thus two different subclasses are involved: one of animate beings, theother of inanimate things. They differ not only semantically but grammaticallytoo: there exists a regular opposition between animate and inanimate nouns inEnglish: the first group is substituted by he or she, and thesecond by the pronoun it. In derivation this opposition of animatepersonal noun to all other noun is in some cases sustained by such suffixes as –ard/ – art (braggart), – ist (novelist) and afew others, but most often neutralized. The term neutralization may bedefined as c temporary suspension of an otherwise functioning opposition.Neutralization as in the word Cultivator, is also observed with suchsuffixes as – ant, – er that also occur in agent nouns, bothanimate and inanimate. CF. accountant a person who keeps accounts and coolanta cooling substance; fitter mechanic who fits up all kinds of metalworkand shutter (in photography) device regulating the exposure to light ofa plate of film: runner a messenger and a millstone.
Structuralobservations such as these show that an analysis of suffixes in the light oftheir valiancy and the lexico-grammatical subclasses that they serve todifferentiate may be useful in the analysis of their semantic properties. Thenotions of opposition, correlation and neutralization introduced intolinguistics by N. Trubetzkoy and discussed in previous chapters prove relevantand helpful in morphological analysis.
 
2.6Prefixation
 
2.6.1Prefixes of native and foreign origin
Wecall prefixes such particle s as can be prefixed to full words but are themselves not words with an independent existence. Native prefixes have developedout of independent words. Their number is small: a-, be-, un-, (negative andreversative), fore-, mid-and (partly) mis-, Prefixes of foreign origin cameinto the language ready made, so to speak. Tey are due to syntagmatic loansfrom other languages: when a number of analyzable foreign words of the samestrucure had been introduced into the language, the pattern could be extended tonew formations. i. e. the prefix then became a derivative morpheme. Someprefixes have second le-rely developed uses as independent words, as counter,sub, arch which does not invalidate the principle that primarilythey were particles with no independent existence. The same phenomenon occurswith suffixes also.
 
2.6.2Prefixing on a Neo-Latin basis of coining
Thereare many prefixes, chiefly used in learned words or in scientific terminology,which have come into the language through borrowing from Modern Latin, as ante-,extra-, intra-/meta, para – etc. The practice ofword coining with there particles begins in the 16th century, but reallydevelops with the progress of modern science only, i.e. in the 18th and esp the19th century. With these particles there is a practical difficulty. They mayrepresent 1) such elements as are prefixes (in the above meaning) in Latin or 6reek, as a – (acaudal etc.), semi – (semi-annual), 2) suchelements as exist as prepositions or particles with an independent wordexistence, as intra, circum / hyper, para, 3) suchas are the stems of full words in Latin or 6 reek, as multi-, omni-/astro-, hydro.
Thislast group is usually termed combining forms (OED Webster). In principle, thethree groups are on the same footing from the point of view of English wf, asthey represent loan elements in English with no independent existence as words.That macro-, micro – a. o. should be termed combining from while hyper-,hypro-, intro-, intra – a. o. are called prefixes by theOED, is by no means justified.
Onlysuch pts as are prefixed to fool English words of generals, learned, scientificor technical character can be termed prefixes. Hyper-in hypersensitiveis a prefix, but hyper – in hypertrophy is not, as-trophyis no word.
Wecannot, however, under take to deal with all the prepositive elements occurringin English. Such elements as astro-, electro-, galato-, hepato-,oscheo – and countless others which are used in scientific or technicalterminology have not been treated in this book. They offer a purely dictionaryinterest in any case. In the main, only those pts howe been considered thatfall under the above groups 1) and 2) But we have also in duded a few prefixeswhich lie outside this scope, as prfs denoting number (poly-, multi-),the pronominal stem auto, which is used with many words of generalcharacter, and pts which are type – forming with English words of widercurrency (as crypto-, neo-, pseudo-).
Thereis often competition between prefixes as there is between suffixes and independent words: over – and out – sometimes overlap, there isoverlapping between un – (negative) and in-, un – (reversative),dis – and de-, between ante and pre-, super– and trans-, super – and supra.
 
2.6.3The conceptual relations underlying prefixed words
Apre-particle or prefix combination may be based on three different conceptualpatterns and accordingly present the prefixing three functional aspects: 1) theprefix has adjectival force (with sbs, as in anteroom, archbishop,co-hostess, ex-king); 2) the prefix has adverbial force (withadjectives and verbs, as in unconscious, hypersensitive, informal,overanxious/ unroll, revrite, mislay); 3) theprefix has prepositional force (as in prewar years, postgraduatestudies, antiaircraft gun) afire, aflutter/anti-Nazi,afternoon/encage: sbs and vbs must be considered syntagmas with a zerodeterminate, the suffixs anti-Nazi, afternoon, encagebeing the respective determinants).
Thepreceding conceptual patterns are important in the determination of the stress:while a suffix. Based on an adjunct (primary relation tends to have two heavystresses (as in arch – enemy)) or may even have the main stress on theprefix (as in subway), the prf. Has not more than a full middle stress in theother types.
 
2.6.4The phonemic status of prefixes
Thesemi-independent, word-like status of prefixes also appears from theirtreatment in regard to stress. With the exception of regularly unstressed a– (as in afire, aflutter), be – (as in befriend),and em-, en – (as in emplace, encage) all prefixeshave stress. To illustrate this important point a comparison with non-compositewords of similar phonetic structure will be useful. If we compare the words re-fulland repeat, morphemic re — / ri / in refill is basicallycharacterized by presence of stress whereas non-morphemic re – [ri] isbasically characterized by absence of stress. This is proved by the fact thatunder certain phonetically unpredictable circumstances, the phonemic stress of re-inre-full, though basically a middle stress, can take the form of heavystress where as phonemic absence of stress can never rise to presence ofstress. They refilled the tank may become they refilled thetank (for the sake of contrast) or they refilled the tank (foremphasis), but no such shift is conceivable for mono-morphemic repeat, incite,prefer etc. Which invariably maintain the pattern no stress/heavystress.
 
2.7Productive and non-productive affixes
Thesynchronic analysis of the preceding paragraph studies the present-day systemand patterns characterized of the English vocabulary by comparingsimultaneously existing words. In diachronic analysis Lexical elements arecompared with those from which they have been formed and developed and theirpresent productivity is determined. The diachronic study of vocabularyestablishes whether the present morphological structure of each element of thevocabulary is due to the process of affixation or some other word-formingprocess, which took place within the English vocabulary in the course of itsdevelopment, or whether it has some other source. The possible other sourcesare: (1) the borrowing of morphologically divisible words, e.g. i/-liter-atefrom lat. Illiterates or litera-ture from lat litteratura: (2)reactivation, e.g. When in a number of Latin verbs harrowed in the secondparticiple form with the suffix – at (us), this suffix became – ate(separate), and came to be understood as a characteristic mark of theinfinitive; (3) False etymology: when a difficult, usually borrowed, wordstructure is destroyed in to some form suggesting a motivation, as, forinstance, in the change of asparagus into sparrowgrass, or OF rand ME crevice into crayfish.
Synchronicanalysis concentrates on structural types and treats word-formation as a systemof rules, aiming at the creation of a consistent and complete theory by whichthe observed facts cab be classified, and the non-observed facts can bepredicted. This aim has not been achieved as yet, so that a consistently synchronicdescription of the English language is still fragmentary still requiresfrequent revision. Diachronic analysis concentrating on word-forming possessesis more fully worked out.
Allthe foregoing treatment has been strictly synchronic i.e. only the presentstate of the English vocabulary has been taken into consideration. To have acomplete picture of affixation, however one must be acquainted with thedevelopment of the stock of morphemes involved. A diachronic approach is thusindispensable.
Thebasic contrast that must be detalt with in this connection is the opposition ofproductive and non-productive affixes.

Conclusion
Affixationis the formation of words with the help of derivational affixes. Affixation is subdividedinto prefixation and suffixation. Ex. if a prefix «dis» is added to the stem«like» (dislike) or suffix «ful» to «law» (lawful) we say a word is built by anaffixation. Derivational morphemes added before the stem of a word are calledprefixes (Ex. un+ like) and the derivational morphemes added after the stem ofthe word are called suffixes (hand+ ful). Prefixes modify the lexical meaningof the stem meaning i. e. the prefixed derivative mostly belongs to the samepart of speech. Ex. like (v.) – dislike (v.).kind (adj.) – unkind (adj.) but suffixestransfer words to a different part of speech, ex. teach (v.) – teacher (n.). Butnew investigations into the problem of prefixation in English showedinteresting results. It appears that the traditional opinion, current amonglinguists that prefixes modify only the lexical meaning of words withoutchanging the part of speech is not quite correct. In English there are about 25prefixes which can transfer words to a different part of speech. Ex. – head (n)– behead (v), bus(n) – debus(v), brown (adj) – embrown(u), title(n) – entitle(v),large (adj). – enlarge (v), camp(n). – encamp(u), war(n). – prewar (adj). If itis so we can say that there is no functional difference between suffixes andprefixes. Besides there are linguists1 who treat prefixes as a partof word-composition. They think that a prefix has.he same function as the firstcomponent of a compound word. Other linguists2 consider prefixes asderivational affixes which differ essentially from root–morphemes and stems.From the point of view of their origin affixes may be native and borrowed. The suffixes-ness,– ish, – dom, – ful, – less, – ship and prefixes be-, mis-, un-, fore-, etc areof native origin. But the affixes – able, – ment, – ation, – ism, – ist, re-, anti-,dis-, etc are of borrowed origin. They came from the Greek, Latin and French languages.Many of the suffixes and prefixes of native origin were independent words. Inthe course of time they have lost their independence and turned into derivationalaffixes. Ex. – dom, – hood. /O.E. had – state, rank, – dom (dom condemn, –ship has developed from noun «scipe» (meaning: state); the adjective forming suffix«-ly» has developed from the noun «lic» (body, shape). The prefixes out-,under-, over etc also have developed out of independent words.
Anotherproblem of the study of affixes is homonymic affixes. Homonymic affixes areaffixes which have the same sound form, spelling but different meanings andthey are added to different parts of speech.
Ex.ful (1) forms adjectives from a noun: love (v) – loveful (adj/, man (n), – manful(adj).
– ful(2) forms adjective from a verb: forget (v.) – forgetful, (adj) thank (v.) –thankful (adj).
– ly(l)added to an adjective stem is homonymous to the adjective forming suffix – ly(2)which is added to a noun stem. Ex. quickly, slowly, and lovely, friendly.
Theverb suffix-en (1) added to a noun and adjective stem is homonymous to theadjective forming suffix – en (2) which is added to a noun stem. Ex. tostrengthen, to soften, and wooden, golden.
Theprefix un – (l) added to a noun and a verb stem is homonymous to the prefix un– (2) which is added to an adj¬ective stem. Ex. unshoe, unbind, unfair, untrue.
Inthe course of the history of English as a result of borrowings there appearedmany synonymous affixes in the language. Ex. the suffixes – er, – or, –ist, – ent, – ant, – eer, – ian, – man, – ee, –ess form synonymous affixes denoting the meaning «agent». Having the meaning ofnegation the prefixes un-, in-, non-, dis-, rnis – form synonymic group ofprefixes. It is interesting to point out that the synonymous affixes help us toreveal different lexico–semantic groupings of words. Ex. the words formed bythe suffixes – man, – er, – or, – ian, – ee, – eer, – ent,ant etc. belong to the lexico-semantic groupings of words denoting «doer of theaction». The affixes may also undergo semantic changes, they may bepolysemantic. Ex. the noun forming suffix «er» has the following meanings:
1)persons following some special trade and profession (driver, teacher, hunter);2) persons doing a certain action at the moment in question (packer, chooser,giver); 3) tools (blotter, atomizer, boiler, transmitter).
Theadjective forming suffix «-y» also has several meanings:
1)composed of, full of (bony, stony)
2)characterized by (rainy, cloudy)
3)having the character of resembling what the stem denotes (inky, bushy etc.)
Thus,affixes have different characteristic features.
TheComparative analysis of the English language with other languages showed thatEnglish is not so rich in suffixes as, for example, the Uzbek language. Thetotal number of suffixes is 67 in English but the Uzbek suffixes are 171 and,vice versa, prefixation is more typical to the English language than Uzbek(Compare: 79:8)
InUzbek there are following prefixes: be-, no-, ba, bo-, nim– By their origin theUzbek affixes like English ones are divided into native and borrowed. Thesuffixes:chi, – gar, – zor, – li, – lik, – o’q are native suffixes but. – izm,– atsiya, bo, no-, namo-, – ki are of borrowed origin. The affixes may bedivided into different semantic groups. These semantic groups of affixes may bedifferent in different languages. For example, diminutive affixes in Uzbek aremore than in English (see the table)Diminutive Suffixes In English In Uzbek -ie (birdie), – let (cloudlet), – ting (wolf ling), – ette (mountainette), – ock (hillock), – y (Jony), – et (whippet), – kin (tigerkin), -akay (yol-yolakay), alak(do’ngalak), – gina(qizgina), jon(dadajon)
Ascompared with the Uzbek language the negative affixes are more widely used inEnglish.
InUzbek: – siz (qo’lsiz), be – (berahm), no – (noxush)
InEnglish: – less – (handless), a-, an – (anomalous); – un – (unkind) dis – (dislike),anti – (antibiotic), de – (decode), in – (innocent) ir – (irregular), im – (impossible),non – (nondeductive)
Thoughthe number of Uzbek prefixes is very few (they are – 8) they are capable of changingwords from one part of speech into another. Ex. adab. (n.)» – boadab(adj),hosil (n) – serhosil(adj)
Thereare different classifications of affixes in linguistic literature. Affixes maybe divided into dead and living. Dead affixes are those which are no longerfelt in Modern English as component parts of words. They can be singled outonly by an etymological analysis. Ex.admit (fromL ad+mit-tere); deed, seed (-d)flight, bright(-t).
Livingaffixes are easily singled out from a word. Ex. freedom, childhood, marriage.        
Livingaffixes are traditionally in their turn divided into productive andnon-productive. Productive affixes are those which are characterized by theirability to make new words. Ex. – er (baker, lander (kosmik kema); – ist(leftist – (chap taraf)) – ism, – ish (baldish) – ing, – ness, – ation, – ee.– ry, – or – ance, ic are productive suffixes re-, un-non-, anti – etc areproductive prefixes.
Non-productiveaffixes are those which are not used to form new words in Modern English. Ex, –ard, – cy, – ive, – en, – dom, – ship, – ful, – en, – ify etc are notproductive suffixes; in, ir (im-), mis – dis-, are non-productive prefixes.These affixes may occur in a great number of words but if they are not used toform new words in Modern English they are not productive.
Butrecent investigations prove that there are no productive and non-productiveaffixes because each affix plays a certain role in wordformation. There areonly affixes with different degrees of productivity, besides that productivityof affixes should not be mixed up with their frequency of occurence in speech.Frequency of affixes is characterised by the occurence of an affix in a greatnumber of words. But productivity is the ability of a given suffix or prefix tomake new words. An affix may be frequent but not productive, ex, the suffix«-ive» is very frequent but non-productive.
Somelinguists distinguish between two types of prefixes:
1)those which are like functional words (such as prepositions or adverbs) (ex.out-, over-, up – .)
2)those which are not correlated with any independent words, (ex. un-, dis-, re-,mis-, etc).
Prefixesout-, over-, up-, under-, etc are considered as semibound morphemes. However,this view is doubtful because these prefixes are quite frequent in speech andlike other derivational affixes have a generalized meaning. They have nogrammatical meaning like the independent words. We think they are bound morphemesand should be regarded as homonyms of the corresponding independent words, ex.the prefix «out-» in outdoor, outcome, outbreak etc is homonymous to thepreposition «out» in «out of door» and the adverb «out» in «He went out».
Prefixesand suffixes may be classified according to their meaning.
1)prefixes of negative meaning such as; de-, non-, un – in-, ir-, il-, im-, dis –(ex. defeat, decentralize, disappear, impossible, discomfort etc); 2) prefixes,denoting space and time relations: after, under-, for-, pre-, post-, over-,super – (ex, prehistory, postposition, superstructure, overspread, after¬noon,forefather); 3) prefixes denoting relation of an action such as: re – (ex.reread, remake).
Likeprefixes 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) dimi-nutiveness: – let, – ock, – ie etc (birdie,cloudlet, hillock); 5) quan-titativeness1: – ful, – ous, – y, – ive,– ly, – some.
Suffixesmay be divided into different groups according to what part of speech theyform:
1)noun – forming, i. e. those which are form nouns: – er, – dom, – ness, – ation,– ity, – age, – ance. – ence, – ist, – hood, – ship, – ment etc; 2)adjective-forming: – able/, – ible/. – uble, – al, – ian, – ese, – ate, – ed,– ful, – ive, – ous, – y etc; 3) numeral-forming: – teen, – th, – ty etc; 4)verb-forming: – ate, – en, – ify, – ize etc.; 5) adverb-forming: – ly, – ward, –wise etc.
Suffixesmay be added to the stem of different parts of speech. According to this pointof view they may be:
1)those added to verbs: – er, – ing, – ment, – able; 2) those added to nouns: – less,– ish, – ful, – ist, some etc; 3) those added to adjectives: – en, – ly, – ish,– ness etc.
Suffixesare also classified according to their stylistic reference: 1) suffixes, whichcharacterize neutral stylistic reference: – able, – er, – ing (ex. dancer,understandable (helping); 2) suffixes which characterize a certain stylisticreference:
– oid,– form, – tron etc (astroid, rhomboid, cruciform, cyclo¬tron etc).

Bibliography
1. Ginsburg R.S.et al. A Course in Modern English Lexicology. M., 1979 pp.72–82
2. Buranov,Muminov Readings on Modern English Lexicology T. O’qituvchi 1985 pp. 34–47
3. Arnold I.V.The English Word M. High School 1986 pp. 143–149
4. O.Jespersen. Linguistics. London, 1983, pp. 395–412
5. Jespersen,Otto. Growth and Structure of the English Language. Oxford, 1982 pp. 246–249
5. The ConciseOxford Dictionary of Current English. Oxford 1964. pp. 147, 167, V.D. ArakinEnglish Russian Dictionary M. Russky Yazyk 1978 pp. 23–24, 117–119, 133–134
7. Abayev V.I.Homonyms T. O’qituvchi 1981 pp. 4–5, 8, 26–29
8. SmirnitskyA.I. Homonyms in English M.1977 pp.57–59, 89–90
9. DubenetsE.M. Modern English Lexicology (Course of Lectures) M., Moscow State TeacherTraining University Publishers 2004 pp. 17–31
10. AkhmanovaO.S. Lexicology: Theory and Method. M. 1972 pp. 59–66
12. BurchfieldR.W. The English Language. Lnd. 1985 pp. 45–47
13. Canon G.Historical Changes and English Wordformation: New Vocabulary items. N.Y., 1986.p. 284
14. Howard Ph.New words for Old. Lnd., 1980. p. 311
15. Sheard,John. The Words we Use. N.Y., 1954.p. 3
16. Maurer D.W.,High F.C. New Words – Where do they come from and where do they go. American Speech. 1982.p. 171
17. Aпресян Ю.Д. Лексическаясемантика. Омонимические средства языка. М. 1974. с. 46
18. Беляева Т.М., Потапова И.А. Английскийязык за пределами Англии. Л. Изд-во ЛГУ 1971 С. 150–151
19. Арнольд И.В. Лексикологиясовременного английского языка. М. Высшая школа 1959. с. 212–224
20. Виноградов В.В. Лексикологияи лексикография. Избранные труды. М. 1977 с. 119–122
21. BloomsburyDictionary of New Words. M. 1996 с. 276–278
22. Hornby TheAdvanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. Lnd. 1974 с. 92–93, 111
23. LongmanLexicon of Contemporary English. Longman. 1981 pp. 23–25
24. Трофимова З.C. Dictionary of NewWords and New Meanings. 'Павлин', 1993.
25. World BookEncyclopedia NY Vol 8 1993 p. 321
26 Internet: www.wikipedia.com/English/articles/homonymy.htm
27. Internet:www mpsttu.ru/works/english philology/ Э.М. Дубенец. Курс лекций и планы семинарских занятий полексикологии английского языка