deadjectival, e.g. uneasy, biannual, etc. It is interesting that the
most productive prefixal pattern for adjectives is the one made up of
the prefix un– and the base built either on adjectival stems or
present and past participle, e.g. unknown, unsmiling, untold, etc.
3) Semantically prefixes fall into mono– and polysemantic.
4) As to the generic denotational meaning there are different groups that
are distinguished in linguistic literature: (a) negative prefixes such
as un–, non–, in–, dis–, a–, im–/in–/ir– (e.g. employment (
unemployment, politician ( non-politician, correct ( incorrect,
advantage ( disadvantage, moral ( amoral, legal ( illegal, etc.); (b)
reversative of privative prefixes, such as un–, de–, dis–, dis– (e.g.
tie ( untie, centralize ( decentralize, connect ( disconnect, etc.);
(c) pejorative prefixes, such as mis–, mal–, pseudo– (e.g. calculate (
miscalculate, function ( malfunction, scientific ( pseudo-scientific,
etc.); (d) prefixes of time and order, such as fore–, pre–, post–, ex–
(e.g. see ( foresee, war ( pre-war, Soviet ( post-Soviet, wife ( ex-
wife, etc.); (e) prefix of repetition re– (e.g. do ( redo, type (
retype, etc.); (f) locative prefixes such as super–, sub–, inter–,
trans– (e.g. market ( supermarket, culture ( subculture, national (
international, Atlantic ( trans-Atlantic, etc.).
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 (e. g. unnatural, unlace,
outgrow, override, redo, 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-violence, 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.
Suffixation is the formation of words with the help of suffixes. Suffixes
usually modify the lexical meaning of the base and transfer words to a
different part of speech. There are suffixes however, which do not shift
words from one part of speech into another; a suffix of this kind usually
transfers a word into a different semantic group, e. g. a concrete noun
becomes an abstract one, as is the case with child—childhood,
friend—friendship, etc.
Chains of suffixes occurring in derived words having two and more suffixal
morphemes are sometimes referred to in lexicography as compound suffixes:
–ably = –able + –ly (e. g. profitably, unreasonably) –ical–ly = –ic + –al +
–ly (e. g. musically, critically); –ation = –ate + –ion (e. g. fascination,
isolation) and some others. Compound suffixes do not always present a mere
succession of two or more suffixes arising out of several consecutive
stages of derivation. Some of them acquire a new quality operating as a
whole unit. Let us examine from this point of view the suffix –ation in
words like fascination, translation, adaptation and the like. Adaptation
looks at first sight like a parallel to fascination, translation. The
latter however are first-degree derivatives built with the suffix –ion on
the bases fascinate–, translate–. But there is no base adaptate–, only the
shorter base adapt–. Likewise damnation, condemnation, formation,
information and many others are not matched by shorter bases ending in
–ate, but only by still shorter ones damn–, condemn–, form–, inform–. Thus,
the suffix –ation is a specific suffix of a composite nature. It consists
of two suffixes –ate and –ion, but in many cases functions as a single unit
in first-degree derivatives. It is referred to in linguistic literature as
a coalescent suffix or a group suffix. Adaptation is then a derivative of
the first degree of derivation built with the coalescent suffix on the base
adapt–.
Of interest is also the group-suffix –manship consisting of the suffixes
–man and –ship. It denotes a superior quality, ability of doing something
to perfection, e. g. authormanship, quotemanship, lipmanship, etc.
It also seems appropriate to make several remarks about the morphological
changes that sometimes accompany the process of combining derivational
morphemes with bases. Although this problem has been so far insufficiently
investigated, some observations have been made and some data collected. For
instance, the noun-forming suffix –ess for names of female beings brings
about a certain change in the phonetic shape of the correlative male noun
provided the latter ends in –er, –or, e.g. actress (actor), sculptress
(sculptor), tigress (tiger), etc. It may be easily observed that in such
cases the sound [?] is contracted in the feminine nouns.
Further, there are suffixes due to which the primary stress is shifted to
the syllable immediately preceding them, e.g. courageous (courage),
stability (stable), investigation (investigate), peculiarity (peculiar),
etc. When added to a base having the suffix –able/–ible as its component,
the suffix –ity brings about a change in its phonetic shape, namely the
vowel [i] is inserted between [b] and [l], e. g. possible ( possibility,
changeable ( changeability, etc. Some suffixes attract the primary stress
on to themselves, there is a secondary stress on the first syllable in
words with such suffixes, e. g. 'employ'ee (em'ploy), govern'mental
(govern), 'pictu'resque (picture).
There are different classifications of suffixes in linguistic literature,
as suffixes may be divided into several groups according to different
principles:
1) The first principle of classification that, one might say, suggests
itself is the part of speech formed. Within the scope of the part-of-
speech classification suffixes naturally fall into several groups such
as:
a) noun-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in nouns, e. g.
–er, –dom, –ness, –ation, etc. (teacher, Londoner, freedom,
brightness, justification, etc.);
b) adjective-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in
adjectives, e. g. –able, –less, –ful, –ic, –ous, etc.
(agreeable, careless, doubtful, poetic, courageous, etc.);
c) verb-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in verbs, e. g.
–en, –fy, –ize (darken, satisfy, harmonize, etc.);
d) adverb-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in adverbs, e.
g. –ly, –ward (quickly, eastward, etc.).
2) Suffixes may also be classified into various groups according to the
lexico-grammatical character of the base the affix is usually added
to. Proceeding from this principle one may divide suffixes into:
a) deverbal suffixes (those added to the verbal base), e. g. –er,
–ing, –ment, –able, etc. (speaker, reading, agreement, suitable,
etc.);
b) denominal suffixes (those added to the noun base), e. g. –less,
–ish, –ful, –ist, –some, etc. (handless, childish, mouthful,
violinist, troublesome, etc.);
c) de-adjectival suffixes (those affixed to the adjective base), e.
g. –en, –ly, –ish, –ness, etc. (blacken, slowly, reddish,
brightness, etc.).
3) A classification of suffixes may also be based on the criterion of
sense expressed by a set of suffixes. Proceeding from this principle
suffixes are classified into various groups within the bounds of a
certain part of speech. For instance, noun-suffixes fall into those
denoting:
a) the agent of an action, e. g. –er, –ant (baker, dancer,
defendant, etc.);
b) appurtenance, e. g. –an, –ian, –ese, etc. (Arabian, Elizabethan,
Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc.);
c) collectivity, e. g. –age, –dom, –ery (–ry), etc. (freightage,
officialdom, peasantry, etc.);
d) diminutiveness, e. g. –ie, –let, –ling, etc. (birdie, girlie,
cloudlet, squirreling, wolfing, etc.).
4) Still another classification of suffixes may be worked out if one
examines them from the angle of stylistic reference. Just like
prefixes, suffixes are also characterized by quite a definite
stylistic reference falling into two basic classes:
a) those characterized by neutral stylistic reference such as
–able, –er, –ing, etc.;
b) those having a certain stylistic value such as –old, –i/form,
–aceous, –tron, etc.
Suffixes with neutral stylistic reference may occur in words of
different lexico-stylistic layers. As for suffixes of the second class
they are restricted in use to quite definite lexico-stylistic layers
of words, in particular to terms, e.g. rhomboid, asteroid, cruciform,
