– 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.
The verb suffix-en (1) added to a noun and adjective stem is homonymous to the adjective forming suffix – en (2) which is added to a noun stem. Ex. to strengthen, to soften, and wooden, golden.
The prefix 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.
In the course of the history of English as a result of borrowings there appeared many 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 of negation the prefixes un-, in-, non-, dis-, rnis – form synonymic group of prefixes. It is interesting to point out that the synonymous affixes help us to reveal different lexico–semantic groupings of words. Ex. the words formed by the suffixes – man, – er, – or, – ian, – ee, – eer, – ent, ant etc. belong to the lexico-semantic groupings of words denoting «doer of the action». The affixes may also undergo semantic changes, they may be polysemantic. 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).
The adjective 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.
The Comparative analysis of the English language with other languages showed that English is not so rich in suffixes as, for example, the Uzbek language. The total 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)
In Uzbek there are following prefixes: be-, no-, ba, bo-, nim– By their origin the Uzbek affixes like English ones are divided into native and borrowed. The suffixes:chi, – gar, – zor, – li, – lik, – o’q are native suffixes but. – izm, – atsiya, bo, no-, namo-, – ki are of borrowed origin. The affixes may be divided into different semantic groups. These semantic groups of affixes may be different in different languages. For example, diminutive affixes in Uzbek are more 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) |
As compared with the Uzbek language the negative affixes are more widely used in English.
In Uzbek: – siz (qo’lsiz), be – (berahm), no – (noxush)
In English: – less – (handless), a-, an – (anomalous); – un – (unkind) dis – (dislike), anti – (antibiotic), de – (decode), in – (innocent) ir – (irregular), im – (impossible), non – (nondeductive)
Though the number of Uzbek prefixes is very few (they are – 8) they are capable of changing words from one part of speech into another. Ex. adab. (n.)» – boadab(adj), hosil (n) – serhosil(adj)
There are different classifications of affixes in linguistic literature. Affixes may be divided into dead and living. Dead affixes are those which are no longer felt in Modern English as component parts of words. They can be singled out only by an etymological analysis. Ex.admit (fromL ad+mit-tere); deed, seed (-d) flight, bright(-t).
Living affixes are easily singled out from a word. Ex. freedom, childhood, marriage.
Living affixes are traditionally in their turn divided into productive and non-productive. Productive affixes are those which are characterized by their ability 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 are productive prefixes.
Non-productive affixes 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 not productive 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 to form new words in Modern English they are not productive.
But recent investigations prove that there are no productive and non-productive affixes because each affix plays a certain role in wordformation. There are only affixes with different degrees of productivity, besides that productivity of 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 great number of words. But productivity is the ability of a given suffix or prefix to make new words. An affix may be frequent but not productive, ex, the suffix «-ive» is very frequent but non-productive.
Some linguists 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).
Prefixes out-, over-, up-, under-, etc are considered as semibound morphemes. However, this view is doubtful because these prefixes are quite frequent in speech and like other derivational affixes have a generalized meaning. They have no grammatical meaning like the independent words. We think they are bound morphemes and should be regarded as homonyms of the corresponding independent words, ex. the prefix «out-» in outdoor, outcome, outbreak etc is homonymous to the preposition «out» in «out of door» and the adverb «out» in «He went out».
Prefixes and suffixes may be classified according to their meaning.
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).
Like prefixes the suffixes are also classified according to their meaning:
1) the agent suffixes: – er, – or, – ist, – ee etc. (baker, sailor, typist, employee); 2) appurtenance: – an, – ian, – ese (Arabian, Russian, Chinese, Japanese); 3) collectivity: – age, – dom, – hood, – ery (peasantry, marriage, kingdom, childhood); 4) dimi-nutiveness: – let, – ock, – ie etc (birdie, cloudlet, hillock); 5) quan-titativeness1: – ful, – ous, – y, – ive, – ly, – some.
Suffixes may be divided into different groups according to what part of speech they form:
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.
Suffixes may be added to the stem of different parts of speech. According to this point of 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.
Suffixes are also classified according to their stylistic reference: 1) suffixes, which characterize neutral stylistic reference: – able, – er, – ing (ex. dancer, understandable (helping); 2) suffixes which characterize a certain stylistic reference:
– 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 Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Oxford 1964. pp. 147, 167, V.D. Arakin English 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. Smirnitsky A.I. Homonyms in English M.1977 pp.57–59, 89–90
9. Dubenets E.M. Modern English Lexicology (Course of Lectures) M., Moscow State Teacher Training University Publishers 2004 pp. 17–31
10. Akhmanova O.S. Lexicology: Theory and Method. M. 1972 pp. 59–66
12. Burchfield R.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. Лексическая семантика. Омонимические средства языка. М. 1974. с. 46
18. Беляева Т.М., Потапова И.А. Английский язык за пределами Англии. Л. Изд-во ЛГУ 1971 С. 150–151
19. Арнольд И.В. Лексикология современного английского языка. М. Высшая школа 1959. с. 212–224
20. Виноградов В.В. Лексикология и лексикография. Избранныетруды. М. 1977 с. 119–122
21. Bloomsbury Dictionary of New Words. M. 1996 с. 276–278
22. Hornby The Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. Lnd. 1974 с. 92–93, 111
23. Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English. Longman. 1981pp.23–25
24. Трофимова З.C. Dictionary of New Words and New Meanings. 'Павлин', 1993.
25. World Book Encyclopedia NY Vol 8 1993 p. 321
26 Internet: http://www.wikipedia.com/English/articles/homonymy.htm
27. Internet: http://www mpsttu.ru/works/english philology/ Э.М. Дубенец. Курс лекций и планы семинарских занятий по лексикологии английского языка
[1]Seealso: П A. Coболева, об ocновах слов, связанных отношениями конверсии. Сб «Иностранныеязыкиввысшейшколе», вып. 2, 1963.
[2] A paradigm is defined as the system of grammatical forms characteristic of a word.
[3] Historical lexicology shows how sometimes the stem becomes bound due to the internal changes in the stem that accompany the addition of affixes; cf. broad: breadth, clean: cleanly ['klenhj, dear: dearth [dε:θ ], grief : -.grievous.
1S. Potter, Modern Linguistics, p. 81, London, 1957
1 The contribution of Soviet scholars to this problem is seen in the works by M. D. Stepanova, E. S. Koobryakova and many others. See: И.И. Иванова, О морфологической характеристике слова в современном английском языке, «Проблемы морфологического строя германских языков», М., 1963; Е.С. Кубрякова, Что такое словообразование, М., 1965; М.Д.Степанова, Методы синхронного анализа лексики, М.: 1968.
1H. Pilch, Comparative Constructions in English, "Language", vol. 41, No1, Jan.-March 1965, p. 40
1 Immediate constituents — pny of the two meaningful parts forming a larger linguistic unity.
2 L. Bloomfield, Language, London, 1935, p. 210.
3 See: E. O. Nida, Morphology. The Descriptive Analysis of Words, Ann Arbor, 1946 p. Fl.
1 2.S. Harris, Methods in Structural Linguistics, p. 163.
1 E. Nida, Morphology, University of Michigan Press, 1946, pp. 81-82.
2A.H. Cмирнициский, Лексикология английского языка, M., 1956, с. 63.