Affication as a major word

THE MINISTRY OF HIGHER AND SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN

THE UZBEK STATE WORLD LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY

ENGLISH Y FACULTY II

ENGLISH LEXICOLOGY DEPARTMENT

COURSE PAPER

Affixation as a major type of word formation

Written by the student of the 3^rd course, 312 group

Hoshimqulova M

Scientific superviser:

Azimbayeva D.A.

TASHKENT 2016

CONTENTS

Introduction……………………………………………………………….....…....3

Chapter I. The historical background of the English lexicology

1.1.Word-formation as a subject of study....................................................6

1.2.Various types and ways of Forming-words............................................8

Chapter II. Affixation as a productive type of word formation

2.1. Productivity of affixation………………………………………….................19

2.2. Structural and Semantic analysis of affixes……………………….…............31

Conclusion………………………………………………......................................40

The list of used literature…………………………………………………….....42

Introduction

As President Islam Karimov stated “Today the world demands that we should say our word, demonstrate our intellectual capacities,”¹ and that is why “The most important thing for us is to give young people an opportunity to master a certain speciality, to provide them with a reliable start in life”².

Undoubtedly nowadays there are many opportunities for the youth of Uzbekistan to show their full capacity in any field. Using these opportunities wisely, I am also trying to research my bachelor diploma work in my speciality.

The given course paper is dedicated to the study of affixation as a productive way of word-formation, which presents a certain interest both for theoretical investigation and for the practical language use.

The aim of this course paper describes the main productive way of word-formation in Modern English according to this general aim there put forward the following particular tasks:

1. to define word-formation as a subject;

2. to describe the various types and ways of forming words

3. to analyze the productive way of English word formation ;

4. to study the types of affixation

The theoretical significance of this course paper is that, the theoretical position can be used in scientific works besides, that they may be used delivering lectures on Lexicology. The practical value of the course paper is that, the practical results and conclusion can be used in seminars on Lexicology.

The structure of this course paper is as follows: Introduction, main part, four paragraphs conclusion and bibliography.

Introduction deals with the description of the structure of a course paper.

The first paragraph deals with word-formation as a subject.

The second paragraph deals with the types of forming words.

In the third paragraph we discuss about the productive ways of

word-formation. It consists of two paragraphs :

In the forth paragraph we discuss the Structural and Semantical analysis of affixes and the types of affixation and its problem.

Introduction establishes the purpose, the tasks, novelty, the methods used in the investigation, practical and theoretical significance of the work and explains the reasons of choosing the theme for studying.

The list of used literature contains more then 20 units which deal with the question under discussion.

Chapter I. The historical background of the English lexicology

1. 1. Word-formation as a Subject of Study

Before turning to the various processes of making words, it would be useful to analyze the related problem of the composition of words of their constituent parts.

If viewed structurally, words appear to be divisible into smaller units, which are called morphemes. Morphs don't occur as free forms, but only as constituents of words. Yet, they possess meanings of their own.

All morphemes are subdivided into two large classes: roots and affixes. The latter, in their turn, fall into prefixes which precede the root in the structure of the word (as in re - read, mis - pronounce, un - well) and suffixes which follow the root (as in teach- er, cur - able, dec - ate).

Words which consist of a root and an affix (or several affixes) are called derived words or derivatives and are produced by the process of word-building, known as affixation (or derivation).

Derived words are extremely numerous in the English vocabulary. Successfully competing with this structural type is the, so-called, root word which has only a root morpheme in its structure. This type is widely represented by a great number of words belonging to the original English stock or to earlier borrowings (house, room, book, work, port,, street, table) and , in Modern English , has been greatly enlarged by the type oi word- building called conversion.

Another wide-spread word structure is a compound word consisting of two or more stems (dining-room). Words of this structural type are produced by the word-building process called composition.

The somewhat odd-looking words like flu, pram, lab, M.P., V-day, H-bomb are called shortenings. Derivation and composition are the most productive ways of word-building.

To return to the question posed by the title of this chapter, of how words are made, let us try and get a more detailed picture of each of the major types of Modern English word-building and, also, of some minor types.

Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches.

As a subject of study, word-building is that branch of Lexicology, which studies the patterns on which a language, in this case the English language, builds new words. It's self-evident that word-formation can deal only with words which are analyzable both structurally and semantically. The study of the simple word has no place in it. Therefore, writer, displease, atom- free and others are relevant to word-formation, but to write, to please, atom, free are not.

Like any other linguistic phenomenon word-formation may be studied from two angles - synchronically and diachronically. It's necessary to distinguish between these two approaches, for synchronically the linguist investigates the present-day system of the types of the word-formation while diachronically, he is concerned with the history of word-building. To illustrate the difference of approach we shall consider affixation.

Synchronically a derived word is structurally and semantically more complex than a simple one, while diachronically it was formed from some other word. On the synchronic plane a derived word is regarded as having a more complex structure than its correlated simple word regardless of the fact whether it was derived from a simple stem or not. There are cases in the history of the English language when a word structurally more complex served as the original element from which a simpler word was derived. Those are cases of the process called back-formation (or back-derivation): beggar - to beg, editor - to edit, chauffeur - to chauff and some others.

The fact that historically the verbs to beg, to chauff, to edit and others were derived from the corresponding agent-nouns is of no synchronous relevance. For the present day speaker no such relationship exists, therefore they are all simple words in Modern English.

While analyzing and describing word-formation synchronically it's not enough to extract the relevant structural elements from a word, describe its structure in terms of morphemes and allomorphs and determine the type of word- formation; it is absolutely necessary to determine the position of the constituents within the structural system of the language as a whole. Productivity of a derivative type, therefore, can not be overlooked in this description.

Some of the ways of forming words in present-day English can be resorted to for the creation of new words whenever occasion demands - these are called productive ways of forming words ; other ways of forming words can not now produce new words and these are commonly termed non-productive or unproductive. For instance, affixation has been a productive way of forming words ever since the Old English period fiscere¹ and MnE striker and steamer. On the other hand, sound-interchange must have been at one time a word-building means but in Modern English it can't be used to coin new words. Actually, its function in Modern English is only to distinguish one word from another, a verb from a noun, as is the case with:

food - to feed, blood - to bleed, full - to fill and so on.

The delimitation between productive and non-productive ways and means of word-formation as stated above is not, however, accepted by all linguists without reserve.

Some linguists consider it necessary to define the term "productivity of a word- building means" more accurately. They hold the view that productive ways and means of word-formation are only those that can be used for the formation of an unlimited number of new words in the Modern Language, such means that "know no bounds" and easily form occasional words. This divergence of opinion is responsible in particular, for the difference in the lists of derivational affixes considered productive in various books on English Lexicology.

2.2. Various Types and Ways of Forming Words

The available linguistic literature on the subject cites various types and ways of forming words. Books dealing with the problems of word-formation in the Russian language, as well as some books on English Lexicology usually mention morphologic, syntactic and semantic types of word-formation.

In conformity with the basic structural types of stems and words described above the following two types of word

formation may be distinguished : word derivation and word-composition

(or compounding) words created by word-derivation have only one primary stem and one derivational affix in terms of word-formation analysis, for example, cleanness (from clean), to overestimate (from to estimate), chairmanship (from chairman), waterproofness (from waterproof), openhandedness (from open-handed) etc. Some derived words have no affixes, because derivation is achieved through conversion, for instance, to paper (from paper), a fall, and so on.

Words created by word-composition have at least two primary stems, e.g. , coal-black , ice-cold , looking-glass , daydream, hotbed, speedometer etc. Besides, there are words built by a simultaneous application of composition and derivation (suffixation or conversion) - derivational compounds, eg., long- legged, open-minded, a breakdown and others.

The shortening of words stands apart from the above two-fold division of word-formation. It can not be regarded as part of either word-derivation or word-composition for the simple reason that neither the root morpheme nor the derivational affix can be singled out from the shortened word (lab, exam, V- day,) Consequently, the shortening of words should be treated separately as a specific type of word-formation.

Within the types, further distinction may be made between ways of forming words, he basic ways of forming words in word- derivation, for instance, are affixation and conversion. The lexicalization of grammatical forms, sound and stress interchange and some others are usually referred to as minor ways of forming words.

In describing the technique of word-formation it is important to point out the means by which word-formation is effected. For instance, affixation is characterized by the use of suffixes and prefixes, some cases of compounding by the use of connecting elements etc.

Another classification of the types of word-formation worked out by H.Marchand is also of interest. Proceeding from the distinction between complete motivation as found in such composites as rain-bow, do-er, un-do and others are partial motivation as exemplified by phonetic symbolism (pish, pooh, crack) he considers two major groups:

1. Words formed as grammatical syntagmas, i.e. combination of full linguistic signs;

2. Words which are not grammatical syntagmas, i.e. which are composites not made up of full linguistic signs.

To the first group belong Compounding, Prefvcation, Derivation by a Zero Morpheme and Back-derivation; To the second Expressive Symbolism, Blending, Clipping, Rhyme and Abhut Gemination, Word-manufacturing.

There are two types of word-formation in Modern English: word -derivation and word-composition. Within the types further distinction is made between the various ways and means of word-formation.

Sound and stress-interchange in Modern English are means distinguished between different words of different parts of speech.

The degrees of productivity and factors favoring it make an important aspect of synchronic description of every derivational pattern within the two types of word-formation.

Compound word is a productive way of Word-Formation

A compound word is a combination of two or more words that function as a single unit of meaning. When two (or more) elements which could potentially be used as stems are combined to form another stem, the form is said to be a compound. A compound lexeme (or simply a compound) can thus be defined as a lexeme containing two or more potential stems, Since each potential stem contains at least one root, a compound must contain at least two roots.( If one of the potential stems that makes up the compound is itself compound, the resultant form may, of course, contain more than two roots, paint-box.)

However, this definition is not quite sufficient, since derivational process may at times apply to forms containing more than one root (e.g. school-master, super-highway). In such cases it is said that the base of the derivational process is compound, but not that the whole lexeme is a compound. A compound may therefore be more fully defined as a lexeme containing two or more potential stems that has not subsequently been subjected to a derivational process. It should be noted that while derivation may apply to forms containing more than one root, the presence of two roots is not criteria for derivation as it is for compounding.

It is frequently useful to have a term to cover both the forms produced by compounding to contrast these with forms produced by inflection and words which are made up of just roots.

There are three types of compounds: those are written as single words, with no hyphenation, are called closed compounds the word “flowerpot”, for example. Hyphenated compounds, such as “merry-go-round” and “well-being”, are the second type. Those in the third group, called open compounds, are written as separate words – the nouns “school bus” and “decision making”.

Keep in mind that compounds can function as different parts of speech. In such cases, the type of compound “carryover” as a noun and an adjective:

The money from that line item will carry over to next year`s budget.

The money we used for the trip was part of the carryover from last year`s budget.

Carryover funds can be used to cover a deficit.

When you don`t know in which category a particular compound belongs, first try looking it up in the dictionary. You will see there that some compounds are hyphenated regardless of their function in a sentence. For example, “on-site” is a hyphenated compound when it functions as an adjective or as an adverb: “The team conducted on-site visits” and “The team conducted its review on-site”.

The real confusion begins when the compound is not given in the dictionary. That is, it is a compound that is being formed for a very specific situation. In such cases, we have rely on guidelines provide by the style manual to which we adhere. Our style manual of choice, the Chicago Manual of Style, has a lengthy section devoted to compound words- evidence that the rules are not simple.

One way to decide if a hyphen is necessary is to see if the phrase might be ambiguous without it. For example, “large-print paper” might be unclear written as “large print paper” because the reader might combine “print” and “paper” as a single idea rather than combining “large” and “print”. Another such example is “English-language learners”. Without the hyphens, a reader might think we are talking about English people who are learning any language rather than people who are learners of the English language.

On the other hand, no one is going to be confused by the phrase “chocolate chip cookies” or “Saturday morning cartoons”. In other words, the open compounds (i.e., no hyphen) “chocolate chip” and “Saturday morning” are so well known that there is no room for ambiguity. The open compound “high school” is so common, for another example, that we would not hyphenate the high phrase “high school students”. We would, however, hyphenate “high risk” in phrase “high risk students”.

The other time we must use hyphenation is to join a word to past participle to create a single adjective preceding the noun it modifies: “a well-intentioned plan”, or “a horseshoe-shaped bar”. Be aware, however, that we do not hyphenate these same phrases when they follow the nouns they modify:

This is a government-mandated program.

The program is government mandated.

She is a well-respected student.

She is well respected as a teacher.

Another basic rule is that we never hyphenate compounds that are created with “-ly” adverbs, even when they precede the nouns they modify: “a fully developed plan”, or “a nationally certified teacher”. Here are more examples:

We sent heavily fortified troops.

The troops were heavily fortified.

All newly employed nurses must be evaluated regularly.

All the nurses on the eight floors are newly employed.

Compound words are two words put together. Knowing when to use a hyphen and when to spell them as one word is difficult. British & U.S. usages do not always agree, and different dictionaries published in the same country do not always agree. In U.S. usage, fewer hyphens are than in British usage. Many more compound words are written as one word today than were written that way in past. Compound adjectives are two separate words that together modify a noun. They are usually written with a hyphen if they come before the word they modify, but sometimes usage changes and they become one word.

Written as written with written as two

One word words a hyphen separate

Firsthand first-degree first aid

Stream boat engine post-Victorian land office

Postgraduate meridium post-mortem stream

In English, words, particularly adjectives and nouns, are combined into compound structures in a variety of ways. And once they are formed, they sometimes metamorphose over time. A common pattern is that two words- fire fly, say- will be joined by a hyphen for a time- fire-fly- and then be joined into one word – firefly. In this respect, a language like German, in which words are happily and immediately linked one to the other, might seem to have an advantage. There is only one sure way to know how to spell compounds in English; use an authoritative dictionary.

There are three forms of compound words:

1. the closed form, in which the words are melded together, such is firefly, secondhand, softball, childlike, cross-town, redhead, keyboard, makeup, notebook;

2. the hyphenated form such is daughter-in-law, master-at-arms, over –the-counter, six-pack, six-years-old, mass-produced;

3. the open form, such as post office, real estate, middle class, full moon, half sister attorney general.

How are words modified by an adjective – “a little school.” “The yellow butter”- is different from a compound word-“a high school”, “the peanut butter”- is a nice and philosophical question. In clearly has something to do with the degree to which preceding word changes the essential character of the noun, the degree to which the modifier and the noun is separable. If you were diagramming a sentence with a compound word, you would probably keep the words together, on the same horizontal line.

Modifying compounds are often hyphenated to avoid confusion. The New York Public Library`s Writers Guide points out than an old-furniture salesman clearly deals in old furniture, but an old furniture salesman would be an old man. We probably would not have the same ambiguity, however, about a car used dealer. When compounded modifiers precede a noun, they are often hyphenated: part-time teacher, fifty-yard wide field, fire-resistant curtains, and high –speed chase. When those same modifying words came after the noun, however, they are not hyphenated: a field fifty yard wide, curtains that are fire resistant, etc. the second-rate opera company gave a performance that was first rate. Comparative and superlative forms of adjectives are hyphenated when compounded with other modifiers: a highly rated bank, a partially refunded ticket, publicly held securities. Sometimes hyphenated modifiers lost their hyphens when they become compound nouns: A clear decision-making process was evident in their decision making. The bluish was very slowly disappearing from the bluish grey- sky. This is not always s, however: your high- rise apartment building is also known as a high-rise.When modifying a person with his or her age, the compounded phrase is hyphenated: my six-years-old son. However, when the age comes after the person, we don`t use a hyphen. My son is six years old. He is, however, a six-years-old.

Plurals and Possessives

Most dictionaries will give variant of compound plurals. When you have more than one truck fuddled with sand, do you have several truck fuddled with sand, do you have several truckfuls or trucksful? The dictionary will give you both, with the first spelling usually preferred. (And the same is true of teaspoonfuls, cupfuls, etc.) The dictionary will help you discover that only one spelling is acceptable for some compounds –like passersby.

For hyphenated forms, the pluralizing –s is usually attached to the element that is actually being pluralized: daughters-in-law, half-moons, mayors-elect. The Chicago manual of Style says that “hyphenated and open compound are regularly made plural by the addition of the plural inflection to the element that is subject to the change in number” and gives as examples “father-in-law”, sergeants-in-arms”, “doctors-in-arms”, “doctors of philosophy” and “courts martial”. The NYPL Writer`s Guide puts this way: “the most significant word – generally the noun-takes the plural form. The significant word may be at the beginning, middle, or end of the term”. And then we get examples such as “attorney at law”, “bills of fare”, “chiefs of staff”, “notaries public”, “assistant attorney general”, “higher ups”, “also-rans”, and “go-between”.

As a general rule, then the plural form of an element in a hierarchical term belongs to the base element in the term, regardless of the base element`s placement:

• first sergeant

• sergeants major

• sergeant first class

• colonel generals(Russian)

• lieutenant generals

• lieutenant colonels

• apprentice Journeyman and master mechanics

• deputy librarians

• deputy assistant secretaries of state

The possessive of a hyphenated compound is created by attaching an apostrophe –s to the end of the compound itself: my daughter-in-law`s car, a friend of mine`s car. To create the possessive of pluralized and compounded forms, a writer is wise to avoid the apostrophe –s form and use an “of phrase (the “post genitive”) instead: the meeting of the daughter-in-law, the schedule of half-moons. Otherwise, the possessive form becomes downright weird: the daughter-in-law`s meeting, friends of mine`s cars.

One of the most difficult decisions to make about possessives and plurals of compound words occurs when you can`t decide whether the first noun in compound structure is acting as a noun that ought to be showing possession or as what is called an attribute noun, essentially an adjective. In other words, do we write that: I am going to writer`s conference or to a writers` conference? The Chicago Style Manual suggests that if singular nouns can act as attributive nouns – city government, tax relief – then plural nouns should be able to act as attributive nouns: consumer group, teachers union. This principle is not universally endorsed, however, and writers must remember to be consistent within a document.

The section doesn`t speak to the matter of compounded nouns as “Professor Villa`s and Professor Darling`s classes have been filled.”

Compound nouns can be further subdivided into four groups according to semantic criteria. Consider first the examples beehive, armchair, redskin, highbrow, maidservant. These can all be divided into a second element, which is the grammatical head (this is the element marked for number, and also, in languages which have grammatical gender, the element which determines the gender of the compound) and a first element which id the modifying element (which is not marked for number and doesn`t determine gender). In the first two examples, the compound is a hyponym of the grammatical head: a beehive is a kind of hive; an armchair is a kind of chair.

This type of compound is termed an endocentric compound. In the second two examples, the compound is not a hyponym of the grammatical head: a redskin is not a type of skin, nor is a highbrow a type of brow.

This type of compound, termed an exocentric compound (or sometimes a bahuvrihi compound, using the Sanskrit terminology), is a hyponym of some unexpected semantic head (‘person ‘ in both the examples given here). Since the semantic head is unexpressed in such compounds, the compound is frequently seen as metaphorical or synecdoche.

Thirdly, maidservant is a hyponym of both maid and servant: a maidservant is a type of maid and also a type of servant.

This type of compound is called an appositional compound.

The final division of compound nouns is exemplified by Alsace-Loraine and Rank-Hives. Here is not always clear which element is the grammatical head and the compound is not a hyponym of either element, but the elements name separate entities which combine to form the entity denoted by the compound. This type of compound is normally given the Sanskrit name of dvandva, although the English term copulative is also used to describe them.

These semantic divisions interact with syntactic divisions according to the form class of whole compound (compound noun, compound adjective, etc.) and the form classes of the individual elements in the compounds, so that redskin, as well as being an exocentric compound, is a compound noun made up of an adjective and a noun, and armchair is an endocentric compound noun made up of two nouns.

Chapter II. Affixation as a productive type of word formation

2.1. Productivity of affixation

Mastering the rules which native speakers intuitively apply to form new terms and knowing which patterns of word formation show a higher productivity will help learners to make generalisations and to understand at least a significant part of newly formed terms.

One of the most productive word-formation processes in English is affixation, a process by which a new word is built from a base, usually through the addition of an affix, either at the beginning (prefix) or end of the base (suffix).

In classifying the prefixes and affixes the following approaches were used:

• synchronic approach

• diachronic approach

In our research we’ve studied the productivity of derivational process. The topic of productivity has become one of much interest and debate. We took the presence of neologisms to be evidence for the contemporary productivity of an affix. For this purpose we mainly used the classification from OED (Oxford English dictionary) and thus paid more attention on the dictionary-based method (counting neologisms in a certain period of time by using the dictionary - OE

Morphological productivity

Morphological productivity can be defined as "the property of a given word formation process to be used to derive a new word in a systematic fashion" (Plag 1999). With reference to Bauer (1983), "a morphological process can be said to be more or less productive according to the number of new words which it is used to form".

Most linguists consider the following major word-formational processes:

- Affixation

- Compounding

- Conversion

The minor word-formational processes are:

- Blending

- Clipping

- Back-formation

- Borrowing

- Reduplication

- Acronymy

- Sound interchange

Some of the ways of forming words in nowadays English can be restored to for the creation of new words whenever the occasion demands – these are called productive ways of forming words, other ways of forming words cannot now produce new words, and these are commonly termed non-productive or unproductive. R. S. Ginzburg gives the example of affixation having been a productive way of forming new words ever since the Old English period. It follows that productivity of word-building ways, individual derivational patterns and derivational affixes is understood as their ability of making new words which all who speak English find no difficulty in understanding.The delimitation between productive and non-productive ways and means of word-formation as stated above is not, however, accepted by all linguists without reserve. Some linguists consider it necessary to define the term productivity of a word-building means more accurately. They hold the view that productive ways and means of word-formation are only those that can be used for the formation of an unlimited number of new words in the modern language, i.e. such means that “know no bounds” and easily form occasional words. This divergence of opinion is responsible for the difference in the lists of derivational affixes considered productive in various books on English lexicology. Nevertheless, recent investigations seem to prove that productivity of derivational means is the highest. Moreover there are no absolutely productive means; derivational patterns and derivational affixes possess different degrees of productivity. Therefore it is important that conditions favouring productivity and the degree if productivity of a particular pattern or affix should be established. All derivational patterns experience both structural and semantic constraints. The fewer are the constraints, the higher is the degree of productivity, the greater is the number of new words built on it. The two general constraints imposed on all derivational patterns are: the part of speech in which the pattern functions and the meaning attached to it which conveys the regular semantic correlation between the two classes of words. It follows that each part of speech is characterized by a set of productive derivational patterns peculiar to it. Three degrees of productivity are distinguished for derivational patterns and individual derivational affixes: highly productive, productive or semi-productive and non-productive.

Affixation is generally defined as the formation of words by adding derivational affixes to different types of bases. Derived words formed by affixation may be the result of one or several applications of word- formation rule and thus the stems of words making up a word-cluster enter into derivational relations of different degrees. The zero degree of derivation is ascribed to simple words, i.e. words whose stem is homonymous with a word-form and often with a root-morpheme (e.g. atom, haste, devote, anxious, horror, etc.). Derived words whose bases are built on simple stems and thus are formed by the application of one derivational affix are described as having the first degree of derivation (e.g. atomic, hasty, devotion, etc.). Derived words formed by two consecutive stages of coining possess the second degree of derivation (e.g. atomical, hastily, devotional, etc.), and so forth.

Types of affixes

Affixes usually are divided into:

• prefixes

• suffixes

• infixes

Prefixes may be classified on different principles. Diachronically distinction is made between prefixes of native and foreign origin.
Synchronically prefixes may be classified:

1. According to the class of words they preferably form. Recent investigations allow one to classify prefixes according to this principle.

It must be noted that most of the 51 prefixes of Modern English function in more than one part of speech forming different structural and structural-semantic patterns. A small group of 5 prefixes may be referred to exclusively verb-forming (en–, be–, un–, etc.).

2) As to the type of lexical-grammatical character of the base they are added to into: (a) deverbal, e.g. rewrite, outstay, overdo, etc.; (b) denominal, e.g. unbutton, detrain, ex-president, etc. and (c) deadjectival, e.g. uneasy, biannual, etc. It is 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 is inserted between and e. g. possible possibility, changeable ( changeability, etc. 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, cyclotron, synchrophasotron, etc.

5) Suffixes are also classified as to the degree of their productivity.

Distinction is usually made between dead and living affixes. Dead affixes are described as those which are no longer felt in Modern English as component parts of words; they have so fused with the base of the word as to lose their independence completely. It is only by special etymological analysis that they may be singled out, e. g. –d in dead, seed, –le, –l,–el in bundle, sail, hovel; –ock in hillock; –lock in wedlock; –t in flight, gift, height. It is quite clear that dead suffixes are irrelevant to present-day English word-formation, they belong in its diachronic study.

Living affixes may be easily singled out from a word, e. g. the noun- forming suffixes –ness, –dom, –hood, –age, –ance, as in darkness, freedom, childhood, marriage, assistance, etc. or the adjective-forming suffixes –en, –ous, –ive, –ful, –y as in wooden, poisonous, active, hopeful, stony, etc.

However, not all living derivational affixes of Modern English possess the ability to coin new words. Some of them may be employed to coin new words on the spur of the moment, others cannot, so that they are different from the point of view of their productivity. Accordingly they fall into two basic classes — productive and non-productive word-building affixes.

It has been pointed out that linguists disagree as to what is meant by the productivity of derivational affixes. Following the first approach all living affixes should be considered productive in varying degrees from highly-productive (e. g. –er, –ish,–less, re–, etc.) to non-productive (e. g. –ard, –cy, –ive, etc.).

Consequently it becomes important to describe the constraints imposed on and the factors favouring the productivity of affixational patterns and individual affixes. The degree of productivity of affixational patterns very much depends on the structural, lexico-grammatical and semantic nature of bases and the meaning of the affix. For instance, the analysis of the bases from which the suffix –ize can derive verbs reveals that it is most productive with noun-stems, adjective-stems also favour ifs productivity, whereas verb-stems and adverb-stems do not, e. g. criticize

(critic), organize (organ), itemize (item), mobilize (mobile), localize(local), etc. Comparison of the semantic structure of a verb in –ize with that of the base it is built on shows that the number of meanings of the stem usually exceeds that of the verb and that its basic meaning favours the productivity of the suffix –ize to a greater degree than its marginal meanings, e. g. to characterize — character, to moralize — moral, to dramatize — drama, etc.

The treatment of certain affixes as non-productive naturally also depends on the concept of productivity. The current definition of non-productive derivational affixes as those which cannot hg used in Modern English for the coining of new words is rather vague and maybe interpreted in different ways. Following the definition the term non-productive refers only to the affixes unlikely to be used for the formation of new words, e. g. –ous, –th, fore– and some others (famous, depth, foresee).

If one accepts the other concept of productivity mentioned above, then non-productive affixes must be defined as those that cannot be used for the formation of occasional words and, consequently, such affixes as ; –dom, –ship, –ful, –en, –ify, –ate and many others are to be regarded as non-productive.The theory of relative productivity of derivational affixes is also corroborated by some other observations made on English word-formation. For instance, different productive affixes are found in different periods of the history of the language. It is extremely significant, for example, that out of the seven verb-forming suffixes of the Old English period only one has survived up to the present time with a very low degree of productivity, namely the suffix –en (e. g. to soften, to darken, to whiten).

A derivational affix may become productive in just one meaning because that meaning is specially needed by the community at a particular phase in its history. This may be well illustrated by the prefix de– in the sense of ‘undo what has been done, reverse an action or process’, e. g. deacidify (paint spray), decasualize (dock labour), decentralize (government or management), deration (eggs and butter), de-reserve (medical students), desegregate (coloured children), and so on. Furthermore, there are cases when a derivational affix being nonproductive in the non-specialized section of the vocabulary is used to coin scientific or technical terms. This is the case, for instance, with the suffix –ance which has been used to form some terms in Electrical Engineering, e. g. capacitance, impedance, reactance. The same is true of the suffix –ity which has been used to form terms in physics, and chemistry such as alkalinity, luminosity, emissivity and some others.

Measuring morphological productivity

There are basically two approaches to measure morphological productivity:

A dictionary-based method (counting neologisms in a certain period of time by using a dictionary; e.g. you can count how many new English words ending in –ian were formed in the 20th century)

A corpus-based method (finding words that occur only once in a large text corpus, so-called hapax legomena; these hapaxes are an indicator of the word-building power of an affix or another word-forming element).

We’ll focus our attention on the first method.

R. S. Ginzburg says that productivity of derivational patterns and affixes should not be identified with the frequency of occurrence in speech, although there may be some interrelation between them. Frequency of occurrence is characterized by the fact that a great number of words containing a given derivational affix are often used in speech, in particular in various texts. Productivity is characterized by the ability of a given affix to make new words.

The dictionary-based method that is probably the most widely used and the

most widely rejected at the same time.

According to this measure, the productivity of an affix can be discerned by counting the number of attested different words with that affix at a given point in time. This has also been called the type-frequency of an affix.

The severe problem with this measure is that there can be many words with a given affix, but nevertheless speakers will not use the suffix to make up new words. An example of such a suffix is -ment, which in earlier centuries led to the coinage of hundreds of then new words. Many of these are still in use, but today’s speakers hardly ever employ -ment to create a new word and the suffix should therefore be considered as rather unproductive (cf. Bauer 2001:196). Thus the sheer number of types with a given affix does not tell us whether this figure reflects the productivity of that affix in the past or its present potential to create new words.

Counting derivatives can nevertheless be a fruitful way of determining the

productivity of an affix, namely if one does not count all derivatives with a certain affix in use at a given point in time, but only those derivatives that were newly coined in a given period, the so-called neologisms. In doing this, one can show that for instance an affix may have given rise to many neologisms in the 18th century but not in the 20^th century. The methodological problem with this measure is of course to reliably determine the number of neologisms in a given period. For students of English this problem is less severe because they are in the advantageous position that there is a

dictionary like the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). This dictionary has about 500,000 entries and aims at giving thorough and complete information on all words of the language and thus the development of the English vocabulary from its earliest attestations onwards.

To summarize our discussion of how productivity can be measured, it should have become clear that the different measures have the great advantage that they make

certain intuitive aspects of morphological productivity explicit and calculable.

Furthermore, we have learned that productivity is largely a function of the frequency of words and that the reason for the connection between frequency and productivity lies in the nature of the storage and processing of (complex) words in the lexicon.

2.2. Structural and Semantic analysis

The process of affixation consists in coining a new word by adding an affix or several affixes to some root morpheme. The role of the affix in this procedure is very important and, therefore it is necessary to consider certain facts about the main types of affixes.

From the etymological point of view affixes are classified into the same two large groups as words: native and borrowed.

Some Native Suffixes.

-er worker, miner, teacher, painter . . .

-ness coldness, loneliness, loveliness . . .

-ing feeling, meaning, singing, reading . . .

-dom freedom, kingdom, wisdom . . .

-hood childhood, manhood, motherhood . . .

-ship friendship, mastership, companionship . . .

-ful careful, joyful, wonderful, sinful, skillful...

-less careless, sleepless, cloudless, senseless . . .

-y tidy, merry, snowy, showy . . .

-ish English, Spanish, reddish, childish . . .

-ly lonely, lovely, usly, likely, lordly . . .

-en wooden, woolen, silken, golden . . .

-some handsome, quarrelsome, tiresome . . .

-en widen, redden, darken, sadden . . .

-ly warmly, hardly, simply, carefully, coldly . . . .

Borrowed affixes, especially of Romance origin are numerous in the English vocabulary. It would be wrong though, to suppose that affixes are borrowed in the same way and for the same reasons as words. An affix of foreign origin can be regarded as borrowed only after it has begun an independent and active in the recipient language, that is, is taking part in the word- making processes of that language. This can only occur when the total of words with this affix is so great in the recipient language as to affect the native speakers subconscious to the extent that they no longer realize its foreign flavor and accept it as their own.

Affixes can also be classified into productive and non­productive types. By productive affixes we mean the ones, which take part in deriving new words in this particular period of language development. The best way to identify productive affixes is to look for them among neologisms and so-called nonse-words, words coined and used only for this particular occasion. The latter are usually formed on the level of living speech and reflect the most productive and progressive patterns in word-building. When a literary critic writes about a certain book that it is an unputdownable thriller, we will seek in vain this strange and impressive adjective in dictionaries, for it is a nonse- word coined on the current pattern of Modern English and is evidence of the high productivity of the adjective-forming borrowed suffix -able and the native prefix un- .

The adjective thinnish and baldish bring to mind dozens of other adjectives made with the same suffix: oldish, youngish, mannis , girlish ,fattish, longish, yellowish.

But dispectic - lookingish is the author's creation aimed at a humorous effect and, at the same time, proving beyond doubt that the suffix -ish is a live and active one.

The same is well-illustrated by the following popular statement: "I don`t like Sunday evenings. I feel so Mondayish ". (Mondayish is certainly a nonce-word.)

One should not confuse the productivity of affixes with their frequency of occurance. There are quite a number of high-frequency affixes which, nevertheless , are no longer used in word-derivation.

Some Productive Affixes

Noun-forming suffixes -er, -ing, -ness, -ism, -ist, -ance

Adjective-forming suffixes -y, -ish, -ed, -able, -less...

Verb-forming suffixes -ise/-ize, -ate...

Adverb-forming suffixes -ly...

Prefixes -un-, re-, dis-...

Some Non- Productive Affixes

Noun-forming suffixes -th,-hood...

Adjective-forming suffixes -ly,-some,-en,-ous...

Verb-formingsuffixes-en...

Affixation is generally defined as the formation of words by adding derivational affixes to stems. On the morphemic level every word formed by means of affixation has only one root- morpheme, which is its semantic center and one or more derivational affixes to stems On the morphemic level every word formed by means of affixation has only one root-morpheme, which is its semantic center and one or more derivational affixes.

For instance , the words displease and realism have each only one root-morpheme and one derivational affix - the prefix dis- and the suffix -ism , whereas the noun reappearance consists of the prefix re- , the root-morpheme appear- and the suffix - ance.

On the derivational level derived words comprise a primary stem (the stem being in itself either a simple, a derived or a compound stem), friendliness = (noun + ly) + -ness (a derived stem), chairmanship = (noun + noun) +ship (a compound stem). The stems of words making up a word-cluster enter into derivational relations of different degrees. The zero degree of derivation is ascribed to simple words, i.e. words whose stem is homonymous with a root-morpheme, e.g. atom, haste , devote... Derived words whose stems consist of a root-morpheme and a derivational affix are described as having the first degree of derivation , e.g. atomic , hasty , devotion ... Derived words formed by two consecutive stages of coining possess the second degree of derivation, e.g. atomic hasty, devotion...

The following diagram graphically represents the hierarchy of derivational relations within a word-cluster, the indexes 0, 1, 2, etc. indicating the corresponding degree of derivation:

In conformity with the division of derivational affixes into suffixes and prefixes affixation is subdivided into suffixation and prefixation. Distinction is naturally made between prefixal and suffixal derivatives: unjust, rearrange; justify, arrangement.

Words like reappearance, unreasonable, denationalize are generally qualified as prefixal-suffixal derivatives. The reader should clearly realize that this qualification is relevant only in terms of the constituent morphemes such words are made up of i.e. from the angle of morphemic analysis. From the point of view of derivational analysis such words are mostly suffixal or prefixal derivatives e.g. reappearance = (re + appear -) + -ance, unreasonable = un- + (reason- + _-able), denationalize = de- + (nation + ize) .A careful study of a great many suffixal and prefixal derivatives has revealed an essential difference between them. In Modern English suffixation is characteristic of noun and adjective formation, while prefixation is typical of verb formation. As a general rule, prefixes modify the lexical meaning of stem to which they are added. A prefixal derivative usually joins the part of speech the unprefixed word belongs to e.g.

un - usual -cf. usual; indefinite -cf. definite; discomfort -cf. comfort etc.

In a suffixal derivative the suffix doesn't only modify the lexical meaning of the stem it is affixed to, but the word itself is usually transferred to another part of speech e.g.

care - less a - cf care n ; suit - able - a ; good - ness good. Furthermore, it's necessary to point out that a suffix closely knit together with a stem forms a prefix which is as a general rule, more independent semantically, reading - "the act of one who reads " ; "ability to read" ; and to re-read - "to read again".

The origin of affixes.

Affixation is the formation of words with the help of derivational affixes. Affixation is subdivided into prefixation and suffixation.

For instance, if a prefix "dis" is added to the stem "like" (dislike) or suffix "ful" to "law" (lawful) we say a word is built by an affixation. Derivational morphemes added before the stem of a word are called prefixes (e.g. un+like) and the derivational morphemes added after the stem of the word are called suffixes (hand+ful). Prefixes modify the lexical meaning of the stem meaning i.e. the prefixed derivative mostly belongs to the same part of speech.

Examples include, like (v) - dislike (v); kind (adj) - unkind (adj), but suffixes transfer words to different part of speech.

Another example, teach (v) - teacher (n). But new investigations into the problem of prefixation in English showed interesting results. It appears that the traditional opinion, current among linguists that prefixes modify only the lexical meaning of words without changing the part of speech is not quite correct. In English there are about 25 prefixes which can transfer words to a different part of speech, such as , head (n) - behead (v), bus (n) - debus (v), brown (adj) - embrown (v), title (n) - entitle (v),large (adj) - enlarge (v), camp (n) - encamp (v), war (n) - prewar (v)...

If it is so we can say that there is no functional difference between suffixes and prefixes. Besides, there are linguists who treat prefixes as a part of word-composition. They think that a prefix has the same function as the first component of a compound word. Other linguists consider prefixes as derivational affixes which differ essentially from root- morphemes and stems. From that 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. are of native origin. They came from the Greek, Latin and French language³. Many of suffixes and the suffixes of native origin were independent words. In the course of time they have lost their independence and turned into derivational affixes. For instance, -dom, -hood "head-state " , rank, -dom (dom condemn), -ship has developed from noun "scipe" (meaning:state); the adjective forming suffix -ly has developed from the noun "lie" (body, shape). The prefixes out-, under- , over- and others have developed out of independent words. Another problem of the study of affixes homonymic affixes. Homonymic affixes are affixes which have the same sound form, spelling but different meanings and they are added to different parts of speech.

Examples include, -ful(l) forms adjectives from a noun : love (v) - loveful (adj) ; man (v) - manful (adj);

-ful(2) forms adjective from a verb : forget (v) - forgetful

(adj) ; thank (v) - thankful (adj).

-ly( 1) added to an adjective stem is homonymous to the

adjective forming suffix ;

-ly(2) which is added to a noun stem : quickly, slowly and lovely, friendly.

The verb suffix -en(l) is added to a noun and adjective stem is homonymous to the adjective forming suffix;

-en(2) which is added to a noun stem:

Examples are to strengthen, to soften, to wooden, to golden. The prefix un- (1) is added to a noun and a verb stem is homonymous to the prefix;

un- (2) which is added to an adjective stem, such as: unshoe, unbind, unfair, untrue.

In the course of the history of the English as a result of borrowings there appeared many synonymous affixes in the language , such as :the suffixes -er , -or , -ist, -ent, -ant, -eer , -ian, -man , -ее , -ess form synonymous affixes denoting the meaning "agent". Having the meaning of negation the prefixes un- , in-, non-, dis-, mis- form synonymic group of prefixes. If s interestng to point out that the synonymous affixes help us to reveal, different lexico-semantic grouping of words.

For example, the words formed by the suffixes -man , -er , -or , -ion , -ее , -eer , -ent, -ant and some others belong to

the lexico-semantic groupings of words denoting "doer of the action ".

The affixes may be undergo semantic changes, they may be polysemantic.

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).

Thus, affixes have different characteristic features. The Comparative analysis of the English is not so rich in suffixes as, for example, the Uzbek language. The total number of suffixes is 6 7 in English, but the Uzbek suffixes are 171³ and vice versa, prefixation is more typical to the English language than Uzbek. In Uzbek there are following prefixes: бе -, но-, ба-, бо-, ним- . By their origin the Uzbek affixes like English ones are divided into native and borrowed.

The suffixes: -чи , -rap , -зор ,-ли , -лик , -ок are native suffixes , but: -изм , -ация , бо-, но-, нома-, -ки are of borrowed origin. The affixes may be divided into different semantic groups. These semantic groups of affixes mat be different in different languages. For example, diminutive affixes in Uzbek are more than in English.

DIMINUTIVE SUFFIXES

In English In Uzbek

-ie (birdie) -акай (йул-йулакай), -алак

-let (cloudlet) (дунгалак)

-ling (wordling) -жон (дадажон)

-ette (mountainette) -кач (тахтакач)

-ock (hillock) -кина (гудаккина)

-у (Jony) -ой (Салимаой)

-et (whippet) -ча (аравача)

-kin (tigerkin) -чак (тугунчак)

As compared with the Uzbek language the native affixes are more widely used in English.

In Uzbek : -сиз (кулсиз), бе- (берахм), но- (нохуш)

In English : -less , а- , an- (anomalous), un- (unkind), dis- (dislike), anti- (antibiotic), de- (decode), in- (innocent), ir- (irregular), im- (impossible), non- (nondeductive). Though the number of Uzbek prefixes are very few, they are capable of changing words from one part of speech into another.

Here are given some examples: адаб (от) - боадаб (сифат),

хосил (от) - cерхосил (сифат),

илхом (от) - ноилхом (сифат),

бахт (от) - бебахт (сифат),

ранг (от) - нимранг (сифат).

Non-productive affixes are those which are not used to form new words in Modern English.

For instance, -ard , -cy , -ive , -en , -dom , -ship , -ful, - en , -ify are not productive suffixes ; in(i), 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.

Conclusion

Word-formation is the process of creating words from the material available in the language after certain structural and semantic formulas and patterns.

As a subject of study, word-formation is that branch of Lexicology which studies the patterns on which the English language builds words. Like another linguistic phenomenon word-formation may be studied synchronically and diachronically.

There are two principal types of word-formation in Modern English: word-derivation and word-composition. Within the types further distinction is made between various ways and means of word-formation.

Distinction is made by Productive and Non-Productive ways of word-formation.

In the practical analysis of derived words the following characteristics of derivational affixes (suffixes and prefixes) should be pointed out:

1. The productivity of the affix (highly productive, semi- productive or non-productive).

2. The part of speech the affix forms (nouns, adjectives, verbs etc.).

Affixation (prefixation and suffixation) is the formation of words by adding derivational affixes to primary stems. One distinguishes between derived words of different degrees of derivation.

Many of Modern English derivational affixes were at one time independent words. Others have always been known as suffixes or prefixes within the history of the English language.

As a summary to the study of affixation as a productive way of word-formation, which presents a certain interest both for theoretical investigation and for the practical language use.

Word-formation is the process of creating words from the material available in the language after certain structural and semantic formulas and patterns.

As a subject of study, word-formation is that branch of Lexicology which studies the patterns on which the English language builds words. Like another linguistic phenomenon word-formation may be studied synchronically and diachronically.

There are two principal types of word-formation in Modern English: word-derivation and word-composition. Within the types further distinction is made between various ways and means of word-formation.

Distinction is made by Productive and Non- Productive ways of word-formation. In the practical analysis of derived words the following characteristics of derivational affixes (suffixes and prefixes) should be pointed out:

The first the productivity of the affix (highly productive, semi-productive or non-productive).

The second the part of speech the affix forms (nouns, adjectives, verbs etc.).

Affixation (prefixation and suffixation) is the formation of words by adding derivational affixes to primary stems. One distinguishes between derived words of different degrees of derivation.

Many of Modern English derivational affixes were at one time independent words. Others have always been known as suffixes or prefixes within the history of the English language.

1. D.J.Buranov, A.Muminov “A practical course in English Lexicology", Publishing house "O`qituvchi", 1990.

2. Ginzburg "A course in Modern Lexicology", Moscow High School, 1976.

3. AntrushinaG.B., Afanasyeva V.A."English Lexicology", Moscow High School, 1985.

4. Arbekova T.I. "English Lexicology", Moscow, 1977.

5. Каращук П.М. " Словообразование Аглийского языка", Moscow High School, 1977.

6. Татаулин Р.Г. "Словообразованние и текст"-, Куйбишев , 1986.

7. Царев В.П. "Словообразованние и синтаксис", И.ЯШ., 1982.

8. Улуханов " Словообразовательного относиекич между частьями речи ", " Вопросы языкознания " , 1979.

1. Зятковский Р.Т. "Суффиксальная система в современного Английском языке'' Масква 1966,

2. Мешков " Словосложение в современном Английском языке Москва, В.Ш., 1985;

3. Arnold "The English Word" , Moscow High School,1973

4. Aзнаурова Э.С. “Словообразование и текст”, Куйбишев, 1986

5. Adams V. Introduction into English Word formation. Lond. 1983

6. Potter S. Modern Linguistics. Lond. 1957.

7. Cannon G. Historical Changes and English Word formation: New Vocabulary items. N.Y., 1986

8. Marchand, H. The categories and types of present day word-formation. Harrassowitz. 1960.

Dictionaries:

Berg, P. A dictionary of new words in English. London. 1953.

Jones, D. An English pronouncing dictionary. London. 1957

The Oxford pocket Russian dictionary. Oxford. 1994

1^ Islam Karimov (1998). Ideology – the Uniting Principle of Nation, Society and State. Answers to the questions of Editor-in-Chief of the Taffakkur magazine. Tashkent: Uzbekistan. (p. 25)

2^ The same book, (p. 21)

3²Зягковский P.Т. "Суффиксальная система n современного Английском языке" Масква 1966,