Modern English Word-Formation

                             C H A P T E R    I

The ways in which new words are formed, and the factors which  govern  their
acceptance into the language, are generally taken very much for  granted  by
the average speaker. To understand a word, it is not necessary to  know  how
it is constructed, whether it is simple or complex, that is, whether or  not
it can be broken down into two or more constituents. We are able  to  use  a
word which is new to us when we find out what object or notion  it  denotes.
Some words, of course, are more ‘transparent’ than others. For  example,  in
the words unfathomable and indescribable we recognize the  familiar  pattern
of negative prefix + transitive word +  adjective-forming  suffix  on  which
many words of similar form are constructed.  Knowing  the  pattern,  we  can
easily  guess  their  meanings  –  ‘cannot  be  fathomed’  and  ‘cannot   be
described’ – although we are not surprised  to  find  other  similar-looking
words, for instance unfashionable and unfavourable for which  this  analysis
will not work. We recognize as ‘transparent’ the adjectives  unassuming  and
unheard-of, which taking for granted the fact that we  cannot  use  assuming
and heard-of. We accept as quite natural the fact that although we  can  use
the verbs to pipe, to drum and to trumpet, we cannot use the verbs to  piano
and to violin.

But when we meet new coinages, like tape-code,  freak-out,  shutup-ness  and
beautician, we may not readily be able to explain  our  reactions  to  them.
Innovations in vocabulary are capable of arousing quite strong  feelings  in
people who may otherwise not be in the habit of  thinking  very  much  about
language. Quirk[1] quotes some letter to  the  press  of  a  familiar  kind,
written to protest about ‘horrible jargon’, such as breakdown, ‘vile’  words
like transportation, and the ‘atrocity’ lay-by.

Many linguists agree over the fact that the subject  of  word-formation  has
not  until  recently  received  very   much   attention   from   descriptive
grammarians of English, or from scholars working in  the  field  of  general
linguistics.  As  a  collection   of   different   processes   (compounding,
affixation, conversion, backformation, etc.) about which, as a group, it  is
difficult to make general statements, word-formation usually makes  a  brief
appearance in one or two chapters of a  grammar.  Valerie  Adams  emphasizes
two main reasons why the subject has not been attractive to  linguists:  its
connections with the non-linguistic world of things  and  ideas,  for  which
words provide the names, and its equivocal position as  between  descriptive
and historical studies. A few brief remarks,  which  necessarily  present  a
much over-simplified picture, on the course which linguistics has  taken  in
the last hundred years will make this easier.

The nineteenth century, the period  of  great  advances  in  historical  and
comparative language study, saw the first claims  of  linguistics  to  be  a
science, comparable in its methods with  the  natural  sciences  which  were
also enjoying a period of exciting discovery. These  claims  rested  on  the
detailed study, by comparative linguists, of formal correspondences  in  the
Indo-European languages, and their realization that such study  depended  on
the assumption of certain natural  ‘laws’  of  sound  change.  As  Robins[2]
observes in his discussion of the linguistics of  the  latter  part  of  the
nineteenth century:

       The history of a language is traced through recorded  variations  in
       the forms and meanings of its words, and languages are proved to  be
       related by reason of their possession of worlds bearing  formal  and
       semantic correspondences to each other such as cannot be  attributed
       to mere chance or to recent borrowing.  If  sound  change  were  not
       regular, if word-forms were subject  to  random,  inexplicable,  and
       unmotivated variation in the course of time,  such  arguments  would
       lose  their  validity  and  linguistic  relations  could   only   be
       established historically by  extralinguistic  evidence  such  as  is
       provided in the Romance field of languages descended from Latin.

The rise and development in the twentieth century of synchronic  descriptive
linguistics meant a shift of emphasis from historical studies, but not  from
the idea of linguistics as a science based on detailed observation  and  the
rigorous exclusion of all explanations depended on extralinguistic  factors.
As early as 1876, Henry Sweet had written:

       Before history must come a knowledge of what exists. We  must  learn
       to observe things as they are, without regard to their origin,  just
       as a zoologist must learn to describe  accurately  a  horse  or  any
       other animal. Nor would the mere statements that the modern horse is
       a descendant of a three-toed  marsh  quadruped  be  accepted  as  an
       exhausted description... Such however is the course being pursued by
       most antiquarian philologists.[3]

The  most  influential  scholar  concerned  with  the  new  linguistics  was
Ferdinand de Saussure,  who  emphasized  the  distinction  between  external
linguistics – the study of the effects on a  language  of  the  history  and
culture of its speakers, and internal linguistics – the study of its  system
and rules.  Language,  studied  synchronically,  as  a  system  of  elements
definable in relation to one another, must be  seen  as  a  fixed  state  of
affairs at  a  particular  point  of  time.  It  was  internal  linguistics,
stimulated by de Saussure’s works, that was to be the main  concern  of  the
twentieth-century scholars, and within it there could be no  place  for  the
study of the  formation  of  words,  with  its  close  connection  with  the
external world and its implications of constant change.  Any  discussion  of
new formations as such means  the  abandonment  of  the  strict  distinction
between  history  and  the  present  moment.  As  Harris  expressed  in  his
influential  Structural  Linguistics[4]:   ‘The   methods   of   descriptive
linguistics cannot treat of the productivity of elements  since  that  is  a
measure of the difference between our corpus and some future corpus  of  the
language.’ Leonard Bloomfield, whose book Language[5] was the next  work  of
major influence after that of de Saussure, re-emphasized the necessity of  a
scientific approach, and the consequent difficulties in the way of  studying
‘meaning’, and until  the  middle  of  the  nineteen-fifties,  interest  was
centered on the isolating of minimal segments of speech, the description  of
their distribution relative to one  another,  and  their  organization  into
larger units. The fundamental unit  of  grammar  was  not  the  word  but  a
smaller unit, the morpheme.

The next  major  change  of  emphasis  in  linguistics  was  marked  by  the
publication in 1957 of Noam Chomsky’s Syntactic  Structures[6].  As  Chomsky
stated it, the aim of linguistics was now seen to be  ‘to  make  grammatical
explanations parallel in achievement to the behavior of the speaker who,  on
the basis of a finite and accidental experience with  language  can  produce
and understand an indefinite  number  of  new  sentences’[7].  The  idea  of
productivity,  or  creativity,  previously  excluded  from  linguistics,  or
discussed in terms of probabilities in the effort to maintain  the  view  of
language as  existing  in  a  static  state,  was  seen  to  be  of  central
importance.  But  still  word-formation  remained  a  topic   neglected   by
linguists,  and  for  several  good  reasons.  Chomsky  made  explicit   the
distinction, fundamental to linguistics today (and comparable to  that  made
by de Saussure between langue, the system of a  language,  and  parole,  the
set of utterances of the  language),  between  linguistic  competence,  ‘the
speaker-hearer’s knowledge of his language’  and  performance,  ‘the  actual
use of language in concrete situations’[8].  Linked  with  this  distinction
are the notions  of  ‘grammaticalness’  and  ‘acceptability’;  in  Chomsky’s
words,  ‘Acceptability  is  a  concept  that  belongs  to   the   study   of
competence’[9]. A ‘grammatical’ utterance is one which may be generated  and
interpreted by the rules of the grammar; an ‘acceptable’  utterance  is  one
which is ‘perfectly natural and immediately comprehensible... and in no  way
bizarre or outlandish’[10]. It is easy to show,  as  Chomsky  does,  that  a
grammatical sentence may not  be  acceptable.  For  instance,  this  is  the
cheese the rat the cat  caught  stole  appears  ‘bizarre’  and  unacceptable
because we have difficulty in working it out,  not  because  it  breaks  any
grammatical  rules.  Generally,  however,  it  is  to   be   expected   that
grammaticalness and acceptability will go hand in hand where  sentences  are

The ability to make and understand new words is obviously as much a part  of
our linguistic  competence  as  the  ability  to  make  and  understand  new
sentences, and so, as Pennanen[11] points out, ‘it  is  an  obvious  gap  in
transformational grammars not to have  made  provision  for  treating  word-
formation.’ But, as we have already noticed, we may readily thing of  words,
like to piano and to violin, against which we can invoke no rule, but  which
are definitely ‘unacceptable’ for no obvious  reason.  The  incongruence  of
grammaticality and acceptability that is, is far  greater  where  words  are
concerned than where sentences are concerned. It is so great, in fact,  that
the exercise of setting out the ‘rules’ for forming words has so far  seemed
to many linguists to be out of questionable  usefulness.  The  occasions  on
which we would have to describe the output of  such  rules  as  ‘grammatical
but  non-occurring’[12]  are  just  too  numerous.  And  there  are  further
difficulties in treating new words like new sentences. A  novel  word  (like
handbook or partial) may attract unwelcome attention to  itself  and  appear
to be the result of the breaking of rules rather than of their  application.
And besides, the more accustomed to the word we become, the more  likely  we
are to find it acceptable, whether it is ‘grammatical’ or not –  or  perhaps
we should say, whether or not is was ‘grammatical’ at the time it was  first
formed, since a new word once formed, often becomes merely a  member  of  an
inventory; its formation is a historical event, and  the  ‘rule’  behind  it
may then appear irrelevant.

What exactly is a word? From Lewis Carroll onwards, this  apparently  simple
question has bedeviled countless word buffs, whether they are  participating
in a game of Scrabble or writing an article for  the  Word  Ways  linguistic
magazine. To help the  reader  decide  what  constitutes  a  word,  A.  Ross
Eckler[13]  suggests  a  ranking   of   words   in   decreasing   order   of
admissibility. A logical way to rank a word is by  the  number  of  English-
speaking people who can recognize it in  speech  or  writing,  but  this  is
obviously impossible to ascertain. Alternatively, one can  rank  a  word  by
its number of occurrences in a selected  sample  of   printed  material.  H.
Kucera and W.N. Francis's Computational Analysis of Present-day  English[14]
is based on one million words from sources in print in 1961.  Unfortunately,
the majority of the words in Webster's Unabridged[15]  do  not  appear  even
once in this compilation – and the words which do not appear  are  the  ones
for which a philosophy of ranking is most urgently needed. Furthermore,  the
written ranking will differ from the recognition  ranking;  vulgarities  and
obscenities will rank much higher in the latter than in the former.

A detailed, word-by-word ranking is  an  impossible  dream,  but  a  ranking
based on classes of words may be within our grasp. Ross Eckler[16]  proposes
the following classes: (1) words appearing in  one  more  standard  English-
language dictionaries,  (2)  non-dictionary  words  appearing  in  print  in
several different contexts, (3) words invented to fill a specific  need  and
appearing but once in print.

Most people are willing to  admit  as  words  all  uncapitalized,  unlabeled
entries in, say,  Webster's  New  International  Dictionary,  Third  Edition
(1961). Intuitively, one recognizes that words  become  less  admissible  as
they move in any or all of three directions: as they become more  frequently
capitalized,  as  they  become  the  jargon  of  smaller  groups   (dialect,
technical, scientific), and  as  they  become  archaic  or  obsolete.  These
classes have  no  definite  boundaries  –  is  a  word  last  used  in  1499
significantly more obsolete than a word last used in 1501? Is a  word  known
to 100,000 chemists more admissible than a word  known  to  90,000  Mexican-
Americans? Each linguist will set his own boundaries.

The second class consists of non-dictionary words appearing in  print  in  a
number of sources. There are many non-dictionary words in common  use;  some
logologists would like to draw a wider circle to include these.  Such  words
can be broadly classified into: (1) neologisms and common  words  overlooked
by dictionary-makers, (2) geographical place  names,  (3)  given  names  and

Dmitri Borgmann[17] points out that the well-known words  uncashed,  ex-wife
and duty-bound appear in no dictionaries (since 1965,  the  first  of  these
has appeared in the Random  House  Unabridged).  Few  people  would  exclude
these words. Neologisms present a more awkward problem since some may be  so
ephemeral that they never appear in a dictionary. Perhaps  one  should  read
Pope's dictum "Be not the first by whom the new are tried, nor yet the  last
to lay the old aside."

Large treasure-troves of geographic place names can be found  in  The  Times
Atlas of the World[18] (200,000 names),  and  the  Rand  McNally  Commercial
Atlas and Marketing Guide[19] (100,000 names). These are not all  different,
and some place names are already dictionary words. All these can  be  easily
verified by other readers; however, some will feel  uneasy  about  admitting
as a word the name, say, of a small Albanian town which possibly  has  never
appeared in any English-language text outside of atlases.

Given names appear in the appendix of many dictionaries. Common given  names
such as Edward or Cornelia  ought  to  be  admitted  as  readily  as  common
geographical place names such as Guatemala, but this set does not  add  much
to the logological stockpile.

Family surnames at  first  blush  appear  to  be  on  the  same  footing  as
geographical place names.  However,  one  must  be  careful  about  sources.
Biographical dictionaries and Who's Who are  adequate  references,  but  one
should be cautious citing surnames appearing only in telephone  directories.
Once a  telephone  directory  is  supplanted  by  a  later  edition,  it  is
difficult to locate copies for verifying surname claims. Further,  telephone
directories are  not  immune  to  nonce  names  coined  by  subscribers  for
personal reasons. A good index of the relative admissibility of surnames  is
the number of people in the United States bearing that surname. An  estimate
of this could be  obtained  from  computer  tapes  of  the  Social  Security
Administration; in 1957 they issued a pamphlet giving the number  of  Social
Security accounts associated with  each  of  the  1500  most  common  family

The third and final class of words consists of nonce words,  those  invented
to fill a specific need, and appearing only once (or  perhaps  only  in  the
work of the author favoring the word).  Few  philologists  feel  comfortable
about admitting these. Nonce words range from coinages by  James  Joyce  and
Edgar Allan Poe  (X-ing  a  Paragraph)  to  interjections  in  comic  strips
(Agggh!  Yowie!).  Ross  Eckler   and   Daria   Abrossimova   suggest   that
misspellings in print should be included here also.

In  the  book  “Beyond  Language”,  Dmitri  Borgmann   proposes   that   the
philologist be prepared to admit words  that  may  never  have  appeared  in
print. For example, Webster's Second lists eudaemony as well  as  the  entry
"Eudaimonia, eudaimonism, eudaimonist, etc." From  this  he  concludes  that
EUDAIMONY must exist and should be admitted as a  word.  Similarly,  he  can
conceive of sentences containing  the  word  GRACIOUSLY'S  ("There  are  ten
graciously's in Anna Karenina") and SAN DIEGOS ("Consider  the  luster  that
the San Diegos of our nation have brought to the US"). In short,  he  argues
that these words might plausibly be used in  an  English-language  sentence,
but does not assert any actual usage. His criterion for the acceptance of  a
word seems to be its philological uniqueness  (EUDAIMONY  is  a  short  word
containing all five vowels and Y).

The available linguistic literature on the subject cites various  types  and
ways of forming words. Earlier  books,  articles  and  monographs  on  word-
formation and vocabulary growth in general used  to  mention  morphological,
syntactic and  lexico-semantic  types  of  word-formation.  At  present  the
classifications of the types of word-formation do not, as  a  rule,  include
lexico-semantic word-building. Of interest is the  classification  of  word-
formation means based on the number of motivating bases which many  scholars
follow. A distinction is made between two  large  classes  of  word-building
means: to Class I belong the means of building words having  one  motivating
base (e.g. the noun doer is composed of the base do- and  the  suffix  -er),
which Class II includes the means of building  words  containing  more  than
one motivating base. They are  all  based  on  compounding  (e.g.  compounds
letter-opener, e-mail, looking-glass).

Most linguists in special chapters and  manuals  devoted  to  English  word-
formation  consider  as  the  chief  processes  of  English   word-formation
affixation, conversion and compounding.

Apart from these, there is a number of minor ways of forming words  such  as
back-formation,  sound  interchange,   distinctive   stress,   onomatopoeia,
blending, clipping, acronymy.

Some of the ways of forming words in present-day 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;  on
the other hand, sound-interchange  must  have  been  at  one  time  a  word-
building means but in Modern  English  (as  we  have  mentioned  above)  its
function is actually only  to  distinguish  between  different  classes  and
forms of words.

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,
in particular their ability to create what are called  occasional  words  or
nonce-words[20] (e.g. lungful (of smoke),  Dickensish  (office),  collarless
(appearance)). The term suggests that a speaker coins  such  words  when  he
needs them; if on another occasion the same word is needed again,  he  coins
it afresh. Nonce-words are  built  from  familiar  language  material  after
familiar patterns. Dictionaries, as a rule, do not list occasional words.

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 relative in  many  respects.  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:  (1)  highly
productive, (2) productive or semi-productive and (3) non-productive.

R. S. Ginzburg[21] 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 then. 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 suffix to make new words.

In linguistic literature there is  another  interpretation  of  derivational
productivity based on a quantitative approach. A derivational pattern  or  a
derivational affix are qualified as productive provided  there  are  in  the
word-stock dozens and hundreds of derived words  built  on  the  pattern  or
with the help of the suffix  in  question.  Thus  interpreted,  derivational
productivity is distinguished  from  word-formation  activity  by  which  is
meant  the  ability  of  an  affix  to  produce  new  words,  in  particular
occasional words or nonce-words. For instance, the agent suffix  –er  is  to
be qualified both as a productive and as an active suffix: on the one  hand,
the English word-stock possesses hundreds of nouns  containing  this  suffix
(e.g. writer, reaper, lover, runner, etc.), on the other  hand,  the  suffix
–er in the pattern v + –er ( N is freely used to coin  an  unlimited  number
of  nonce-words  denoting  active  agents  (e.g.   interrupter,   respecter,
laugher, breakfaster, etc.).

The adjective suffix –ful is described as a productive but not as an  active
one, for there are hundreds of adjectives with this suffix (e.g.  beautiful,
hopeful, useful, etc.), but no new words seem to be built with its help.

For obvious reasons, the noun-suffix –th in terms of this approach is to  be
regarded both as a non-productive and a non-active one.

Now let us  consider  the  basic  ways  of  forming  words  in  the  English

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.

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
according to the last stage of derivation, which determines  the  nature  of
the immediate constituents of the pattern that signals the  relationship  of
the derived word with its motivating source unit, e.g. unjust (un– +  just),
justify (just + –ify), arrangement (arrange +  –ment),  non-smoker  (non–  +
smoker). Words like reappearance,  unreasonable,  denationalize,  are  often
qualified as prefixal-suffixal derivatives. R. S. Ginzburg[22] insists  that
this classification 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  either
suffixal or prefixal derivatives, e.g. sub-atomic = sub–  +  (atom  +  –ic),
unreasonable = un– + (reason + –able), denationalize =  de–  +  (national  +
–ize), discouragement = (dis– + courage) + –ment.

A careful study of a  great  many  suffixal  and  prefixal  derivatives  has
revealed  an  essential  difference  between  them.   In   Modern   English,
suffixation is mostly characteristic of noun and adjective formation,  while
prefixation is mostly typical of verb formation. The distinction also  rests
on the role different types of meaning play in  the  semantic  structure  of
the suffix and the prefix. The part-of-speech meaning  has  a  much  greater
significance in suffixes as compared to  prefixes  which  possess  it  in  a
lesser degree. Due to it, a prefix may be confined to  one  part  of  speech
as, for example, enslave, encage, unbutton, or may  function  in  more  that
one part of speech as over– in overkind,  overfeed,  overestimation.  Unlike
prefixes, suffixes as a rule function  in  any  one  part  of  speech  often
forming a derived stem of a different part of speech as compared  with  that
of the base, e.g. careless – care; suitable – suit, etc. Furthermore, it  is
necessary to point out that a suffix  closely  knit  together  with  a  base
forms a fusion retaining less of its independence that a prefix which is  as
a general rule more independent semantically, e.g. reading  –  ‘the  act  of
one who reads’; ‘ability to read’; and to re-read – ‘to read again’.

Prefixation is the formation  of  words  with  the  help  of  prefixes.  The
interpretation of the terms prefix and  prefixation  now  firmly  rooted  in
linguistic literature has undergone a certain evolution. For instance,  some
time ago there were linguists who  treated  prefixation  as  part  of  word-
composition (or compounding). The greater semantic independence of  prefixes
as compared with suffixes led the linguists to identify  prefixes  with  the
first component part of a compound word.

At present the majority of scholars treat prefixation as  an  integral  part
of word-derivation regarding prefixes as derivational affixes  which  differ
essentially  both  from  root-morphemes  and  non-derivational   prepositive
morphemes. Opinion sometimes differs concerning the  interpretation  of  the
functional status of certain individual groups of morphemes  which  commonly
occur as first component parts of  words.  H.  Marchand[23],  for  instance,
analyses words like to overdo,  to  underestimate  as  compound  verbs,  the
first component of which are locative particles, not prefixes. In a  similar
way he interprets words like income, onlooker, outhouse qualifying  them  as
compounds with locative particles as first elements.

R. S. Ginzburg[24] states there are about  51  prefixes  in  the  system  of
Modern English word-formation.

Unlike suffixation,  which  is  usually  more  closely  bound  up  with  the
paradigm of a certain part of speech, prefixation is considered to  be  more
neutral in this respect. It is significant  that  in  linguistic  literature
derivational suffixes  are  always  divided  into  noun-forming,  adjective-
forming and so on; prefixes, however,  are  treated  differently.  They  are
described either in alphabetical order or sub-divided into  several  classes
in accordance with their origin,. Meaning or function  and  never  according
to the part of speech.

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

   1)  According  to  the  class  of  words  they  preferably  form.  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–,

   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,

      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

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

   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
        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,
        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
        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

   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

   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

   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

   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.

   Conversion, one of the principal ways of forming words in Modern  English
   is highly productive in replenishing  the  English  word-stock  with  new
   words. The term conversion, which some linguists find inadequate,  refers
   to the numerous cases of phonetic identity of word-forms,  primarily  the
   so-called initial forms, of two words belonging  to  different  parts  of
   speech. This may be illustrated by the following cases: work —  to  work;
   love — to love; paper — to paper; brief — to brief, etc.  As  a  rule  we
   deal with simple  words,  although  there  are  a  few  exceptions,  e.g.
   wireless — to wireless.

   It will be recalled that,  although  inflectional  categories  have  been
   greatly reduced in English in the last eight or nine centuries, there  is
   a certain difference on the morphological level between various parts  of
   speech, primarily between nouns and verbs. For instance, there is a clear-
   cut difference in Modern English between the noun doctor and the verb  to
   doctor — each exists in the language as a unity  of  its  word-forms  and
   variants, not as one form doctor. It is true that some of the  forms  are
   identical in sound, i.e. homonymous, but there  is  a  great  distinction
   between them, as they are both grammatically and semantically different.

   If we regard such word-pairs as doctor — to doctor,  water  —  to  water,
   brief — to brief from the angle of their morphemic structure, we see that
   they are all root-words. On the derivational level, however, one of  them
   should be referred to derived words, as it belongs to a different part of
   speech and is understood through semantic and structural  relations  with
   the other, i.e. is motivated by it. Consequently,  the  question  arises:
   what serves as a word-building means in these cases? It would appear that
   the  noun  is  formed  from  the  verb  (or  vice  versa)   without   any
   morphological change,  but  if  we  probe  deeper  into  the  matter,  we
   inevitably come to the conclusion  that  the  two  words  differ  in  the
   paradigm. Thus it is the paradigm that is used as a word-building  means.
   Hence, we may define conversion as the formation of a  new  word  through
   changes in its paradigm.

   It is necessary to call attention to the fact that the paradigm  plays  a
   significant role in the process of word-formation in general and not only
   in the case of conversion. Thus,  the  noun  cooker  (in  gas-cooker)  is
   formed from the word to cook not only by the addition of the suffix  –er,
   but also by the change in its paradigm. However, in this case,  the  role
   played by the paradigm as a word-building means is less obvious,  as  the
   word-building suffix –er comes to  the  fore.  Therefore,  conversion  is
   characterized not simply by the use of the paradigm  as  a  word-building
   means, but by the formation of a new word solely by means of changing its
   paradigm. Hence, the change of paradigm is the only  word-building  means
   of conversion. As a paradigm is a morphological category  conversion  can
   be described as a morphological way of forming words.

   Compounding or word-composition is one of the productive types  of  word-
   formation in Modern English. Composition like all other ways of  deriving
   words has its own peculiarities as to the means used, the nature of bases
   and their distribution, as to the range  of  application,  the  scope  of
   semantic classes and the factors conducive to productivity.

   Compounds, as has been mentioned elsewhere, are made up of two ICs  which
   are both derivational bases. Compound words  are  inseparable  vocabulary
   units. They are formally and semantically dependent  on  the  constituent
   bases and the semantic relations between them which mirror the  relations
   between the motivating units. The ICs of compound words  represent  bases
   of all three structural types.  The  bases  built  on  stems  may  be  of
   different  degree  of  complexity  as,  for  example,  week-end,  office-
   management,  postage-stamp,  aircraft-carrier,  fancy-dress-maker,   etc.
   However, this complexity of structure of bases is not typical of the bulk
   of Modern English compounds.

   In this connection care should be taken not  to  confuse  compound  words
   with polymorphic words of secondary derivation,  i.e.  derivatives  built
   according to an affixal pattern but on a compound stem for its base  such
   as, e. g. school-mastership ([n + n] + suf), ex-housewife  (prf  +  [n  +
   n]), to weekend, to spotlight ([n + n] + conversion).

   Structurally compound words are characterized by the specific  order  and
   arrangement in which bases follow one another. The order in which the two
   bases are placed within a compound is rigidly fixed in Modern English and
   it is the second IC that makes the head-member  of  the  word,  i.e.  its
   structural and semantic centre. The head-member is of basic importance as
   it preconditions both the lexico-grammatical and semantic features of the
   first component. It is of interest to note that  the  difference  between
   stems (that serve  as  bases  in  compound  words)  and  word-forms  they
   coincide with is most obvious in some compounds, especially  in  compound
   adjectives.  Adjectives  like  long,  wide,  rich  are  characterized  by
   grammatical forms of degrees of comparison  longer,  wider,  richer.  The
   corresponding  stems  functioning  as  bases  in  compound   words   lack
   grammatical independence and forms proper to the words  and  retain  only
   the part-of-speech meaning;  thus  compound  adjectives  with  adjectival
   stems for their second components, e. g. age-long,  oil-rich,  inch-wide,
   do not form degrees of comparison as the compound adjective oil-rich does
   not form them the way the word rich does, but  conforms  to  the  general
   rule of polysyllabic adjectives and has analytical forms  of  degrees  of
   comparison. The same  difference  between  words  and  stems  is  not  so
   noticeable in compound nouns with the noun-stem for the second component.

   Phonetically compounds are also marked by a specific structure  of  their
   own. No phonemic changes of bases occur in composition but  the  compound
   word acquires a new stress pattern, different  from  the  stress  in  the
   motivating words, for example words key and hole or hot  and  house  each
   possess their own stress but when the stems of these  words  are  brought
   together to make up a new compound word, 'keyhole — ‘a  hole  in  a  lock
   into which a key fits’, or 'hothouse — ‘a  heated  building  for  growing
   delicate plants’, the latter is given a  different  stress  pattern  —  a
   unity stress on the first component in  our  case.  Compound  words  have
   three stress patterns:

   a) a high or unity stress  on  the  first  component  as  in  'honeymoon,
      'doorway, etc.
   b) a double stress, with a primary stress on the first  component  and  a
      weaker, secondary stress  on  the  second  component,  e.  g.  'blood-
      ?vessel, 'mad-?doctor, 'washing-?machine, etc.
   c) It is not infrequent, however, for both ICs to have  level  stress  as
      in, for instance, 'arm-'chair, 'icy-'cold, 'grass-'green, etc.

Graphically most compounds have two types  of  spelling  —  they  are  spelt
either solidly or with a hyphen. Both types of spelling when accompanied  by
structural and phonetic peculiarities serve as a  sufficient  indication  of
inseparability of compound words in  contradistinction  to  phrases.  It  is
true that hyphenated spelling by itself may be sometimes misleading,  as  it
may be used in word-groups to emphasize their  phraseological  character  as
in  e.  g.  daughter-in-law,  man-of-war,  brother-in-arms  or   in   longer
combinations of words to indicate the semantic unity of a  string  of  words
used attributively as, e.g., I-know-what-you're-going-to-say expression, we-
are-in-the-know jargon, the young-must-be-right attitude. The two  types  of
spelling typical of compounds, however, are not rigidly observed  and  there
are numerous fluctuations between solid or hyphenated spelling  on  the  one
hand and spelling  with  a  break  between  the  components  on  the  other,
especially in nominal compounds of the  n+n  type.  The  spelling  of  these
compounds varies from author to author and from  dictionary  to  dictionary.
For example, the words war-path, war-time, money-lender are spelt both  with
a hyphen and solidly; blood-poisoning, money-order,  wave-length,  war-ship—
with a hyphen and with a break; underfoot,  insofar,  underhand—solidly  and
with a break[25]. It is noteworthy that new compounds of this type  tend  to
solid or hyphenated spelling. This inconsistency of spelling  in  compounds,
often accompanied by a  level  stress  pattern  (equally  typical  of  word-
groups) makes the problem of distinguishing between compound words  (of  the
n + n type in particular) and word-groups especially difficult.

In this connection it should be stressed that Modern English nouns  (in  the
Common Case, Sg.) as has been universally recognized possess an  attributive
function in which they are regularly used to form numerous  nominal  phrases
as, e. g. peace years, stone steps, government office,  etc.  Such  variable
nominal phrases are semantically fully derivable from the  meanings  of  the
two nouns and are based on the homogeneous  attributive  semantic  relations
unlike compound words. This system of nominal phrases exists  side  by  side
with the specific and numerous class of nominal compounds which  as  a  rule
carry an additional semantic component not found in phrases.

It is also important to stress that these two classes of vocabulary units  —
compound words and free phrases — are not only opposed  but  also  stand  in
close correlative relations to each other.

Semantically compound words are generally motivated units.  The  meaning  of
the compound is first of all derived from the combined lexical  meanings  of
its components. The semantic peculiarity of the derivational bases  and  the
semantic difference between the base and the stem on  which  the  latter  is
built is most obvious in  compound  words.  Compound  words  with  a  common
second or first component can serve as illustrations. The stem of  the  word
board  is  polysemantic  and  its  multiple  meanings  serve  as   different
derivational bases, each with its  own  selective  range  for  the  semantic
features of the other component, each forming a  separate  set  of  compound
words, based on specific derivative relations. Thus the base  board  meaning
‘a flat piece of wood square or oblong’ makes  a  set  of  compounds  chess-
board,  notice-board,  key-board,  diving-board,   foot-board,   sign-board;
compounds paste-board, cardboard are  built  on  the  base  meaning  ‘thick,
stiff paper’; the base board– meaning ‘an authorized  body  of  men’,  forms
compounds school-board, board-room. The same can be observed in words  built
on the polysemantic stem of the word foot. For example, the  base  foot–  in
foot-print, foot-pump, foothold, foot-bath, foot-wear  has  the  meaning  of
‘the terminal part of the leg’, in foot-note,  foot-lights,  foot-stone  the
base foot– has the meaning of ‘the lower  part’,  and  in  foot-high,  foot-
wide, footrule — ‘measure of length’. It is  obvious  from  the  above-given
examples  that  the  meanings  of  the   bases   of   compound   words   are
interdependent and that the choice of each is delimited as in variable word-
groups by the nature of the other IC of the word. It thus may well  be  said
that the combination of bases serves as a  kind  of  minimal  inner  context
distinguishing the particular individual lexical meaning of each  component.
In  this  connection  we  should  also  remember  the  significance  of  the
differential meaning found  in  both  components  which  becomes  especially
obvious in a set of compounds containing identical bases.

Compound  words  can  be  described  from  different  points  of  view   and
consequently may be classified according to different principles.  They  may
be viewed from the point of view:

   1) of  general  relationship  and  degree  of  semantic  independence  of
   2) of the parts of speech compound words represent;
   3) of the means of composition used to link the two ICs together;
   4) of the type of ICs that are brought together to form a compound;
   5) of the correlative relations with the system of free word-groups.

From the point of view of degree of  semantic  independence  there  are  two
types of relationship between the ICs of compound words that  are  generally
recognized in linguistic  literature:  the  relations  of  coordination  and
subordination,  and  accordingly  compound  words  fall  into  two  classes:
coordinative  compounds  (often   termed   copulative   or   additive)   and
subordinative (often termed determinative).

In coordinative compounds the two ICs are semantically equally important  as
in fighter-bomber, oak-tree, girl-friend,  Anglo-American.  The  constituent
bases belong to the same class and той often to  the  same  semantic  group.
Coordinative compounds  make  up  a  comparatively  small  group  of  words.
Coordinative compounds fall into three groups:

   a) Reduplicative compounds which are made up by  the  repetition  of  the
      same base as in goody-goody, fifty-fifty, hush-hush,  pooh-pooh.  They
      are all only partially motivated.
   b) Compounds formed by joining  the  phonically  variated  rhythmic  twin
      forms which either alliterate with the same initial consonant but vary
      the vowels as in chit-chat, zigzag, sing-song, or rhyme by varying the
      initial consonants as in  clap-trap,  a  walky-talky,  helter-skelter.
      This subgroup stands very much apart. It is  very  often  referred  to
      pseudo-compounds  and  considered  by  some  linguists  irrelevant  to
      productive word-formation owing to the doubtful  morphemic  status  of
      their components. The constituent members of compound  words  of  this
      subgroup are in most cases unique, carry  very  vague  or  no  lexical
      meaning of  their  own,  are  not  found  as  stems  of  independently
      functioning words. They are  motivated  mainly  through  the  rhythmic
      doubling of fanciful sound-clusters.
      Coordinative compounds of both subgroups (a, b) are mostly  restricted
      to the colloquial layer, are marked by  a  heavy  emotive  charge  and
      possess a very small degree of productivity.
   c) The bases of additive compounds such as a queen-bee, an actor-manager,
      unlike the compound words of the first two  subgroups,  are  built  on
      stems of the independently functioning  words  of  the  same  part  of
      speech. These bases often  semantically  stand  in  the  genus-species
      relations. They denote a person or an object that is two things at the
      same time. A secretary-stenographer is thus a person  who  is  both  a
      stenographer and a secretary, a  bed-sitting-room  (a  bed-sitter)  is
      both a bed-room and a sitting-room at the same  time.  Among  additive
      compounds there is a specific subgroup of compound adjectives  one  of
      ICs of which is a bound root-morpheme. This group is  limited  to  the
      names of nationalities such as Sino-Japanese, Anglo-Saxon, Afro-Asian,
      Additive compounds of this group are mostly fully motivated but have a
      very limited degree of productivity.

   However  it  must  be  stressed  that  though  the  distinction   between
   coordinative and subordinative compounds is generally made, it is open to
   doubt and there is no hard and fast  border-line  between  them.  On  the
   contrary, the border-line is rather vague. It often happens that one  and
   the same compound may with equal right be interpreted either way —  as  a
   coordinative or a subordinative compound, e. g.  a  woman-doctor  may  be
   understood as ‘a woman who is at the same time a doctor’ or there can  be
   traced a difference of importance between the components and  it  may  be
   primarily felt to be ‘a doctor who happens to be a woman’ (also a mother-
   goose, a clock-tower).

   In subordinative compounds the components are  neither  structurally  nor
   semantically equal in importance but are based on the domination  of  the
   head-member which is, as a rule, the second IC. The second IC thus is the
   semantically  and  grammatically  dominant  part  of  the   word,   which
   preconditions the part-of-speech meaning of  the  whole  compound  as  in
   stone-deaf, age-long which are obviously adjectives, a wrist-watch, road-
   building, a baby-sitter which are nouns.

   Functionally compounds are viewed as words of different parts of  speech.
   It is the head-member of  the  compound,  i.e.  its  second  IC  that  is
   indicative of the grammatical and  lexical  category  the  compound  word
   belongs to.

   Compound words are found  in  all  parts  of  speech,  but  the  bulk  of
   compounds are nouns and adjectives. Each part of speech is  characterized
   by its set of derivational patterns and their semantic variants. Compound
   adverbs, pronouns and connectives are  represented  by  an  insignificant
   number of words, e. g. somewhere, somebody,  inside,  upright,  otherwise
   moreover, elsewhere, by means of, etc. No new  compounds  are  coined  on
   this pattern. Compound pronouns and adverbs built on the repeating  first
   and second IC like body, ever, thing make closed sets of words

|SOME               |+                  |BODY               |
|ANY                |                   |THING              |
|EVERY              |                   |ONE                |
|NO                 |                   |WHERE              |

   On the whole composition is not productive either for  adverbs,  pronouns
   or for connectives.

   Verbs are of special interest. There is a small group of  compound  verbs
   made up of the combination of verbal and adverbial  stems  that  language
   retains from earlier stages, e. g. to bypass, to inlay, to  offset.  This
   type according to some authors, is no longer  productive  and  is  rarely
   found in new compounds.

   There are many  polymorphic  verbs  that  are  represented  by  morphemic
   sequences of two root-morphemes,  like  to  weekend,  to  gooseflesh,  to
   spring-clean,  but  derivationally  they  are  all  words  of   secondary
   derivation in which the existing compound nouns only serve as  bases  for
   derivation. They are often termed pseudo-compound verbs. Such polymorphic
   verbs are presented by two groups:

   1) verbs formed by means of conversion from the stems of  compound  nouns
      as in to spotlight from a spotlight, to sidetrack from  a  side-track,
      to handcuff from handcuffs, to blacklist from a blacklist, to pinpoint
      from a pin-point;
   2) verbs formed by back-derivation from the stems of compound  nouns,  e.
      g. to baby-sit from a baby-sitter, to  playact  from  play-acting,  to
      housekeep from house-keeping, to spring-clean from spring-cleaning.

From the point of view of the means  by  which  the  components  are  joined
together, compound words may be classified into:

   1) Words formed by merely placing one  constituent  after  another  in  a
      definite order which thus is indicative of both the semantic value and
      the morphological unity of the compound, e. g. rain-driven, house-dog,
      pot-pie (as opposed to dog-house, pie-pot). This means of linking  the
      components is typical of the majority of Modern English  compounds  in
      all parts of speech.

      As to the order  of  components,  subordinative  compounds  are  often
      classified as:

        a) asyntactic compounds in which the order of bases runs counter to
           the order in which the motivating words can be brought  together
           under the rules of syntax  of  the  language.  For  example,  in
           variable phrases adjectives  cannot  be  modified  by  preceding
           adjectives and noun modifiers are not placed before  participles
           or adjectives,  yet  this  kind  of  asyntactic  arrangement  is
           typical of compounds, e. g.  red-hot,  bluish-black,  pale-blue,
           rain-driven, oil-rich. The asyntactic order is  typical  of  the
           majority of Modern English compound words;
        b) syntactic compounds whose components are  placed  in  the  order
           that resembles the order  of  words  in  free  phrases  arranged
           according to the rules of syntax of Modern English. The order of
           the  components  in  compounds   like   blue-bell,   mad-doctor,
           blacklist ( a + n ) reminds one of the order and arrangement  of
           the corresponding words in phrases a blue bell, a mad doctor,  a
           black list ( A + N ), the order of compounds of the  type  door-
           handle, day-time, spring-lock ( n + n ) resembles the  order  of
           words in nominal phrases with attributive function of the  first
           noun ( N + N ), e. g. spring time, stone steps, peace movement.
   2) Compound words whose ICs are joined together with a  special  linking-
      element — the linking vowels [ou] and occasionally [i] and the linking
      consonant [s/z] — which  is  indicative  of  composition  as  in,  for
      example, speedometer, tragicomic, statesman. Compounds  of  this  type
      can be both nouns and adjectives, subordinative and additive  but  are
      rather few in number since they are  considerably  restricted  by  the
      nature of their components. The additive  compound  adjectives  linked
      with the  help  of  the  vowel  [ou]  are  limited  to  the  names  of
      nationalities and represent a specific group with a bound root for the
      first component, e. g. Sino-Japanese, Afro-Asian, Anglo-Saxon.

      In subordinative adjectives and nouns the productive  linking  element
      is also [ou] and compound words of the type are  most  productive  for
      scientific terms. The main peculiarity of compounds  of  the  type  is
      that their constituents are nonassimilated bound roots borrowed mainly
      from  classical  languages,  e.   g.   electro-dynamic,   filmography,
      technophobia, videophone, sociolinguistics, videodisc.

      A small group of compound nouns may also be joined with  the  help  of
      linking  consonant  [s/z],  as  in  sportsman,  landsman,  saleswoman,
      bridesmaid. This small group of words  is  restricted  by  the  second
      component which is, as a rule, one of the three  bases  man–,  woman–,
      people–. The commonest of them is man–.

Compounds may be also classified according to the nature of  the  bases  and
the interconnection with other ways of  word-formation  into  the  so-called
compounds proper and derivational compounds.

Compounds proper are formed by joining together bases built on the stems  or
on the word-forms of independently functioning words  with  or  without  the
help of special linking element such  as  doorstep,  age-long,  baby-sitter,
looking-glass,  street-fighting,  handiwork,  sportsman.  Compounds   proper
constitute the bulk of English  compounds  in  all  parts  of  speech,  they
include both subordinative and coordinative  classes,  productive  and  non-
productive patterns.

Derivational compounds, e. g. long-legged, three-cornered, a  break-down,  a
pickpocket differ from compounds proper in the nature  of  bases  and  their
second IC. The two ICs of the compound long-legged — ‘having  long  legs’  —
are the suffix –ed meaning ‘having’ and the base built on a free  word-group
long legs whose member words lose their grammatical  independence,  and  are
reduced to a single component of the word, a derivational  base.  Any  other
segmentation of such  words,  say  into  long–  and  legged–  is  impossible
because firstly, adjectives like *legged do not exist in Modern English  and
secondly, because it would contradict the lexical meaning  of  these  words.
The derivational adjectival suffix –ed converts this newly formed base  into
a word. It can be graphically represented as long  legs  (  [  (long–leg)  +
–ed]  (  long–legged.  The  suffix  –ed  becomes   the   grammatically   and
semantically dominant component of the word,  its  head-member.  It  imparts
its part-of-speech meaning and its lexical meaning thus making an  adjective
that may be semantically interpreted as ‘with (or having)  what  is  denoted
by the motivating  word-group’.  Comparison  of  the  pattern  of  compounds
proper like baby-sitter, pen-holder

 [ n + ( v  + –er ) ] with the pattern of derivational compounds like  long-
legged [ (a + n) + –ed ] reveals the difference: derivational compounds  are
formed by a derivational means, a suffix in  case  if  words  of  the  long-
legged type, which is applied to a base that each time is formed anew  on  a
free word-group and is not recurrent in any other type if words. It  follows
that strictly speaking words of this  type  should  be  treated  as  pseudo-
compounds or  as  a  special  group  of  derivatives.  They  are  habitually
referred to derivational compounds  because  of  the  peculiarity  of  their
derivational bases which are felt as built by composition, i.e. by  bringing
together the stems  of  the  member-words  of  a  phrase  which  lose  their
independence in the process. The word itself, e. g.  long-legged,  is  built
by the application of the  suffix,  i.e.  by  derivation  and  thus  may  be
described as a suffixal derivative.

Derivational compounds or pseudo-compounds are all  subordinative  and  fall
into two groups according to the type of  variable  phrases  that  serve  as
their bases and the derivational means used:

        a) derivational compound adjectives formed with  the  help  of  the
           highly-productive adjectival suffix –ed applied to  bases  built
           on attributive phrases of the A + N, Num + N, N + N  type, e. g.
           long  legs,  three   corners,   doll   face.   Accordingly   the
           derivational adjectives under discussion  are  built  after  the
           patterns [ (a + n ) + –ed],  e.  g.  long-legged,  flat-chested,
           broad-minded; [ ( пит + n)  +  –ed],  e.  g.  two-sided,  three-
           cornered; [ (n + n ) + –ed], e. g. doll-faced, heart-shaped.
        b) derivational compound nouns formed mainly by conversion  applied
           to bases built on three types of variable phrases —  verb-adverb
           phrase, verbal-nominal and attributive phrases.
The commonest type of phrases that serves as  derivational  bases  for  this
group of derivational compounds is the V + Adv type of  word-groups  as  in,
for  instance,  a  breakdown,  a  breakthrough,  a   castaway,   a   layout.
Semantically derivational compound nouns  form  lexical  groups  typical  of
conversion, such as an act or instance of the action, e. g. a  holdup  —  ‘a
delay in traffic’' from to hold up —  ‘delay,  stop  by  use  of  force’;  a
result of the action, e. g. a breakdown  —  ‘a  failure  in  machinery  that
causes work to stop’ from to break  down  —  ‘become  disabled’;  an  active
agent   or recipient of the action, e.  g.  cast-offs  —  ‘clothes  that  he
owner will not wear again’ from to cast off — ‘throw away  as  unwanted’;  a
show-off — ‘a person who shows off’ from to show off — ‘make  a  display  of
one's abilities in order to impress people’. Derivational compounds of  this
group are spelt generally solidly or with a hyphen and often retain a  level
stress. Semantically they are motivated by transparent derivative  relations
with the motivating base  built  on  the  so-called  phrasal  verb  and  are
typical of the colloquial layer of vocabulary.  This  type  of  derivational
compound nouns is highly productive due to the productivity of conversion.

The semantic subgroup of derivational compound nouns denoting  agents  calls
for special mention. There is a group  of  such  substantives  built  on  an
attributive  and  verbal-nominal  type   of   phrases.   These   nouns   are
semantically only partially motivated and are  marked  by  a  heavy  emotive
charge or lack of motivation and often belong to terms as,  for  example,  a
kill-joy, a wet-blanket — ‘one who kills enjoyment’; a turnkey — ‘keeper  of
the keys in prison’; a sweet-tooth — ‘a person who likes sweet food’; a red-
breast — ‘a bird called the robin’.  The  analysis  of  these  nouns  easily
proves that they can only be understood as  the  result  of  conversion  for
their second ICs cannot  be  understood  as  their  structural  or  semantic
centres,  these  compounds  belong  to  a  grammatical  and  lexical  groups
different from those their components do. These compounds  are  all  animate
nouns whereas their second ICs belong to inanimate objects. The  meaning  of
the active agent is not found in either of the components  but  is  imparted
as a result of conversion applied to the word-group  which  is  thus  turned
into a derivational base.

These compound nouns are often  referred  to  in  linguistic  literature  as
"bahuvrihi" compounds or exocentric compounds,  i.e.  words  whose  semantic
head is outside the combination. It seems more correct to refer them to  the
same group of derivational or pseudo-compounds as the above cited groups.

This small group of derivational nouns is of a restricted productivity,  its
heavy constraint lies in  its  idiomaticity  and  hence  its  stylistic  and
emotive colouring.

The linguistic analysis of extensive language data proves that there  exists
a regular correlation between the system of free phrases and  all  types  of
subordinative (and additive) compounds[26]. Correlation  embraces  both  the
structure and the meaning of compound words, it underlies the entire  system
of productive present-day English composition conditioning the  derivational
patterns and lexical types of compounds.
[1] Randolph Quirk, Ian Svortik. Investigating Linguistic Acceptability.
Walter de Gruyter. Inc., 1966. P. 127-128.
[2] Robins, R. H. A short history of linguistics. London: Longmans, 1967.
P. 183.
[3] Henry Sweet, History of Language. Folcroft Library Editions,1876. P.
[4] Zellig S. Harris, Structural Linguistics. University of Chicago Press,
1951. P. 255.
[5] Leonard Bloomfield, Language. New York, 1933
[6] Noam Avram Chomsky, Syntactic Structures. Berlin, 1957.
[7] Ibidem, p. 15.
[8] Ibidem, p. 4.
[9] Ibidem, p. 11.
[10] Ibidem, p. 10.
[11] Jukka Pennanen, Aspects of Finnish Grammar. Pohjoinen, 1972. P. 293.
[12] K. Zimmer, Levels of Linguistic Description. Chicago, 1964. P. 18.
[13] A. Ross Eckler’s letters to Daria Abrossimova, 2001.
[14] Kucera, H. & Francis, W. N. Computational analysis of present-day
American English. University Press of New England, 1967.
[15] Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language.
Random House Value Pub. 1996.
[16] A. Ross Eckler’s letters to Daria Abrossimova, 2001.
[17] Dmitri Borgmann. Beyond Language. Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1965.
[18] The Times Atlas of the World. Times Books. 1994.
[19] Rand McNally Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide. Rand McNally & Co.
[20] Prof. Smirnitsky calls them “potential words” in his book on English
Lexicology (p. 18).
[21] Ginzburg R. A Course in Modern English  Lexicology.  Moscow,  1979.  P.
[22] Ibidem. P. 114-115.
[23] Marchand H. Studies in Syntax and Word-Formation. Munich, 1974.
[24] Ginzburg R. A Course in Modern English  Lexicology.  Moscow,  1979.  P.

[25] The spelling is given according to Webster’s New Collegiate
Dictionary, 1956 and H.C. Wyld. The Universal English Dictionary, 1952.
[26] Prof. A. I. Smirnitsky as far back as the late forties pointed out the
rigid parallelism existing between free word-groups and derivational
compound adjectives which he termed “grammatical compounds”.