{"id":166,"date":"2018-09-19T05:54:44","date_gmt":"2018-09-19T05:54:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rusche.faculty.unlv.edu\/hel\/?page_id=166"},"modified":"2018-09-19T05:55:07","modified_gmt":"2018-09-19T05:55:07","slug":"word-formation-by-derivation","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/rusche.faculty.unlv.edu\/hel\/home\/morphology\/word-formation-by-derivation\/","title":{"rendered":"Word Formation by Derivation"},"content":{"rendered":"

The joining of morphemes together into \u201cwords\u201d follows certain rules and patterns (i.e., it is another demonstration of how English works as a system). As native English speakers we all have an intrinsic understanding of these rules as part of our linguistic competence. On this page we will discuss how words can be formed by the adding of derivational morphemes, that is, prefixes and suffixes.<\/p>\n

The Hierarchical Structure of Morphemes<\/h3>\n

In the word unlucky<\/em>, the root morpheme<\/strong>, or base morpheme<\/strong>, is luck<\/em>, a noun. This is the root or base to which affixes may be added. If we try to add the prefix un<\/em>– to it, we will realize that it does not \u201csound right\u201d (using our notions of \u201cacceptability\u201d). Thus, *unluck<\/em> does not make an acceptable word. The reason for this is that the prefix un<\/em>– is usually only added to adjectives as a way to negate their meaning. Consider the following examples: unhappy<\/em>, unable<\/em>, unused<\/em>, uncouth<\/em>, untold<\/em>. Compare these with the results of adding un<\/em>– to nouns: *unsofa<\/em>, *uncar<\/em>, *uncomputer<\/em>. None of these form acceptable English words.<\/p>\n

(Note: there is a second un<\/em>– prefix that has a separate origin, meaning \u201cto reverse an action,\u201d that is found before verbs, (unbind<\/em>, unlock<\/em>, uncover<\/em>, undo<\/em>); this prefix is often confused with the adjectival one and has been so for centuries).<\/p>\n

To return to unlucky<\/em>, we see that in the order of progression for adding bound morphemes, we start with the base morpheme luck, and we first must make this into an adjective, by adding \u2013y<\/em>. This is a very common \u201cadjectival suffix,\u201d that is, it creates adjectives when it is added to a word (usually nouns, but sometimes also verbs or other adjectives). Lucky<\/em> therefore means “characterized by luck” or “full of luck.” Once we have the adjective lucky<\/em>, we can negate it by adding the prefix un<\/em>-. This process shows that there is a hierarchy or order in which bound morphemes may be added:<\/p>\n

\"hierarchy<\/a><\/p>\n

Productive and Unproductive Affixes<\/h3>\n

The derivational morphemes like un<\/em>– and –y<\/em> are Germanic in origin, and so have been part of English since the English was first spoken. We can still use them today to create new words that have not been spoken before. Thus, they are called productive<\/strong> affixes. This means that they are still part of the lexicon that we understand and we consider the use of new words formed from them as acceptable (providing they follow the proper hierarchy). There are a large number of productive affixes: –ness<\/em>, –ation<\/em>, –ify<\/em>, –ful<\/em>, –age<\/em>, –ish<\/em>, and so on.<\/p>\n

We have unproductive<\/strong> affixes as well. These are affixes that were once used in English but which we no longer use to form new words, simply because we no longer recognize them as having a semantic meaning. Consider the words strength<\/em>, health<\/em>, width<\/em>, wealth<\/em>, stealth<\/em>, length<\/em>, and breadth<\/em>. They all end in the suffix \u2013th<\/em>. This is a suffix that was once used to make nouns out of adjectives (that is, it was a nominal suffix). Compare those nouns with the following adjectives (and one verb) from which they were formed: strong<\/em>, hale<\/em>, wide<\/em>, weal<\/em>, steal<\/em>, long<\/em>, broad<\/em>. In spite of the existence of these nouns ending in –th<\/em>, we cannot create new nouns from adjectives by adding this suffix. For example, we cannot make a new noun *wrongth<\/em> (or more properly, *wrength<\/em>) to mean \u201cthe state of being wrong\u201d in the way that strength<\/em> means \u201cthe state of being strong.\u201d<\/p>\n

Here is a list of English unproductive suffixes<\/a>. You might want to look over this list so that you can see what the rules of adding these suffixes were, and try to create new words with them.<\/p>\n

A side note on the notion of \u201crules\u201d and of \u201cunproductive\u201d as I am using these terms. When I say that un- can only be added to adjectives, I do not mean this as a prescriptive rule but as a descriptive rule. The only reason that we cannot add un- to nouns is that it does not sound \u201cacceptable\u201d to speakers of English. In fact, this unacceptability can even be exploited by companies looking to call attention to their products. Pepsi tried to distinguish 7-Up from other types of cola by calling it the Uncola<\/a>, a word that, by not sounding quite right, calls attention to itself and thus the uniqueness of the product. Mercedes Benz tried to do the same for the Smart car, calling it an uncar. Interestingly, they also use the phrase unbig, another word which does not sound acceptable, which shows that there are other rules to the use of un- than simply adding it to adjectives. For example, it never occurs with adjectives describing colors or sizes (*unblue, *unsmall) or with adjectives that express approval or disapproval (ungood, *unbad). Note George Orwell\u2019s jarring use of ungood to mean \u201cbad\u201d and unlight to mean \u201cdark\u201d in 1984<\/em>, which imagines a new form of language called Newspeak in which other such oddly formed words are used. In spite of the usage of such terms in ads or literature, they still are not \u201cacceptable\u201d as part of everyday English. If one of them were to catch on, however, then the rules of acceptability would change. The same principle of acceptability governs the notion of which affixes are productive and which aren\u2019t. Affixes are unproductive simply because they are no longer used. If we started using them again, they would be considered productive. There is nothing inherent in the affix that makes it unsuitable for productivity.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Recently created affixes<\/h3>\n

Not all affixes are old. There are a number of fairly new affixes that are in quite common use. Perhaps the most common now is e- (for \u201celectronic\u201d), found on e-mail, e-trade, e-commerce, e-book, and so on. Other new ones are i-, -thon, -gate, -lympics, -mageddon.<\/p>\n

Infixes<\/h3>\n

We have talked about prefixes and suffixes but have said nothing about infixes, which are rare in English. There are several unproductive infixes that were used in Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Germanic that still survive in English but are completely unrecognized as such now. For example, the –n<\/em>– in the word stand<\/em> is an infix, as you can tell by its absence in the past tense form stood<\/em>. Its meaning apparently was as part of a present-tense marker (if you know Latin, you can find other examples of this same infix, such as present tense fundo<\/em> \u201cI pour\u201d and past tense fudi<\/em>, \u201cI poured,\u201d without the –n<\/em>-).<\/p>\n

There are only a few productive infixes in Present-Day English. The most common one uses the word \u201cfucking\u201d as the infix, which you may prefer not to use or to substitute with some phonetically similar combination such as \u201cfricking.\u201d Consider the words \u201cabso-fucking-lutely,\u201d \u201cun-fucking-believable\u201d and \u201cfan-fucking-tastic.\u201d This infix is an intensifying morpheme, and is often called \u201cexpletive infixation.\u201d There are tamer versions of these such as \u201cabsoposilutely\u201d with -posi- (from positive) substituted, and \u201cfan-damn-tastic\u201d but these are less common.<\/p>\n

Another infix comes in the form of \u2013iz(n)-, originally in hip-hop and rap lyrics: h-iz-ouse, sh-izn-it, etc. These infixes might be considered prosodic morphemes since they change the rhythm of the words (useful in song lyrics), but they also add specific cultural coloring to the words. The use of this infix was popular in the 90s and early 2000s, but seems to have since died out.<\/p>\n

Finally, there is the so-called “Homeric infixation,” not named after the great Greek poet Homer, but after Homer Simpson. The Homeric infix is the -ma- in words like \u201cedu-ma-cated\u201d and \u201csophisti-ma-cation.\u201d This infix gives words a pseudo-intellectual coloring.<\/p>\n

Some linguists would say that none of the above are true infixes. The expletive infixes fail the test since they are free morphemes, not bound derivational morphemes like the other affixes discussed here. The hip-hop and Homeric infixes fail since they do not change the meaning of the word in the way that derivational morphemes should. While these are fair objections, I do not feel like they are enough to disqualify them from being considered at least a type of infix.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The joining of morphemes together into \u201cwords\u201d follows certain rules and patterns (i.e., it is another demonstration of how English works as a system). As native English speakers we all have an intrinsic understanding of these rules as part of our linguistic competence. On this page we will discuss how words can be formed by […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":164,"menu_order":1,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-166","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rusche.faculty.unlv.edu\/hel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/166","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rusche.faculty.unlv.edu\/hel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rusche.faculty.unlv.edu\/hel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rusche.faculty.unlv.edu\/hel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rusche.faculty.unlv.edu\/hel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=166"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/rusche.faculty.unlv.edu\/hel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/166\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":169,"href":"https:\/\/rusche.faculty.unlv.edu\/hel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/166\/revisions\/169"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rusche.faculty.unlv.edu\/hel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/164"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rusche.faculty.unlv.edu\/hel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}