<<
>>

§ 8. Classification of Prefixes

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, etc.

Prefixes, however, are treated differently. They are described either in alphabetical order or subdivided 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.1 Synchronically prefixes may be classified:

1) according to the class of words they preferably form. Recent investigations, as has been mentioned above, 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.).

The majority of prefixes (in their various denotational meanings) tend to function either in nominal parts of speech (41 patterns in adjectives, 42 in nouns) or in verbs (22 patterns);

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.

1 See �Word-Formation’, § 14, p. 125.

117

uneasy, biannual, etc. It is of interest to note 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, unseen, etc.;

3) semantically prefixes fall into mono- and polysemantic 1;

4) as to the generic denotational meaning there are different groups that are distinguished in linguistic literature:

a) negative prefixes, such as: un1-, non-, in-, dis1-, a-, e.g. ungrateful (cf. grateful), unemployment (cf. employment), non-politician (cf. politician), non-scientific (cf. scientific), incorrect (cf. correct), disloyal (cf. loyal), disadvantage (cf. advantage), amoral (cf. moral), asymmetry (cf. symmetry), etc.

It may be mentioned in passing that the prefix in- occurs in different phonetic shapes depending on the initial sound of the base it is affixed to; in other words, the prefixal morpheme in question has several allomporphs, namely il- (before [l]), im- (before [p, m],) ir- (before [r]), in- in all other cases, e.g. illegal, improbable, immaterial, irreligious, inactive, etc.;

b) reversative or privative prefixes, such as un2-, de-, dis2-, e.g. untie (cf. tie), unleash (cf. leash), decentralise (cf. centralise), disconnect (cf. connect), etc.;

c) pejorative prefixes, such as mis-, mal-, pseudo-, e.g. miscalculate (cf. calculate), misinform (cf. inform), maltreat (cf. treat), pseudo-classicism (cf. classicism), pseudo-scientific (cf. scientific), etc.;

d) prefixes of time and order, such as fore-, pre-, post-, ex-, e.g. foretell (cf. tell), foreknowledge (cf. knowledge), pre-war (cf. war), post-war (cf. war), post-classical (cf. classical), ex-president (cf. president);

e) prefix of repetition re-, e.g. rebuild (cf. build), re-write (cf. write), etc;

f) locative prefixes, such as super-, sub-, inter-, trans-, e.g. super- structure (cf. structure), subway (cf. way), inter-continental (cf. continental), trans-atlantic (cf. Atlantic), etc. and some other groups;

5) when viewed from the angle of their stylistic reference English prefixes fall into those characterised 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 un1-, un2-, out-, over-, re-, under- and some others can be qualified as neutral prefixes, e.g., unnatural, unknown, unlace, outnumber, oversee, resell, 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-violet, 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

1 For more details see �Word-Formation’, § 11, p. 121. 18

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.1

<< | >>
Èñòî÷íèê: R. S. Ginzburg S. S. Khidekel, G. Y. Knyazeva, A. A. Sankin. A COURSE IN MODERN ENGLISH LEXICOLOGY. 1979

Åùå ïî òåìå § 8. Classification of Prefixes:

  1. Áèáëèîãðàôè÷åñêèé ñïèñîê ê ðàçäåëó I
  2. Áèáëèîãðàôè÷åñêèé ñïèñîê ê ðàçäåëó I
  3. Áèáëèîãðàôèÿ
  4. Ë.Î. Äîë³íåíêî, Â.Î. Äîë³íåíêî, Ñ.Î. Ñàðíîâñüêà. Öèâ³ëüíå ïðàâî Óêðà¿íè, 2006
  5. ÖȲËÜÍÅ ÏÐÀÂÎ ÓÊÐÀ¯ÍÈ
  6. ÏÅÐÅÄÌÎÂÀ
  7. ×àñòèíà ² ÏÐÎÃÐÀÌÀ ÊÓÐÑÓ «ÖȲËÜÍÅ ÏÐÀÂÎ ÓÊÐÀ¯ÍÈ»
  8. Ðîçä³ë ². Çàãàëüí³ ïîëîæåííÿ öèâ³ëüíîãî ïðàâà
  9. Òåìà 1. Ïîíÿòòÿ öèâ³ëüíîãî ïðàâà. Ïðåäìåò òà ìåòîä, ñèñòåìà öèâ³ëüíîãî ïðàâà. Ôóíêö³¿ òà ïðèíöèïè öèâ³ëüíîãî ïðàâà
  10. Òåìà 2. Öèâ³ëüíå çàêîíîäàâñòâî Óêðà¿íè
  11. Òåìà 3. Ïîíÿòòÿ, åëåìåíòè òà âèäè öèâ³ëüíèõ ïðàâîâ³äíîñèí
  12. Òåìà 4. Çä³éñíåííÿ öèâ³ëüíèõ ïðàâ ³ âèêîíàííÿ îáîâ’ÿçê³â
  13. Òåìà 5. Çàõèñò öèâ³ëüíèõ ïðàâ òà ³íòåðåñ³â
  14. Òåìà 6. Îá’ºêòè öèâ³ëüíèõ ïðàâ
  15. Òåìà 7.Ô²ÇÈ×Ͳ îñîáè ÿê ñóá’ºêòè öèâ³ëüíîãî ïðàâà
  16. Òåìà 8. Þðèäè÷í³ îñîáè
  17. Òåìà 9. Äåðæàâà ÿê ñóá’ºêò öèâ³ëüíîãî ïðàâà. Òåðèòîð³àëüí³ ãðîìàäè òà Àâòîíîìíà Ðåñïóáë³êà Êðèì ÿê ñóá’ºêòè öèâ³ëüíîãî ïðàâà
  18. Òåìà 10. Ïðàâî÷èíè: ïîíÿòòÿ, âèäè. Óìîâè ÷èííîñò³ ïðàâî÷èíó
  19. Òåìà 11. Ïðåäñòàâíèöòâî ³ äîâ³ðåí³ñòü