Ministry of higher education, science and innovation bukhara state university foreign languages faculty

2.The means of word-formation in English language. ... / . . The chapter is devoted to description of theoretical bases of allocation of word-composition as way of word-formation in modern English language. We pay attention to the most popular among existing ways of word-formation, and also try to define the role of word-composition way which is, along with abbreviations, stays one of the most productive for last decades. The definition and the essence of word-composition are also under discussion.
The main way of enrichment of lexicon of any language is word-formation. All innovations in branches of human knowledge are fixed in new words and expressions. Expansion of dictionary structure of English language for last decades goes with the accelerated rates. And the main place in this process belongs to word-formation, as the majority of new growths are created with the means of word-formation ways and means of the language. The process of new words appearance by means of formal ways is called as derivation, and the made words - derivatives. There are different opinions in concerning quantity of ways of word-formation.........................................................
These divergences speak that various ways change the activity and become more or less productive in a definite period. Anyhow, it is conventional that modern English has 6 ways of word-formation...................................... . Language is a means of formation and accumulation of ideas as reflections of a reality and an exchange of them during the whole life. Language has a quality of sociality by its nature; it is inseparably connected with people who are its founders and users, it grows and develops together with development of a society.The lexical structure of the language constantly changes. The English lexicon constantly replenishes with a stock of new words from which everyone chooses what is necessary for him in a concrete situation. Some words go out of use, die off; other words appear and fill up dictionary structure of the language. Distinctive feature of any language is its ability sensitively to react to the slightest changes in a public, cultural and daily life. Updating of the lexicon occurs in various ways: by means of creation of new words from already existing, expansion of semantic structure of already existing words and formation of homonyms, loan of new words from other languages or from a dialect of the same language. Word - formation is the system of derivative types of words and the process of creating new words from the material available in the language after certain structural and semantic formulas and patterns. [1, p. 70] For instance, the noun driver is formed after the pattern v+-er, i.e. a verbal stem + noun-forming suffix - er. The meaning of the derived noun driver is related to the meaning of the stem drive - `to direct the course of a vehicle' and the suffix - er meaning 'an active agent': a driver is `one who drive». ..................................................... There are some different classifications of types of word-formation. Most linguists consider as the chief process of English word-formation affixation, conversion and compounding. In conformity with structural types of words described above the following two types of word-formation may be distinguished: word-derivation and word-composition (or compounding). Words created by word-derivation have in terms of word-formation analysis only one derivational base and one derivational affix, e. g. cleanness (from clean), to overestimate (from to estimate), chairmanship (from chairman), openhandedness (from openhanded), etc. Some derived words have no derivational affixes, because derivation is achieved through conversion, e.g. to paper (from paper), a fall (from to fall), etc. Words created by word-composition have at least two bases, e.g. lamp-shade, ice-cold, looking-glass, day-dream, hotbed, speedometer. etc............................................... Within the types, further distinction may be made between the ways of forming words. The basic ways of forming words in word-derivation are affixation and conversion.[3,17]................................................................ The understanding of word-formation excludes semantic word-building as well as shortening, sound - and stress-interchange which traditionally are referred to minor ways of word-formation. [3,97]. By semantic word-building some linguists understand any change of word-meaning, e.g. stock-'the lower part of the trunk of a tree'; 'something lifeless or stupid'; 'the part of an instrument that serves as a base', etc.; bench - 'a long seat of wood or stone'; 'a carpenter's table', etc. The majority of linguists, however, understand this process only as a change in the meaning of a word that may result in the appearance of homonyms, as is the case with flower-'a blossom' and flour-'the fine meal', 'powder made from wheat and used for making bread'; magazine-'a publication' and magazine-'the chamber for cartridges in a gun or rifle', etc. The application of the term word-formation to the process of semantic change and to the appearance of homonyms due to the development of polysemy seems to be debatable for the following reasons: as semantic change does not, as a rule, lead to the introduction of a new word into the vocabulary, it can scarcely be regarded as a word-building means.[4,112]. Neither can we consider the process a word-building means even when an actual enlargement of the vocabulary does come about through the appearance of a pair of homonyms. Actually, the appearance of homonyms is not a means of creating new words, but it is the final result of a long and labourious process of sense-development. Furthermore, there are no patterns after which homonyms can be made in the language. Finally, diverging sense-development results in a semantic isolation of two or more meanings of a word, whereas the process of word-formation proper is characterized by a certain semantic connection between the new word and the source lexical unit. For these reasons diverging sense-development leading to the appearance of two or more homonyms should be regarded as a specific channel through which the vocabulary of a language is replenished with new words and should not be treated on a par with the processes of word-formation, such as affixation, conversion and composition............... . . . . . According to the available word-counts of prefixal derivatives the greatest number are verbs-42.4%, adjectives comprise 33,5% and nouns make up 22.4%. . E.g. prefixal verbs: to enrich, to co-exist, to disagree, to undergo, etc.; . prefixal adjectives: anti-war, biannual, uneasy, super-human, etc.;prefixal nouns: ex-champion, co-author, disharmony, subcommittee,Proceeding from the three types of morphemes that the structural classification involves two types of. prefixes are to be distinguished: . . 1) those not correlated with any independent word (either notional or functional), e.g. un-, dis-, re-, pre-, post-, etc.; and. . . 2) those correlated with functional words (prepositions or preposition-like adverbs), e.g. out-, over-, up-, under-, etc. . . Prefixes of the second type are qualified as semi-bound morphemes, which implies that they occur in speech in various utterances both as independent words and as derivational affixes, e.g. 'over one's head', 'over the river' (cf. to overlap, to overpass); 'to run out', 'to take smb out' (cf to outgrow, to outline);'to look up', 'hands up' (cf. upstairs, to upset);'under the same roof,  'to go under' (cf. to underestimate, undercurrent), etc.[4,94].
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.
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. 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, unknown, unsmiling, unseen.
. 3) as to the generic, denotational meaning there are different groups that are distinguished in linguistic literature:
, a) negative prefixes, such as: uni-, non-, in-, dis;-, 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.[5,87].
. 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, inactive, etc.;
. b) reversative or privative prefixes, such as una-, de-, dis;-, e.g. untie (cf. tie), unleash (cf. leash), decentralize (cf. centralize), disconnect (cf. connect), etc.;
.c) perjorative 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. superstructure (cf. structure), subway (cf. way), inter-continental (cf. continental), trans-atlantic (cf. atlantic), etc. and some other groups;[5,107].
6) prefixes may be also classified as to the degree of productivity into highly-productive, productive and non-productive.
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 - i - ion (e.g. fascination, isolation) and some others. . 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, (cf. statesmanship, or chairmanship built by adding the suffix - ship to the compound base statesman - and chairman - respectively). . 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 (cf. actor), sculptress (cf. sculpter), tigress (cf. tiger), etc. It may be easily observed that in such cases the sound [a] is contracted in the feminine nouns. [6,120]. . . . . There are different classifications of suffixes in linguistic literature, as suffixes may be divided into several groups according to different principles: 1) The first principle of classification is the part of speech formed with thew help of the suffix. Within the scope of the part-of-speech classification of suffixes naturally fall into several groups, such as: . a) noun-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in nouns, e.g. - er, - dom, - ness, - ation, etc. (teacher, Londoner, freedom, brightness, justification, etc.); b) adjective-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in adjectives, e.g. - able, - less, - ful, - ic, - ous, etc. (agreeable, careless, doubtful, poetic, courageous, etc.); . c) verb-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in verbs, e.g. - en, - fy, - ize (darken, satisfy, harmonize, etc.);. . d) adverb-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in adverbs, e.g.-ly, - ward (quickly, eastward, etc.).
2) Suffixes may also be classified into various groups according to the lexico-grammatical character of the base the affix is usually added to. Proceeding from this principle one may divide suffixes into:
a) deverbal suffixes (those added to the verbal base), e.g. - er, - ing, - ment, - able, etc. (speaker, reading, agreement, suitable, etc.);
b) denominal suffixes (those added to the noun base), e.g. - less, - ish, - ful, - ist, - some, etc. (handless, childish, mouthful, violinist, troublesome, etc.);
c) de-adjectival suffixes (those affixed to the adjective base), e.g. - en, - ly, - ish, - ness, etc. (blacken, slowly, reddish, brightness, etc.)[7,89].
3) A classification of suffixes may also be based on the criterion of sense expressed by a set of suffixes. Proceeding from this principle suffixes are classified into various groups within the bounds of a certain part of speech. For instance, noun-suffixes fall into those denoting:
a) the agent of an action, e.g. - er, - ant (baker, dancer, defendant, etc.);
b) appurtenance, e.g. - an, - ian, - ese, etc. (Arabian, Elizabethan, Russian, 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, squireling, wolfling, etc.).
5) Suffixes are also classified as to the degree of their productivity
Distinction is usually made between dead and living affixes. Dead affixes are described as those which are no longer felt in Modern English as component parts of words; they have so fused with the base of the word as to lose their independence completely. It is only by special etymological analysis that they may be singled out, e.g. - d in dead, seed, - le, - l, - el in bundle, sail, hovel; - ock in hillock; - lock in wedlock; - t in flight, gift, height. It is quite clear that dead suffixes are irrelevant to present-day English word-formation, they belong in its diachronic study.[16,112]. . 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. 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 be used in Modern English for the coining of new words'is rather vague and may be 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 (cf. famous, depth, to foresee). . If one accepts the other concept of productivity mentioned above, then non-productive affixes must be defined as those that cannot be used for the formation of occasional words and, consequently, such affixes as. . - dom, - ship, - ful, - en, - ify, - ate and many others are to be regarded as non-productive. . . . The degree of productivity of a suffix or, to be more exact, of a derivational affix in general may be established on a statistical basis as the ratio of the number of newly-formed words with the given suffix to the number of words with the same suffix already operating in the language. 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.

3.Analytical bases of use of word-composition.
. “The grammatical form of a word is determined by the formal features of the word, conveying some grammatical meaning” [8,p.24]. The formal feature (fiction, auxiliary word, and others) is the “exponent” of the form, or the grammatical “formant”, and the grammatical form as such is realized by combining the stem with format as part of a particular paradigm (paradigmatic series). It should be concluded that not only the grammatical form, but also the exponent of the grammatical form, or formant, are two-sided quantities: they are the sign of the grammatical system, distinguishing their material form and their grammatical-semantic content. "Means, or" grammatical ways ", with the help of which forms of words are constructed, functioning as members of categorical oppositions, are usually divided into synthetic and analytical."[8, 36] . . . . As a typical synthetic way of expressing grammatical meaning in linguistics, internal inflection, or grammatical alternation of root (basic) phonemes, is indicated. Another synthetic method that is not productive in the narrow morphological system of the language (change morphemic) is represented by suppletivism - the expression of grammatical meaning by opposing different roots in a single paradigm[8,40]. Otherwise, suppletivism is based on the grammatical alternation of roots (bases), which, as we noted above, brings it closer to the method of internal inflection. As for the analytical method, it means such a formation that, on the one hand, has a structure that is clearly similar to the structure of a word combination, on the other hand, differs significantly from word combinations and is likened to the goals of words. Analytical formation is a phrase, while synthetic formations are words. An analytical language formation is understood as one whose meaning is expressed not in one word, but under a synthetic one, respectively, - one-word formations. Therefore, for example, "eng. old man old man can be called an analytical education, and Russian. old man or lat. senex - synthetic". If you say that, analytical formations are a phrase, and synthetic ones are words. In this case, in general, any language consisting of words combined with each other in speech should be tied mainly to analytical, since in speech in this language most of the meanings will be expressed by phrases. The analyticity of a language in this sense is generally one of the essential features important for its functioning and development.[9,19]. Along with this or that understanding of analyticity, however, there is also some more particular and special understanding. “Under the analytical formation there is an Idu, such a formation, which, on the one hand, differs significantly from phrases and is likened to the goals of words. Analytical formation in this sense is close to or even directly coincides with what is defined as a phraseological unit” [10,39]. after all, the latter is precisely characterized by the fact that it has the structure of a phrase, but at the same time is equivalent to a word and functions as one whole word. “Sometimes the concept of analyticity expands more: an analytic turnover is understood to be one that is divided easily and clearly (under a synthetic one, it is more cohesive” [10,44]. Under certain conditions, combinations with function words can refer to the main words that make up their composition, not as special (derivative) words, but as special grammatical forms of the corresponding words. “These special cases of word combinations require their special allocation as cases of analytical formations in the narrow sense of the word, namely as analytical forms. Compare: for example, will work» will work): this phrase, in which will is auxiliary, work is the main component, refers to the main word that is part of it, i.e. to the word work not as a special word, but as a special grammatical form - a form of the future tense. You can also say: worked, is working, will worked, is one row, the relations between the members of which are only grammatical. Analytic form as a phrase. [10,57]. . . . . The analytical form, as the most specific analytical formation, taken by itself, is a phrase, namely, a combination of some basic word (in its certain form) with a known service word (or with a complex of service words). Such a combination of two units, each of which has the attribute of a word, in modern English is, for example, “perfect forms: have written, has written, had written, etc. In this combination, the unit have, has, on the one hand, is characterized by formality (it has the whole system of grammatical forms characteristic of the verb: have, has, had, etc.) ” and on the other hand, contains a certain , although weakened to a minimum and very abstract, lexical meaning, which manifests itself in the distinction between the perfect and passive forms, which have the same second component and differ precisely in the first components. 11,100]. Have and be, respectively. So, the analytical form of the word as such, taken in isolation, is a kind of phrase of lexically unequal components, i.e. a combination in which one of the components is service and acts with the most weakened value. The fact that the analytical forms are unique phrases is also confirmed by the relative freedom of the components of the analytical form, the possibility of their separation from each other and free rearrangement in the flow of speech. For example, I have never seen him - I have never seen him. Have you ever seen him? Have you ever seen him? . Further, it is necessary to point out that “the analytical form is a free phrase, and not a phraseological unit: “will work” stands out in a completely different way than, for example, “youth will take its toll”[12,62]. From what has been said above, it is clear that, in essence, analytical forms should be distinguished from other free word combinations precisely by the fact that they are similar (similar) not to words, but only to separate grammatical forms of words. Analytical forms are characterized by this similarity to the forms of whole words, despite the fact that they are a phrase and, moreover, even free, as special whole units, as equivalents of words (but words not in the entire system of their forms, but only in certain individual forms). If phrases, which are an analytical form, are characterized by the fact that they act as the grammatical form of the word that is the main one in it, then this means that such a phrase belongs to one of the grammatical categories that characterize this word. In other words, it represents a certain categorical form that belongs to the same category as some other categorical form known to the word. For example, the analytical form will work represents the (categorical) form of the future tense, which, along with the forms of the present and past tenses, is included in the category of time in general. Belonging, therefore, to a certain grammatical category that characterizes a given word, the analytic form is likened in its function to other forms of the same word. And since each grammatical form of a word in general represents this word precisely as one word, then the corresponding analytic form, despite the fact that it is a phrase in its structure and, moreover, free, appears as one word, as a representative of one whole word, and not like a phrase. The most significant, apparently, is the presence of simple synthetic, non-compound forms in the same grammatical category as the given analytic form. So, will work, despite the fact that this phrase, acts as one word (in a known grammatical form) only because other forms of the same category, i.e. the forms of the present (works) and the past (worked) tense are simple synthetic norms, thanks to which we have reason to consider this phrase an analytical form, and not just a phrase. Not all analytical forms stand out equally easily against the background of ordinary phrases. For example, “the analytic forms of the conditional mood do not have a clear isolation from other phrases that convey modality: I should go, I would go, he would go, he would go, they are close to a number of combinations with modal verbs such as I must go I ought to go. » them from ordinary phrases, involving them in the sphere of verb forms as analytical forms of the conditional mood. . . Word-composition or compounding of words is the process of creating new words of at least two stems which occur in the language as free forms. As English compounds consist of free forms, it is difficult to distinguish them from phrases [ top dog (a phrase) - a person occupying foremost place and underdog (a word) - a person who has the worst of an encounter ]. But some criteria help us to differentiate them.
. The basic criterion for distinguishing phrases from compound words is the combination of phonological, morphological, graphic and syntactic criteria. Phonetically compound words are marked by three stress patterns: a unity stress (‘keyhole is different from ‘key, ‘hole; ‘greenhouse is different from ‘green ‘house; ‘honeymoon, ‘doorway), a double stress (‘washing-ma,chine), and a level stress (‘ arm- ‘char). . .. .. . .  Morphologically[13,70]. compounds have the same meanings and reference but they stand in different relations to the grammatical system of the language (shipwreck and (the) wreck (of)(a) ship). Graphically most compounds have two types of spelling: solid (wartime) or with a hyphen (war-time) whereas words in phrases are written separately. The syntactical criteria is based on comparing the compound and the phrase when we can put an intensifying word, for instance, very before the phrase(very black bird - blackbird). If a compound is characterised by all three criteria, it is called a classical compound, but such cases are rather rare, so it is sometimes still difficult to draw a distinction between a compound and a phrase. Derivational patterns in compound words may be monosemantic and polysemantic in which case they are based on different semantic relations between the components [the base foot in foot-wear, foot-bath, foot-pump has the meaning of «the terminal of the leg», in foot-lights, foot-stone - «the lower part»; in foot-high, foot-wide - «measure of length» ]. The meaning of compound words is derived from the combined lexical meanings of the components and the meaning of derivational structure [see the examples above, as well as boat-life - «life on board of ship» and life-boat «a boat of special construction for saving lives from wrecks or along the coast» ]. Classification of compounds is based on some features. . . . First of all they may be classified according to the type of composition that permits the following groups. Compounds of the first subgroup are mainly formed by joining one stem to another by means of apposition [ raincoat ]. The second subgroup comprises compounds with a vowel or a consonant as a linking element [ hand i work, state s man, etc. ] where the first elements are bound forms; this group is not characteristic of English compounds. Compounds of the third subgroup are those linking elements of which are prepositions, or conjunctions [ man-of-war, pepper-and-salt, stick-in-the-mud ]. . . . According to the structure of the immediate constituents they fall into 1) compounds consisting of simple stems [ filmstar ]; 2) compounds, where at least one of the elements is the derived stem [ chainsmoker ]; 3) compounds where one of the constituents is a compound stem [ wastepaper-basket ]; 4) compounds where at least one element is a clipped stem [ mathsmistress ]. Semantically compounds may by divided into i diomatic and non-idiomatic. In non-idiomatic compounds the meaning of each component is retained [ sky-blue, bedroom, sunlight ]; there compounds may be easily transformed into free phrases [ airmail - mail conveyed by air ]. In idiomatic compounds we can hardly deduce the meaning of a compound from the meanings of the components, as one of this meanings is either lost, or weakened [ a nightcap - «a drink taking before going to bed»]. . . According to the degree of semantic interdependence of components they are divided into coordinative [ reduplicativ e - fifty-fifty, phonical - walkie-talkie, additive - a queen-bee, Anglo-Saxon, Afro-Asian ] and subordinative, mostly used nowadays, which are based on the domination of the head-member which is, as a rule, the second member [ stone-deaf, a baby-sitter ], but it should be born in mind, that among compounds of this type there are so-called exocentric compounds having no semantic centre [ make-believe: притворство; cutthroat: убийство ]. Functionally compounds a viewed as words of different parts of speech. To take into consideration the word-formation of the compounds, we speak of them as of words of secondary derivation.