INTRODUCTION

This Qualification Paper is devoted to the theme Prefixation in

the English language and its role in enriching the English
vocabulary.
^ The subject matter of the Qualification paper is Prefixation in
English and Uzbek languages.
The object of the research work is Prefixation and its
classification, its productivity and non-productivity.
The main aim of the research work is the following tasks:

to give basic peculiarities of word formation;

affixation in the English language;

to study prefixations in English and Uzbek languages;

to give some examples of prefixes in the English language in

comparison with the Uzbek language.
The actuality of the Qualification paper is the investigation of
Prefixation in English and Uzbek languages.
The theoretical value of our qualification paper is to do through research in the field
of prefixation. Besides that, it can be used in delivering lectures on English
lexicology.
^ The practical value of the work is to study thoroughly prefixation in English and
Uzbek languages.
The structure of the Qualification paper is as follows:
introduction, 2 chapters, conclusion and summary and the last is used literature.
Introduction deals with the description of the structure of the
Qualification paper.
chapter I deals with the general notion of Word formation,
affixation in the English language, degree of derivation and
homonymic derivational affixes.
Chapter II deals with prefixation, some debatable problems,

productive and non-productive word-building prefixes in the English

language, and some examples in English and Uzbek languages.
Conclusion deals with the theoretical and practical results of the
Qualification paper.
The list of used literature deals with the list of literature used in this research
work.

Introduction
Interest in wordformation processes is probably as old as interest in language itself. Many of the
questions that scholars are asking now were also being asked in the seventeenth, eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. (Bauer,1983). Thus, the study of affixattion and especially prefixation is of
great interest to the linguists as it affects the vocabulary enhancement in all methods it is
presented. This paper aims to study the processes of prefixation, as a very important derivation
sub type used in the English language system, by providing an overview of the English prefixes,
their most important features and classifications. In addition, the study will also treat crucial
prefixation issues in the Albanian language by comparing and contrasting these issues in both
languages. In order to understand the meaning of the term prefix, we should take into
consideration the internal structure of the word, that is the morpheme, the smallest meaningful
component in a language. The morphemes are divided into free morphemes, which are
independent and can stand alone or within a word and bound ones, which can not stand alone
and consequently always occur in combination with basic forms. The adding of these bound
morphemes to the basic forms is called affixation. As a rule, prefixes are bound morphemes
which precede the base or the free morphemes. Prefixation is a special affixation formation
subtype among suffixation and prefixo-suffixation. In Albanian language it is an
important derivation subtype, but not as suffixation. The prefixes of the English language are
classifying; In most cases there is no change of the word class involved. (Kortmann 1999). As
for their meaning and function, linguists notice that there are living prefixes, productive prefixes
and fossilised ones in certain words. It is difficult to define the exact number of prefixes in
English language, though there are more prefixes than suffixes. OED registers 167 prefixes, but
according to Marchand (1969) there are 65 such.
1.1 Classification of prefixes
There are diferent principles apon which various classifications of prefixes are done. In this
paper we will introduce various classifications, based on morphological, and semantic features of
prefixes. Other relevant issues and characteristics will be treated throughout the study as well for
both languages. Morphologically, many affixes are associated with specific word classes; for
example the prefix il- as in illegal, is
attached to adjectives. Undeniably, some prefixes attach to nouns, whereas others combine only
with adjectives or verbs.

However, apart from the prefixes which are associated with one specific word class, there are
also a number of them which associate with more than one inherent word class. For ex. the prefix
dis- can form the verb dislike, the adjective
dishonest, or it can be part of the noun dishonesty.
Another example is the prefix un- which can form an adjective (untity), a verb
(undo) or a noun (unemployment).
Secondly, by means of derivation process the majority of English prefixes are able to create new
words or
lexemes, but they cannot change the word class of the derived word; to reuse.(v) use (v);
untidy (adj) tidy.
There are only a few prefixes which cause a change of the category such as: -en in enlarge, -a in
or ablaze. Other
exceptions are em-, be-, and de-. (Lenski 2000). In Albanian language there is a minor number of
such prefixes as well
which change the word class they are attached to, for e.g.: prbuz.v to despise (buz, n.), shfaq
v. to appear (faqe,
n.), prgjak to bleed (gjak); the prefixes: pr-, sh-, are attached to the nouns buz, faqe, gjak and
have formed verbs,
changing the grammatical category of the new word.
Lenski is not sure whether the prefix -a and -be as in ashore ashore (on/ towards shore)
or belie (lie near cf. underlie). (Lenski 2000)]. The vast majority of prefixes do not change the
syntactic category of
their base words, they merely act as modifiers. Furthermore, it can be observed that most of the
51 prefixes of Modern
English generally attach to more than one kind of syntactic category (verb, adjective, or noun)
and do not influence the
stress pattern of their bases.
As to the type of lexico-grammatical character they are added to, English prefixes fall into: a.
Deverbal prefixes,
e.g. rewrite, outstay, overdo, oversleep, overreact, underestimate; b. Denominal prefixes, e.g. expresident; c.
Deadjectival prefixes, e.g. unedited, bilateral, uneasy, biannual, etc.
1.2 The classification of English prefixes on the basis of meaning
Semantically prefixes fall into mono and polysemantic.
Linguists refer to these different categories of English prefixes in terms of generic denotational
meaning:
Prefixes of attitude: pro, anti, contra,counter, co.
Pro: pro-choice, pro-life, pro-market, pro-libertarian. It is usually added to nouns, adjectives of
denomination.
Anti : anti-missile, anti-social, antibody, anti-abortion, anti-regulatory; = antagonistic: anti-hero,
antichrist. This
prefix is added to nouns, adverbs, denominal adjectives.
Counter : to counteract, counter-revolution, counter-example, counter-espionage, counterproductive; added to:
verbs, abstract nouns, adjectives.
Contra: contraception, contradistinction; added to: abstract nouns, verbs.
Co: cooperate, co-pilot, co-author, cooperation; added to: nouns, verbs;
Reservative and deprivative Prefixes: un, de, dis.

Un: to untie, to unpack, to unhorse, to unscramble, to unlock. It is usually added to verbs. De: to
decriminalize, to deselect, to decontaminate, to debug, to defrost, to delouse, to deplane, to
detrain, to decamp, deforestation; It is added to verbs, abstract nouns.
Dis: to disqualify, to disinvite, to disenfranchise, to disarm, to disillusion, to disambiguate,
discoloured, disconnected, discontent, dissatisfaction; It is added to verbs.
Negative Prefixes: a-, dis-, non-, unA: atheist, amoral, asymmetry, apolitical, asexual; It is added to adjectives and nouns; Dis:
disloyal, distrust, disagree, dislike, disfavour, disadvantage; added to: adjectives, abstract nouns,
verbs; Un: in-, il-(before l), im-(before p),
ir-(before r); unfair, unassuming, unexpected, unproductive, insane, injustice, intolerance,
impatience, imperfect, irregular illegal, incapable, illogical, improper, irrelevant. These are added
to: adjectives, participles (only un-); Non: non-stop, noninterference, non-aggression, nonsmoker, non-drip (paint), non-person, non-event; This prefix is added to various types
of words and expressions, mainly nouns and verbs.
Pejorative prefixes: mis-, mal-, pseudo-, crypto-Mis: mismanagement, to miscalculate, to
misgovern, to mishandle, misleading, misconduct, to misinform (inform
wrongly; It is added to verbs, abstract and participles: Mal: means bad(ly), improper(ly):
malpractice, malinformation,
malnutrition, maltreatment, to malfunction, maladjusted, malformed; It is added to verbs,
abstract nouns, participles,
adjectives, but only words of latin origin.
Pseudo: pseudo-education, pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-science, pseudo-Gothic; It is added to
nouns and
adjectives; Crypto: crypto-fascist, crypto-Catholic, cryptography; it is added to nouns.
Locative prefixes: ante, circum, fore, inter, intra, mid, out, over, retro, sub, super, supra, sur,
ultra, under.
Ante: antechamber, anteroom; It is added to: nouns; Circum: circumnavigate, circumlocution,
circumcision; It is added to:
verbs and nouns; Extra: extramarital, extracurricular, extrasensory, extra-pay; It is added to:
adjectives and nouns; Fore =
in front, front part of: forefinger, foreskin, forecourt, forehead. It is added to nouns; In: also il-,
im-, ir- ingathering, indoors,
in-patient (not impatient); added to: participles, nouns; Inter: interracial, international,
interdisciplinary; added to:
adjectives and nouns; Intra: intramural, intra-uterine, intravenous; It is added to: adjectives; Mid:
midfield, mid-point,
midway; added to: nouns; Out: outdoor, out-patient, outlook; added to: nouns; = to surpass: to
outrun, to outnumber, to
outgrow, to outdistance, to outbid; added to: verbs; Over: to overthrow, to overshadow, overcoat;
added to: verbs, nouns;
= excessive: overemphasis, over-anxious, to overcharge, to overfish; added to: nouns, verbs;
Retro: to retroflex, to
retrorocket, to retroject; added to: verbs; Sub: subway, subsoil, subconcious; added to: nouns,
adjectives; = secondary,
lesser in rank: sub-editor, subdean, subleader, sub-climax; added to: nouns; = subordinate part of:
subcommittee, suplot, sublet, subtitle; added to: nouns; = below the norm: subhuman; Super:
superstructure, superimpose, superterrestrial;
added to: nouns, verbs, adjectives; beyond the norm:superhuman, superman, supergun, superstar;
added to: nouns,
adjectives; excessive, excessively: superconformity, superconfidence, supersensitive,
superabundant, supercritical;

added to: nouns, adjectives; Supra: supranational, supramundane; added to: adjectives; Sur:
surtax, surcharge, surtitle; nouns, verbs; Tele: telecommunication, television; added to: nouns,
verbs; Trans: transatlantic, transnational, transsexual; added to: adjectives, geographical names;
Ultra: ultra-violet, ultra-sonic, ultra-modest, ultra-thin, ultra modern, ultra-orthodox; added to:
adjectives; Under: underground, undercarriage, underclothes; added to: nouns; = too
little; undercharge, underpay, undercook, undervalue: added to: verbs; = subordinate: undersecretary, underclass.
Prefixes of Size, Degree and Status: (arch, macro, micro, mega, mini, over/under, hyper, co, pro,
vice)
Arch: archbishop, arch-rival, archangel, archduke, arch-enemy; added to: nouns; macro:
macrocosm, macro-economics;
added to: nouns; micro: micro-computer, microsurgery, micro-economics; added to: nouns;
mega: megastar, megastore;
added to: nouns; mini: miniseries, minibreak, minicab, miniskirt; added to: nouns; over/under: to
overcook, to underheat;
added to: any verb of action; hyper: hypercritical; added to: adjectives; co: co-founder, copresenter; added to: nouns,
verbs; pro: pro-vice-chancellor; added to: nouns of latin origin; vice: vice-president.
Prefixes of Time and order: ante, ex, fore, neo, post, pre: Ex: former: ex-wife, ex-president;
human nouns; Fore:
before: to foresee, to foretell, foregone; Mid: middle: mid-afternoon, midwinter, midnight; Neo:
new, recent form of,
revived: neo-colonialism, neo-conservative, neo-fascist; Post: after: post-war, post-modernism,
post-structuralist; Pre:
before, pre-arranged before the time/period of: prepay, pre-existing, predate, preview, preschool,
pre-war, pre-marital.
Prefix of repetition: re-, e.g. rebuild (build), re-write (write), etc.
In his book The word-formation in English(2003), Plag classifies the prefixes of English
semantically into the
following groups. First, there is a large group that quantify over their base words meaning, for
example, one (un unilateral, unification), twice or two (bi-, bilateral, bifurcation and di-,
disyllabic, ditransitive), many (multi-, multi-purpose,
multi-lateral and poly-, polysyllabic, half (semi-, semi-conscious, semi-desert), all (omni-,
omnipotent,omnipresent),
small (micro-, micro-surgical, microwave), large (macro-, macroeconomics, macro-biotic), to
excess (hyper-,
hyperactive, hypermarket and over-, overestimate, overtax), not sufficiently (underpay).
Second, there are numerous locative prefixes such as circum- around (circumnavigate,
circumscribe), counteragainst (counterbalance, counterexample), endo-internal to X (endocentric, endocrinology),
epi- on, over (epiglottis,
epicentral), inter-between (interbreed, intergalactic), intra- inside (intramuscular, intravenous),
para-along with
(paramedic, paranormal), retro- back, backwards (retroflex, retrospection), trans- across
(transcontinental,
transmigrate).
Third, there are like before (ante-, preand fore-, as in antechamber, antedate, preconcert,
predetermine,
premedical, forefather, foresee), after (post-, poststructuralism, postmodify, postmodern), or
new (neo-, neoclassical,
Neo-Latin). A fourth group consists of prefixes expressing negation (a(n)-, de-, dis-, in-, non-,
un-). (Plag, 2003).

However, many prefixes do not fit into any of the four groups and express diverse notions, such
as wrong, evil
(mal-, malfunction, malnutrition), badly,wrongly (mis-, misinterpret, mistrial), false,
deceptive (pseudo-), together,
jointly, (co-), in place of (vice-) etc. Above were demonstrated with examples an other
classification of prefixes
according to the meaning, which Plag does not include in his categories of prefixes.
1.3 Characteristics of English prefixes
Though the current trend in English language is avoiding the unnecessary hyphens, there are
several rules that should be
taken into consideration in terms of prefix-root right punctuation. 1. Thus, there must be used a
hyphen when prefixes
come before proper nouns. E.g.: un-American post-Aristotelian or pre-1900; 2. Hyphenating
prefixes ending in an a or i only when the root word begins with the same letter such as in ultraambitious or semi-invalid. Also, there must
be used a hyphen to avoid confusion with another word: for example, to distinguish re-cover (=
provide something with a
new cover) from recover (= get well again). (J.Straus10th edition)
An English prefix requires a special stress to help in clarifying the meaning or to avoid
mispronouncing, for e.g. op, it is not the same as coop, as well as re-creation. Besides, the prefix
co- is always stressed when it addresses a person. The words co-authored and co-workers are
often hyphenated.
The Development of English prefixes
Throughout the centuries, the English language has been influenced by various foreign
languages. Several English words
are structured as a combination of dependent prefix and an independent base such as in un-just.
Marchand (1969) thinks
that these types of words are referred to as words formed by native word-formation processes.
Other words in English
are formed by foreign word-formation processes. We should say that this is also noticed in
Albanian language. These
word types are known as neo-classical words and are borrowed from different sources like either
Greek or Latin, or have
been coined upon Greek or Latin word-formation processes.
If we examine the usage of the native prefixes over the years, we have to admit that their usage
today has become
much more seldom than in former times. According to Marchand this is to a certain amount due
to the tendency to form
more and more post particle words. (Marchand 1969: 131) From Old English onwards,
especially locative particles which
were connected to verbs were no longer placed before, but after the verb, thus leading to a
reduced usage of prefixes.
Prefixes may be also classified as to the degree of productivity into highly-productive,
productive, and non

Polysemous Prefixes over- and under- (Survey

Results)
TweetFacebookEmailShareThis

Thanks for participating in the recent survey! The prefixes under- and over- are
among the top 20 most commonly used prefixes, according to the The American
Heritage Word Frequency Book (Carroll, Davies, & Richman, 1971). According to
that source, in the school texts examined, the prefix over- was the 8th most
common, and the prefix under- was the 20th most common. More Words shows
406 words that begin with the letter string under and 1,681 words that begin
with over.
The poll is closed. The results are shown below, and general discussion follows,
including application to the Common Core State Standards and implications for
instruction.
Post publication note: Most of the words in the survey are compound words. In
the comments below, the point is made that over- and under- are not actually
prefixes, but instead bases. Please see the comments for more elaboration on
this excellent point.

Frankly, I had a tough time responding to this poll myself (yes, I know, I created
it!!). Trying to be devious (do I get absolution for admitting that?), I included a
word that begins with the prefix un-, yet looks like under- (underived). I also
included a word that is misspelled (*overian, for ovarian). No one fell for my tricks
(attributing the 2% to statistical error for underived).
The survey question that surprised me was #2: underage--undersized. I
expected more people to view these two words as sharing the same prefix, with
the same meaning 'not enough, insufficient' but only 72% did so (136 of 190
respondents). Not sure why. I could be missing something important. I was also
surprised by overlearn--overboard (I view them as different senses of the prefix)
and by overfed--overnight (different, I'd say). Some words are just too nuanced
for me, as with underlying--undergoing. A colleague thought they do share the

same meaning, where the prefix means 'beneath, under'. She said,
"Any underlying cause rests beneath all the symptoms, and when you undergo
surgery, you go under anesthesia, or under the knife." If we can get students to
explain their thinking in such ways, we are hitting the jackpot.

Think Map, Visual Thesaurus

To help me understand one survey item, I turned to the Visual Thesaurus. The
Think Map to the left, generated for the targeted word underhanded, helps
explain why 32 respondents felt that underarm and underhanded shared the
same sense of the prefix. One colleague said
that underhanded and underarm are different, because underarm suggests
something spatial, directional, and physical, like a baseball pitch,
but underhanded suggests something hidden and covert (sneaky, as shown in
the Think Map). However, another colleague disagreed, stating that her husband
is a coach, and her first thought was that you can throw an underarm pitch or an
underhanded pitch (also included in the Think Map). Context matters! Prior
experiences with the word make a difference! Instructional discussions matter,
too.
Rather than going over each survey item, let's discuss the various meanings of
the prefixes and several instructional applications. (Even without knowing the
"right answer" to the survey items, the thought process is beneficial. This is an
exercise teachers might share with students, but using known words, and
providing some context.)
Native English speakers and Dual Language Learners might assume
that over- means 'on top of, above' and under- means 'beneath, below' (as
in overcoat, undershirt) but that is not the only interpretation. Over- also suggests
'too much' and under also suggests 'insufficient, not enough' (as
in overexcited and underexposed). Words that contain the
prefixes over- andunder- are more likely to suggest the notion of 'too much' or

'not enough', compared to a spatial meaning.

These are broad interpretations of the two prefixes. However, a closer
consideration reveals more than two meanings for each prefix. Michael Quinion,
at Affixes.org, provides a brief summary of the various interpretations of the
prefix over-. He states, "Its meanings are rather variable and diffuse, and
difficult to categorize." (Yes, indeed!)
Quinion describes multiple ways the prefix over- is used to convey word
meaning:
1) suggests 'something beyond what is usual or desirable, even excessively so'
(overambitious, overcareful, overfull, overprecise)
2) suggests utterly or completely (overawed, overjoyed, overcome) [as
in overcome with emotion]
3) suggests 'a spatial sense of something above or higher up' (overhang,
overarching, overlook)
4) suggests a figurative sense of 'something that is superior' (overseer, overlord,
oversight committee)
5) suggests something 'outer' (overcoat, overshoes)
6) suggests something 'extra' (overtime, overpay) [an oxymoron]
7) suggests 'a motion forward and down, and hence of inversion' (overturning,
overbalance, overthrow, overboard)
8) suggests 'covering a surface' (overpaint, overgrowth).
Implications for instruction: I can see no reason why a typical language user
needs to know all these nuanced senses of the prefix, but school children should
know the most commonly used interpretations. Furthermore, they should learn to
think about this type of word analysis. With so many nuanced meanings of the
prefix over- (and the prefix under-) it is clear that we cannot rely on simply
memorizing lists of morphemes and their meanings. We might also encourage
children to think about how morphemes and words interact together, with context,
to convey meaning. The value is in the critical thinking and the discussion that
students engage in when working collaboratively through these types of
questions. Tip: When asking students to sort meanings, an "other" category is
useful, for those words that are difficult to classify, and an "unknown" category
helps separate the others from the unknowns.
Why bother? Teaching children to think in these ways increases their level
of morphological awareness. Readers who reflect on various aspects of
language are more likely to comprehend words, phrases, and passages
(see post on metalinguistic awareness). In addition, interpreting affixes is one of

the learning goals outlined in the Common Core State Standards for English
Language Arts.
Application to The Common Core State Standards
Vocabulary Acquisition and Use

L. 1. 4 [First Grade] Use frequently occurring affixes as a clue to the

meaning of a word.
L.2.4 [Second Grade] Determine the meaning of the new word formed
when a known prefix is added to a known word (e.g., happy/unhappy,
tell/retell).
L. 3. 4 [Third Grade] Determine the meaning of the new word formed when
a known affix is added to a known word (e.g., agreeable/disagreeable,
comfortable/uncomfortable, care/careless, heat/preheat).
Source: English Language Arts Standards (Language subsection)

Questionable Lesson Plan: I searched the Web and found a lesson plan for
teaching the prefix over-. I won't name the site, but it was not related to the
Common Core. According to the webpage, the lesson applies to Grades 2 and 3.
I was happy to see the lesson, but only one meaning of over- is taught. Here is
an excerpt:
Step 4. Define the meaning of over-, as well as words containing the
prefix over-. Look at the list of words with the prefix over-. Who knows
what over- means? Over- means too much. Look at overwork. Overwork means
to work too much. When the prefix over- is added to work, it changes the
meaning of the word. Can anyone tell us what overslept means? What
about overdo?
There is no additional instruction, no mention of the other meanings of over-, but
the good news is that this is the most frequently occurring sense of the prefix.
Nonetheless, students --and teachers-- who try to interpret overnight,
overseer, and overcoat with the notion of 'too much' will run into trouble
(especially since there is no context provided).
Note: Vocabulogic readers have participated in a number of surveys on common
affixes. For examples, see The Popular Prefix in- (Survey) and The Slippery
Suffix -er (Survey).
- See more at: http://vocablog-plc.blogspot.com/2012/02/polysemous-prefixes-over-andunder.html#sthash.55xtmQQZ.dpuf

INTRODUCTION
Affixation is one of the most productive ways of word building throughout the history of
English. The main function of affixation in Modern English is to form one part of speech from
another; the secondary function is to change the lexical meaning of the same part of speech.
The process of affixation consists in coining a new word by adding an affix or several affixes
to some root morpheme. The role of the affix in this procedure is very important and therefore it
is necessary to consider certain facts about the main types of affixes. Affixation is one of the
most productive ways of word-building throughout the history of English. Affixation is divided
into suffixation and prefixation.
The present paper is devoted to the study of polysemy, homonymy and synonymy of English
affixes. As is known, language is never stable: sounds, constructions, grammatical elements,
word-forms and word-meanings are all exposed to alteration. Derivational affixes are no
exception in this respect, they also undergo semantic change. Consequently many commonly
used derivational affixes are polysemantic in Modern English. The various changes that the
English language has undergone in the course of time have led to chance coincidence in form of
two or more derivational affixes. As a consequence, and this is characteristic of Modern English,
many homonymic derivational affixes can be found among those forming both different parts of
speech and different semantic groupings within the same part of speech.
Borrowed affixes, especially of Romance origin are numerous in the English vocabulary. It
would be wrong, though, to suppose that affixes are borrowed in the same way and for the same
reasons as words. An affix of foreign origin can be regarded as borrowed only after it has begun
an independent and active life in the recipient language, that is, is taking part in the word-making
processes of that language. This can only occur when the total of words with this affix is so great
in the recipient language as to affect the native speakers' subconscious to the extent that they no
longer realise its foreign flavour and accept it as their own. Under certain circumstances some of
them came to overlap semantically to a certain extent both with one another and with the native
affixes.

AFFIXATION

A f f i x a t i o n 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 wordcluster 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, etc.,
e.g. atomical, hastily, devotional, etc.
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
ICs of the pattern that signals the relationship of the derived word with its motivating source
unit, cf. unjust (un-+just), justify, (just++ -ify), arrangement (arrange + -ment), non-smoker
(non- + smoker). Words like reappearance, unreasonable, denationalise, are often qualified as
prefixal-suffixal derivatives. The reader should clearly realise that this qualification is relevant
only in terms of the constituent morphemes such words are made up of, i.e. from the angle of
morphemic analysis. From the point of view of derivational analysis such words are mostly
either suffixal or prefixal derivatives, e.g. sub-atomic = sub- + (atom + + -ic), unreasonable =
un- + (reason + -able), denationalise = 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.1 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, e.g., enslave, encage, unbutton or may function in more than one part of speech as,

e.g., over- in overkind a, to overfeed v, overestimation n; unlike prefixes, suffixes as a rule

function in any o n e part of speech often forming a derived stem of a different part of speech as
compared with that of the base, e.g. careless a cf. care n; suitable a cf. suit v, 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 than a prefix which is as a general rule more
independent semantically, cf. reading the act of one who reads; ability to read; and to reread to read again.'

Semantics of Affixes

The morpheme, and therefore affix, which is a type of morpheme, is generally defined as the
smallest indivisible component of the word possessing a meaning of its own. Meanings of
affixes are specific and considerably differ from those of root morphemes. Affixes have widely
generalised meanings and refer the concept conveyed by the whole word to a certain category,
which is vast and all-embracing. So, the noun-forming suffix -er could be roughly defined as
designating persons from the object of their occupation or labour (painter the one who paints)
or from their place of origin or abode (southerner the one living in the South). The adjectiveforming suffix -ful has the meaning of "full of", "characterised by" (beautiful, careful) whereas
-ish may often imply insufficiency of quality (greenish green, but not quite; youngish not
quite young but looking it).
Such examples might lead one to the somewhat hasty conclusion that the meaning of a derived
word is always a sum of the meanings of its morphemes: un/eat/able = "not fit to eat" where not
stands for un- and fit for -able.
There are numerous derived words whose meanings can really be easily deduced from the
meanings of their constituent parts. Yet, such cases represent only the first and simplest stage of
semantic readjustment within derived words. The constituent morphemes within derivatives do
not always preserve their current meanings and are open to subtle and complicated semantic
shifts.
Let us take at random some of the adjectives formed with the same productive suffix -y, and
try to deduce the meaning of the suffix from their dictionary definitions:
brainy (inform.) intelligent, intellectual, i. e. characterised by brains
catty quietly or slyly malicious, spiteful, i. e. characterised by features ascribed to a cat
chatty given to chat, inclined to chat

dressy (inform.) showy in dress, i. e. inclined to dress well or to be overdressed

fishy (e. g. in a fishy story, inform.) improbable, hard to believe (like stories told by
fishermen)
foxy foxlike, cunning or crafty, i. e. characterised by features ascribed to a fox
stagy theatrical, unnatural, i. e. inclined to affectation, to unnatural theatrical manners
touchy apt to take offence on slight provocation, i. e. resenting a touch or contact (not at
all inclined to be touched).
The Random-House Dictionary defines the meaning of the -y suffix as "characterised by or
inclined to the substance or action of the root to which the affix is at tached". Yet, even the few
given examples show that, on the one hand, there are cases, like touchy or fishy that are not
covered by the definition. On the other hand, even those cases that are roughly covered, show a
wide variety of subtle shades of meaning. It is not only the suffix that adds its own meaning to
the meaning of the root, but the suffix is, in its turn, affected by the root and undergoes certain
semantic changes, so that the mutual influence of root and affix creates a wide range of subtle
nuances.
But is the suffix -y probably exceptional in this respect? It is sufficient to examine further
examples to see that other affixes also offer an interesting variety of semantic shades. Compare,
for instance, the meanings of adjective-forming suffixes in each of these groups of adjectives.
1. eatable (fit or good to eat) lovable (worthy of loving) questionable (open to doubt,
to question) imaginable (capable of being imagined)
2. lovely (charming, beautiful, i. e. inspiring love) lonely (solitary, without company; lone;
the meaning of the suffix does not seem to add any thing to that of the root)
friendly (characteristic of or befitting a friend) heavenly (resembling or befitting heaven;
beautiful, splendid)
3. childish (resembling or befitting a child)
tallish (rather tall, but not quite, i. e. approaching the quality of big size)
girlish (like a girl, but, often, in a bad imitation of one)
bookish (1) given or devoted to reading or study; (2) more acquainted with books than with
real life, i. e. possessing the quality of bookish learning)
The semantic distinctions of words produced from the same root by means of different affixes
are also of considerable interest, both for language studies and research work. Compare:
womanly womanish, flowery flowered flowering, starry starred, reddened
reddish, shortened shortish.

The semantic difference between the members of these groups is very obvious: the meanings
of the suffixes are so distinct that they colour the whole words.
Womanly is used in a complimentary manner about girls and women, whereas womanish is
used to indicate an effeminate man and certainly implies criticism.
Flowery is applied to speech or a style (cf. with the R. ), flowered means
"decorated with a pattern of flowers" (e. g. flowered silk or chintz, cf. with the R. )
and flowering is the same as blossoming (e. g. flowering bushes or shrubs, cf. with the R.
).
Starry means "resembling stars" (e. g. starry eyes) and starred "covered or decorated with
stars" (e. g. starred skies).
Reddened and shortened both imply the result of an action or process, as in the eyes reddened
with weeping or a shortened version of a story (i. e. a story that has been abridged) whereas
shortish and reddish point to insufficiency of quality: reddish is not exactly red, but tinged with
red, and a shortish man is probably a little taller than a man described as short.

POLYSEMY, HOMONYMY and SYNONYMY of ENGLISH

AFFIXES

As it is already mentioned above, language is never stable: sounds, constructions, grammatical

elements, word-forms and word-meanings are all exposed to alteration. Derivational affixes are
no exception in this respect, they also undergo semantic change. Consequently many commonly
used derivational affixes are polysemantic in Modern English. The following two may well serve
as illustrations. The noun-suffix -er is used to coin words denoting 1) persons following some
special trade or profession, e.g. baker, driver, hunter, etc.; 2) persons doing a certain action at
the moment in question, e.g. packer, chooser, giver, etc.; 3) a device, tool, implement, e.g.
blotter, atomiser, boiler, eraser, transmitter, trailer, etc.
The adjective-suffix -y also has several meanings, such as 1) composed of, full of, e.g. bony,
stony; 2) characterised by, e.g. rainy, cloudy; 3) having the character of, resembling what the
base denotes, e.g. inky, bushy.
Another example of polysemy involves the suffix ist, which has a very general meaningone who is or does something, but there are three related clusters: 1) one who performs the
action involving something, e.g. violinist, harpist; 2) one who holds an ideology, e.g. socialist,

capitalist; 3) one who is prejudiced against some group, e.g. racist. This last sense is found in
neologisms like ageist and classist, one who discriminates against people because of their age
or class respectively, and specialist one who unjustifiably discriminates in fvor of humans over
other animals.
The various changes that the English language has undergone in the course of time have led to
chance coincidence in form of two or more derivational affixes. As a consequence, and this is
characteristic of Modern English, many homonymic derivational affixes can be found among
those forming both different parts of speech and different semantic groupings within the same
part of speech. For instance, the adverb-suffix -ly added to adjectival bases is homonymous to
the adjective-suffix -ly affixed to noun-bases, cf. quickly, slowly and lovely, friendly; the verbsuffix -en attached to noun- and adjectival bases is homonymous to the adjective-suffix -en
tacked on to noun-bases, cf. to strengthen, to soften and wooden, golden; the verb-prefix -un1
added to noun- and verb-bases is homonymous to the adjective-prefix -un2 affixed to adjectival
bases, cf. to unbind, to unshoe and unfair, untrue, etc.
On the other hand, there are two homonymous adjective-suffixes -ish1 and -ish2 occurring in
words like bluish, greenish, and girlish, boyish. In some books on English Lexicology the
suffix -ish in these two groups of words is regarded as one suffix having two different meanings.
If We probe deeper into the matter, however, we shall inevitably arrive at the conclusion that we
are dealing with two different homonymous suffixes: one in bluish, the other in girlish. The
reasons are as follows: the suffix -ish, in bluish, reddish, etc. only modifies the lexical meaning
of the adjective-base it is affixed to without changing the part of speech. The suffix -ish2 in
bookish, girlish, womanish, etc. is added to a noun-base to form an adjective. Besides, the
suffixes -ish1 and -ish2 differ considerably in the denotational meaning so that no semantic
connection may be traced between them: the suffix -ish1 means 'somewhat like' corresponding to
the Russian suffix -- in such adjectives as , , etc.; the suffix
-ish2 means 'of the nature of, resembling', often derogatory in force, e. g. childish
, (cf. childlike , , ; hoggish
, , etc.).
In the course of its long history the English language has adopted a great many words from
foreign languages all over the world. One of the consequences of extensive borrowing was the
appearance of numerous derivational affixes in the English language. Under certain
circumstances some of them came to overlap semantically to a certain extent both with one
another and with the native affixes. For instance, the suffix -er of native origin denoting the
agent is synonymous to the suffix -ist of Greek origin which came into the English language
through Latin in the 16th century. Both suffixes occur in nouns denoting the agent, e.g. teacher,

driller; journalist, botanist, economist, etc. Being synonymous these suffixes naturally differ
from each other in some respects. Unlike the suffix -er, the suffix -ist is:
1) mostly combined with noun-bases, e.g. violinist, receptionist, etc.;
2) as a rule, added to bases of non-Germanic origin and very seldom to bases of Germanic
origin, e.g. walkist, rightist;
3) used to form nouns denoting those who adhere to a doctrine or system, a political party, an
ideology or the like, e.g. communist, Leninist, Marxist, chartist, Darwinist, etc. Words in -ist
denoting 'the upholder of a principle' are usually matched by an abstract noun in -ism denoting
'the respective theory' (e.g. Communism, Socialism, etc.).
Sometimes synonymous suffixes differ in emotive charge. For instance, the suffix -eer also
denoting the agent is characterised, in particular, by its derogative force, e.g. sonneteer
, profiteer , etc.
There is also a considerable number of synonymous prefixes in the English language. Recent
research has revealed certain rules concerning correlation between words w i t h synonymous
prefixes of native and foreign origin. It appears, for instance, that in prefixal-suffixal derivatives
the general tendency is to use a prefix of Romanic origin if the suffix is also of Romanic origin
and a native prefix in the case of a native suffix, cf. unrecognised irrecognisable; unlimited
illimitable; unformed informal; undecided indecisive, etc. Though adequately reflecting
the general tendency observed in similar cases this rule has many exceptions. The basic
exception is the suffix -able which may often occur together with the native prefix un-, e.g.
unbearable, unfavourable, unreasonable, etc. In fact, the pattern un- +(v + -able) -> A is
wide-spread and productive in Modern English.

CONCLUSION
Affixation is the formation of words with the help of derivational affixes. Affixation is
subdivided into prefixation and suffixation. Ex. if a prefix dis is added to the stem like
(dislike) or suffix ful to law (lawful) we say a word is built by an affixation. Derivational
morphemes added before the stem of a word are called prefixes (Ex. un+ like) and the
derivational morphemes added after the stem of the word are called suffixes (hand+ ful). Prefixes
modify the lexical meaning of the stem meaning i. e. the prefixed derivative mostly belongs to
the same part of speech. Ex. like (v.) dislike (v.).kind (adj.) unkind (adj.) but suffixes transfer
words to a different part of speech, ex. teach (v.) teacher (n.).

But new investigations into

the problem of prefixation in English showed interesting results. It appears that the traditional

opinion, current among linguists that prefixes modify only the lexical meaning of words without
changing the part of speech is not quite correct. In English there are about 25 prefixes which can
transfer words to a different part of speech. Ex. head (n) behead (v), bus(n) debus(v),
brown (adj) embrown(u), title(n) entitle(v), large (adj). enlarge (v), camp(n). encamp(u),
war(n). prewar (adj). If it is so we can say that there is no functional difference between
suffixes and prefixes. Besides there are linguists 1 who treat prefixes as a part of wordcomposition. They think that a prefix has.he same function as the first component of a compound
word. Other linguists2 consider prefixes as derivational affixes which differ essentially from
rootmorphemes and stems. From the point of view of their origin affixes may be native and
borrowed. The suffixes-ness, ish, dom, ful, less, ship and prefixes be-, mis-, un-, fore-,
etc are of native origin. But the affixes able, ment, ation, ism, ist, re-, anti-, dis-, etc are
of borrowed origin. They came from the Greek, Latin and French languages. Many of the
suffixes and prefixes of native origin were independent words. In the course of time they have
lost their independence and turned into derivational affixes. Ex. dom, hood. /O.E. had state,
rank, dom (dom condemn, ship has developed from noun scipe (meaning: state); the
adjective forming suffix -ly has developed from the noun lic (body, shape). The prefixes
out-, under-, over etc also have developed out of independent words.
Another problem of the study of affixes is homonymic affixes. Homonymic affixes are
affixes which have the same sound form, spelling but different meanings and they are added to
different parts of speech.
Ex. ful (1) forms adjectives from a noun: love (v) loveful (adj/, man (n), manful (adj).
ful (2) forms adjective from a verb: forget (v.) forgetful, (adj) thank (v.) thankful
(adj).
ly(l) added to an adjective stem is homonymous to the adjective forming suffix ly(2)
which is added to a noun stem. Ex. quickly, slowly, and lovely, friendly.
The verb suffix-en (1) added to a noun and adjective stem is homonymous to the
adjective forming suffix en (2) which is added to a noun stem. Ex. to strengthen, to soften, and
wooden, golden.
The prefix un (l) added to a noun and a verb stem is homonymous to the prefix un (2)
which is added to an adjective stem. Ex. unshoe, unbind, unfair, untrue.
In the course of the history of English as a result of borrowings there appeared many
synonymous affixes in the language. Ex. the suffixes er, or, ist, ent, ant, eer, ian,
man, ee, ess form synonymous affixes denoting the meaning agent. Having the meaning of
negation the prefixes un-, in-, non-, dis-, rnis form synonymic group of prefixes. It is
interesting to point out that the synonymous affixes help us to reveal different lexicosemantic

groupings of words. Ex. the words formed by the suffixes man, er, or, ian, ee, eer,
ent, ant etc. belong to the lexico-semantic groupings of words denoting doer of the action. The
affixes may also undergo semantic changes, they may be polysemantic. Ex. the noun forming
suffix er has the following meanings:
1) persons following some special trade and profession (driver, teacher, hunter); 2)
persons doing a certain action at the moment in question (packer, chooser, giver); 3) tools
(blotter, atomizer, boiler, transmitter).
The adjective forming suffix -y also has several meanings:
1) composed of, full of (bony, stony)
2) characterized by (rainy, cloudy)
3) having the character of resembling what the stem denotes (inky, bushy etc.)

LITERATURE
Antrushina G.B., Afanasyeva O.V., Morozova N.N. English lexicology. .: .
1985
Ginsburg R.S. et al. A Course in Modern English Lexicology. M., 1979
Smirnitsky A.I. Homonyms in English M.1977
http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~alehrer/research/Are%20affixes%20signs.pdf

Introduction
Language is defined as a human system of communication that uses arbitrary signals, such as voice
sounds, gestures, or written symbols. But frankly speaking, language is far too complicated, intriguing,
and mysterious to be adequately explained by a brief definition. The organic function of the language is to
carry meaning. Most of the problems in linguistic science are intimately bound to question of semasiology
and call for scientific analysis of communication in words. The study of words is not exclusively a study of
roots and stems, of prefixes or suffixes. The mysterious world of words is an object of scientific
investigation [ 13; 25 ].
Theoretical problems of linguistic form and meaning as relevant to the progressive development of
language have attracted the attention of scholars, philosophers and grammarians since the times of Plato
and Aristotle. From those times sameness of meaning was not very easy to deal with but there seemed
nothing inherently difficult about difference of meaning. The situation is the same nowadays. Not only
different words have different meanings; its also the case that the same word may have a set of
meanings. This phenomenon is called polysemy.
Polysemy is the coexistence of many possible meanings for a word or phrase. Most words of the
English language are polysemantic. Highly developed polysemy is one of the characteristic features of
the English language. The system of meanings of any polysemantic word develops gradually, mostly over
the centuries, as more and more new meanings are either added to old ones, or out some of them. We
say that the word is polysemantic when it has many meanings. In the word the main and the secondary
meanings are distinguished. Thus, the word is polysemantic in the language but in actual speech it is
always monosemantic, that is, it has only one meaning. It is in the context that makes the polysemantic
word monosemantic. The researches of polysemy are also significant in grammar, as most grammatical
forms are polysemantic. Even a single grammatical form can be made to express a whole variety of
structural meanings.
The semantic structure of a polysemantic word is treated as a system of meanings. Some semantic
structures are arranged on a different principle. In the following list of meaning of the adjective dull one
can hardly hope to find a generalized meaning covering and holding together the rest of the semantic
structure.
The researches of the multiplicity of meanings began in eighteenth century and were continued in the
nineteenth century. The most important investment in this century was made by Breal whose research
into polysemy marked a new starting point: he shifted the study of polysemy away from lexicography and

etymology and investigated polysemy as the always synchronic pattern of meaning surrounding a word is
itself he ever changing result of semantic change [ 6; 154 ].
The important researches in the sphere of polysemy were made by Lyon who considers polysemy and
homonymy as two types of lexical ambiguity and introduce some criteria for deciding when it is polysemy
and when it is homonymy. One criterion is etymological information about the lexical item in question.
Lexical items with the same origin are considered as polysemantic, whereas if they have evolved from
distinct lexemes in some earlier stage of the language then they are regarded as homonymous [ 15; 123124 ].
Lexical meaning of every word depends upon the part of speech to which the word belongs. Every
word may be used in a limiting set of syntactical functions, and with the definite valency. It has a definite
set of grammatical meanings, and a definite set of forms.
Every lexico-grammatical group of words or class is characterized by its own lexico-grammatical
meaning, forming, as it were, the common denominator of all the meanings of the words which belongs to
this group. The lexico-grammatical meaning may be also regarded as a feature according to which these
words are grouped together. Many recent investigations are devoted to establishing word classes on the
basis of similarity of distribution.
In the lexical meaning of every separate word the lexico-grammatical meaning common to all the
words of the class to which this word belongs is enriched by additional features and becomes
particularized [ 6; 205-206 ].
In summing up this point, we note that the complexity of the notion is determined by the relationships
of the extra-linguistic reality reflected in human consciousness. The structure of every separate meaning
depends on the linguistic syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships because meaning is an inherent
component of language. The complexity of every word meaning is due to the fact that it combines lexical
meaning with lexico-grammatical meaning and sometimes with emotional coloring, stylistic peculiarities
and connotations born from previous usage.
The importance of studying the phenomenon of polysemy is obvious because it is the object of
confusion and in order to provide a quantitative and qualitative growth of the languages expressive
resources it is extremely important to investigate the semantic changes in the system of meanings in the
English language. To understand a text, learners need to know words and knowing a word involves
knowing: its spoken and written contexts of use its patterns with words of related meaning. When
teaching vocabulary it is then necessary to consider aspects like denotation, polysemy, connotation and
sociocultural aspects when teaching a second or foreign language so that learners are able to get
meaning from texts.
The aim of research is to make an analysis of the main principles of word meaning and its problems in
teaching English.
The objective of this research is the investigation of polysemy in diachronic and synchronic
dimensions. According to the objective there are following tasks:
1) to show historical background of the polysemy;
2) to describe semantic structure of polysemantic words;
3) to discover the impact of the context on the meaning of polysemantic words;
4) to describe the practical usage of the polysemy.
To solve all these tasks my diploma paper was designed.

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Analysis
Humans are social creatures who can not stand alone to fill their needs
both physical and spiritual needs. Humans need to interact with each other.
Language is the media of communication between one individual from another
person. Communication can be created with any language, and language can also
be created due to the support and the desire of every individual to communicate.
Language is generally described as a system of sounds used to link sound
using words and sentences to meaning. Language can be described as a symbolic
system in which sounds and meanings are assigned to each other, allowing
humans to communicate what we are thinking and how we are feeling. In other
words, there is an arbitrary aspect of language with meanings assigned to words
and sounds. As native speakers of a language, we know that words are arbitrarily
given meaning to express ideas. As a system, the language consists of components
- components which are regularly arranged according to certain patterns.
Linguistics is the science of language or the field of the study, where the
subject of the study is the language. It is a scientific knowledge which can be
applied to all languages in the world. It does not belong to a certain language
only. Linguistics covers several aspects which includes Phonology, Morphology,
Syntax, Semantics and also some other sciences that are related to linguistics like
Sociolinguistics, Psycholinguistics, and Comparative linguistics.
Universitas Sumatera UtaraIn this thesis, the writer would like to describe one of the linguistic
aspects, i.e. Morphology. Morphology (Crystal, 1989:90) is the branch of
linguistics studying the structure of words. Morphology is also called the study of
morphemes and their different forms (allomorphs) and the way they combine in
word formation. Or, morphology is the branch of linguistics studying how words
are structured and how they are put together from smaller parts. For example, the
English word unfriendly is formed from friend, the adjective-forming suffix ly
and the negative prefix un-.
Sibarani (2001) in his book An Introduction to Morphology explains about
the word-formation process in morphology. The word-formation process or the
morphological process is the process of forming new words with the rules of
morphology. Even though some languages recognize a part of the word-formation
processes, in morphology there are fourteen word-formation processes and one of
them is affixation. Affixation is the adding of bound morphemes to the base to
form a word. The bound morphemes added initially to the base are called prefixes,
those inserted into the base are called infixes, and those added to the end of the
base are called suffixes. English has many prefixes and suffixes.
Affixation is an interesting object to be analyzed because in the
morphological process the productive in forming a new word is affixation. In this
thesis, the analysis of affixation is focused on form, distribution, and function.
The reason why the writer choose the affixation topic in this thesis because the
writer wants to know the process of how a word is formed in English vocabulary
especially the one that found in Daniel Defoe novel.
Universitas Sumatera UtaraThus, the writer wants to show that there are can be discussed from
the
topics have chosen in which the writer found of some morphological process and
one of them is Affixation that normally consists of prefixation and suffixation.
This kind of the process is very important to English students especially for those

who want to increase their vocabulary, and they can determine meaning more
easily if they already know the meaning of an affix, such as anti- (against) in the
word antisocial. The last, the writer also wants to shows the readers more about
the processes.
In this thesis, affixation is chosen as the subject of analysis, which
particularly concerns with morphological process found in Robinson Crusoe by
Daniel Defoe as the data of this analysis. This novel is very interesting to go in
certain direction to find many English affixes aimed inside. So it is the real reason
why it is chosen as the data of analysis, especially to find out the most dominant
affix that used in this novel.
Besides, Daniel Defoe novel Robinson Crusoe is an interesting novel
that there are many consists of affixation. Therefore, the discussion of the prefixes
and suffixes by Booij (2007) will be focused on the major classification of
prefixes and suffixes in this thesis in order to facilitate this analysis.

Universitas Sumatera Utara1.2 The Problems of the Analysis

Based on the title of this paper, it focuses on the following problems:
1. How many prefixes and suffixes occurred in the novel Robinson Crusoe?
2. What is the most dominant affix that used in the novel Robinson Crusoe?
1.3 Objectives of the Analysis
The objectives of this thesis are to find the answers of the problems which
are mentioned above. They are:
1. To show the number of prefixes and suffixes in the novel Robinson Crusoe.
2. To show the most dominant affix that used in the novel Robinson Crusoe.
1.4 Significances of the Analysis
This thesis is expected to give some significance for readers. They are:
1. To add the readers knowledge about word formation and affixation in the
novel.
2. To be reference for further studies concerning Morphology.
1.5 Scope of the Analysis
This thesis is occurred on the morphological process of affixes which
includes prefixes and suffixes based on their form, distribution, function and also
the number of affixes that occurred in Robinson Crusoe By Daniel Defoe.

Universitas Sumatera Utara1.6 Method of Analysis

The method used in this thesis is library research. This method supports
the analysis in collecting some relevant references such as textbook with many
theories, thesis, and dictionary as the basic of lexical meaning.
It means that the research is mainly done by concentrating on the
contextual analysis with steps as follows:
1. Collecting the data from the novel Robinson Crusoe By Daniel Defoe.
2. Classifying the data into specific prefix and suffix.

3. Analyzing the data based on affixes categories.

4. Concluding the result of the analysis.
1.7 Review of Related Literature
In supporting the idea of this analysis, some relevant books and thesis
have collected to support the topic. All these books have given a large
contribution in writing this thesis. Some definitions, opinions, and findings from
relevant books are quoted as follows:
Lambert (1972) says that an affix is a morpheme which may be attached at
the beginning or end of a base or to one or more morphemes ultimately attached
to such a base.
Muchtar (2007) mentions that affixes are the process of forming word that
is a morpheme attached to a free morpheme or bound morpheme.
Mulyani (2004) in her thesis An Analysis of Affixation In Harun Yahyas
Book Darwinism Refuted concludes that affixes in English can be subdivided
into prefix and suffix. The form of prefix a-, in-, de-, co-/con-/cor-, mis-, re-, im-,
Universitas Sumatera Utarapre-,sub-, under--, un-, en-, over-, dis-, fore-, non-, out-, ir-, and prodo not
change the form when they are attached to base form, and in distribution, they can
be attached to noun, adjective, verb, or adverb base form. Those prefixes also do
not change the function. While the most suffixes such as ment, -tion, -al, - ful, ary, and ly, change the form if attached to base form.
Syam (2009) in his thesis A Brief Study of Affixation in A Tale of Two
Cities by Charles Dickens concludes that the most suffixes change the form and
function if they attached to the base forms. Prefix pre-, re-, a-, al-, in-, un-, dis-,
mis-, be-, im-, under-, en-, over-, out-, and fore, do not change form when they
attached to the base forms. But Prefix pro- changes the form when it is attached to
the base form in which started by vowel /a/.

Affixation is a part of word formation process in English language. The term

affixation covers prefixes, infixes and suffixes. There are also transfixes and
infixes, although they are very rareor do not even exist in English or Serbian
language. It is generally defined as the formation of words by adding derivational
affixes to different types of bases.
1
R.S. Ginsburg, S.S. Khidekel, G.Y. Knyazeva, A.A. Sankin, A Course in Modern English Lexicology,
1979., pg. 114

Thanks for participating in the recent survey! The prefixes under- and over- are
among the top 20 most commonly used prefixes, according to the The American
Heritage Word Frequency Book (Carroll, Davies, & Richman, 1971). According to
that source, in the school texts examined, the prefix over- was the 8th most
common, and the prefix under- was the 20th most common. More Words shows
406 words that begin with the letter string under and 1,681 words that begin
with over.
The poll is closed. The results are shown below, and general discussion follows,
including application to the Common Core State Standards and implications for
instruction.
Post publication note: Most of the words in the survey are compound words. In
the comments below, the point is made that over- and under- are not actually
prefixes, but instead bases. Please see the comments for more elaboration on
this excellent point.
- See more at: http://vocablog-plc.blogspot.com/2012/02/polysemous-prefixes-over-andunder.html#sthash.JwPbswVr.dpuf
Frankly, I had a tough time responding to this poll myself (yes, I know, I created it!!). Trying to be
devious (do I get absolution for admitting that?), I included a word that begins with the prefix un-, yet
looks like under- (underived). I also included a word that is misspelled (*overian, for ovarian). No one
fell for my tricks (attributing the 2% to statistical error for underived).
The survey question that surprised me was #2: underage--undersized. I expected more people to
view these two words as sharing the same prefix, with the same meaning 'not enough, insufficient'
but only 72% did so (136 of 190 respondents). Not sure why. I could be missing something
important. I was also surprised by overlearn--overboard (I view them as different senses of the
prefix) and by overfed--overnight (different, I'd say). Some words are just too nuanced for me, as
with underlying--undergoing. A colleague thought they do share the same meaning, where the
prefix means 'beneath, under'. She said, "Any underlying cause rests beneath all the symptoms, and
when you undergo surgery, you go under anesthesia, or under the knife." If we can get students to
explain their thinking in such ways, we are hitting the jackpot.

Think Map, Visual Thesaurus

To help me understand one survey item, I turned to the Visual Thesaurus. The Think Map to the left,
generated for the targeted word underhanded, helps explain why 32 respondents felt
that underarm and underhanded shared the same sense of the prefix. One colleague said
that underhanded and underarm are different, because underarm suggests something spatial,
directional, and physical, like a baseball pitch, butunderhanded suggests something hidden and
covert (sneaky, as shown in the Think Map). However, another colleague disagreed, stating that her
husband is a coach, and her first thought was that you can throw an underarm pitch or an
underhanded pitch (also included in the Think Map). Context matters! Prior experiences with the
word make a difference! Instructional discussions matter, too.
Rather than going over each survey item, let's discuss the various meanings of the prefixes and
several instructional applications. (Even without knowing the "right answer" to the survey items, the
thought process is beneficial. This is an exercise teachers might share with students, but using
known words, and providing some context.)
Native English speakers and Dual Language Learners might assume that over- means 'on top of,
above' and under- means 'beneath, below' (as in overcoat, undershirt) but that is not the only
interpretation. Over- also suggests 'too much' and under also suggests 'insufficient, not enough' (as
in overexcited and underexposed). Words that contain the prefixes over- and under- are more likely
to suggest the notion of 'too much' or 'not enough', compared to a spatial meaning.
These are broad interpretations of the two prefixes. However, a closer consideration reveals more
than two meanings for each prefix. Michael Quinion, at Affixes.org, provides a brief summary of the
various interpretations of the prefix over-. He states, "Its meanings are rather variable and
diffuse, and difficult to categorize." (Yes, indeed!)
Quinion describes multiple ways the prefix over- is used to convey word meaning:
1) suggests 'something beyond what is usual or desirable, even excessively so' (overambitious,
overcareful, overfull, overprecise)
2) suggests utterly or completely (overawed, overjoyed, overcome) [as in overcome with emotion]
3) suggests 'a spatial sense of something above or higher up' (overhang, overarching, overlook)
4) suggests a figurative sense of 'something that is superior' (overseer, overlord, oversight
committee)
5) suggests something 'outer' (overcoat, overshoes)
6) suggests something 'extra' (overtime, overpay) [an oxymoron]
7) suggests 'a motion forward and down, and hence of inversion' (overturning, overbalance,
overthrow, overboard)
8) suggests 'covering a surface' (overpaint, overgrowth).
Implications for instruction: I can see no reason why a typical language user needs to know all
these nuanced senses of the prefix, but school children should know the most commonly used
interpretations. Furthermore, they should learn to think about this type of word analysis. With so
many nuanced meanings of the prefix over- (and the prefix under-) it is clear that we cannot rely on
simply memorizing lists of morphemes and their meanings. We might also encourage children to
think about how morphemes and words interact together, with context, to convey meaning. The
value is in the critical thinking and the discussion that students engage in when working
collaboratively through these types of questions. Tip: When asking students to sort meanings, an
"other" category is useful, for those words that are difficult to classify, and an "unknown" category
helps separate the others from the unknowns.
Why bother? Teaching children to think in these ways increases their level of morphological
awareness. Readers who reflect on various aspects of language are more likely to comprehend

words, phrases, and passages (see post on metalinguistic awareness). In addition, interpreting
affixes is one of the learning goals outlined in the Common Core State Standards for English
Language Arts.
Application to The Common Core State Standards
Vocabulary Acquisition and Use
- See more at: http://vocablog-plc.blogspot.com/2012/02/polysemous-prefixes-over-andunder.html#sthash.JwPbswVr.dpuf

Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter I. Words as Meaningful Units
1.1 Polysemy as the Source of Ambiguities in a Language
1.2 Historical Development of the Polysemy
1.2.1 The Diachronic Approach to Studying Polysemy
1.2.2 The Synchronic Approach to Studying Polysemy
1.3 Polysemy and its Connection with the Context
Chapter II. Practical Usage of Polysemy in Teaching English
2.1 Polysemy in Teaching English on Intermediate Level
2.2 Polysemy in Teaching English on Advanced Level
2.3 Lesson Plan
Conclusions
List of References

Chapter I. Words as Meaningful Units

1.1 Polysemy as the Source of Ambiguities in a Language
Polysemy is a semantic inherent in the fundamental structure of the language. All languages have
polysemy on several levels. A wide-spread polysemy in English is rightly considered as one of its
characteristic features conditioned by the peculiarities of its structure.
The main source of the development of regular polysemy is the metaphoric and metonymic
transference, which is commonplace and appears to be fundamental in living language.
Polysemic words make up a considerable part of the English vocabulary. Potential polysemy of words
is the most fertile source of ambiguities in language.
In a limited number of cases two meanings of the same English words are differentiated by certain
formal means, as, for instance, by spelling: born borne, draft draught; by word-order: ambassador
extraordinary extraordinary ambassador; by inflexion: hanged hang. The distinctions between thingwords (countables) and mass-words (uncountables) is easy enough if we look at the idea that is
expressed in each single instance. But in practical language the distinction is not carried through in such
a way that one and the same word stands always for one and the same idea [ 9; 112 ].
On the contrary, a great many words may in one connection stand for something countable and in the
other for something uncountable. Compare:
1) Have an ice.
2) There is no ice on the pond.
In the first example ice any frozen dessert, especially one containing cream, as a water ice, sherbet
or frappe. In the second example ice water frozen icing frosting, any substance looking like ice.
In the vast majority of cases the context, linguistic or situational will narrow down all irrelevant senses [
11; 97-98 ].
Words often signs not of one but of several things. The linguistic mechanism works naturally in many
waysto prevent ambiguity and provide the clue to distinguish the necessary meaning. Its also important to
take into consideration the significance of the context, linguistic or non-linguistic; many ambiguities are
never noticed because the various possible meanings are excluded by the situation. Important
observations in this area of the vocabulary have been made by contextual, distributional and
transformational analysis [16; 185 ].

The problem of polysemy, in other words, the use of the same word in two or more distinct meanings
in relevant to a number of other important questions. These are: the development of different types of
synonyms, as a result of semantic transpositions of lexical units and homonymy.
Defining polysemy as a linguistic development, Charles Bally made distinction between its two
aspects: first, when one linguistic sign has several meanings, and then, when meaning is expressed by
several linguistic signs.
Words may grow in connotative power in accordance with the nature with the meanings connected
with them. In the power of connotation lies the reserve force of language. Without this language would
lose much of its expressivity and flexibility.
The frequency of polysemy in different languages is a variable depending on various factors.
Languages where derivation and composition are sparingly used tend to fill the gaps in vocabulary by
adding new meaning to existing terms.
Polysemy more often occurs in generic words than in specific terms whose meanings are less subject
to variation [ 3; 214-215 ].
It is extremely important not to lose sights of the fact that few words have simple meanings. Practically
most words have, besides their direct meaning, a fringe of associated meanings. As a matter of fact,
language owes very much of its expressive power to the ideas and emotions associated with words.
There are usually a variety of associated meanings which appear in varying degrees of prominence
determined by the context.
The course followed by words used in different context and the shifts of meaning presents a major
interest in contrastive lexicology and typological study of languages.
In analyzing the semantic structure of words we have already seen that some meanings invariably
come to the fore when we hear the word in actual speech or see in written. Other meanings make
themselves evident only when the word is used in certain contexts. The context makes the meaning
explicit, in other words, brings them out. This is not to say that polysemic words have meanings only in
context. As has already been emphatically stressed the semantic structure of the word is a dialectic entity
and involves dialectical permanency and invariability [14; 126-127 ].
Meaning should always be understood as involving the relation of language to the rest of the world
and such meaningfulness is an essential part of the definition of language.
The distributional analysis of meaning makes it possible to reveal a great deal about the total
functioning and use of words in a language. It gives sufficient evidence to recognize that part of the total
meaning of many words in all languages is to be determined by their relations with other words in both the
basic dimensions of linguistic analysis, syntagmatic and paradigmatic. Words as individual lexical items
are structurally related to each other [14; 129 ].
A special interest is presented by the polysemic words whose meaning is based on a wide notional
basis. Such lexical units can be used as function words revealing the tendence to partial or complete
semantic depletion.
The first to be mentioned here are the verbs to be, to do, to get, to have, to make, to set, to take. The
semantic value and functional use of these polysemic verbs offers difficulties in language learning and
lexicography.
As it has been pointed out, componential analysis presupposes the revealing of differential and
integral semantic features of lexical units and their variant meanings, in other words, semantic
oppositions on the lexico-grammatical level.
Compare, for illustration, the semantic group of verbs which, besides the verb to be in its locative
meaning , , includes at least such verbs as: to live, to stay, to dwell, to reside.
The distinctive features of the members of the group observed in their meaning reveal themselves in
the information which they carry about the duration of the action.
The verbs to live and to dwell, for instance, do not show any special contrast in this respect. In spoken
English dwell is now usually replaced by live.
But if we compare such verbs as to be, to stay and to live, we shall see that they differ essentially in
expressing the durative character of the action and are not always interchangeable. For example,
She is in the house.
She stays in the house.
She lives in the house.
The verb to reside is stylistically marked member of the synonymic group characterized by its use in
formal English.
It is of interest to note that transferred meanings of words in different languages do not always
coincide. By the way of illustration:
1) back ;
2) the back of a chair ;
3) the back of a hand ;
4) the back of a ship .

A variety of associated meanings which appear in varying degrees of prominence determined by the
context may be illustrated by the semantic value of the adjective great which implies being much above
the average in size, magnitude or intensity; in certain contexts of its use great comes to mean: eminent,
important: great writers, great scholars, great musicians. In colloquial use great often suggests distinction
of proficiency [11; 102-103 ].
The problem of polysemy in grammar is one of the most important, the one which is very complex and
seems to be relevant to a number of aspects. Like words which is very complex and seems to be relevant
to a number of aspects. Like words which are often signs not of one but of several things, a single
grammatical form can also be made to express a whole variety of structural meanings. This appears to be
natural and is a fairly common development in the structure of any language. This linguistics mechanism
works naturally in many ways to prevent ambiguity in patterns of grammatical structure. Orientation
towards the content will generally show which of the possible meanings is to be attached to polysemantic
grammatical form [ 7; 236 ].
Most grammatical forms are polysemantic. On this level of linguistic analysis distinction should be
made between synchronic and potential polysemy. Thus, for instance, the primary denotative meaning of
the Present Continuous is characterized by three semantic elements:
1) present time;
2) something progressive;
3) contact with the moment of speech.
The three elements make up its synchronic polysemy. So thus, we can clearly see importance of
researches of polysemy in grammar.
1.2 Historical Development of the Polysemy
The modern term polysemy was popularized by Breal in 1887. Most modern linguistics dealing with
the topic of polysemy refer to the crucial date , but they rarely look further back into the past.
The roots of the concept of polysemy lie in the Greek philosophy, that is, the debate surrounding the
problem of naturalness or arbitrariness of signs as debated in Platos (429-347B.C.) Cratylus. In his
account of Platos contribution to linguistics, Fred Householder points out that Democritus (460-mid-4th
century B.C.) offered four arguments in favour of arbitrariness:
1) homonymy or polysemy the same sequence of phonemes may be associated with two or more
unrelated meanings;
2) polyonymy or isorrophy the existence of synonyms;
3) metonymy the fact that words and meaning change;
4) nonymy the non-existence of single words for simple or familiar ideas.
Polysemy meant primarily what was later to be called homonymy, referring to the multiple, but
unrelated meaning of a word. Breal still subsumed homonymy under the heading of polysemy [ 18; 25 ].
The term polyonymy was also used by the Stoics studying how one and the same object may receive
many different names, how it can become manynamed or polyonomous.
During the Middle Ages the interpretation by the Holy Scriptures came up against the problem of
polysemy that was acknowledged, but one that had been tampted (by the theory of four senses).
The first who used the tern polysemous in a relatively modern sense was Dante, who wrote about
polysemous character of a poem: Istius operis non est simplex sensus, immo dici potest polysemum, hoc
est plurium sensum (this work doesnt have one simple meaning, on the contrary, I say that it can be
polysemous, that is can have many meanings) [ 22; 176 ].
When presenting his poem to Cangrante della Scala, Dante makes immediately clear that it has to be
read as a polysemous (polysemantic) message. One of the most celebrated examples of what Dante
means of polysemy is given in his analyses of some verses of Psalm, in Exit Israel de Aegypto.
Following the medieval theory, Dante says concerning the fierst verse of the Psalm: If we look at the
letter it means the exodus of the sons of Israel from Egypt at the time of Moses; if we look at the allegory,
it means our redemption through Christ; if we look at the moral sense it means the conversation of soul
from the misery of sin to the state of grace; if we look at the mystical sense it means the departure of
sanctified spirit from the servitude of his corruption to the freedom of eternal glory [ 22; 192-193 ].
Thinking about meaning, language and its relation to the real and figurative word advanced
enormously during the Renaissance, but real research into the multiplicity of meaning only began in the
18th century, with the study of neologisms, synonyms and the figures of speech.
Breal observed modern meaning of the word, yesterdays and todays meaning, with which we first
become familiarsomething recently rediscovered in England. In 1985, the department of English at the
Birmingham ran of computer analysis of words as they are actually used in English and came up with the
surprising results. The primary dictionary meaning of words are often far from the sense in which they
were actually used. Keep, for instance, is usually defined as to retain, but in fact the word is much more
often employed in the sense of continuing, as in keep cool and keep smiling. See is only rarely
required in the sense of utilizing ones eyes, but much more often used to express the idea of knowing, as
in I see what you mean [12; 83 ].

Language understanding and language acquisition follow the opposite route of language change. I
both cases, the last, not the first or primitive meaning of a word is a basic meaning.
In Anglo-American world, polysemy was rediscovered with the advent of cognitive semantics in 1980s.
Cognitive linguists began to reconnect synchronic and diachronic research into meaning.
Breal knew that, diachronically, polysemy stems from the fact that the new meaning or values that
words acquire in use do not automatically eliminate the old ones polysemy is therefore the result of
semantic innovation. The new and the old meaning exist in the parallel. And yet, synchronically, or in
language use, polysemy doesnt really exist sense selection in the comprehension process is not a
problem at all. In the context of discourse a word has one meaning except, one should point out, in
jokes and puns. The most important factor that brings about the multiplication of meaning diachronically
and that helps to reduce the multiplicity of meaning synchronically is the context of discourse. We
understand polysemous words because the words are always used in the context of a discourse and a
situation, which eliminate all the adjoining meaning in favour of only one in question [ 12; 91 ].
However, in the constant dialectical relation between synchrony and diachrony, and between meaning
and understanding incremental changes in the meaning of words occur having understood a word in a
certain context in a slightly divergent way, become themselves speakers and might use a word in the
newly understood way in yet another context, which again bring about different types of understanding,
and so on. In the long run, these slightly variations in use and uptake may lead to major semantic
changes.
Breal was fascinated by the fact that when talking to each other we neither get confused by the
multiplicity of meaning that a word may have, nor are we bothered with the etymological ancestry of a
word, traced by historical dictionaries. The scientist was acutely aware of the fact that semantic, cognitive
and developmental side of the language was not yet on a par with the advances made in the study of
phonetics, of the more physiological side of language. With Breal semantics as a linguistic discipline
made a first step into the future, the future in which we are still participating and to which we are still
contributing beyond the end of the 20th century [ 17; 63 ].
There followed a period of polysemous latency, so to speak, after the advent of transformational
generative grammar with its focus on syntax and later feature semantics. Polysemy was illustrated by the
research undertaken by Hans Blumerberg, Uriel Weireich, Harald Weireich, James McCawley, Charles
Fillmore.
Modern linguists also pay great attention to the investigations in the semantic sphere. The traditional
distinction between polysemy and homonymy is based on whether there is one or two lexical items
involved.
1.2.1 The Diachronic Approach to Studying Polysemy
Polysemy is inherent in the very nature of words and concepts as every object and every notion has
many features and a concept reflected in a word always contains a generalisation of several traits of the
object.
A word which has more than one meaning is called polysemantic. Different meanings of a
polysemantic word may come together due to the proximity of notions which they express e.g. the word
blanket has the following meanings: a woolen covering used on beds, a covering for keeping a horse
warm, a covering of any kind (a blanket of snow), covering all or most cases used attributively, e.g. we
can say a blanket insurance policy. There are some words in the language which are monosemantic,
such as most terms, synonym, some pronouns (this, my, both), numerals. There are two processes of the
semantic development of a word: radiation and concatenation. In cases of radiation the primary meaning
stands in the centre and the secondary meanings proceed out of it like rays. Each secondary meaning
can be traced to the primary meaning. E.g. in the word face the primary meaning denotes the front part
of the human head Connected with the front position the meanings: the front part of a watch, the front
part of a building, the front part of a playing card were formed. Connected with the word face itself the
meanings: expression of the face, outward appearance are formed. In cases of concatenation secondary
meanings of a word develop like a chain. In such cases it is difficult to trace some meanings to the
primary one. E.g. in the word crust the primary meaning hard outer part of bread developed a
secondary meaning hard part of anything (a pie, a cake), then the meaning harder layer over soft snow
was developed, then a sullen gloomy person, then impudence were developed. Here the last
meanings have nothing to do with the primary ones. In such cases homonyms appear in the language. It
is called the split of polysemy. In most cases in the semantic development of a word both ways of
semantic development are combined [ 2; 19-21 ].
In polysemantic words we are faced not with the problem of analysis of individual meanings, but
primarily with the problem of interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings in the semantic
structure of the same word. The problem may be approached from two different angles. If polysemy is
viewed diachronically, it is understood as the growth and development or, in general, a change in the
semantic structure of the word.
The term diachronic is composed of the Greek morphemes dia meaning through chromos meaning
time. Thus, the diachronic approach in terms of special lexicology deals with changes and the

development of vocabulary in the course of time. The two approaches in lexicology (synchronic and
diachronic) should not be contrasted or set one against the other; in fact, they are interconnected and
interdependent: every linguistic structure and system exist in a state of a constant development so that
the synchronic state of a language system is a result of a long process of linguistic evaluation, the result
of the historical development of the language [ 16; 176-177 ].
The diachronic approach in terms of special lexicology deals with the changes and the development of
vocabulary in the course of time. The two approaches shouldnt be set one against the other. In fact, they
are interconnected and interrelated because every linguistic structure and system exists in a state of
constant development so that the synchronic state of a language system is a result of a long process of
linguistic evaluation , of its historical development.
A diachronic approach is one that analyzes the evolution of something over time, allowing one to
assess how that something changes throughout history. You would use this approach to analyze the
effects of variable change on something.
Polysemy in a diachronic terms implies that a word may retain its previous meaning or meanings and
at the same time acquire one or several new ones. Then the problem of interrelation and interdependence
of individual meanings of a polysemantic word may be roughly formulated as follows: did the word always
possess all its meanings or did some of them appear earlier than the others? If so what is the nature of
this dependence? Can we observe any changes in the arrangement of the meanings?
In the course of a diachronic semantic analysis of the polysemantic word table we find that of all the
meanings it has in Modern English, the primary meaning is a flat slab of stone or wood which was
proper to the word in the Old English period (OE. tabule from L. tabula); all other meanings are secondary
as they are derived from the primary meaning of the word and appeared later than the primary meaning.
The terms secondary and derived meaning are to a certain extent synonymous. When we describe the
meaning of the word as secondary we imply that it could not have appeared before the primary meaning
was existence. When we refer to the meaning as derived we imply not only that, but also that it is
dependent on the primary meaning and somehow subordinate to it. In the case of the word table, e.g., we
may say that the meaning the food put on the table is derived through metonymic transfer we can also
describe it as secondary and metonymic [ 8; 203 ].
It follows that the main source of polysemy is a change in the semantic structure of the word. As can
be seen from the above, in diachronic analysis of polysemy we can use many concepts and terms
discussed in the paragraphs devoted to the change of meaning. We can speak, for example of
metaphoric or metonymic meanings if we imply the nature of dependence of the meanings, of extended
or restricted meanings, if we are connected with the interrelation of meanings as a result of semantic
change.
Polysemy may also arise from homonymy. When two words become identical in sound-form, the
meanings of the two words are felt as making up one semantic structure. Thus, the human ear and the
ear of corn are from the diachronic point of view two homonyms. One is etymologically related to Latin
auris, the other to Latin acus, aceris. Synchronically, however, they are perceived as two meanings of one
and the same word. The ear of corn is felt to be a metaphor of the usual type (cf. the eye of the needle,
the foot of the mountain) and consequently as one of the derived or, synchronically, minor meanings of
the polysemantic word ear. Cases of this type are comparatively rare and, as a rule, illustrative of the
vagueness of the border line between polysemy and homonymy.
Semantic changes result as a rule in a new meanings being added to the ones already existing in the
semantic structure of the word. Some of the old meanings may become obsolete or even disappear, but
the bulk of English words tend to increase in a number of meanings [ 18; 43 ].
To conclude we may say that, polysemy viewed diachronically is a historical change in the semantic
structure of the word resulting in a new meanings being added to the ones already existing and in the
rearrangement of these meanings in its semantic structure. As the semantic structure is never static the
relationship between the diachronic and synchronic evaluation of individual meanings of the same word
may be different in different periods of the historical developments of language.
1.2.2 Synchronic Approach to Studying Polysemy
The synchronic approach analyzes a particular something at a given, fixed point in time. It does not
attempt to make deductions about the progression of events that contributed to the current state, but only
analyzes the structure of that state, as it is.
The synchronic approach studies language as a theoretical point in time. It refers to descriptive
lexicology as branch of linguistics deals with the vocabulary and vocabulary units of language at a certain
time. Synchronically we understand polysemy as the coexistence of various meanings of the same word
at a certain historical period of the development of the language. In that case the problem of interrelation
and independence of individual meanings making up the semantic structure of the word must be
investigated along different lines.
In connection with the polysemantic word table discussed above we are mainly concerned with the
following problems: are all the nine meanings equally representative of the semantic structure of this
word? Does it reflect the comparative value of individual meanings, the place they occupy in the semantic

structure of the word table? Intuitively we feel that the meaning that is actually representative of the word,
the meaning that first occurs to us whether we hear or see the word table, is an article of furniture. This
emerges as the basic or the central meaning of the word and other meanings are minor in comparison.
It should be noted that whereas the basic meaning is representative of the word table in isolation its
minor meanings are observed only in certain contexts, e.g. to keep the table amused, a piece of
contents etc. Thus we can assume that the meaning a piece of furniture occupies the central place in
the semantic structure of the word table. As to other meanings of this word its hard to grade them in order
of their comparative value. Some may, for example, consider the second and the third meanings (the
persons seated at the table and put food on the table) as equally important, some may argue that the
meaning put food on the table should be given priority [ 21; 253-254 ]. As viewed synchronically there is
no objective criterion to go by, it may be found difficult in some cases to single out even the basic
meanings as two or meaning of the word may be felt as equally central in its semantic structure. If we
analyse the verb to get, e.g., which of the two meanings to obtain (get to London, to get into bed) shall
we regard as the basic meaning of this word?
A more objective criterion of the comparative value of individual meanings seems to be the frequency
of their occurrence in the speech. There is a tendency in a modern linguistics to interpret the concept of
the central meaning in terms of the frequency of occurrence of this meaning. It a study of five million
words made by a group of linguistic scientists it was found that the frequency value of individual
meanings is different.
Of great importance is the stylistic stratification of meanings of a polysemantic word as not only words
but individual meanings to may differ in their stylistic reference. Stylistic (or regional) status of
monosemantic words is easily perceived. For instance, the word daddy can be referred to the colloquial
stylistic layer, the word parent to bookish. The word movie is recognizably American and barnie is Scotish.
Polysemantic words as a rule cannot be given any such restrictive labels. To do it we must state the
meaning in which they are used. There is nothing colloquial or slangy or American about the word yellow
denoting colour, jerk in the meaning of a sudden or stopping movement as far as these particular
meanings are concerned. But when yellow Is used in the meaning of sensational or when jerk is used in
the meaning of an odd person its both slang and American [ 10; 47-48 ].
Stylistically neutral meanings are naturally more frequent. The polysemantic words worker and hand,
for example, may both denote the man who does manual work. But whereas this is the most frequent
and stylistically neutral meaning of the word worker, it is observed only in 2.8% of all occurrences of the
word hand, in the semantic structure of which the meaning a man who does the manual work (to hire
factory hands) is one of its marginal meanings characterized by colloquial stylistic reference. Broadly
speaking the interdependence of style and frequency in meanings is analogous to that existing in words.
It should be noted that the meaning of the highest frequency value is the one representative of the
whole semantic structure of the word. This can be illustrated by analyzing the two words under
discussion. The meaning representative of the word worker is undoubtedly a man who does manual
work [ 21; 258 ].
In conclusion, polysemy viewed synchronically is understood as co-existence of various meanings of
the same word at a certain historical period and the arrangement of these meanings in the semantic
structure of the word.
polysemy language context
1.3 Polysemy and its Connection with the Context
In modern linguistics context is defined as the minimal stretch of speech necessary to signal meaning
for words. This is not to imply that polysemantic words have meanings only in context. The semantic
structure of the word has an objective existence as a dialectical entity which embodies dialectical
permanency and variability. The context individualises the meanings, brings them out. It is in this sense
that we say that meaning is determined by the context. The meanings representative of the semantic
structure of the word and least dependent on context are sometimes described as free or denominative
meanings.
Against the background of linguistic thought as it has developed in modern linguistics we define
context as the minimal stretch of speech necessary to signal individual meaning of words. There are
several types of context: linguistic and extra-linguistic (non-verbal) contexts.
Linguistic context include lexical and grammatical context. These two types of contexts are
differentiated depending on whether lexical or grammatical aspect is predominant in making the meaning
of the word explicit. The interaction between lexical and grammatical aspects in the semantic structure of
the word is most complex and needs special comments.
1) Lexical context is best illustrated by the fact that there are groups of words in any language that are
semantically compatible only with certain classes of agents. Lexical incongruity of words often serves to
make the necessary meaning clear narrowing down the various potential meanings of the word, and no
ambiguity arises.
The verb to run, for instance, has primarily the meaning to move swiftly or with quick action, as a
stream, wagon, person; with words denoting something written, inscribed, worded, or the like the verb run

means to sound (eg. This is how the verse runs); with agents denoting various plants the verb run is
synonymically correlated to grow to become bigger; with agents denoting engines or machines by
which physical power is applied to produce a physical effect, the verb to run means to turn off the
engine (to leave the engine running).
In all the examples given above the meaning of the verb to run is signaled by the lexical meanings of
the nouns in the position of the subject. The predominance of the lexical contexts in determining the
meaning of the verb in such uses is quite evident.
Examples of lexical contexts which operate to convey the necessary meaning of a polysemic word
may be given in numbers. Resolution of structural ambiguity by lexical probability is a frequent
occurrence.
Compare also the following variant meanings of the adjective green which has primarily the meaning
of the colour green: green walls, green wound, green memories variation in meaning in each case is
signaled by the lexical meaning of the noun involved in a given syntagma. The adjective heavy in its
primary sense means weighty, not easy to lift, of great weight [ 4; 126-127 ].
In combination with words denoting natural phenomena heavy means violent: heavy storm, heavy
rain, heavy snow. Not less characteristic are such uses of the adjective as: heavy work, heavy style, a
heavy sky, with a heavy heartthe meaning of the adjective in each case is signaled by the lexical
meaning of the noun with which it occurs.
Further typical examples of lexical context determining the word meaning will be found in the
distribution of various classes of adjectives.
Observe, for instance, the use of the following phrases with the adjective warm whose meaning in
each case is signaled by the lexical meaning of the noun involved: warm milk, warm climate, warm
clothing, warm welcome, warm temper, warm support, warm imagination, warm colours.
As can be seen from above examples, the lexico-semantic variation of the adjective warm makes it
synonymous with such words as mild, heated, cordial, enthusiastic, eager, keen, responsive.
2) Grammatical context. Instances are not few when the individual lexical meaning of a polysemic
word is determined by the grammatical structure in which it occurs, syntactic patterns in the main.
Familiar examples of grammatical context will be found in cases like the following:
1) The horse stopped drinking.
2) The horse stopped to drink.
In the first example stop+ing finish doing something, in the secondstop+to+ infinitive stop
temporarily in order to.
Highly indicative in this respect are verbs of generic force, such as do, make and the verbs of the
move and change class: go, come, grow, get, fall, run, take, turn.
In grammatical contexts it is the grammatical structure of the context that serves to determine various
individual meanings of a polysemantic word. One of the meanings of the verb to make, eg. to force, to
enduce, is found only in the grammatical context possessing the structure to make somebody do
something or in simpler terms this practical meaning occurs only if the verb make is followed by a noun
and the infinitive of some other verb (to make somebody laugh, work, etc. ) [ 5; 182-183 ].
In a number of contexts, however, we find both the lexical and grammatical aspects should be taken
into consideration. The grammatical structure of the context although indicative of the difference between
the meaning of the word in this structure and the meaning of the same word in a different grammatical
structure may be insufficient to indicate in which of its individual meaning the word in question is used.
Dealing with linguistic contexts we consider only linguistic factors: lexical groups of words, syntactic
structure of context, etc. There are cases, however, when the meaning of the word is ultimately
determined not by this linguistic factors, but by the actual speech situation.
The noun ring may possess the meaning a circle of precious metal or a call on the telephone; the
meaning of the verb to get in this linguistic context may be interpreted as possess or understand
depending on the actual situation in which these words are used. It should be pointed out, that such
cases, though possible, are not actually very numerous. The linguistic context is by far a more potent
factor in determining the word-meaning.
It is of interest to note that not only the denotational but also the connotational component of meaning
may be affected by the context. Any word which as a language unit is emotively neutral may in certain
context acquire emotive implications. Compare, e.g., fire in to ensure ones property against the fire and
Fire! as a call for a help. So the peculiar lexical context accounts for the possibility of emotive overtones
which are made explicit by the context of situation [ 10; 16-17 ].
Instances are not few when the meaning of a word is signaled by the context much larger than a given
sentence or by a whole situation of the utterance, in other words, by the actual situation in which this word
occurs. Numerous examples of such utterance will be found in syntactic structures including idioms of
different types.
Another important aspect to consider is sociocultural group which refers to the fact that the language
used by a sociocultural group is closely connected with its values, attitudes and beliefs. Consequently,
learning a language involves understanding and interpreting the culture of which it is part. It is important,

therefore, for pupils to develop the ability to interpret texts from perspectives other than their own. Some
of the activities to deal with sociocultural context are the following: asking pupils to compare words and
expressions used in various English-speaking contexts with those used in their own language context;
pupils comment on the sociocultural associations of lexis in a given text; quizzes; true or false questions;
explaining newspaper headlines, advertisements, graffiti.
The two or more less universally recognized main types of linguistic contexts serve to determine
individual meanings of words are the lexical and grammatical contexts. These types are differentiated
depending on whether the lexical or grammatical aspect is predominant in determining the meaning.
Meaning should always be understood as involving the relation of language to the rest of the world
and such meaningfulness is an essential part of the definition of language.
Chapter II. Practical Usage of Polysemy in Teaching English
2.1 Polysemy in Teaching English on Intermediate Level
Practicing polysemy is distinguishing between the various meaning of a single word form with several
but closely related meanings (head: of a person, of a pin, of an organization). In my opinion the most
important aspect of vocabulary teaching for intermediate learners is to foster learner independence so
that learners will be able to deal with new lexis and expand their vocabulary beyond the end of the
course. Therefore guided discovery, contextual guesswork and using dictionaries should be the main
ways to deal with discovering meaning. Teachers can help students with specific techniques and practice
in contextual guesswork, for example, the understanding of discourse markers and identifying the function
of the word in the sentence .
In my opinion the most important aspect of teaching polysemy for learners is to foster independence
so that learners will be able to deal with new lexis and expand their vocabulary beyond the end of the
course. Therefore guided discovery, contextual guesswork should be the main ways to deal with
discovering meaning.
Intermediate level includes the 5th 9th form pupils. They already have some basic knowledge in
studying a foreign language. If pupils have had good achievements in language learning, they are usually
interested in the subject and work willingly both in class and at home. The desire to learn depends fully on
the teachers ability to involve each pupil in language activities during the lesson. Pupils give preferences
to those exercises which require thinking [ 1; 61].

.2 Historical Development of the Polysemy

The modern term polysemy was popularized by Breal in 1887. Most modern linguistics dealing with
the topic of polysemy refer to the crucial date , but they rarely look further back into the past.
The roots of the concept of polysemy lie in the Greek philosophy, that is, the debate surrounding the
problem of naturalness or arbitrariness of signs as debated in Platos (429-347B.C.) Cratylus. In his
account of Platos contribution to linguistics, Fred Householder points out that Democritus (460-mid-4th
century B.C.) offered four arguments in favour of arbitrariness:
1) homonymy or polysemy the same sequence of phonemes may be associated with two or more
unrelated meanings;
2) polyonymy or isorrophy the existence of synonyms;
3) metonymy the fact that words and meaning change;
4) nonymy the non-existence of single words for simple or familiar ideas.
Polysemy meant primarily what was later to be called homonymy, referring to the multiple, but
unrelated meaning of a word. Breal still subsumed homonymy under the heading of polysemy [ 18; 25 ].
The term polyonymy was also used by the Stoics studying how one and the same object may receive
many different names, how it can become manynamed or polyonomous.
During the Middle Ages the interpretation by the Holy Scriptures came up against the problem of
polysemy that was acknowledged, but one that had been tampted (by the theory of four senses).
The first who used the tern polysemous in a relatively modern sense was Dante, who wrote about
polysemous character of a poem: Istius operis non est simplex sensus, immo dici potest polysemum, hoc
est plurium sensum (this work doesnt have one simple meaning, on the contrary, I say that it can be
polysemous, that is can have many meanings) [ 22; 176 ].

When presenting his poem to Cangrante della Scala, Dante makes immediately clear that it has to be
read as a polysemous (polysemantic) message. One of the most celebrated examples of what Dante
means of polysemy is given in his analyses of some verses of Psalm, in Exit Israel de Aegypto.
Following the medieval theory, Dante says concerning the fierst verse of the Psalm: If we look at the
letter it means the exodus of the sons of Israel from Egypt at the time of Moses; if we look at the allegory,
it means our redemption through Christ; if we look at the moral sense it means the conversation of soul
from the misery of sin to the state of grace; if we look at the mystical sense it means the departure of
sanctified spirit from the servitude of his corruption to the freedom of eternal glory [ 22; 192-193 ].
Thinking about meaning, language and its relation to the real and figurative word advanced
enormously during the Renaissance, but real research into the multiplicity of meaning only began in the
18th century, with the study of neologisms, synonyms and the figures of speech.
Breal observed modern meaning of the word, yesterdays and todays meaning, with which we first
become familiarsomething recently rediscovered in England. In 1985, the department of English at the
Birmingham ran of computer analysis of words as they are actually used in English and came up with the
surprising results. The primary dictionary meaning of words are often far from the sense in which they
were actually used. Keep, for instance, is usually defined as to retain, but in fact the word is much more
often employed in the sense of continuing, as in keep cool and keep smiling. See is only rarely
required in the sense of utilizing ones eyes, but much more often used to express the idea of knowing, as
in I see what you mean [12; 83 ].
Language understanding and language acquisition follow the opposite route of language change. I
both cases, the last, not the first or primitive meaning of a word is a basic meaning.
In Anglo-American world, polysemy was rediscovered with the advent of cognitive semantics in 1980s.
Cognitive linguists began to reconnect synchronic and diachronic research into meaning.
Breal knew that, diachronically, polysemy stems from the fact that the new meaning or values that
words acquire in use do not automatically eliminate the old ones polysemy is therefore the result of
semantic innovation. The new and the old meaning exist in the parallel. And yet, synchronically, or in
language use, polysemy doesnt really exist sense selection in the comprehension process is not a
problem at all. In the context of discourse a word has one meaning except, one should point out, in
jokes and puns. The most important factor that brings about the multiplication of meaning diachronically
and that helps to reduce the multiplicity of meaning synchronically is the context of discourse. We
understand polysemous words because the words are always used in the context of a discourse and a
situation, which eliminate all the adjoining meaning in favour of only one in question [ 12; 91 ].
However, in the constant dialectical relation between synchrony and diachrony, and between meaning
and understanding incremental changes in the meaning of words occur having understood a word in a
certain context in a slightly divergent way, become themselves speakers and might use a word in the
newly understood way in yet another context, which again bring about different types of understanding,
and so on. In the long run, these slightly variations in use and uptake may lead to major semantic
changes.
Breal was fascinated by the fact that when talking to each other we neither get confused by the
multiplicity of meaning that a word may have, nor are we bothered with the etymological ancestry of a
word, traced by historical dictionaries. The scientist was acutely aware of the fact that semantic, cognitive
and developmental side of the language was not yet on a par with the advances made in the study of
phonetics, of the more physiological side of language. With Breal semantics as a linguistic discipline
made a first step into the future, the future in which we are still participating and to which we are still
contributing beyond the end of the 20th century [ 17; 63 ].
There followed a period of polysemous latency, so to speak, after the advent of transformational
generative grammar with its focus on syntax and later feature semantics. Polysemy was illustrated by the
research undertaken by Hans Blumerberg, Uriel Weireich, Harald Weireich, James McCawley, Charles
Fillmore.
Modern linguists also pay great attention to the investigations in the semantic sphere. The traditional
distinction between polysemy and homonymy is based on whether there is one or two lexical items
involved.
1.2.1 The Diachronic Approach to Studying Polysemy
Polysemy is inherent in the very nature of words and concepts as every object and every notion has
many features and a concept reflected in a word always contains a generalisation of several traits of the
object.
A word which has more than one meaning is called polysemantic. Different meanings of a
polysemantic word may come together due to the proximity of notions which they express e.g. the word
blanket has the following meanings: a woolen covering used on beds, a covering for keeping a horse
warm, a covering of any kind (a blanket of snow), covering all or most cases used attributively, e.g. we
can say a blanket insurance policy. There are some words in the language which are monosemantic,
such as most terms, synonym, some pronouns (this, my, both), numerals. There are two processes of the
semantic development of a word: radiation and concatenation. In cases of radiation the primary meaning

stands in the centre and the secondary meanings proceed out of it like rays. Each secondary meaning
can be traced to the primary meaning. E.g. in the word face the primary meaning denotes the front part
of the human head Connected with the front position the meanings: the front part of a watch, the front
part of a building, the front part of a playing card were formed. Connected with the word face itself the
meanings: expression of the face, outward appearance are formed. In cases of concatenation secondary
meanings of a word develop like a chain. In such cases it is difficult to trace some meanings to the
primary one. E.g. in the word crust the primary meaning hard outer part of bread developed a
secondary meaning hard part of anything (a pie, a cake), then the meaning harder layer over soft snow
was developed, then a sullen gloomy person, then impudence were developed. Here the last
meanings have nothing to do with the primary ones. In such cases homonyms appear in the language. It
is called the split of polysemy. In most cases in the semantic development of a word both ways of
semantic development are combined [ 2; 19-21 ].
In polysemantic words we are faced not with the problem of analysis of individual meanings, but
primarily with the problem of interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings in the semantic
structure of the same word. The problem may be approached from two different angles. If polysemy is
viewed diachronically, it is understood as the growth and development or, in general, a change in the
semantic structure of the word.
The term diachronic is composed of the Greek morphemes dia meaning through chromos meaning
time. Thus, the diachronic approach in terms of special lexicology deals with changes and the
development of vocabulary in the course of time. The two approaches in lexicology (synchronic and
diachronic) should not be contrasted or set one against the other; in fact, they are interconnected and
interdependent: every linguistic structure and system exist in a state of a constant development so that
the synchronic state of a language system is a result of a long process of linguistic evaluation, the result
of the historical development of the language [ 16; 176-177 ].
The diachronic approach in terms of special lexicology deals with the changes and the development of
vocabulary in the course of time. The two approaches shouldnt be set one against the other. In fact, they
are interconnected and interrelated because every linguistic structure and system exists in a state of
constant development so that the synchronic state of a language system is a result of a long process of
linguistic evaluation , of its historical development.
A diachronic approach is one that analyzes the evolution of something over time, allowing one to
assess how that something changes throughout history. You would use this approach to analyze the
effects of variable change on something.
Polysemy in a diachronic terms implies that a word may retain its previous meaning or meanings and
at the same time acquire one or several new ones. Then the problem of interrelation and interdependence
of individual meanings of a polysemantic word may be roughly formulated as follows: did the word always
possess all its meanings or did some of them appear earlier than the others? If so what is the nature of
this dependence? Can we observe any changes in the arrangement of the meanings?
In the course of a diachronic semantic analysis of the polysemantic word table we find that of all the
meanings it has in Modern English, the primary meaning is a flat slab of stone or wood which was
proper to the word in the Old English period (OE. tabule from L. tabula); all other meanings are secondary
as they are derived from the primary meaning of the word and appeared later than the primary meaning.
The terms secondary and derived meaning are to a certain extent synonymous. When we describe the
meaning of the word as secondary we imply that it could not have appeared before the primary meaning
was existence. When we refer to the meaning as derived we imply not only that, but also that it is
dependent on the primary meaning and somehow subordinate to it. In the case of the word table, e.g., we
may say that the meaning the food put on the table is derived through metonymic transfer we can also
describe it as secondary and metonymic [ 8; 203 ].
It follows that the main source of polysemy is a change in the semantic structure of the word. As can
be seen from the above, in diachronic analysis of polysemy we can use many concepts and terms
discussed in the paragraphs devoted to the change of meaning. We can speak, for example of
metaphoric or metonymic meanings if we imply the nature of dependence of the meanings, of extended
or restricted meanings, if we are connected with the interrelation of meanings as a result of semantic
change.
Polysemy may also arise from homonymy. When two words become identical in sound-form, the
meanings of the two words are felt as making up one semantic structure. Thus, the human ear and the
ear of corn are from the diachronic point of view two homonyms. One is etymologically related to Latin
auris, the other to Latin acus, aceris. Synchronically, however, they are perceived as two meanings of one
and the same word. The ear of corn is felt to be a metaphor of the usual type (cf. the eye of the needle,
the foot of the mountain) and consequently as one of the derived or, synchronically, minor meanings of
the polysemantic word ear. Cases of this type are comparatively rare and, as a rule, illustrative of the
vagueness of the border line between polysemy and homonymy.

Semantic changes result as a rule in a new meanings being added to the ones already existing in the
semantic structure of the word. Some of the old meanings may become obsolete or even disappear, but
the bulk of English words tend to increase in a number of meanings [ 18; 43 ].
To conclude we may say that, polysemy viewed diachronically is a historical change in the semantic
structure of the word resulting in a new meanings being added to the ones already existing and in the
rearrangement of these meanings in its semantic structure. As the semantic structure is never static the
relationship between the diachronic and synchronic evaluation of individual meanings of the same word
may be different in different periods of the historical developments of language.
1.2.2 Synchronic Approach to Studying Polysemy
The synchronic approach analyzes a particular something at a given, fixed point in time. It does not
attempt to make deductions about the progression of events that contributed to the current state, but only
analyzes the structure of that state, as it is.
The synchronic approach studies language as a theoretical point in time. It refers to descriptive
lexicology as branch of linguistics deals with the vocabulary and vocabulary units of language at a certain
time. Synchronically we understand polysemy as the coexistence of various meanings of the same word
at a certain historical period of the development of the language. In that case the problem of interrelation
and independence of individual meanings making up the semantic structure of the word must be
investigated along different lines.
In connection with the polysemantic word table discussed above we are mainly concerned with the
following problems: are all the nine meanings equally representative of the semantic structure of this
word? Does it reflect the comparative value of individual meanings, the place they occupy in the semantic
structure of the word table? Intuitively we feel that the meaning that is actually representative of the word,
the meaning that first occurs to us whether we hear or see the word table, is an article of furniture. This
emerges as the basic or the central meaning of the word and other meanings are minor in comparison.
It should be noted that whereas the basic meaning is representative of the word table in isolation its
minor meanings are observed only in certain contexts, e.g. to keep the table amused, a piece of
contents etc. Thus we can assume that the meaning a piece of furniture occupies the central place in
the semantic structure of the word table. As to other meanings of this word its hard to grade them in order
of their comparative value. Some may, for example, consider the second and the third meanings (the
persons seated at the table and put food on the table) as equally important, some may argue that the
meaning put food on the table should be given priority [ 21; 253-254 ]. As viewed synchronically there is
no objective criterion to go by, it may be found difficult in some cases to single out even the basic
meanings as two or meaning of the word may be felt as equally central in its semantic structure. If we
analyse the verb to get, e.g., which of the two meanings to obtain (get to London, to get into bed) shall
we regard as the basic meaning of this word?
A more objective criterion of the comparative value of individual meanings seems to be the frequency
of their occurrence in the speech. There is a tendency in a modern linguistics to interpret the concept of
the central meaning in terms of the frequency of occurrence of this meaning. It a study of five million
words made by a group of linguistic scientists it was found that the frequency value of individual
meanings is different.
Of great importance is the stylistic stratification of meanings of a polysemantic word as not only words
but individual meanings to may differ in their stylistic reference. Stylistic (or regional) status of
monosemantic words is easily perceived. For instance, the word daddy can be referred to the colloquial
stylistic layer, the word parent to bookish. The word movie is recognizably American and barnie is Scotish.
Polysemantic words as a rule cannot be given any such restrictive labels. To do it we must state the
meaning in which they are used. There is nothing colloquial or slangy or American about the word yellow
denoting colour, jerk in the meaning of a sudden or stopping movement as far as these particular
meanings are concerned. But when yellow Is used in the meaning of sensational or when jerk is used in
the meaning of an odd person its both slang and American [ 10; 47-48 ].
Stylistically neutral meanings are naturally more frequent. The polysemantic words worker and hand,
for example, may both denote the man who does manual work. But whereas this is the most frequent
and stylistically neutral meaning of the word worker, it is observed only in 2.8% of all occurrences of the
word hand, in the semantic structure of which the meaning a man who does the manual work (to hire
factory hands) is one of its marginal meanings characterized by colloquial stylistic reference. Broadly
speaking the interdependence of style and frequency in meanings is analogous to that existing in words.
It should be noted that the meaning of the highest frequency value is the one representative of the
whole semantic structure of the word. This can be illustrated by analyzing the two words under
discussion. The meaning representative of the word worker is undoubtedly a man who does manual
work [ 21; 258 ].
In conclusion, polysemy viewed synchronically is understood as co-existence of various meanings of
the same word at a certain historical period and the arrangement of these meanings in the semantic
structure of the word.
polysemy language context

1.3 Polysemy and its Connection with the Context

In modern linguistics context is defined as the minimal stretch of speech necessary to signal meaning
for words. This is not to imply that polysemantic words have meanings only in context. The semantic
structure of the word has an objective existence as a dialectical entity which embodies dialectical
permanency and variability. The context individualises the meanings, brings them out. It is in this sense
that we say that meaning is determined by the context. The meanings representative of the semantic
structure of the word and least dependent on context are sometimes described as free or denominative
meanings.
Against the background of linguistic thought as it has developed in modern linguistics we define
context as the minimal stretch of speech necessary to signal individual meaning of words. There are
several types of context: linguistic and extra-linguistic (non-verbal) contexts.
Linguistic context include lexical and grammatical context. These two types of contexts are
differentiated depending on whether lexical or grammatical aspect is predominant in making the meaning
of the word explicit. The interaction between lexical and grammatical aspects in the semantic structure of
the word is most complex and needs special comments.
1) Lexical context is best illustrated by the fact that there are groups of words in any language that are
semantically compatible only with certain classes of agents. Lexical incongruity of words often serves to
make the necessary meaning clear narrowing down the various potential meanings of the word, and no
ambiguity arises.
The verb to run, for instance, has primarily the meaning to move swiftly or with quick action, as a
stream, wagon, person; with words denoting something written, inscribed, worded, or the like the verb run
means to sound (eg. This is how the verse runs); with agents denoting various plants the verb run is
synonymically correlated to grow to become bigger; with agents denoting engines or machines by
which physical power is applied to produce a physical effect, the verb to run means to turn off the
engine (to leave the engine running).
In all the examples given above the meaning of the verb to run is signaled by the lexical meanings of
the nouns in the position of the subject. The predominance of the lexical contexts in determining the
meaning of the verb in such uses is quite evident.
Examples of lexical contexts which operate to convey the necessary meaning of a polysemic word
may be given in numbers. Resolution of structural ambiguity by lexical probability is a frequent
occurrence.
Compare also the following variant meanings of the adjective green which has primarily the meaning
of the colour green: green walls, green wound, green memories variation in meaning in each case is
signaled by the lexical meaning of the noun involved in a given syntagma. The adjective heavy in its
primary sense means weighty, not easy to lift, of great weight [ 4; 126-127 ].
In combination with words denoting natural phenomena heavy means violent: heavy storm, heavy
rain, heavy snow. Not less characteristic are such uses of the adjective as: heavy work, heavy style, a
heavy sky, with a heavy heartthe meaning of the adjective in each case is signaled by the lexical
meaning of the noun with which it occurs.
Further typical examples of lexical context determining the word meaning will be found in the
distribution of various classes of adjectives.
Observe, for instance, the use of the following phrases with the adjective warm whose meaning in
each case is signaled by the lexical meaning of the noun involved: warm milk, warm climate, warm
clothing, warm welcome, warm temper, warm support, warm imagination, warm colours.
As can be seen from above examples, the lexico-semantic variation of the adjective warm makes it
synonymous with such words as mild, heated, cordial, enthusiastic, eager, keen, responsive.
2) Grammatical context. Instances are not few when the individual lexical meaning of a polysemic
word is determined by the grammatical structure in which it occurs, syntactic patterns in the main.
Familiar examples of grammatical context will be found in cases like the following:
1) The horse stopped drinking.
2) The horse stopped to drink.
In the first example stop+ing finish doing something, in the secondstop+to+ infinitive stop
temporarily in order to.
Highly indicative in this respect are verbs of generic force, such as do, make and the verbs of the
move and change class: go, come, grow, get, fall, run, take, turn.
In grammatical contexts it is the grammatical structure of the context that serves to determine various
individual meanings of a polysemantic word. One of the meanings of the verb to make, eg. to force, to
enduce, is found only in the grammatical context possessing the structure to make somebody do
something or in simpler terms this practical meaning occurs only if the verb make is followed by a noun
and the infinitive of some other verb (to make somebody laugh, work, etc. ) [ 5; 182-183 ].
In a number of contexts, however, we find both the lexical and grammatical aspects should be taken
into consideration. The grammatical structure of the context although indicative of the difference between

the meaning of the word in this structure and the meaning of the same word in a different grammatical
structure may be insufficient to indicate in which of its individual meaning the word in question is used.
Dealing with linguistic contexts we consider only linguistic factors: lexical groups of words, syntactic
structure of context, etc. There are cases, however, when the meaning of the word is ultimately
determined not by this linguistic factors, but by the actual speech situation.
The noun ring may possess the meaning a circle of precious metal or a call on the telephone; the
meaning of the verb to get in this linguistic context may be interpreted as possess or understand
depending on the actual situation in which these words are used. It should be pointed out, that such
cases, though possible, are not actually very numerous. The linguistic context is by far a more potent
factor in determining the word-meaning.
It is of interest to note that not only the denotational but also the connotational component of meaning
may be affected by the context. Any word which as a language unit is emotively neutral may in certain
context acquire emotive implications. Compare, e.g., fire in to ensure ones property against the fire and
Fire! as a call for a help. So the peculiar lexical context accounts for the possibility of emotive overtones
which are made explicit by the context of situation [ 10; 16-17 ].
Instances are not few when the meaning of a word is signaled by the context much larger than a given
sentence or by a whole situation of the utterance, in other words, by the actual situation in which this word
occurs. Numerous examples of such utterance will be found in syntactic structures including idioms of
different types.
Another important aspect to consider is sociocultural group which refers to the fact that the language
used by a sociocultural group is closely connected with its values, attitudes and beliefs. Consequently,
learning a language involves understanding and interpreting the culture of which it is part. It is important,
therefore, for pupils to develop the ability to interpret texts from perspectives other than their own. Some
of the activities to deal with sociocultural context are the following: asking pupils to compare words and
expressions used in various English-speaking contexts with those used in their own language context;
pupils comment on the sociocultural associations of lexis in a given text; quizzes; true or false questions;
explaining newspaper headlines, advertisements, graffiti.
The two or more less universally recognized main types of linguistic contexts serve to determine
individual meanings of words are the lexical and grammatical contexts. These types are differentiated
depending on whether the lexical or grammatical aspect is predominant in determining the meaning.
Meaning should always be understood as involving the relation of language to the rest of the world
and such meaningfulness is an essential part of the definition of language.
Chapter II. Practical Usage of Polysemy in Teaching English

2.2 Affixes

Affixes includes morpheme. It can be added to other morpheme (root/base) which

is constructing a word formation and new meaning, the following are the further
explanation.
2.2.1 Definition of Affixes
Rachmadie (1990:13), says morpheme that here as the basic for words are
sometimes called roots or base. Thus, morphemes such as happy, quick, tidy, print
are roots. On the other hand, morpheme such as ly, -ness, un-, ir- is non roots.
They are usually called affixes. Crowley (1995:6) said that affixes are
morphemes that are not free, in that must always be attched to a root morpheme.
Meanwhile Procter (1980:15) says affix is a group of letters or sounds added to
the beginning of a word or the end of the word. At http://reference
definitions.blurtit.com/70827/what-is-an-affix, an affix is basically a morpheme
which is generally attached to the base morpheme, which is either the root or to a
stem in order to add to the formation of a word. Affix is something that is very
derivational like English -ness and pre-, or inflectional, such as English plural s
and past tense ed.
Based on the statement above, the writer consludes that affixes are morphemes
which are not clearly lexical meaning and it is attached in root morpheme.
2.2.2 Types of Affixes
Affixes have several types; the following are the explanation from several
reference: Napa (1992:5) argues that there are three types of affixes; they are
Prefix,
Suffix, and Multiflix in English.
1. Prefix
Prefix is the affixes which can be added to the beginning of a word. Fore
example: ab-normal, dis-agree, ex-change, im-material, re-act, etc.
2. Suffix
Suffix is the affixes can be added to the end of a word. For example:
ideal-ize, hoori-fy, execut-ion, capital-ism, care-less, etc.
3. Multifix
Multifix is the affixes which can be added of both the prefix and suffix to
any word. For example: dis-agree-able, il-legal-ity, im-migrat-ion, inaccuracy,
misapplication, etc.
On the other hand at
http://www01sil.org/linguistic/GlossaryOflinguisticTerms/WhatIsAnAffixLi
nguistics.htm affixes are divided into several types depend the relationship to root on stem.
Here is a table showing some kinds of affixes with example:

Table 2.2.2 Types of Affixes

Crowley (1995:6) argues that there are two most common types of affixes,
they are Prefixes and Suffixes.
1. Prefix
These are affixes which come before a root. The following English words
all contain prefixes (presented in bold type), and these are separated from the root
by means of hyphen:
re-act un-holy
dis-believe non-smoking
in-sincere a-symmetry
pre-view co-operate
2. Suffixes
These are affixes that are added after a root. The following English words
contain suffixes.
cat-s
man-ly
kill-er
kind-ness
green-ish
eat-ing
laugh-ed
king-dom

2.3 Inflectional Affixes

Rachmadie (1990:31) said that some affixes when attached to the root or
base do not change the part of speech of the root and they do not create a new
words. They only have certain grammatical function. These affixes are usually
called inflection affixes. In English we have inflectional affixes to indicate the
following:
1. Plural form, such as:
-s book books
glass glasses
-en ox oxen
child children

2. Possession, such as:

Amirs book
Amir and Nitas book
A cats tail
3. Third singular verb maker, for example:
Mother always cooks rice
Rizal goes to school
He never watches TV
4. Tense maker, such as:
He worked hard yesterday. (past tense)
I have repeated the lesson. (past participle)
We are studying English. (present progressive)
Sari (1988:82) argues that morphemes which serve a purely grammatical
function, never creating a different word, but only different form of the same
word, are called inflectional morphemes. And English has eight inflectional
affixes; all other affixes are derivational. The eight inflectional affixes are listed in
the following table, along with the type of root that each one attaches to, and a
representative example.
Table 2.3 Kinds of Inflectional Affixes

Below are listed four charcteristics of inflectional affixes:

a. Do not change meaning or part of speech e.g. big and bigger are both
adjective.
b. Typically indicate syntatic or semantic relations between different words
in a sentence e.g. the present tense morphemes s in waits shows
agreement with the subject of the verb (both are third person singular).
c. Typically occur with all members of some large class of morphemes e.g.
the plural morphemes s occurs with most nouns.
d. Typically occur at the margin of words e.g. the plural morphemes s
always come last in a word, as in babysitters or rationalizations.
2.4 Derivational Affixes

As we know that a word sometimes is built by joining of affixes and root

together, sometimes it can form a new word with the new meaning and it also can
change the part of speech of root which is called derivational affixes. The
following are the more explanation of derivational affixes.
2.4.1 Definition of Derivational Affixes
Rachmadie (1990:23) said that derivational affixes are affixes that change
the part of speech of the root or base. Derivatonal affixes serve as an important
means by which new words may be created in English.
At
http://www01.sil.org/linguistic/GlossaryOflinguisticTerms/WhatIsADerivatonalAff
ix.htm A
derivational affix is an affix by means of which one word is formed (derived)
from another. The derived word is often of a different word class from the
original. Based on the statements above, the writer concludes that
derivationalaffixes are affixes that change part of speech of root. And there are
some type of
derivational affixes, they are:
1. Productive affix
A productive affix is a derivational affix that is currently used in the
derivation of new formations. For example, the prefix non- is a
productive affix, as demonstrated in the following new coinage:
The only non-upended chair in the ransacked room.
2. Unproductive affix
An unproductive affix is a derivational affix which is no longer used to
form new words.
2.4.2 Characteristic of Derivational Affixes
Derivational affixes have a special characteristic. The following are the
specific characteristic of derivational affixes. According to Rachmadie (1990:23),
derivational affixes have any characteristics, just below:
1. The words with which derivational suffixes combine are an arbitary
matter. To make a noun from the verb adorn we must add the suffix
ment and no other suffix will do, whereas the verb fail combines only
with ure to make a noun failure. Yet the employ may use the diffferent
suffixes ment, -er, -ee to make three nouns with different meaning
(employment, employer, employee).
2. In many case, but not all, derivational suffixes changes the part of
speech of the word to which it is added. The noun act becomes anadjective by
addition of ive, and to the adjective active we could add
ate, making it verb activate.
3. Derivational suffixes usually do not close off a word, that is after a
derivational suffix you can sometimes add another derivational suffix
and next, if required. For example, to the word fertilizer.

Below are listed four characteristics of derivational affixes, according to

Yudi (2001:23):
1. Change meaning or part of speech e.g. ment form nouns, such as
judgement from verbs such judge.
2. Typically indicate semantic relation with the word e.g. the morpheme
full in painful has no particular connection with any other morpheme
beyond the word painful.
3. Typically acour with only some members of e.g the suffix-hood occurs
with just a few nouns, such as brother, knight and neightbor, but not
with most other e.g friend, daughter, candle etc.
4. Typically occur before inflectional suffixes e.g in chillier, the
derivational suffix y comes before the inflectional er.

REFERENCE

Arikunto, Suharsimi. (1998). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Praktek. Jakarta: PT. Adi
Mahastya.
Alsa, Asmadi. (2003). Pendekatan Kuantitatif dan Kualitatif serta Kombinasi
dalam Penelitian Kombinasi. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Crowley, Terry, Lynch John, Siegel Jeff, Piau Julie. (1995). The Design of
Language An Introdustion to Descriptive Linguistic: New Zealand.
Gleason, H. A. (1980). An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. United State of
America.
Moleong, Lexy J. (1991). Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Remaja Roda Karya
Offset.
Napa, A. Pieter. (1991). Vocabulary Development Skill. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
Novitaningrum, Lisa. (2011). Flouting Maxim of Relation in Little Women
Novel by Louisa May Alcott. Kudus: English Education Department of
Muria kudus University.
Procter, Paul. (1980). Longman Dictionary of Cotemporary English. England
Longman Ltd.
Rachmadie, Sabrony. (1986). Buku Materi Pokok Vocabulary. Jakarta: Penerbit
Karunika Jakarta Universitas Terbuka.
Sari, Nirmala. (1988). An Introduction to Linguistics. Jakarta: LPTK.
Shodiq, Muhammad, Mutaqien, Imam. (2003). Dasar-Dasar Penelitian Kualitatif.
Yogyakarta: Pustaka Belajar.
Subroto, D.E. (1992). Pengantar Metode Penelitian Linguistik. Surakarta:
Universitas Negeri Surakarta.
Yudi, Bambang c., Prayoga J. A Latief Andrian M. Introduction to Morphology
and Syntax. Jakarta: Pusat Penerbitan Universitas Terbuka Jakarta.
Definition of Affixes retrieved 4th November 2013 from:
http://reference-definitions.blurtit.com/70827/what-is-an-affixType of Affixes
retrieved 4
th November 2013 from:
http://www01sil.org/linguistic/GlossaryOflinguisticTerms/WhatIsAnAffixLi
nguistics.htm
Definition of derivational Affixes retrieved 4th November 2013 from:
http://www01.sil.org/linguistic/GlossaryOflinguisticTerms/WhatIsADerivat
onalAffix.htm

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Analysis
Humans are social creatures who can not stand alone to fill their needs
both physical and spiritual needs. Humans need to interact with each other.
Language is the media of communication between one individual from another
person. Communication can be created with any language, and language can also
be created due to the support and the desire of every individual to communicate.
Language is generally described as a system of sounds used to link sound
using words and sentences to meaning. Language can be described as a symbolic
system in which sounds and meanings are assigned to each other, allowing
humans to communicate what we are thinking and how we are feeling. In other
words, there is an arbitrary aspect of language with meanings assigned to words
and sounds. As native speakers of a language, we know that words are arbitrarily
given meaning to express ideas. As a system, the language consists of components
- components which are regularly arranged according to certain patterns.
Linguistics is the science of language or the field of the study, where the
subject of the study is the language. It is a scientific knowledge which can be
applied to all languages in the world. It does not belong to a certain language
only. Linguistics covers several aspects which includes Phonology, Morphology,
Syntax, Semantics and also some other sciences that are related to linguistics like
Sociolinguistics, Psycholinguistics, and Comparative linguistics.
Universitas Sumatera UtaraIn this thesis, the writer would like to describe one of
the linguistic
aspects, i.e. Morphology. Morphology (Crystal, 1989:90) is the branch of
linguistics studying the structure of words. Morphology is also called the study of
morphemes and their different forms (allomorphs) and the way they combine in
word formation. Or, morphology is the branch of linguistics studying how words
are structured and how they are put together from smaller parts. For example, the
English word unfriendly is formed from friend, the adjective-forming suffix ly
and the negative prefix un-.
Sibarani (2001) in his book An Introduction to Morphology explains about
the word-formation process in morphology. The word-formation process or the
morphological process is the process of forming new words with the rules of
morphology. Even though some languages recognize a part of the word-formation
processes, in morphology there are fourteen word-formation processes and one of
them is affixation. Affixation is the adding of bound morphemes to the base to
form a word. The bound morphemes added initially to the base are called prefixes,
those inserted into the base are called infixes, and those added to the end of the
base are called suffixes. English has many prefixes and suffixes.
Affixation is an interesting object to be analyzed because in the
morphological process the productive in forming a new word is affixation. In this
thesis, the analysis of affixation is focused on form, distribution, and function.
The reason why the writer choose the affixation topic in this thesis because the
writer wants to know the process of how a word is formed in English vocabulary

especially the one that found in Daniel Defoe novel.

Universitas Sumatera UtaraThus, the writer wants to show that there are can be
discussed from the
topics have chosen in which the writer found of some morphological process and
one of them is Affixation that normally consists of prefixation and suffixation.
This kind of the process is very important to English students especially for those
who want to increase their vocabulary, and they can determine meaning more
easily if they already know the meaning of an affix, such as anti- (against) in the
word antisocial. The last, the writer also wants to shows the readers more about
the processes.
In this thesis, affixation is chosen as the subject of analysis, which
particularly concerns with morphological process found in Robinson Crusoe by
Daniel Defoe as the data of this analysis. This novel is very interesting to go in
certain direction to find many English affixes aimed inside. So it is the real reason
why it is chosen as the data of analysis, especially to find out the most dominant
affix that used in this novel.
Besides, Daniel Defoe novel Robinson Crusoe is an interesting novel
that there are many consists of affixation. Therefore, the discussion of the prefixes
and suffixes by Booij (2007) will be focused on the major classification of
prefixes and suffixes in this thesis in order to facilitate this analysis.

Universitas Sumatera Utara1.2 The Problems of the Analysis

Based on the title of this paper, it focuses on the following problems:
1. How many prefixes and suffixes occurred in the novel Robinson Crusoe?
2. What is the most dominant affix that used in the novel Robinson Crusoe?
1.3 Objectives of the Analysis
The objectives of this thesis are to find the answers of the problems which
are mentioned above. They are:
1. To show the number of prefixes and suffixes in the novel Robinson Crusoe.
2. To show the most dominant affix that used in the novel Robinson Crusoe.
1.4 Significances of the Analysis
This thesis is expected to give some significance for readers. They are:
1. To add the readers knowledge about word formation and affixation in the
novel.
2. To be reference for further studies concerning Morphology.
1.5 Scope of the Analysis
This thesis is occurred on the morphological process of affixes which

includes prefixes and suffixes based on their form, distribution, function and also
the number of affixes that occurred in Robinson Crusoe By Daniel Defoe.

Universitas Sumatera Utara1.6 Method of Analysis

The method used in this thesis is library research. This method supports
the analysis in collecting some relevant references such as textbook with many
theories, thesis, and dictionary as the basic of lexical meaning.
It means that the research is mainly done by concentrating on the
contextual analysis with steps as follows:
1. Collecting the data from the novel Robinson Crusoe By Daniel Defoe.
2. Classifying the data into specific prefix and suffix.
3. Analyzing the data based on affixes categories.
4. Concluding the result of the analysis.
1.7 Review of Related Literature
In supporting the idea of this analysis, some relevant books and thesis
have collected to support the topic. All these books have given a large
contribution in writing this thesis. Some definitions, opinions, and findings from
relevant books are quoted as follows:
Lambert (1972) says that an affix is a morpheme which may be attached at
the beginning or end of a base or to one or more morphemes ultimately attached
to such a base.
Muchtar (2007) mentions that affixes are the process of forming word that
is a morpheme attached to a free morpheme or bound morpheme.
Mulyani (2004) in her thesis An Analysis of Affixation In Harun Yahyas
Book Darwinism Refuted concludes that affixes in English can be subdivided
into prefix and suffix. The form of prefix a-, in-, de-, co-/con-/cor-, mis-, re-, im-,
Universitas Sumatera Utarapre-,sub-, under--, un-, en-, over-, dis-, fore-, non-, out-,
ir-, and pro- do not
change the form when they are attached to base form, and in distribution, they can
be attached to noun, adjective, verb, or adverb base form. Those prefixes also do
not change the function. While the most suffixes such as ment, -tion, -al, - ful, ary, and ly, change the form if attached to base form.
Syam (2009) in his thesis A Brief Study of Affixation in A Tale of Two
Cities by Charles Dickens concludes that the most suffixes change the form and
function if they attached to the base forms. Prefix pre-, re-, a-, al-, in-, un-, dis-,
mis-, be-, im-, under-, en-, over-, out-, and fore, do not change form when they
attached to the base forms. But Prefix pro- changes the form when it is attached to
the base form in which started by vowel /a/.

Suffixes. General characteristics of suffixes.

From the point of view of their origin suffixes may be native, e.g.: -ness,
-ish, -dom, -ful, -less, -ship and borrowed, e.g.: -able, -ment, -ation, -ism, -ist.
Suffixes differ in their valency. They may be added to the stem of different
parts of speech. According to this point of view:
1.the suffixes er, -ing, -ment, -able are used with verbs;
2.the suffixes less, -ish, -ful, -ist, -some are used with nouns;
3. the suffixes en, -ly, -ish, -ness are used with adjectives.
According to productivity, there can be pointed out the following groups:
1. productive: -er, -ize, -ly, -ness;
2. semi-productive: -eer, -ette, -ward;
3. non-productive: -ard, -th.
According to the part of speech classification they fall into: suffixes forming
nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, numerals.
I.noun-forming suffixes
1.-age bondage, breakage;
2.-ance/-ence assistance, reference, absence;
3.-ant/-ent student;
4.-cy expediency;
5. dom freedom, kingdom;
6.-ee employee;
7.-eer profiteer;
8.-er writer;
9.-ess actress;
10.-or actor
11.-ory dormitory;
12.-ent accident;
13.-hood manhood
14.-ist artist, caricaturist, impressionist;

15.-ment government, refreshment;

16.-ness tenderness, darkness;
17.-ship friendship;
18.-tion reception.
Noun-forming suffixes are subdivided into proper noun suffixes and
common noun suffixes.
Proper noun suffixes are: -son, -town, -burgh/-borough, -chester/-cester/caster, -shire, -land.
Common noun suffixes are: -er, -eer, -ee, -ant, -ism, -ist, -ite, -ation, -ment,
-al,-ness, -ity, -dom, -hood, -ship, etc.
II. adjective-forming suffixes
1.-able/-ible/-uble unbearable, readable, laudable, audible,soluble;
2.-al formal,national, refusal;
3.-ant pleasant;
4.-ic poetic;
5.-ical ethical;
6.-ing eating, farthing, teaching;
7.-ive destructive, sportive;
8.-ary revolutionary;
9.-ful delightful, beautiful, harmful, spoonful;
10.-ed/-d wooded, crossed;
11.-ate/-ete accurate, complete;
12.-ory compulsory;
13.-ous glorious;
14. less childless, countless.