Discussion Points for
Meanings of Affixes
Lieber, on pages 39-41, presents one way of categorizing affixes according to meaning.
transpositional affixes: “their primary function is to change the category of their base
without adding any exra meaning”
semantically rich affixes: affixes that have a concrete meaning of their own that forms a
composite with the base (Lieber lists the following types as being common crosslinguistically, but there are many others: personal, negative/privative, relational,
quantitative, evaluative)
polysemic affixes: affixes that vary in meaning depending on the base but that seem to
form a cluster of not unrelated meanings
Below are some sets of words with affixes
(1) Isolate the affix in each group.
(2) Try to put it into one of Lieber’s categories and state its function/meaning.
(3) Does adding the affix change the base in any way?
(1) autumnal, central, coastal, herbal, orchestral, spousal, triumphal, verbal
What issues might the following words raise? abnormal, abysmal, astral, carnal,
cerebral, dismal, feudal, integral, lethal, nasal, papal, thermal, total
(2) arrival, avowal, betrayal, dismissal, portrayal, proposal, rebuttal, rehearsal, renewal,
reversal, survival, withdrawal
What issues might the following words raise? deprivation (*deprival), allowance
(*allowal), displayNOUN (*displayal), opposition (*opposal), immersion (*immersal)
(3) despotism, empiricism, heroism, magnetism, modernism, occultism, paganism,
skepticism, symbolism; baptism, chauvinism, collectivism, exorcism, monotheism
(4) factoid, humanoid, planetoid, pygmoid, sleazoid, spheroid, suffixoid, tabloid
(5) anchorage, bondage, cleavage, coinage, drainage, herbage, leakage, orphanage,
pasturage, pilgrimage, vicarage, wreckage
(6) arabesque, Beatlesque,
thrilleresque
Lincolnesque,
picturesque,
Schuhesque,
statuesque,
(7) bakery, brewery, creamery, drapery, flattery, forgery, greenery, gunnery, hosiery,
quackery, thuggery
(8) baggy, buttery, barky, branchy, breathy, chilly, classy, fishy, flashy, foggy, foresty,
funny, lacy, liquidy, lucky
TRY TO COME UP WITH SOME OF YOUR OWN IN THE VARIOUS CATEGORIES.
SOME SUGGESTED ANSWERS
(1) -al: N  A (autumnNOUN+al); the change in meaning/function brought about by
adding the affix seems close to 100% predictable (= compositional) and the suffix
doesn’t seem to do anything other than change category, so it would fall under
Lieber’s transpositional type. The second group is problematic, since the base
doesn’t exist independently (*(ab)norm, *abys, *astr, *carn, etc.), even though all the
words are adjectives and a base could easily be isolated if it existed. That is, there
wasn’t anything (in English, at least) that got “transposed”!
Changes in the base brought about by the affix: The suffix ATTRACTS STRESS. The
bases autumn, orchestra, and triumph are all stressed on the first syllable, but in the
suffixed forms, the stress is always just before the suffix. Also, for autumn the
spelled -n is pronounced only with -al is added. These works for all words spelled
with final -mn: solemn/solemnity, damn/damnation, hymn/hymnal.
(2) -al: V  N (arriveVERB+al); seems to be transpositional for the same reasons as cited
for (1), though its function is difference from the homophonous affix in (1). The
second group is problematic since use of the affix to transpose V  N is not
productive, that is, you have to know the specific verbal bases to which this affix can
be used. Other verbal bases form nouns using different affixes.
(3) -ism: N  N (despot+ism); this affix is semantically rich, as all affixes that don’t
change category would have to be. It they didn’t add some new meaning, they
wouldn’t be doing anything! This affix does NOT seem to be polysemic, however. It
always seems to add a sense of “a set of behaviors or doctrines associated with
NOUN”. The examples following the semicolon are a little problematic in that the
base doesn’t seem to exist alone. In all these examples, there is a related lexeme
using the same base but a different affix (baptize/baptism, chauvinist/chauvinism,
etc.)
Changes in the base brought about by the affix: Unlike the -al suffixes in (1-2), -ism
does not attract stress, but if the base is spelled with final -c, this is pronounced [k] at
the end of a word (skeptic) or before suffixes with vowels other than /i/ (empiric-al)
but as [s] before the -ism suffix.
(4) -oid: N  N (fact+oid); for the same reasons given for (3), this affix seems to be
semantically rich and NOT polysemous. There seems to be a consist meaning addition
“insignificant, trivial, or small version of NOUN” (though it’s not entirely clear what
the base for tabloid is). It also seems to be virtually 100% productive and
compositional for bases with which is makes sense to combine. The bases remain
unchanged in pronunciation. See a large list at
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_words_suffixed_with_-oid
(5) -age: usually N  N, but some may be V  N; since most of the examples are
clearly N  N, this must be a semantically rich affix (see 3-4), but this affix also
seems to be polysemic. Aside from the fact that the resultant word is always a noun,
it is hard to pin down a narrow definition. Meanings range from “a place for BASE”
(orphanage, vicarage), to “a collection or mass of BASE” (herbage, pasturage), to
“state associated with BASE” (bondage, cleavage), and others. Nonetheless, we
wouldn’t want to say that there are four or six or more –age affixes. All the suffixed
forms are nouns and all seem to have to do with “actions/appearances/results
associated in some way with BASE”. The base remains unchanged when this suffix is
added.
(6) -esque: N  A (Arab+esque); this affix is semantically rich, since it does more than
just change a noun into an adjective (compare the meanings of the examples to Arablike, Beatles-like, Lincoln-like, which are vanilla adjectives). It is NOT polysemous in
that it projects a rather specific meaning, something like “having the characteristics of
BASE, typically some of which are quirky or special to that BASE”. Like –oid in (4),
this affix seems to be virtually 100% productive and compositional for bases with
which is makes sense to combine. See a large list at
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_words_suffixed_with_-esque
Changes in the base brought about by the affix: This suffix always bears the main
stress of the word, but the base remains unchanged. This is somewhat surprising
because displacement of main stress usually causes vowels in other syllables to
reduce to [əә], for example, orchestra [ˈoɹkəstɹə] but orchestral [oɹˈkɛstɹəl].
(7) -ery: V/N  N (bake+ery, drape+ery), less common A  N (green+ery); clearly
semantically rich and NOT transpositional since it can be used with bases of more
than one category, that is, the relationship between the base and the affixed form will
vary depending on the base. This affix is also polysemous: it can mean “place where
activity of BASE or activity associated with BASE is done” (bakery, creamery) or
“grouping of BASE” (drapery, hosiery) or “behavior of base” (quackery, thuggery),
and others. Still, we do not want to say that there are several homophonous suffixes
spelled –ery. One can group all these derived words in a way similar to that for –age
in (5), which raises the question of how –age and –ery differ! How is herbage
different from greenery. Could we interchange these affixes with the same base?
The -ery suffix causes no changes in the base.
(8) -y: N  A (bag+y); this affix seems to be transpositional. It basically just turns a
noun into an adjective that means “looking like/acting like/feeling like NOUN”. It is
highly productive, esp. with monosyllabic nouns, but there are also quite a few
disyllabic, and seems entirely compositional, though some –y adjective have taken on
special meanings that are more specific than the compositional meanings (baggy,
classy, funny). The productivity and compositionality of –y is seen in the list at
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_words_suffixed_with_-y