The
Twenty-third
LACUS Forum
1996
© 2009 The Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States (lacus).
The content of this article is from lacus Forum 23 (published 1997). This article and others
from this volume may be found on the Internet at http://www.lacus.org/volumes/23.
YOUR RIGHTS
This electronic copy is provided free of charge with no implied warranty. It is made available
to you under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license
version 3.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/)
Under this license you are free:
•
•
to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to Remix — to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
•
•
Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author
or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the
work).
Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
With the understanding that:
•
•
Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the
copyright holder.
Other Rights — In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:
• Your fair dealing or fair use rights;
• The author's moral rights;
• Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is
used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
Notice: For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of
this work. The best way to do this is with a link to the web page cited above.
For inquiries concerning commercial use of this work, please visit
http://www.lacus.org/volumes/republication
Cover: The front cover of this document is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bynd/3.0/) and may not be altered in any fashion. The lacus “lakes” logo and Brigham Young
University logo on the cover are trademarks of lacus and Brigham Young University
respectively. The Brigham Young University logo is used here with permission from the
trademark holder. No license for use of these trademarks outside of redistribution of this
exact file is granted. These trademarks may not be included in any adaptation of this work.
ON THE PRODUCTIVITY OF THE RE- PREFIX IN ENGLISH
Angela Della Volpe
California State University, Fullerton
1. Introduction*. Some rules of word-formation seem to operate according
to a variable rule so that a number of potential forms do not occur (Marchand
1969; Bauer 1983). As a case in point, Quirk et al. (1985:1544) consider the
English prefix re- ‘back, again’ a productive prefix useful in the expression of
‘time and order’ when attached to verbs and deverbal nouns. This derivational process, however, appears to be somewhat limited to a particular subgroup as one can easily come across the verb re-enter, but not the verb ??re-come.
The purpose of this paper, then, is to explore some of the restrictions
which impinge on the morphological process of re- prefixation. I shall first investigate the origin and meaning of the prefix, paying special attention to its
aspectual sense and that of the verbs to which it is generally attached. I suggest that the prefix re- may serve to mark aspectual completion. Restrictions
on the use of the re- prefix may, therefore, be explicable by the semantics of
the prefix itself which, because it is inclusive of a perfective aspectual sense,
plays a leading role in its own productivity process.
2. The re- prefix. The English prefix re- ‘back, again’ is of Latin origin where
it occurred extensively as a productive adverbial prefix. When attached to a
verbal form, the Latin prefix re- had the meaning of (a) ‘back’ (literally, ‘back
from a point reached’), e.g., re-cedere ‘to fall back’; or (b) ‘back’ (literally, ‘back
toward the starting point of the action’) e.g., re-currere ‘to run back’. From
these senses the meaning of the prefix shifted to that of ‘again’, denoting that
the action was performed a second time. Yet, because repeating an action may
also result in reversing it, the Latin re- prefix expanded its semantic range and,
in some instances, featured the meaning of ‘undoing’, e.g., cludere (<*clodo)
‘close’: re-cludere ‘to disclose’. As a verbal prefix, it was borrowed early into
English so that by the end of the sixteenth century it was extensively employed. It continues to be so today; for instance, recycle or reconfigure (Bauer
1983:219). In light of such long-lived productivity, therefore, one would expect new verbs to be formed across the board. Because the morpheme re- has
*I would like to thank Saul Levin for the many helpful comments on a previous version of
this paper submitted for Jacek Fisiak’s Festschrift (forthcoming).
400
Angela Della Volpe
been productive for a long period of time, earlier forms have undergone a
process of erosion, not only phonological and morphological, but semantic as
well. As a result, there exist a number of doublets with a difference in meaning.1 For example, the verb recoil ‘to spring back’ contrasts in meaning with
the verb re-coil ‘to rewind’; as does the verb recover ‘to regain’ as opposed to recover ‘to cover anew’. Constraints on re- prefixation appear to be semantic,
grammatical, and, as we shall see, pragmatic in nature.
3. Constraint on re- morphological productivity. Theoretically, the notion of productivity implies that the English prefix re- ‘back, again’ can be attached to any verbal base to convey a repetition of the situation or event
semantically denoted by the verb. That is so, even for those words which already contain the above mentioned prefix, as for instance, the verb re-reform
‘to re-improve’ (Bauer 1983:68).2
While recursive prefixation may be considered a pragmatic factor, as it
refers to the number of abstractions a speaker can deal with, at a given point
in time, other constraints may be phonological in nature; for instance, dissonance may lead speakers away from using possible derivations such as ??re-rear
in ??The horse re-reared. Morphological factors may also inhibit new formations
as, for instance, the perception by the speaker of the verbal base as being
bound rather than free. Thus, ??re-clude is an unlikely formation as opposed to
re-conclude or re-include. Words determined by the speaker as native or non-native may also be a factor in restriction so that the form ??re-kowtow (from kowtow ‘greet’) is also an unlikely derivation.3 Lastly, new derivations may depend
on whether or not other affixes, clearly perceived as such, are already present
in the base (Aronoff 1976:40–52). Such a perception would make ??re-mis-take
incorrect, but re-take normal.4
Syntax also impinges on re- prefixation. Syntactic constraints will not allow
some re- prefixed verbal lexeme to be followed by a direct sentential object.
Thus She retold the story, or even She retold the story for her, sound correct, but
??She retold her that she would come does not (Roeper & Siegel 1978:230–54).
This is so, because from experience one realizes what sort of things, when told
again, are liable to be changed in detail though not significantly; thus She retold the story conveys the point of saying something somewhat differently from
the way it had been told before, while ??She retold her that she would come does
not intimate an altered version of the statement ...she would come. Semantic
constraints may also play a role. For instance, excluded from re- prefixation
are verbs that denote a telic situation or event. The latter can only be carried
out once and is, thus, irreversible. Accordingly, one may not ??re-drink, or ??reeat something.
On the productivity of the re- prefix in English
401
4. Aspect. In analyzing the re- prefixation processes, then, the question arises
as to whether the meaning of repetition attached to the re- prefix ‘back, again’
is itself a factor in the inhibition of derivations. A cursory inquiry in Latin derivational morphology readily reveals that, even in the source language, the reprefix denoted the conclusion of an act and its reversibility. In Latin, in fact,
the prefix re- was attached to verbal forms with implicitly complete internal
temporal constituency. That is, the morpheme itself indicated, within the
sense of the verb, direction to and from a particular point (‘back’) and completive meaning (‘again’). For example, in Latin dare denotes both an imperfective and a perfective situation. When the re- prefix is attached to the verbal
base, the resulting form re(d)-dare ‘to give back’ denotes not only a direction
of to and from, but it also emphasizes the implicit internal temporal frame of
the verb wherein the action is brought to its conclusion. Comrie (1976:3–5)
stated that when a speaker relates (subjectively) a situation in terms of the internal temporal constituency semantically denoted by the verb, that speaker,
has in fact, related aspectual meaning.
Indo-European languages have a number of verbal categories representing
different values of an event, for example, the continuous and perfective aspect.5 In the classic languages, such as Latin, Greek and Sanskrit, the markers
of these categories of aspect and tense were represented partly morphologically and partly by the so-called imperfectum and perfectum tenses. In English,
such values are generally represented by periphrastic tenses. When the auxiliary be (am/are/is, etc.) is followed by a verb with the so-called present participial inflectional suffix -ing, the tense represents an imperfective notion. In
contrast, when the auxiliary have (has, etc.) is followed by a verb with the socalled past participle inflectional ending -en, -ed, the tense represents perfective or completive meaning. Clearly, the opposition is between the progressive
and the perfect aspect, not at all between tenses. Yet, aspect and tense are connected in so far as an event or situation may be described at the moment of
speech as going on or as being completed. That is, there is a relationship between the internal temporal frame denoted by the situation or event (aspect—complete or noncomplete) and the temporal frame at the moment of
speech (tense—in progress or completed). Although in English the completive aspect is not a grammaticized category, English does have several devices
to indicate aspectual distinctions of completion. Particles such as up, off, out,
through and so on, convey among other things the copletive aspect of a verb.
For instance, in Jill drank a coke the verb drink is neutral as to completion of
the action; but in Jill drank up a coke, the verb accompanied by the particle relates the definite completion of the action of drinking. Compare also tear as
opposed to the phrasal verb tear off, or pull against pull out, or read opposite
read through. Like most Indo-European languages, English has a number of derivational prefixes which relate aspectual information. Like re- these prefixes
402
Angela Della Volpe
are related to, or derived from prepositions and adverbs: Latin in-, as in include, incline, increase; or pre- (prae-) as in: preclude, prevent, prepare; or even conas in conclude, convene, conceal, confess, and so on.
In modern languages, morphological aspectual opposition is primarily expressed through prefixing, (much less commonly by suffixing); the majority
of prefixes so used were formerly also prepositions or adverbs (Comrie
1976:89). In Germanic languages, the most notable example of an aspectual
prefix is the Gothic verbal prefix ga-, i.e., slepan (nonperfective) ‘to sleep’ and
gaslepan (perfective) ‘to fall asleep’ or even, bindan (nonperfective) ‘to bind’
and ga-bindan (perfective).6 The difference here is subtle. In Streitberg’s edition of Die gotischen Bibel, while the infinitive gabindan does occur and translates the Greek aorist infinitive δσαι ‘no one was able to bind him, that is, do
it effectively’ (Mark 5:3), the infinitive bindan does not. Both forms of the
‘past’ participle, on the other hand, are attested: bundans was ‘he was bound’,
that is, ‘inconclusively’ (Luke 8:29), which was used for the Greek imperfect
indicative δεσµετο; while gabundans was ‘he had been bound’, that is, ‘conclusively’ was employed for the Greek perfect infinitive δι τ… δεδσθαι,
(Mark 5:4). In Modern German the prefix er- has a perfective notion similar
to Russian po-, na- and so on, e.g., reichen ‘to reach for something’ and erreichen
‘to attain something’. Other prefixes in deriving new verbs include ver-, be-,
hin-, durch- and so on. Verbs derived through prefixes in other Indo-European
languages bear more than a formal similarity to Slavic aspectual morphological markers. In fact, Germanic languages do not express systematic opposition
between perfective and imperfective meaning (Comrie 1976:89). Aspectual
opposition by means of a verbal morphological process is largely limited to
the formation of the so-called progressive and perfect tenses.
Aspect can, of course, be realized not only by adverbial expressions, by derivational morphology, or through tense opposition, but it may also be an inherent part of the semantics of a verb. Aspectual semantics interact with other
aspectual oppositions, ‘prohibiting certain combinations or severely restricting their meaning’ (Comrie 1976:41). For instance, roll describes a situation
lasting for an undetermined period of time and relates no information as to
completion; it has, therefore, imperfective aspectual meaning. The verb re-roll,
on the other hand, relates information about completion and has thus a completive sense. Specifically, the action must be completed a first time, with a
gap, before it can be carried out a second time. Hence, through the addition
of the re- morpheme, the verb acquires an implicit completive meaning. Thus,
verbs denoting actions, situations, or events which have a durative-imperfective sense are generally incompatible with re- prefixation. Following Quirk’s
(Quirk et al. 1985:201–07) eleven verbal categories (a–k), for instance,
‘stative’ verbs such as know, be or want (categories a–b), and verbs in the socalled ‘stance’ category (c), normally shun re- prefixation. The ‘nonconclusive,
On the productivity of the re- prefix in English
403
nonagentive dynamic durative verbs (category d), such as rain; and the ‘dynamic punctual’ verbs (categories j–k) which reflect transitional events, such
as arrive, or leave, are also generally excluded. The re- morpheme is more often
compatible with verbs denoting ‘conclusive processes’, for example, re-grow,
and ‘accomplishments’, for instance, re-discover (categories f-g). Processes become accomplishments when the activity has a transitive sense, (e.g., re-write,
re-approach, re-sew). Thus, dynamic verbs generally imply agentivity (Quirk et
al. 1985:1787) and, therefore, a direct object complement. Aspect, of course,
is not only connected with tense, but it is also connected with voice. In fact,
overt expressions of perfective meaning can be realized in the passive voice,
because passive constructions more readily reveal the affect to the object complement of an action (Comrie 1976:84–86).
Thus, the aspectual meaning, implicit in the sense of the verb, has an important role in the process of re- prefixation. Ultimately, it is the sense of a
verb that determines its grammatical category and, hence, what other elements may or must occur with it in any given clause.7
For instance, from a pragmatic viewpoint, a speaker may choose to impart
to the hearer his perception of the relation between the subject, and the verb
and its complement, so that any given verb, depending on its sense, can belong to more than one grammatical category. Thus a verb like re-enter may be
classified as both transitive and intransitive.
The perfective sense inherent in the re- morpheme causes the re- prefix to
show a preference for transitive verbs.8 In English, by building on the verbs’
lexicalized voice, tense and aspect,9 the speaker may manipulate verbal complementation not only for voice, but for tenses (external time), and in our
case, through the re- derivational process, aspectual sense. Aronoff (1976:35)
has already pointed out that pragmatic factors impinge on morphological
productivity10 and therefore they will not be repeated here.
6. Conclusion. There are some generalizations that can be drawn from our
investigation for the purpose of fostering further studies in this area. The reprefix ‘back, again’, which earlier simply reiterated the inherent semantic feature of the verb, has begun to acquire an ‘aspectual perfectum’ function.11
Such function impinges on its productivity. Because of its perfective aspect,
excluded from re- prefixing are those verbs which communicate to the listener
some kind of durative imperfective sense, i.e., ??re-own.
Verbs of emotions and sensory perceptions such as love, hate, adore, also
shun re- prefixation as they are stative and durative and thus entail imperfective sense. Because, however, formal categories are subject to function, the
speaker may use ‘stative’ or ‘stance’ verbs with a dynamic sense i.e., re-hear
(ahd 1976:1099) and re-lieve (ahd 1976:1096). Finally, also excluded from reprefixation are telic verbs which denote actions, such as spend, or waste.
404
Angela Della Volpe
Though completive, they cannot be reversed, nor revised. That is, one cannot
go ‘back’ and ??unspend, or ??unwaste, and so on.
Of the verbs describing ‘dynamic conclusive and durative accomplishments’, the action that is undertaken a second time must be revisable. Thus,
because the re- morpheme denotes the notion of ‘back’ to the starting point,
where possible, by extension, it also connotes quality improvements or contrast. Improvement achieved through repetition (by going ‘back’ to the starting of the action) is connoted, for instance, in the sentence I re-wrote my paper.
Indeed, the combination of re- with native English verbs is mostly limited to
verbs denoting crafts, skills, or techniques: rebuilding a house (that has suffered
great damage), remaking a dress (altering it), rewriting a paper (to improve it),
rereading a paragraph (to make sure nothing of importance is overlooked). In
other words, redoing a task which earlier had been carried out unsatisfactorily. As a productive morpheme denoting aspectual perfective meaning, then,
the re- prefix is generally affixed to transitive verbs. These must be followed by
a nominal direct object, rather than a sentential direct object. The constraints
on the use of re- with regards to sentential complementation noted by Bauer
(1983:179) can be explained by syntactic constraints on aspect. For example,
a re- verb can occur with a finite clause such as the that-nominalizer, e.g., (a) He
reasserted that Simpson is innocent, (gone), where the implication is that it was
done to dispel existing doubt left by the first assertion, but not, (b) ??He
rewrote that you are beautiful, (coming), where the rewriting of something implies
some alteration or improvement. The meaning of the verb in the relative
clause is not semantically associated with the verb of the main clause. In other
words, in the above examples, in (a) the sense of the verb (re)-assert is that of
a speech act verb introducing an indirect statement (do). The verb remains
clearly perfective and conclusive and, hence, transitive, and in need of a direct
object. The sense of the verb (re)-write in (b), on the other hand, remains simply descriptive of a durative activity and is therefore, mainly imperfective, i.e.,
intransitive as in He (re)-writes (every day, at home). The verb write may be used,
however, to denote a conclusive activity, in which case it is followed by a direct
object e.g., He writes a letter (every day, at home). As a transitive verb, then, write
can take the re- prefix to denote an improvement. The imperfective meaning
inherent in (re)-write, however, incompletely affects the direct object even
though the verb may be used transitively. Indeed, the use of clausal direct objects impinges on passive transformations (Quirk et al. 1985:163) so that that
Simpson is innocent is reasserted (by him) is perceived as correct, but ??that you are
coming is rewritten (by him) is not.12
Further syntactic constraints occur with some detransitive verbs. The latter,
however, may take re- prefixing when the emphasis is on the direct object.
Thus, it is acceptable to say I resent the package through the mail (it had come
back for additional postage), or I remailed the package (it had been returned to
On the productivity of the re- prefix in English
405
me). In both instances the emphasis is on the completing of the action and
the verb is, in effect, used monotransitively.
It appears, then, that aspectual meaning, in both the prefix and in the
verbs, do play an important role in the productivity of re- prefixing. The perfective function exhibited by the re- prefix is explicable in diachronic terms
and accounts for restrictions in the productivity in re- prefixation when accompanied by verbs semantically incompatible.
1
Productivity is herein defined as the grammatical process that results into a new morphological form; it excludes metaphorical uses which are outside the rules of grammar (Lyons 1977:549).
2
Bauer (1983:8), for instance, finds re-retype, re-repaint, and re-reclimb not quite ‘acceptable’
while some speakers find words like re-re-form ‘to reshape again’, or even re-re-make ‘to remake
again’, and re-re-marry ‘to remarry again’ acceptable.
3
By nonnative, a recent borrowing is intended. Thus borrowings that have been in the language long enough to be perceived by native speakers as part of the English vocabulary and,
therefore, items subject to grammatical rules are to be excluded. The Chinese word kowtow was
originally borrowed as a noun (ahd 1976:727). It has been in English long enough to be used as
a verb and is perceived by many native speakers as conforming to the canonic shape of English.
Yet the word itself is not subject to most of the grammatical rules of English—for instance, as a
noun it is not pluralized, although it must be kept in mind that kowtow is seldom used and the occasion to make it plural would scarcely arise.
4
Apart from the meaning of ‘take back’, retake is a synonym for capture, while retake as a noun
is a peculiar development of the movie industry, apparently an outgrowth of take one, take two, etc.
5
See Sihler (1995:446–48) for the most recent account.
6
The form gabundans also occurs with the present form of the auxiliary in gabundans is quenai
‘you are bound to a wife’, which translated the Greek perfect indicative δδεσαι γυναικ
(1 Corinthians 7:27).
7
Typically therefore verbs are classified as either copular (followed by an adjectival complement or adverb), intransitive (no obligatory element follows) or transitive (followed by a direct
object complement).
8
Though the re- prefix has been attatched to a number of intransitive free verbal bases, most
re- derivations are with transitive verbs. Out of 10 pages from the American Heritage Dictionary
(197:1085–95) the first 100 verbs containing the re- prefix were surveyed. Only nine of them were
marked intransitive. According to the oed, of these nine: react, rebel, rebound, recede, recoil, recrudesce, recur, redound, re-echo, only three have a clear free base (i.e., re-act, a calque of Latin redigëre
based on the participle red-áctus, and first attested in 1644; re-coil, a loan from Old French, attested
in English during the latter part of the 16th century; and re-echo, first attested in 1590).
9
For an informative account of modality and word-formation, see Rohrer (1974) and Roeper
and Siegel (1978).
10
In addition, newly formed words are still subject to acceptability constraints. Therefore not
all words that can be created by employing a particular productive rule are acceptable to all
speakers in a general communicative situation. One might occasionally encounter the so-called
nonce formation, new formations filling a specific need at point in time and based on analogy, but
not acceptable in general usage.
11
The aoristic aspect of the verb is emphasized by the use of the adverb again. Contrasts between the difference in usage of again and re- are part of a forthcoming paper.
406
Angela Della Volpe
12
Furthermore in sentence (a) the that clause has a copular relationship between the subject
(Simpson) and its complement (innocent) so that it is semantically associated with the preceding
verb. If the copula is omitted the sentence would resemble a svoc structure.
REFERENCES
ahd=The American Heritage dictionary of the English language. 1976. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co.
Aronoff, M. 1976. Word-formation in generative grammar. Linguistic Inquiry
Monograph 1. Cambridge, MA: mit Press.
Bauer, L. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Binnick, Robert. 1991. Time and the verb: A guide to tense and aspect. New
York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buck, C. D. 1903. A Latin grammar. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English
transformational grammar, ed. R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum, 184–221.
Waltham, MS: Ginn.
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hamp, E. 1953. OWelsh guar, Welsh gor-, Bret gour-, OIr for-, Gaulish ver,
Welsh wrt, OIr frith, etc. Bulletin of the board of Celtic studies 15:124–25.
Cardiff: University of Wales.
Levin, Saul. 1995. Semitic and Indo-European: The principal etymologies with observation on Afro-Asiatic. Series IV Current issues in linguistic theory.
E. F. Konrad Koerner Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Co.
Lindsay, W. M. 1894. The Latin language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marchand, H. 1969. The Category and types of present-day English wordformation. Munich: C. H. Beck.
oed=The Oxford English dictionary. 1971. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rohrer, C. 1974. Some problems of word-formation. In Actes du colloque
Franco-Allemand de grammaire transformationelle II, ed. Rohrer & Ruwet,
113–23. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Roeper, T., & M. E. A. Siegel. 1978. A lexical transformation for verbal
compounds. Linguistic inquiry 9:199–260.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, & J. Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive
grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Sihler, A. L. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
On the productivity of the re- prefix in English
407
Stein, G. 1977. The place of word-formation in linguistic description. In
Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung, ed. H. E. Brekle & D. Kastovsky,
233–59. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag Herbert Grundmann.
Thompson, S. A. 1975. On the issue of productivity in the lexikon. Kriticon
Litterarum 4:332–49.