Contrastive analysis of prefix dis- and un- in English.doc

1、1Contrastive analysis of prefix dis- and un- in EnglishAbstract. English prefix dis- and un- are commonly surveyed along with some other negative prefixes. However, there are many cases in which prefix dis- and un- can be attached to the same root, causing the difficulty in distinguishing the compre

2、hension of the two prefixes semantic roles. Considering this issue, this paper endeavors to clarify the respective morphological processes and explain their specific semantic roles. Keywords: dis-; un-; morphological process, semantic role 1. Introduction Previous researches on dis- and un- are most

3、ly conducted in the terms of their negative function as such: He (2004) discussed three combination rules of prefix and the root: the same origin rule between the prefix and the root, the assimilation rule and the category collocation rule, of which prefix dis- and un belong to the first rule; He (1

4、999) mainly discussed the development of un- usage since post-War I, indicating the flexibility of function in prefix un-; Guo (2012) 2introduced the meanings of prefix un-、in-、dis- with many examples, which is more detailed illustrated in Yang (2010); Wang (1998) came up with many examples of same

5、root prefixed with both dis- and un-, directly leading to the theme of recognition of their semantic roles. With the help of these previous journals and Du (2009) as the academic references, this paper aims at clarifying the usage of the two prefix with enough examples and deepening the analysis tho

6、roughly in the point view of semantics and syntactic. 2. etymology difference As Du (2009) points out, prefix dis- belongs to Latin prefix with the meaning of “apart, asunder, away, in different direction” such as words: dispel, disperse. According to the same origin rule between the prefix and the

7、root, its Latin origin determines dis- to be attached to Latin roots. Literally, dis- is more prefixed before French roots, which as a matter of fact confirms this same0origin rule since French is a Romance language branched from Latin with 90% old French dates back to Latin. In contrast, prefix un-

8、 is of native Germanic origin. In line with the same-root rule, un- is theoretically attached to Anglo-Saxon roots. However, as He (2004) indicates, because of 3the strong outer influences in English itself, English has enormous roots and borrowing loans, prefix un- was transformed to be attached to

9、 many different roots. It in return increased its flexibility to combine with words of different root or different categories, which is strong evidenced by the examples of new words prefixed by un- in the post-War II period in He (1999). The point view of etymology difference conveys the message tha

10、t prefix un- is comparatively productive than dis-, which is to be further proved later. 3. function For each particular prefix, it has its own function to its root. This function derives from its original meaning. As Yang (2010) puts, prefix has the function of modification or constrains on its roo

11、t which express the concept of degree, tense, time, location or negation. Obviously, both dis- and un- work with the negation function. Besides, data from Du (2009) and lexical entries show that they have other semantic roles. In order to make a clear comparison between dis- and un-, the coming anal

12、ysis is conducted in two complementary dimensions: negative function and non-negative function. As for prefix-, its negative role means “not, opposite”, which can be induced from words like disadvantage, discontent; 4disappear, disapprove; dissimilar, discontinuous, etc. Its non-negative role incorp

13、orates threes kinds: a) “reversal of an action or state”, like words disassemble, dismount, dismantle, etc. That is why some scholars put dis- in the group of “reversative prefix”; b) “deprive of, remove”, like words disbud and disinterest; c) this role is quite different previous two roles in that

14、it preserve its root meaning and make the meaning more specific and much narrower. Generally, roots belong to this group have more than one meaning or more than one part of speech. Once it is prefixed by dis-, it narrows itself into only the verb category with one meaning. Examples can be checked by

15、 bar/disbar, play/display, pose/dispose, guise/disguise, solve/dissolve, suade/dissuade, annul/disannul, etc. When it comes to un-, it turns out to be relatively simple. For its negative function, it also communicates the meaning of “not, opposite”, like words unhappy, untrue; unanswered, unattended

16、; etc. It non-negative role can be divided into two aspects: a) “reversal of an action or state”, like words unlock, undress, untie, unwrap, etc; b) this semantic function is also obviously different from the previous and it has particular meaning for certain words. Examples mainly appeared 5in the

17、post-War II as mentioned in He (1999): unbook refers to the specified book which is not used to read but to give as a gift and books like these are very popular before Christmas. Other examples are unperson, unhero, unpublicity, etc. Meanings for these words are not predictable and the semantic func

18、tion of prefix un- is to large extent weakened. Therefore, it is necessary to categorize semantic function of un- under this particular circumstance as a different one group. To sum up, functions of the two prefixes lie in far more than the negative role. Exemplifying all the semantic roles are cruc

19、ial to carry on further contrastive analysis. 4. combinability In the sixth edition of Advanced Learners English-Chinese Dictionary, about 150 words prefixed by dis- are listed; whereas about 300 words are listed with the un- prefix. In the terms of lexical amount, un- can be regarded as more produc

20、tive than dis-. With deep investigations in their respective words, results as following can be summarized: Words prefixed by dis- are ordered as verbs as the most, adjectives as the second and nouns as the least. In addition, regardless of subtle semantic differences, there exists a parallel phenom

21、enon between the three kinds of words: dis -X, 6dis-X-adjective suffix, and then dis-X-noun suffix(X stands for the verb root). For many verb roots, they turn into other verbs once prefixed by dis-, and then the new verbs turn into its adjective form suffixed by ed- or able and also can turn into it

22、s noun form suffixed by ment- or irregular noun form (disbelief). This parallel situation can be detected through examples like: agree/ disagree/ disagreeable/ disagreement, appoint/ disappoint/ disappointed/ disappointment, continue/ discontinue/ discontinuous/ discontinuity, etc. This phenomenon a

23、rise the question of the order of affixation: which of the three (dis-, adjective suffix and noun suffix) works first with the verb root? From the data, characterization can be made like this: verb root firstly, adjective suffix or noun suffix work secondly since they cannot co-occur. Reasoning for

24、such the characterization is for many other verbs, they can only be prefixed by dis-, having no adjective or noun form, as in disabuse, discharge, discompose, dismay, etc. Thus, specifically for the combinability of dis- itself, it is most productive for verbs, adjectives the second and nouns the le

25、ast. Words prefixed by un- are ordered as adjectives the most, verbs the second and the nouns the least, which is detailed 7illustrated from the lexical data and Yang (2010). Adjectives for un- to be attached roughly consist of three kinds: pure adjectives like able, certain, clear, ease, easy, etc;

26、 etc; participle adjectives as in unaccompanied, unanswered, undivided, undisputed, etc; and adjectives ending with ?able like unacceptable, unarguable, unchangeable, undetectable, etc. This can reason for un-s predominate combination with adjectives. However, there are still some distinctions for t

27、he three groups. Semantic analysis shows that certain constrains exist for the pure adjectives: only positive or commendatory pure adjectives can be prefixed by un-, turning itself into the opposite side, as previous example indicated, which also rules out the possibility in undirty, unsad, unsick,

28、unhostile, etc. This constrains has much to do with the convention of avoiding double negation in English since under this circumstance un- functions its negative role. In contrast, such constrain does not work for the practicable adjective and able- ending ones. Cases of being prefixed by verbs and

29、 nouns are relatively simple and their respective role was explicated mentions above. In sum, in the overall view, dis- is less productive than un-. And for each other, dis- is more predominant to the verbs in comparison with the overwhelmed attachment to adjectives of un-. 85. semantic analysis Sem

30、antic analysis between the two prefixes is conventionally conducted from the following two aspects: semantic similarities and semantic differences. 5.1 semantic similarities On the one hand, similarities arise when they both work as negative role, meaning “not, opposite, in contrary to”. This simila

31、rity is strengthened especially when the roots are both pure adjectives, as sentences shows: he was accused of being disloyal to the government; he felt calm and unafraid. For non-pure adjectives, they can both work the negative function: dis- in verbs like disappear, disfavor, etc, while un- in par

32、ticiple adjectives like unrecognized, unresolved, etc. On the other hand, similarities can also come into being when they are attached to verbs, meaning “reversal of an action”, as sentences show: most of the rebels were captured and disarmed; everyone helped to unload the luggage from the car. This

33、 function is named by some scholars as “reversative prefix” restricted in certain verbs. These are the main similarities with cuprous conferment. 5.2 semantic differences 9Semantic differences are carried out with two parts. The first part is their different functions listed in sections 3: dis- has

34、two special functions: “deprive of, remove” and the specification or narrowing function from root to prefixed words, which is different from un-. In contrast, the special semantic function when un- is attached to some nouns (unbook, unperson) is also different from dis-. This difference is easy to g

35、rasp and further inquiry of semantic differences is to be summarized from the second part as follows. The second part focuses on the analysis of dis-/un-s being attached to a same verb root. The prefixed new words are models as dis-/un- + verb root+ ed. Before further analysis, it is necessary to re

36、view some relevant function of dis- and un-: when dis- reveals the function of “deprive of ,remove”, the prefix is attached to verbs only; when un- conveys the meaning of “reversal of an action or state” the prefix is also attached to verbs only. Taking qualify as example, two models can be hypothes

37、ized as following chart: Model A In Model A, the verb qualify is prefixed respectively by 10dis- and un- in the order of V-V-Adj. However, according to BNC (British National Corpus), the word unqualify does not exist. And dis- conveys the function of “deprive of, remove” which is reasonable in line

38、with the previous conclusion and semantically approved from corpus from BNC such as: C88 407: Harris, who also picked up a speeding conviction last year, was disqualified from driving for 21 days and fined $100. Thus, Model A proves that for disqualified, the verb root first turns into another verb

39、disqualify (meaning of removal of qualification), and then it turns into its adjective form. Model B In Model B, the verb qualify is respectively prefixed by dis- and un- in the order of V-Adj-Adj. However, when dis- reveals the function of “deprive of, remove”, the prefix is attached to verbs only,

40、 which rules out the situation where dis- is attached to qualified as the chart shows. In contrast, the function of un- and BNC corpus confirms the feasibility of un- prefix order in Model B, as in EAY901: Regan was presented first of all as a hopelessly unqualified candidate and, secondly, as an extremist of the Goldwater stripe. Thus, Model B proves that for unqualified, the verb root first turns into its adjective form qualified and then it turns into its