OJML  Vol.1 No.2 , December 2011
Prefixes of Degree in English: A Cognitive-Corpus Analysis
Author(s) Zeki Hamawand
Abstract
This paper provides a new analysis of prefixes of degree in English which include hyper-, mega-, super-, sur- and ultra-. In carrying out the analysis, it adopts two approaches. Theoretically, it adopts Cognitive Semantics (CS) and tries to substantiate some of its tenets with reference to prefixation. One tenet is that linguistic items are meaningful. On this basis, the paper argues that prefixes of degree have a wide range of meanings that gather around a central sense. Another tenet is that the meaning of a linguistic item is best understood in terms of the domain to which it belongs. On this basis, the paper argues that prefixes of degree form a set in which they highlight not only similarities but also differences. A further tenet is that the use of an expression is governed by the particular construal imposed on its content. On this basis, the paper argues that a derived word results from the particular construal the speaker chooses to describe a situation. Empirically, the paper adopts Corpus Linguistics, which helps identify the distinctive collocates associated with the members of a pair and, consequently, reveal the subtle differences in meaning between them. The aim is to show that the members of a pair are not synonymous, as has hitherto been claimed by previous paradigms or current dictionaries, but distinctive in use.

Cite this paper
nullHamawand, Z. (2011). Prefixes of Degree in English: A Cognitive-Corpus Analysis. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 1, 13-23. doi: 10.4236/ojml.2011.12003.
References

[1]   Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[2]   Aronoff, M., & Sungeun C. (2001). The semantics of -ship suffixation. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 167-173. doi:10.1162/002438901554621

[3]   Beard, R. (1995). Lexeme-morpheme base morphology. New York: State University of New York Press.

[4]   Biber, D., Susan C., & Randi R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating linguistic structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[5]   BNC. British National Corpus. http://sara.natcorp.ox.ac.uk

[6]   Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: An inquiry into the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins. http://dictionary.cambridge.org

[7]   Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.

[8]   Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Mass: MIT Press.

[9]   Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

[10]   Collins, C. (1993). Word Formation. London: HarperCollins Publishers.

[11]   Fowler, H. (1996). Modern English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[12]   Górska, E. (1994). Moonless nights and smoke-free cities, or what can be without the other? A cognitive study of privative adjectives in English. Folia Linguistica. 28, 413-435.

[13]   Górska, E. (2001). Recent derivatives with the suffix -less: A change in progress within the category of English privative adjectives. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 36, 189-202.

[14]   Greenbaum, S., & Janet W. (1988). Longman guide to English usage. Essex: Longman.

[15]   Hamawand, Z. (2002). Atemporal complement clauses in English. A cognitive grammar analysis. München: Lincom.

[16]   Hamawand, Z. (2003a). The construal of atemporalisation in complement clauses in English. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 61-87. doi:10.1075/arcl.1.04ham

[17]   Hamawand, Z. (2003b). For-to complement clauses in English: A cognitive grammar analysis. Studia Linguistica, 57, 171-192. doi:10.1111/j.0039-3193.2003.00103.x

[18]   Hamawand, Z. (2007). Suffixal rivalry in adjective formation. A cognitive-corpus analysis. London: Equinox.

[19]   Hamawand, Z. (2008). Morpho-lexical alternation in noun formation. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230584013

[20]   Hamawand, Z. (2009). The semantics of English negative prefixes. London: Equinox.

[21]   Hamawand, Z. (2011). Morphology in English. Word formation in cognitive grammar. London: Continuum.

[22]   Kennedy, G. (1991). Between and through: The company they keep and the functions they serve. In K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in honour of Jan Svartvik (pp. 95-110). London: Longman.

[23]   Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[24]   Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

[25]   Langacker, R. (1988). A view of linguistic semantics. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 49-90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

[26]   Langacker, R. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5-38. doi:10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5

[27]   Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

[28]   Langacker, R. (1997). Consistency, dependency and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 1-32. doi:10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.1

[29]   Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511486296

[30]   Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word formation. A Synchronic-diachronic approach. Munich: Beck.

[31]   McEnery, T., & Andrew W. (2001). Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

[32]   Merriam-Webster Dictionary. http://www.m-w.com.

[33]   Oxford Collocations Dictionary: For students of English. (2003). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[34]   Oxford English Dictionary Online. http://www.oed.com

[35]   Patridge, E. (1961). Usage and abusge. A guide in good English. London: Hamish Hamilton.

[36]   Peters, P. (2004). The Cambridge guide to English usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511487040

[37]   Plag, I. (1999). Morphological productivity. Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

[38]   Riddle, E. (1985). A historical perspective on the productivity of the suffixes -ness and -ity. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical Semantics Historical Word-Formation (pp. 435-461). Berlin: Mouton Publishers.

[39]   Selkirk, E. (1982). The Syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[40]   Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance and collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[41]   Spencer, A. (2001). Morphology. In M. Aronoff and J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), The Handbook of Linguistics (pp. 213-237). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

[42]   Taylor, J. (1989). Linguistic categorisation. Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

[43]   Urdang, L. (1982). Suffixes and other word-final elements of English. Detroit: Gale Research Company.

 
 
Top