TEFL Bayard Delaware

Prefixes are bound morphemes, elements that have no meaning in isolation but are attached to the front of other words to form new words. They do not cause grammatical changes to the base, like other affixes do, and the vast majority of them do not alter the word-class of the base either. Rather, they affect the base on the semantic level. In the light of this, it is easy to see why prefixes are mostly grouped according to their function, i.e. the way they change the meaning of the base. One such function is the capacity to give a meaning to the derivate that is contrary to that of the base. Such prefixes are called negative prefixes. So what are these negative prefixes, how do they operate, in what ways they differ from one another and what phonetic and phonological changes they trigger when they interact with other sounds when added to different words? The present article will focus on these questions. The negative prefixes in english are un-, dis-, non-, in- and a-. Although they carry the same meaning, i.e. `not`, `the contrary of`, (and, in the case of a-, `without`, `lacking in`) they can not be used interchangeably, causing, hence, a lot of difficulties for learners of english. Some can only be attached to certain parts of speech (like in- to adjectives e.g. in+separable and nouns only e.g. in+consistency, some others allow for more flexibility and can combine with all kinds of open-class vocabulary items, like non-, which can be added to adjectives e.g. non-corrosive, nouns e.g. non-smoker, verbs e.g. non-skid, participles e.g. non-existing or non-committed, and to open-class adverbs e.g. non-specifically), resulting in much greater productivity in the use of this prefix. However, productivity also depends on where the prefix originates from. The prefix un- is the only negative prefix that is native to the english language and, as such, was already widely used even in Old english, both in native and imported words. Hence, un- can be regarded as the most prolific prefix of its kind. The prefix a-, on the other hand, is of greek origin and can mostly be found in borrowed or neo-classic words. Most speakers of english do not even realise that it has a separate meaning and treat the derivates as single units, e.g. amnesty. The negative prefix in- is from Latin and arrived to the english language along with the bases either directly from Latin or through Middle french. At the same time, it was also used in Middle english to coin new words, therefore, used to be quite widely applied. Albeit it is still the most productive prefix in all Romance languages, its use in english has dramatically declined in favour of the negative prefix un- (e.g. earlier impopular is now unpopular) and, as a result, does not appear to be productive in the english language any longer. When using prefixes, including negative prefixes, learners of english also have to face the challenge of how these are used and consider, what is more, learn, if there are any phonological changes that occur in the course of the interaction between the prefix and the base. Depending on the initial segment of the base, the prefix in-, for instance, has several forms, called allomorphs: it is realised as il- before the alveolar lateral /l/ e.g. il+legal, as im- before the bilabials /m/, /b/ and /p/ e.g. im+mobile, im+balance and im+polite, respectively, and it is ir- when followed by the alveolar continuant /r/ as in ir+regular. In all the other cases, the prefix in- appears as it is found in the lexicon. The prefix a-, on the other hand, has two variants: it is realised as a- in front of consonants e.g. a+moral, while assumes the form an- when followed by vowels e.g. an+aesthetise. As all these examples show, the process of affixation affects only the prefixes but not the bases, and occur at the level of spelling. Besides the different spelling variants seen above, pronunciation can also be affected by the interaction of certain sounds. The phoneme [n] of the prefix un- can be realised as /?/ before the velar plosives /k/ and /g/, e.g. /??`k?mf?t?bl/ and /??`g?ft?d/, respectively, while before the bilabial plosives /p/ and /b/ it becomes a bilabial nasal /m/, e.g./?m`pe?d/ and /,?mb?`li?v?bl/. Similarly, a partial assimilation takes place when the prefix in- is followed by the velar stops /k/ and /g/, resulting in the alveolar nasal /n/ turning into a velar nasal /?/ as in /??`kred?bl/ and /??`gl??r??s/, respectively. The phoneme [s] of the prefix dis-, on the other hand, can be nasalised when it precedes a vowel, e.g. /d?z`e?bld/. All these phonological changes, however, are reflected only in pronunciation and not in spelling. When examining the behaviour of prefixes, it is also worth taking a look at how these affect the stress of the new derivatives. Whereas affixes, in general, can get the primary stress themselves, leave the base unaffected, or make the stress shift to another syllable within the word, negative prefixes seem to behave uniformly: they are unstressed when they precede a stressed syllable of a base, e.g. /?n`e?bl/ or /?m`pr?p?/. Alternatively, if the stress of the base falls on the second or third syllable of the base, they can bear a secondary stress as in /,?n?`v??d?bl/. The only negative prefix that can bear primary stress is the prefix a-, e.g. /`e????st/ or /`æp???/, but this rule can not be used consistently as in some examples the stress falls on other syllables, e.g. in /?`n?n?m?s/ or /,æn?s`?et?k/. On the basis of the above, the following conclusion can be made about negative prefixes: they all have a similar function, are class-maintaining and can be attached to various open word-classes. They do not cause phonological alterations to the base, rather, it is the prefixes themselves that undergo certain changes that can occur either in spelling or pronunciation. Furthermore, they carry, in the vast majority of cases, no primary stress. REFERENCES BAUER, L. (1983), english Word-formation, Cambridge University Press. CRYSTAL, D. (1997), A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics, Blackwell. QUIRK, R., GREENBAUM, S. (1973), A University Grammar of english, Longman. QUIRK, R., GREENBAUM, S., LEECH, G., SVARTVIK, J. (1985), A Comprehensive Grammar of the english Language, Longman. ROACH, P. (1991), english Phonetics and Phonology, Cambridge University Press. www.etymonline.com www.freedictionary.com