This analysis serves to find out whether these prefixes express different nuances of negativity. Do they have a meaning on their own or can they be considered synonymous as they all denote negativity?
The negative prefixes in-, un- and dis- are all used to alter an affirmative statement into a negative one in order to signal oppositeness. They are considered rival prefixes. However, Bauer et al. point out that the attachment of different negative prefixes to the same base creates derivatives which are often not only formally but also semantically different.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Literary Review
2.1 Negative prefixes and their rivalry
2.2 Types of negativity
2.3 Etymology
2.4 Productivity
3 Corpus Study
3.1 Methodology
3.2 Un-, dis-, and in- attached to adjectival bases
3.3 Un-, dis- and in- attached nominal bases
3.4 Rivalry between pairs of words
4 Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This study aims to investigate the semantic nuances and productivity of the negative prefixes in-, un-, and dis- within the English language. By conducting a corpus-based analysis of the British National Corpus (BNC), the research explores whether these prefixes are truly synonymous or if they function differently based on the base category and context. The study seeks to determine which prefixes are more productive in combination with nominal and adjectival bases and whether rival word pairs exhibit distinct semantic or collocational patterns.
- Analysis of negative prefix productivity across adjectival and nominal bases.
- Examination of semantic differentiation and "types of negativity" (contrary vs. contradictory).
- Collocational analysis of rival word pairs (e.g., dissatisfied vs. unsatisfied).
- Evaluation of productivity metrics using hapax legomena and type-token frequencies.
- Identification of prefix preferences regarding human versus non-human descriptors.
Excerpt from the Book
2.2 Types of negativity
According to Bauer et al. there are different sorts of negativity (cf. Bauer et al. 2013: 364). Firstly, the distinction between contradictory and contrary negation serves to differentiate among various types or senses of negativity (cf. ibid.). A contrary reading allows for “intermediate states […] between X and not X” (ibid.: 366), whereas a contradictory reading denies intermediate states (cf. ibid.), i.e. alternatives occurring in between (cf. Hamawand 2009: 99). An example of the former case is the adjective happy with its counterpart unhappy which allow intermediate states between happy and unhappy. The distinction between animate and inanimate represents an example for the latter case (cf. Bauer et al. 2013: 365). According to Funk the question of contrary or contradictory opposition depends on the semantic qualities of the base (cf. Funk 1971: 367). “Stems that express the idea of a single alternative tend to form contradictory opposites, while stems that do not suggest such an idea but denote some specific quality tend to form contrary opposites” (Funk 1971: 367 – 68). When the base is gradable, the derivative is contrary in meaning, i.e. the base expresses a quality which can be described in varying degrees (cf. Hamawand 2009: 60). Therefore, it can be modified by adverbs such as very. When the base is non-gradable, the derivative is contradictory in meaning, i.e. the base denotes a quality which does not allow for intermediate state. Consequently, it cannot be modified by adverbs like very (cf. ibid.). According to Hamawand the prefixes un-, dis- and in- prefer a contrary reading (cf. ibid.:100).
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Introduces the negative prefixes in-, un-, and dis- and establishes the core research questions regarding their semantic rivalry, productivity, and usage patterns.
2 Literary Review: Provides a theoretical foundation covering morphological negation, the definition of rival affixes, types of negativity, and the historical etymology of the prefixes.
3 Corpus Study: Details the methodology for measuring productivity and sense analysis using the BNC, followed by an empirical examination of prefixes with adjectival and nominal bases and a study of rival word pairs.
4 Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, highlighting the subtle semantic differences and productivity variations found between the three prefixes.
Keywords
Negative prefixes, in-, un-, dis-, corpus linguistics, morphological negation, semantic rivalry, productivity, British National Corpus, word formation, adjectival bases, nominal bases, hapax legomena, contradictory negation, contrary negation, privative sense.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The work examines the three English negative prefixes in-, un-, and dis- to understand their semantic functions and productivity when attached to nominal and adjectival bases.
What are the main thematic fields explored?
The study centers on morphological negation, the concept of rival affixes, etymological development, and the quantitative analysis of word formation productivity using corpus data.
What is the central research question?
The research asks whether in-, un-, and dis- function as perfect synonyms expressing negativity, or if they possess distinct semantic nuances and preferences for specific base categories.
Which scientific method is applied?
The author employs a corpus-based approach, utilizing the British National Corpus (BNC) to analyze token frequencies, hapax legomena, and mutual information scores to measure productivity and collocation patterns.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The main body reviews existing literature on morphological negation, presents a detailed corpus study divided into adjectival and nominal base usage, and analyzes the semantic differences within rival word pairs.
Which key terms characterize the study?
Key terms include morphological negation, productivity, rival prefixes, semantic differentiation, and corpus-based analysis.
How does the author differentiate between contrary and contradictory negation?
Contrary negation allows for intermediate states (e.g., happy/unhappy), whereas contradictory negation denies intermediate states and presents a binary opposition (e.g., animate/inanimate).
What does the study conclude regarding the productivity of the prefixes?
While un- is generally the most productive prefix, the study finds that the productivity of in- and dis- varies significantly depending on the specific suffix (e.g., -ness, -ion) and the category of the base.
Why are rival word pairs like "dissatisfied" and "unsatisfied" analyzed?
They are analyzed to prove that even morphologically related words with different negative prefixes are not interchangeable, as they exhibit distinct collocational behaviors in real-world usage.
Does the prefix choice depend on the base category?
Yes, the study indicates that un- is more frequently used with animate (human) descriptors, whereas in- is more commonly associated with inanimate entities and processes.
- Citar trabajo
- Anonym (Autor), 2015, The negative prefixes in-, un-, and dis- in the English language. An investigation with regard to semantics and form, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1037822
