Semantic functions

The most subtle problem in dealing with English suffixes is that of adequately defin­ing their meaning. In the descriptive approach, any attempt to define semantic functions in terms of a ready-made logical or supposedly empirical system of meanings must be avoided. The semantic distinctions actually present in the language are to be accepted as crucial, however arbitrary they may appear from a logical or empirical point of view.

Certain of these distinctions are comparatively clear-cut. In the category of voice, for example, a distinction is commonly made between agent (one who acts upon..., as em'ploi-ə r) and receptor (one who is acted upon, as emploi-'ii). The suffix -ə r, as a matter of fact, is heavily ear-marked for the agentive function. But even in its most common and well-developed categories, the English semantic system is by no means regular. Terms referring to agent and to receptor are formed by a variety of derivational processes; and, for many verbs, such terms are lacking, although the semantic function of such absent terms can be expressed by phrase locutions. The variety and irregularity of the derivational processes expressing the semantic relation em'ploi-ə r: emploi-'ii may be illustrated by the following examples:

'keept-ə r: 'keept-iv

'naamen-`eit- ə r: ' naaman-`ii

kə n'faid-ə r: 'kaanfə d-ə nt

kə n'fes-ə r (one who confesses): kə n'fes-ə r (one who is confessed to)

sə s'pekt-ə r: 'sʌ s`pekt

disə plə n-'ee`rii-ə n

'eksə `kjuut-ə r, eg'zekjə t-ə r, eg'zekjə t-iv, 'eksə `kjuus-ə n-ə r […]

Even from this brief list, it is clear that no simple rela­tion between form and function can be assumed among English suffixes. Each suffix expresses several semantic functions, and, conversely, each function is expressed by several formal processes. The intricate overlapping of form and function in English necessitates a careful definition of each suffix with reference to the total set-up of seman­tic categories expressed in the language.

Aids to the study of the text

1. How does Newman regard the role of the etymological factor in the analysis of English suffixation?

2. What is understood by the terms ‘junction’ and ‘varying degrees of junction’?

3. Why is a difference in phonetic form not indicative of distinction of suffixes?

4. What is the difference between suffix interchanges and suffix com­binations?

5. What is the grammatical function of suffixes according to Newman?

6. Does Newman draw a line of demarcation between word-building suffixes and inflections?

7. What is described as semantic functions of suffixes?