「有生產性」的字尾

 

在之前的幾篇通訊中，我曾經簡單提過英文裏有一些字尾或文法特徵在現代英文中是「還有生產性 (productive)」的，也有一些則「不再有生產性 (no longer productive)」。 在語言學中，如果一個字尾或文法特徵仍然可以被母語人士自由地運用來創造出新的用法或新字，而且這些新字或用法的意思可以被其他母語人士立即理解，我們就會說這個字尾或特徵是「有生產性」的。 相反，如果母語人士已經不會自由地使用某個字尾或文法特徵來創造新的用法或新字，我們就會說它是「不再有生產性」。當然，它仍然會出現在字裏，只是不會被用來造新字。 舉例來說，英文中很多抽象名詞有「-th」這個名詞字尾，例如「depth」、「warmth」、「strength」等等。但在現代英文裏，這個字尾已經不再是有生產性的名詞字尾，因為母語人士不會再用它來造新的抽象名詞了。 相對地，另一個名詞字尾「-ness」（即如「happiness」中的字尾）就仍然非常有生產性。我們常常看到它用來造出新的抽象名詞。 舉個例子，「woke」這個形容詞是比較新的形容詞，意思是「對社會不公義有意識的」。英文母語人士也造出了新名詞「wokeness」，意思就是「對社會不公義有意識」這個狀態或特質。這個抽象名詞就是用有生產性的字尾「-ness」造出來的。 另一個現在仍然有生產性的字尾是形容詞字尾「-less」，意思是「沒有某東西」。 你應該知道「colourless」的意思是「沒有顏色的」等等。 我之所以想寫這一篇通訊，是因為我看到《紐約時報》一篇關於「shoeless homes」（不准穿鞋進入的家）的文章（https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/18/style/shoes-off-house.html) (這種文化習慣在北美並不普遍，所有才會有文章探討。） 在這篇文章中，「shoeless」這個字被放在引號裏，因為它不算是真正「固定存在」的英文單字，而是根據這個特定語境所特別造出來的。 但即使這個字是在特定語境下出現的，它仍是可以立即被理解的新造字，因為它是用常見名詞「shoe」加上有生產性的字尾「-less」組成的。母語人士一看就明白「shoeless」是「沒有鞋子的」意思。 這就說明了像「-less」這樣的有生產性字尾，雖然不一定會造出「真正的詞典詞」，但仍然可以在特定語境中自由地被運用來造新字，而且母語人士都可以立刻理解。 例如，我現在坐在書桌前一邊打字一邊想到，我們可以說「a computerless desk」，意思就是「一張沒有電腦的書桌」。 你也來試試看，用「-less」造一個新字！

Productive suffixes In other newsletters before, I have briefly mentioned the idea of word parts or grammatical features that are “productive” or “no longer productive” in modern English. In Linguistics, we call a word part or a grammatical feature “productive” if it is still freely applied by native speakers to create new words or usages whose meanings are then readily understood by other native speakers.  In contrast, we say that something is “no longer productive” when it is no longer freely applied by native speakers to create new words and usages -- even though, of course, they are still contained in common words.  For example, the noun suffix “-th” in many abstract nouns, like “depth,” “warmth,” and “strength,” can be called “no longer productive” in modern English because native speakers would no longer use it to coin new nouns.  In contrast, another noun suffix “-ness,” which is also found in many abstract nouns, like “happiness,” is still very “productive” in modern English. This means that native speakers still use it to create new abstract nouns. For example, the adjective “woke” is a relatively new word that means “aware of issues of social injustice.” Native speakers now refer to the abstract quality of “being woke” with the noun “wokeness.” This abstract noun has been given the productive suffix “-ness.” Another example of a “productive” suffix in modern English is the adjective suffix “-less,” which means “without X.” As I am sure you know, “colourless” means “without colour,” etc. This article from the New York Times about “shoeless” homes (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/18/style/shoes-off-house.html), which is not the norm in North America, gave me the idea to write a newsletter about productive suffixes. As you can see in the article, the adjective “shoeless” is put in quotation marks because it is not really a “real” or common word in the English lexicon. Rather, it is specific to this context of a newspaper article about homes in which shoes are not allowed.  Despite its context dependence, because “shoeless” has the productive suffix “-less” added to the common noun “shoe,” native speakers immediately understand that it means “without shoes.” Productive suffixes likes “-less” can be applied to create “new” or context-specific words that are readily understood by other native speakers. For example, off the top of my head as I’m typing at my desk -- we can say “a computerless desk.” This would be readily understood as “a desk without a computer.” Can you make up a word with “-less” this way?