Chapter I.

General Notes on the Prefixation as a Means of Word Formation

1.1. Linguist’s Viewpoints on the Phenomenon of Prefixation

Language is a tool for human communication. Language is a system of

communication, medium for thought, a vehicle for literary expression, a social institution, a
matter for political controversy, and a factor in nation building ​(​O`Grady, William, M.
Dobrovolsky, M. Aronoff 1989). Every language has its
own complexity, one and another may have similar complexity but there is no exact
similarity that occurs between them. By this complexity, the language is potential to produce
more utterance to enrich its vocabulary. Like in English, it has the ability to produce more
words. One example of this kind of word productivity can be easily found in the affixation. (
P.Mattews,1991). The system of English language is an open system.
That means that it is constantly added by new words. According to the Oxford Dictionary,
only 7,5% words in the vocabulary of English are borrowings. The vast majority of words
appear through changings in the lexical units preserved in the language system, trough the
word-formation (​A.S. Hornby 2000).
Word-formation is the process оf creating new words from the material available in the
language after certain structural and semantic formulas and patterns. For instance, the noun
driver is formed after the pattern v + -er, i.e. a verb-stem + the noun-forming suffix -er. The
meaning of the noun driver is related to the meanings of the stem drive- and the suffix –er;
“a driver is one who drives (a carriage, motorcar, railway engine, etc.)”. Likewise
compounds resulting from two or more stems joined together to form a new word are also
built on quite definite structural and semantic patterns and formulas, cf., for instance,
adjectives of the snow-white type built according to the formula n + adj., i.e. a noun-stem +
an adjective stem: coal-black, age-long, carefree, etc. It can easily be observed that the
meaning of the whole compound is also related to the meanings of the component parts.
(R.Ginzburg) It should be mentioned, that there are certain patterns
of word-formation in English. It is the circuit, sample, analogue, model, all that fix a rule of
construction of derivative words, rule, which takes into account a type of derivative bases
and word-building means and general semantics, formed as a result of their interaction, of
the same words. One model can also correspond to different changes of meaning and be a

5
source of confusion and misunderstanding for foreign learners. These patterns may be
productive or not in different languages. It was noticed by many scholars long ago, that one
derivative pattern can give almost infinite or, at least, significant number of derivatives,
others are characterized by inability to free word-building.
As states I. V. Arnold,
word-formation is that branch of Lexicology which studies the patterns on which a language
In this case the English language, builds new words. It is self-evident that word-formation
can deal only with words which are analyzable both structurally and semantically. The study
of the simple word has no place in it. Therefore, writer, displease, atom-free, etc, are
relevant to word-formation, but to write, to please, atom, free are not. Like any other
linguistic phenomenon word-formation may be studied from two angles-synchronically and
diachronically. It is necessary to distinguish between these two approaches, for
synchronically the linguist investigates the present-day system of the types of
word-formation while diachronically he is concerned with the history of word- building. To
illustrate the difference of approach we shall consider affixation. Synchronically a derived
word is structurally and semantically more complex than a simple one, while diachronically
it was formed from some other word.S. Abrahamyan sates that in Armenian analyzing and
describing word-formation synchronically it is not enough to extract the relevant structural
elements from a word, describe its structure in terms of morphemes and allomorphs and
determines the type of word- formation; it is absolutely necessary to determine the position
of the constituents within the structural system of the language as a whole. Productivity of a
derivative type therefore cannot be overlooked in this description. Some of the ways of
forming words in present-day Armenian can be resorted to for the creation of new words
whenever occasion demands-these are called productive ways of forming words; other ways
of forming words cannot now produce new words, and these are commonly termed
non-productive or unproductive. For instance, affixation has been a productive way of
forming words ever since the Old Armenian period, On the other hand, sound-interchange
must have been at one time a word-building means but in Modern in modern Armenian it
cannot be used to coin new words. Actually, its function in Modern Armenian is only to
distinguish one word from another.
We can study a particular word from the point of morphological and

6
derivational analyses. Dealing with morphological analysis we simply divide the word into
constitute parts. When the word is divided into its ultimate constituencies the morphological
analysis is completed. While doing derivational analysis we find how the word was
constructed, which is its derivative and what means have been used to build up the word.
There is a certain division of morphemes within the morphemic analysis. English
grammarians usually point out two criteria, which are the bases of the morphemic structure.
They are the positional criterion - the location of the morphemes with regard to each other,
and the semantic (or functional) criterion - the contribution of the morphemes to the general
meaning of the word. So according to the first there are root-morphemes and affixal
morphemes, roots and affixes. The semantic difference between them is obvious: root
morphemes have the concrete, “material” meaning, while affixes just specify the main
meaning, or transform the meaning of the root​(А.Rivlina , 2009)​.
There are several types of word-building in English pointed out by many
scholars and affixation is one of the most productive. There are certain patterns of
word-formation and several types of morphemes. The latter can be studied from the point of
view of two complementary analyses. The word-formation is
considered to be an independent component of linguistic description. It is interconnected
with the Lexical Component and separated from the Syntactic Component. There is no
direct connection between word-formation and syntax. These two independent components
are related through the Lexical Component. The link to the Syntactic Component is
exclusively via the Lexical Component. Word-formation is about naming units coined as
signs, and analyzed as units existing in paradigmatic relations in the Lexicon. (Pavol
Stekauer; 1995). Word-formation is divided, though not separated, from inflectional
morphology. The relation is unidirectional. The word-formation Component feeds the
Lexicon with naming units which are provided with inflectional features in accordance with
their respective paradigms. The basic difference between word-formation and inflection
stems from the fact that the former, and not the latter, generates new naming units. While
word-formation is directly connected with the extra-linguistic reality, no such connection
exists between inflection and the extra-linguistic reality (O. Jespersen;1948).
According to A.
Smirnitsky ( 1979) word- formation is the system of derivative types of words and the

7
process of creating new words from the material available in the language after certain
structural and semantic formulas and patterns. Like any other linguistic phenomenon
word-formation may be studied from two angles synchronically and diachronically. It is
necessary to distinguish between these two approaches, for synchronically the linguist
investigates the existing system of the types of word-formation while diachronically he is
concerned with the history of word-building. Diachronically it is the chronological order of
formation of one word from some other word that is relevant. On the synchronic plane a
derived word is regarded as having a more complex structure than its correlated word
regardless of the fact whether it was derived from a simpler base or a more complex base.
The fact that historically the verbs to beg, to edit, etc. were derived from the corresponding
agent nouns is of no synchronous relevance. While analysing and describing word-formation
synchronically it is not enough to extract the relevant structural elements from a word,
describe its structure in terms of derivational bases, derivational affixes and the type of
derivative patterns, it is absolutely necessary to determine the position of these patterns and
their constituents within the structural semantic system of the language as a whole.
H. Marchand, for instance, analyses words like to overdo, to
underestimate as compound verbs, the first components of which are locative particles, not
prefixes. In a similar way he interprets words like income, onlooker, outhouse qualifying
them as compounds with locative particles as first elements. There are about 51 prefixes in
the system of Modern English word formation.( H. Marchand:1960).
According to S.Abrahamyan (1974) conversion assigns the base to a different word class
without a change in the form; this is a rare type of word-formation in Armenian, which may
be applied only to a certain grou of adjectives and adverbs: many adjectives are used in their
“bare” form to express adverb meaning. ​Արան արագ է խոսում​
: “Ara speaks quickly.
According to Minassian in Armenian, there
exist some word-formation rules, which may differ from syntactic rules of case or
number-morphology and mainly refer to vocalic alternations caused by changed stress. That
means that points of stress and sometimes also pronunciation is associated with particular
word-formation processes or particular suffixes.
Some general word-formation alternations. The vowels ​ի and ​ու of a closed
syllable undergo alternation, they are either reduced to a schwa or totally deleted, as in:

8
 սրտացավ “heartache” < սիրտ “heart” + ցավ
“ache, pain”; գլխաշոր “kerchief, scarf ” > ·գլուխ“head” +
շոր “cloth”. The final ո
​ ւ of an open syllable often becomes
-վ-, particularly with the following word formation -​ա​-, as in ​առու “creek” < ա
​ ռվակ
“little creek”. The final ​ի ​of an open syllable of polysyllabic words combined with a
ա- may trigger a sound change, as in ​որդեսեր
following unstressed word formation -​
“loving one’s children” > ո
​ րդի+սեր; ի ​+ ա
​ undergo sound change, thus ո
​ րդեսեր​. The
final ի
​ in an open syllable of polysyllabic words combined with the diminutive suffix
ակmay also trigger a sound change in the form of a glide formation: ​-ի+ ակ = յակ​
, as in
կղզի​“island” ​կղզյակ​“little island” <​կղզի +ակ​. The diphthong ո
​ ւյ ​often alternates with
ու, as in ​գույն​“colour” ​< գունավոր “coloured” Sometimes it is difficult to analyse and to
indicate the meaning of the individual components of a compound. Many compounds and
even derivates have lexicalised meanings (Minassian;1996)
So word-formation process is of great interest to the linguists
as they affect the language vocabulary enhancement. In both English and Armenian
languages one of the most productive word-formation processes is derivation including
prefixation and suffixation. Prefixation is a way of enlarging vocabularies and forming new
lexical forms. Prefixes are classifying, they do not change the lexico-grammatical category
of the word. Prefixation is the formation of
words with the help of prefixes. The interpretation of the terms prefix and prefixation now
firmly rooted in linguistic literature has undergone a certain evolution. For instance, some
time ago there were linguists who treated prefixation as part of word-composition (or
compounding). The greater semantic independence of prefixes as compared with suffixes
led the linguists to identify prefixes with the first component part of a compound word. At
present the majority of scholars treat prefixation as an integral part of word-derivation
regarding prefixes as derivational affixes which differ essentially both from root-morphemes
and non-derivational prepositive morphemes. Opinion sometimes differs concerning the
interpretation of the functional status of certain individual groups of morphemes which
commonly occur as first component parts of words (G. Knyazeva; 1979).
Some linguists think it necessary to distinguish between two
types of prefixes: (1) those not correlated with any independent word (either notional or

9
functional), e.g. un -, dis-, re-, etc.; and (2) those correlated with functional words
(prepositions or preposition-like adverbs), e.g. out-, over-, up-, etc. Prefixes of the second
type are qualified as semi-bound morphemes, which implies that they occur in the language
both as independent words and as derivational affixes, e.g. over one’s head, over the river
(cf. overhead, overbalance; to run out, to take out(cf. to outgrow, to outline); to look up,
hands up! (cf. upstairs, to upset), etc. It seems correct to distinguish between the two types
of prefixes here mentioned and the distinction should be observed in linguistic literature on
the subject. However, the qualification of Type II prefixes as semi-bound morphemes is
open to criticism, for English prefixes of this type essentially differ from the functional
words they are correlated with:
1) these prefixes are characterized by a high frequency of
occurrence, as a glance at the corresponding pages in a comprehensive dictionary will prove
beyond doubt; 2) like any other derivational affixes they have a more
generalized meaning in comparison with the more concrete meanings of the correlated
words (see the examples given above); 3) they are deprived of all grammatical
features peculiar to the independent words they are correlated with.
Prefixes modify the lexical
meaning of the stem, but in so doing, they seldom affect its basic lexico-grammatical
component. Therefore both the simple word and its prefixed derivative mostly belong to the
same part of speech. The prefix ​mis-​, for instance, when added to verbs, conveys the
meaning ‘wrongly’, ‘badly’, ‘unfavorably’; it does not suggest any other part of speech but
the verb. Compare the following oppositions: behave ​- misbehave,​ calculate ​- miscalculate,​
inform - ​misinform, lead - ​mislead, pronounce - ​mispronounce. The above oppositions are
strictly prоpоrtiоnal semantically, i.e. the same relationship between elements holds
throughout the series. There may be other cases where the semantic relationship is slightly
different but the general lexico-grammatical meaning remains, cf. giving – misgiving -
'foreboding' or 'suspicion'; take - mistake and trust - mistrust (S. Velkovsaya ;2003).
According to H. Marchand who treats prefixes
as a part of word composition, he thinks that a prefix has the same function as the first
component of a compound word. Prefixes are called such particles as can be prefixed to full
words but are themselves, not words with an independent existence. Native prefixes have

10
developed out of independent words. Their number is small: ​a-, be-, un- (negative and
reversative) ​fore-, mid- and (partly) ​mis-. Prefix of foreign origin came into the language
readymade, so to speak. They are due to syntagmatic loans from other languages: when a
number of analyzable foreign words of the same structure had been introduced into the
language, the pattern could be extended to new formations i.e. the prefix then became a
derivative morpheme. Some prefixes have secondarily developed uses as independent words
as counter sub-arch which does not invalidate the principle that primarily they were particles
with no independent existence. (H. Marchand; 1960).
E. Kubryakova distinguishes between
two types of prefixes: a) Those which are functional words
(such as prepositions or adverbs) Ex: ​but-, over-, up-. b) Those which are not
correlated with any independent words. Ex: ​un-, dis-, re-, mis​-. Prefixes ​out-, over-, up-,
under-​, etc. are considered as semi bound morphemes. However this view is doubtful
because this prefixes are quite frequent in speech and live other derivational affixes have a
generalized meaning. They have no grammatical meaning live the independent words. We
think they are bound morphemes and should be regarded as homonyms of the corresponding
independent words, ex: the prefix ​out in ​outdoor, outcome, outbreak​, etc. is homonymous to
the preposition «​out»​ in «​out of door»​ and the adverb «​out»​ in «​he went out​». (E.S.
Kubryakova ;1965) At present the majority of scholars treat prefixation as
an integral part of word derivation regarding prefixes as derivational affixes which differ
essentially both from root-morphemes and non-derivational pre-positive morphemes.
Opinions sometimes differs concerning the interpretation of the functional status of certain
individual groups of morphemes, which commonly occur as first component parts of words.
H.
Marchand, for instance, analysis words like to overdo, to underestimate as compound verbs,
the first components of which are locative particles, not prefixes. In a similar way he
interprets words like ​income, onlooker, outhouse qualifying them as compounds with
locative particles as first elements.
There are about 51 prefixes in the system of Modern English word formation.
According to the available word counts of prefixal derivatives the greatest number are verbs
- 42.4 %, adjectives comprise 33.5 % and nouns make up 22.4 %. To give some examples.

11
 Prefixal verbs: ​to enrich, to disagree, to undergo,​etc.;
Prefixal adjectives: ​anti-war, biannual, uneasy,
superhuman​, etc.; Prefixal nouns: ​ex-champion,
co-author, disharmony, subcommittee​, etc. It is of interest to
mention that the number of prefixal derivatives within a certain part of speech is in inverse
proportion to the actual number of prefixes: 22 form verbs, 41 prefixes make adjectives and
42 nouns. Proceeding from the three types of morphemes that the structural classification
involves two types of prefixes ate to be distinguished: 1)
those not correlated with any independent word (either notional or functional) e.g. ​
no-, dis-,
re-, pre-, post-, etc.;​and
2) those correlated with functional words (prepositions or prepositions-like
adverbs), e.g. ​out-, over-, up-, under-,​etc.
Prefixes of the second type are qualified as semi bound morphemes,
which implies that they occur in speech in various utterances both as independent words and
as derivational affixes, e.g. «​over one's head»​, «​over the river​» (cf. to overlap, to overpass),
«​to run out​», «​to take somebody out» (cf. to outvote;, to outline); «​to look up​», «​
hands up»​
(cf. upstairs, to upset); «​under the same roof»​; «​to go under»​ (cf. to underestimate,
undercurrent), etc. So prefixation is the formation
of words with the help of prefixes. The interpretation of the terms prefix and prefixation
now firmly rooted in linguistic literature has undergone a certain evolution. For instance,
some time ago there were linguists who treated prefixation as part of word composition (or
compounding). The greater semantic independence of prefixes a compared with suffixes led
the linguists to identify prefixes with the first component part of a compound word. There
are linguists, for instance, who treat prefixation as part of word-composition (or
compounding); they believe that a prefix has the same function as the first component of a
compound word. The majority of linguists, however, treat prefixation as an integral part of
word-derivation regarding prefixes as derivational affixes which differ essentially from
root-morphemes and stems.

12
 ​ 1.2. Classification of Prefixation

Unlike suffixation, which is usually bound up with the paradigm of a certain part of speech,
prefixation is considered to be neutral in this respect. It is significant that in linguistic literature
derivational suffixes are always divided into noun-forming, adjective-forming, etc. Prefixes,
however, are treated differently. They are described either in alphabetical order or subdivided into
several classes in accordance with their origin, meaning or function and never according to the part
of speech formed. Some linguists even hold the view that one and the same prefix may be added to
different parts of speech, cf. un-kind and un-tie. All this testifies to the fact that the problem of
prefixation wants further investigation. It is hardly possible, for instance, to regard un- in unkind
and un- in untie as the same prefix, for these two morphemes differ in meaning: in the first case un-
has a negative meaning, and in the second it indicates reversal of an action. Therefore it would be
more correct to consider them as being two homonyrnous prefixes: ​un- added to adjectival stems
and ​
an-​affixed to verbal stems.
As states A.A. Sankin prefixes may be classified on different principles. Diachronically
distinction is made between prefixes of native and foreign origin. Synchronically prefixes may be
classified: according to the class of words they preferably form. Recent investigations, as has been
mentioned above, allow one to classify prefixes according to this principle. It must be noted that
most of the 51 prefixes of Modern English function in more than one part of speech forming
different structural and structural-semantic patterns. (A.A. Sankin; 1979).

13
According to L. Bauer prefixes may be also classified as to the degree of productivity into
highly-productive, productive, and nonproductive. The linguist Bauer figures out the following
tendencies: the prefix ​a- h​ad a peak of productivity in the 19​th century and is still marginally
productive. The verbalising prefix ​be- i​s these days stylistically and formally restricted. The prefix
mis- ​became contaminated with French ​més-​ and gained extra life from that. It was still marginally
productive in the 20th century. The prefix ​un- ​remains extremely productive especially when added
to adjectives. Bauer goes even so far to say that the enormous loss of productivity which is currently
characteristic for most of the native affixes will sooner or later result in the total disappearance of
these affixes. Here only the prefix un- can be seen as an exception from the tendency (L. Bauer;
1983).
According to Minassian and Abrahamyan the following treatment of the prefixes, which are
commonly productive in Armenian, is based on semantic functions, since prefixes primarily effect a
semantic modification of the base.
All prefixes, except the negative suffixes ա
​ ն-, դժ​-, չ​-, տ- t​he locationalprefix -​ներ​
-, and
the superlative prefix -​ամենա- ​are attached to the base by means of the vowel -​
ա-​, if the base’s
initial sound is a consonant.
The superlative prefix -​ա
​ մենա-
The superlative prefix -​ամենա​- has a special semantic and syntactic function:
attached to qualitative adjectives, it forms the superlative degree in comparison. Thus, this
superlative prefix must definitely be distinguished from the following prefixes, which do not fulfill
any syntactic but only semantic functions: ​ամենա –հարմար ​“most comfortable”, ա
​ մենա –ծանր
“heaviest”, ա
​ մենա-երկար “​longest” etc.
Locational prefixes
- ​անդր​- “trans-; ultra-, over-; re-; other, other side” has manifold meanings, among them
locational, contemplative meaning, e.g. ​անդրկովկաս “Transcaucasus”, ա
​ նդրածովյան
“overseas”, ​անդրադարնալ​
“ to reflect, to revert” etc.
-արտ- “​outside, out-”, e.g. ​արտածել “to deduce; to output” ​արտաբերել ​“to
բերել “​to bring”,​արտագրել “​to write out, to re-write”, ​արտահանել ​“to export”
pronounce”​
հանե “​to draw out, to takeout” etc.
-ենթ​
- as in ​ենթակա ​“subject”, ե
​ նթամաշկային ​“hypodermic”, ​ենթադրել ​“to suppose”
etc.

14
 -հար- ​“near, close to; co-; joint “, e.g. հ
​ արադրել​.
-մակ​
- e.g. ​մակերես ​“surface”, մ
​ ակաբույծ ​“parasite”,​
մականուն ​“nickname, antiquated:
surname” etc.
-մեջ, միջ- “​in, inter-; middle of; between”, e.g. ​մեջտեղ “​centre”, ​միջանցք ​“corridor,
passage”, ​միջադեպ “​incident, episode”, ​մեջբերել “​to quote”, ​միջամտել “​interfere” etc.
-ներ-​“in, inside of ”, e.g. ն
​երգաղթել ​“immigrate”, ն
​երգրել ​“toinscribe” etc.
-պար- ​“about, around”, e.g. պ
​ արագիծ ​“circumference” գ
​ իծ “​line”, ​պարբերական
“periodical” etc.
ստոր- “​sub-, under-, below”, e.g. ​ստորագրել “​to sign, to subscribe”,​ստորադաս “​subordinate,
inferior” ​դաս ​“class” etc. -վայր-
“down”, e.g​. վայրէյք “​landing, descent” ​իջնել “​to descend, to lower” etc. -​վեր​
- “on,
above, super-”, e.g ​վերադաս “higher; chief, boss” դ
​ աս “​class”, ​վերագրություն “​inscription,
epigraph”, ​վերահսկել “​to supervise” etc. Temporal, aspectual or order
prefixes -​առաջ​- “pre-, before”, e.g.
առաջաբան “​preface, foreword”, ​առաջամաս ​“front” etc. -​հետ- “​re-, post-, after”, as in
հետամնաց ​“backward” հ
​ ետմահու ​“posthumous”, հ
​ ետաձգել “​topostpone” etc.
-​նախ- “fore-, pre-, proto”, e.g
նախաբան “​preface”, ​նախահայր “​fore-father” etc. Quantitative prefixes
- ​բազմ - ​“multi-, poly-”, e.g.
բազմազգ ​“multinational”, բ
​ ազմահարկ “​multi-storey”, բ
​ ազմավանկ ​“polysyllabic” etc.
-​երկ- ​“bi-, duo”, e.g.
երկլեզվություն “​bilinguism”, ​երկկողմանի​“ bilateral”, ե
​ րկտեսակ “​oftwo kinds” etc.
-​կես​
- “half-, semi-, demi”, e.g.
կիսագունդ ​“hemisphereո”, ​գունդ “​sphere, ball”, ​կիսաձայն “​semivowel, half-tone”,
կիսաքաղցր​“ semi-sweet (wine)”, etc. -​միա​- “mono; uni-”, e.g.
միալար “​monotonous” ​միաձև ​“uniform”, մ
​ իավանկ​“ monosyllabic” etc.
Loan prefixes
The loan prefixes forms are mainly used
in loan words, having entered Armenian via the Russian language or recently via the English
language. Their productivity is controlled to a certain extent by a rigorous and puristic state
language policy, trying to avoid foreign or loans in Armenian language. Thus, many of the loan

15
prefixes are replaced by their corresponding (classical) Armenian prefixes. (Abrahamyan; 1974).
There is a wide range of “neo-classical”
prefixes with Greek or Latin origin, such as: auto- (self), neo- (new, revived), pan- (all,
world-wide) or tele-(distant). -​ավտո- (self-)”, e.g. ​ավտոբուս ​“bus”,
ավտոմատ ​“automat”, ​ավտոմոքենա ​“car” etc. -​ինքն​- “auto-, self-”, e.g.
ինքնակենսագրություն ​“autobiography” ​ինքնավար​“ autonomous” etc.
-​նեո​
- “new”, e.g. ​նեոլիթ
“neolithikum”, young stone age”, ​նեոլոգիզմ, նոր “​new” etc. Prefixes may be classified on
different principles. Diachronically distinction is made between prefixes of native and foreign
origin. Synchronically, prefixes are classified according to the meaning they convey to the derived
word. This is of great practical value in classroom teaching. The following groups of prefixes may
be distinguished: 1) prefixes of negative meaning
such as: ​un-, in-, dis​- and some others, e.g. ​ungrateful (cf. grateful); ​unemployment (​
cf.
employment); ​incorrect (cf. correct); ​disadvantage (cf. advantage), etc. It may be mentioned in
passing that the prefix ​in​- occurs in different phonemic shapes depending on the initial sound of the
stem it is affixed to; in other words, the prefixal morpheme in question has several allomorphs,
namely ​il- (before [l]), ​im​- (before [p, m]), ​ir-​ (before [r]), ​in- in all other cases, e.g. ​
illegal,
improbable, immaterial, irreligious, inactive​, etc.

2) prefixes denoting reversal or repetition of an action such as ​un​-​, dis-, re-​ and some
others, e.g. ​to unfasten​(cf. to fasten), ​to disconnect​(cf. to connect), ​to re-write​(cf. to write), etc. 3)
prefixes denoting space and time relations such as ​fore-, pre-, post-, over-, super-​ and some others,
e.g. ​
to foresee (cf. to see), ​pre-historic (cf. historic), ​post-position (cf. position), to ​overspread (cf.
to spread), ​superstructure ​(cf. structure), etc. As is the
case with suffixes there are prefixes which are characterized by neutral stylistic reference and those
possessing quite a definite stylistic value. To give but one example: the prefix over-occurs in all
styles of speech, whereas the prefix super-is peculiar to the style of scientific prose. Like suffixes,
prefixes may also be classified as productive or non-productive. Two examples will suffice here:
the prefix re-is highly productive in Modern English, the prefix ill-is not. The majority of prefixes
affect only the lexical meaning of words but there are some important cases where prefixes serve to
form words belonging to different parts of speech as compared with the original word (L. Bauer;

16
1983). These are in the first place the
verb-forming prefixes ​be- and ​en-​, which combine functional meaning with a certain variety of
lexical meanings​. Be-​ forms transitive verbs with adjective and noun stems and changes intransitive
verbs into transitive ones. Examples are: ​belittle ‘to make little'; ​benumb 'to make numb'; ​
befriend
'to treat like a friend'; ​becloud (bedew), ​befoam 'to cover with clouds (with dew or with foam)';
bemadam 'to call madam'; ​besiege 'to lay siege on'. Sometimes the lexical meanings are very
different; compare, for instance, ​bejewel 'to deck with jewels' and ​behead w
​ hich has the meaning of
'to cut the toad from'. There are on the whole about six semantic verb-forming varieties and one that
makes adjectives from noun stems following the pattern ​be- + noun stem + ​-ed,​ as in ​
benighted,
bespectacled​, etc (Horn L.R.;1991). The prefix ​en-/em​- is now used to form verbs
from noun stems with the meaning 'put (the object) into, or on, something', as in ​embed, engulf,
encamp​, and also to form verbs with adjective and noun stems with the meaning 'to bring into such
condition or state', as in enable​, enslave, enactive.​Sometimes the prefix ​en-/em-​ has an intensifying
function, cf. ​enclasp. The prefixes ​pre-, post-, non-, anti- and some other
Romanic and Greek prefixes very productive in present-day English serve to form adjectives
retaining at the same time a very clear-cut lexical meaning, e.g. anti-war, pre-war, post-war,
non-party, etc ​(​H.Marchand; 1960​). The borderline cases present considerable difficulties
for classification. It is indeed not easy to draw the line between derivatives and compound words or
between derivatives and root words. Such morphemes expressing relationships in space and time as
after-, in-, off-, on-, out-, over-, under-, with- and the like which may occur as free forms have a
combining power at least equal and sometimes even superior to that of the affixes. Their function
and meaning as well as their position are exactly similar to those characteristic of prefixes. They
modify the respective stems for time, place or manner exactly as prefixes do. They also are similar
to prefixes in their statistical properties of frequency. And yet prefixes are bound forms by
definition, whereas these forms are free. This accounts for the different treatment they receive in
different dictionaries. Thus Hornby's Dictionary considers ​aftergrowth a derivation with the prefix
after-​
, while similar formations like ​afternoon, afterglow or a​fterthought are classified as compound
nouns. Webster's Dictionary does not consider after-as a prefix at all. The Concise Oxford
Dictionary alongside with the preposition and the adverb ​ongives a prefix ​on- with the examples:
oncoming, onflow, onlooker,​ whereas in Chambers's Dictionary ​oncome is treated as a compound.
(​
A.S. Hornby;2000). The other difficulty concerns borrowed morphemes

17
that were never active as prefixes in English but are recognized as such on the analogy with other
words also borrowed from the same source. A strong protest against this interpretation was
expressed by N. N. Amosova. In her opinion there is a very considerable confusion in English
linguistic literature concerning the problem of the part played by foreign affixes in English
word-building. This author lays particular stress on the distinction between morphemes that can be
separated from the rest of the stem and those that cannot. Among the latter she mentions the
following prefixes listed by H. Sweet: ​amphi-, ana-, apo, cato-, exo-, en-, hypo-, meta-, sina-
(Greek) and ​ab-, ad-, amb​- (Latin). The list is rather a mixed one.
Thus, ​amphi- is productive in
terminology and is with good reason considered by dictionaries a combining form (​amphitheatre,
amphibiotic 'terrestrial in adult state but aquatic as a larva'). ​Ana- in such words as ​anachronism,
anagram, anaphora is easily distinguished, because the words readily lend themselves for analysis
into immediate constituents. The prefix ​ad- derived from Latin differs very much from these two,
being in fact quite a cluster of allomorphs assimilated with the first sound of the stem:
ad-/ac-/af-/ag-/al-/ap-/as-/at-. E.g. ​adverbial, accumulation, affirm, aggravation​, etc (N. N.
Amosova 1956). On the
synchronic level the differentiation suggested by N. N. Amosova is irrelevant and the principle of
analysis into immediate constituents depends only on the existence of other similar cases. Prefixes
may be classified on different principles. Diachronically distinction is made between prefixes of
native and foreign origin. Synchronically prefixes may be classified: 1)
according to the class of words they preferably form. Recent investigations, as has been mentioned
above, allow one to classify prefixes according to this principle. It must be noted that most of the 51
prefixes of Modern English function in more than one part of speech forming different structural
and structural-semantic patterns. A small group 5 prefixes may be referred to exclusively
verb-forming (​en-, be-, on​-, etc.). The
majority of prefixes (in their various denotational meanings) tend to function either in nominal parts
of speech (41 patterns in adjectives, 42 in nouns) or in verbs (22 patterns); 2) as to the type
of lexical-grammatical character of the base they are added to into; deverbal, e.g. ​rewrite, outstay,
overdo​, etc.; denominal, e.g. ​unbutton, detrain, ex-president, e​tc.; deadjectival, e.g. ​
uneasy,
biannual,​ etc.; It is of interest to note that the most productive prefixal pattern for adjectives is the
one made up of the prefix ​un-,​ and the base built either on adjectival stems or present and past

18
participle, e.g. ​unknown, unsmiling, unseen,​etc.; 3) semantically prefixes
fall into mono and polysemantic; 4) as to the generic
denotational meaning there are different groups that are distinguished in linguistic literature:
a) Negative
prefixes, such as​: un-, non-, dis-, a- e.g. ​ungrateful (cf. grateful), ​non-politician (cf. politician)
unemployment ​(cf. employment), ​non-scientific (cf. scientific), ​incorrect (cf. correct), ​
disloyal (cf.
loyal), ​
disadvantage (cf. advantage), ​amoral (cf. morale), ​asymmetry (cf. symmetry), etc. It may be
mentioned in passing that the prefix ​in- occurs in different phonetic shapes depending on the initial
sound of the base it is affixed to; in other words, the prefixal morpheme in question has several
allomorphs, namely ​il- (before [l]), ​im-​ (before [p,m]), ​in- (before [r]), ​in-​ in all other cases, e.g.
illegal, improbably, immaterial, irreligious, inactive,​etc.; b) Reversative or
privative prefixes, such as ​un-, de-, dis​-, e.g. ​untie (cf. tie), ​unleash ​(cf. leash), ​decentralize (​cf.
centralize), ​disconnect (​cf. connect), etc.; c) Pejorative
prefixes, such as ​mis-, mal-, pseudo-,​ e.g. ​miscalculate​, (cf. calculate), ​misinform (cf. inform),
maltreat (​cf. treat), ​pseudo-classicism​(cf. classicism), ​pseudo-scientific​(cf. scientific), etc;
d) Prefixes of
time and order, such as ​fore-, pre-, post-, ex-, e.g. ​foretell (cf. tell), ​foreknowledge (cf. knowledge),
pre-war​(cf. war), ​postwar​(cf. war), ​post- classical​(cf. classical), ​ex-president​(cf. president);
e) Prefix of repetition
re-​, e.g. ​rebuild​(cf. build), ​re-write​(cf. write), etc; f) Locative prefixes,
such as ​super-, sub-, inter-, trans-​, e.g. ​superstructure (cf. structure), ​subway (cf. way),
inter-continental​(cf. continental), ​
trans- Atlantic​(cf. atlantic), etc. and some other groups;
5) when
viewed from the angle of their stylistic reference English prefixes fall into those characterized by
neutral stylistic reference and those possessing quite a definite stylistic value. As no exhaustive
lexico-stylistic classification of English prefixes has yet been suggested, a few examples can only
be adduced here. There is no doubt, for instance, that prefixes like ​un-, out-, over-, re-, under- and
some others can be qualified as neutral prefixes, e.g​. unnatural, unknown, unlace, outnumber,
oversee, resell, underestimate​, etc. on the other hand, one can hardly fail to perceive the
literary-bookish, character of such prefixes as ​pseudo-, super-, ultra-, uni-, bi- a​nd some others,
e.g. ​
pseudo-classical, superstructure, ultraviolet, unilateral, bifocal,​ etc. Sometimes one comes

19
across pairs of prefixes, one of which is neutral, the other is stylistically coloured. (L. Bauer; 1983).
So
we have classified the prefixes according to some of their typical features basing on syntactical and
morphological properties of prefixes, their level of productivity, their etymology and somehow their
transformation with the passing of time etc. What holds true for both languages is the fact that
prefixes usually do not change the word classes, but they create a variety of lexemes, meanings.
Additionally, we have classified the prefixes of both languages according to their meaning and the
word classes they are attached to. We provided some English and Armenian rules that should be
taken into consideration in terms of prefix-root correct punctuation; etymology of English and
Armenian prefixes, as well as other relevant issues. We
should also mention here the great contribution of English language as a world language in the
enrichment of the Armenian language through borrowings, including prefixes. In conclusion, both
languages do have the potential to create new words by means of the prefixation process, by which
a wide range of new words are formed in English and Armenian languages.

20
Chapter II. Translation of Words with Negative Prefixes from English into Armenian

2.1. The Use of Negative Prefixes

Negative statements are the opposite of affirmative statements. In English, one way to make
negative statements is by adding negative prefixes to nouns, adjectives, and verbs. History of
English derivational system shows that only a few native prefixes, particularly negative, have
survived the influx of foreign ones. There is though one native negative prefix, i.e. un- which has
not only survived but has continued to be almost equally productive. The results we have got prove
our assumption that it is due to different ‘nature’ of prefix un- in comparison with other native
negative prefixes.
The concept of negation is crucial and has a central place in communicative systems, logical
presentation and natural languages. As a category, it is present in every part of our living and is a
basis of our life, which is a circle of existence and nonexistence. Negation and polarity are
connected; in principle, opposed terms must be equal in their opposition: that is, one term cannot be
more opposite than another. But, in natural languages, opposites are never equal. As Horn says,
there is never consistent balance between affirmative and negative expression, which ensures that
denying a negative is never quite the same as asserting the positive. It is also worth mentioning that
not every negative sentence has a direct affirmative counterpart, as not every affirmative has a
simple negation. (L. Horn; 1991)
Some words can acquire several negative affixes and new words can seem semantically
similar to language learners. It is a rude mistake to misuse the affixes. So on this stage of analysis
appears a question, why some words are attached with a certain negative affix and others are
attached with others. And it is also very important to find out how not to mix up some affixes with
very similar meanings. The Longman dictionary contains an article comparing prefixes un-, in- and
non-, which look very much alike at the first sight. “The difference between them is the degree to
which they suggest the idea of the opposite rather than negative. Non- is usually just negative (for
example, nonalcoholic drinks contain no alcohol), but un- is often used to suggest an opposite
quality (​
A.Wesley; 1998).

21
 There are many ways in which negation is expressed: ​a-, anti-, counter-, de-, dis-, un-, in-,
im-, il-, ir-, non-​, added to words of different lexical categories in English; and ​ան-, հակա-, ապ-,
դժ-, չ-,տ-, ընդ-,​ and some others in Armenian by applying the semantic approach and analyzing
the meaning of each negative word. The aim is to show that there are complementary opposites,
contrary opposites, opposite and privative affixes, and that, pragmatically speaking, not every
negative word has negative meaning. (Ēloyan; 1979)
According to H. Marchand (1960), three criteria are used to compare negative prefixes:
meaning they convey into a base, origin of the prefix/base, and range of application used to show
the level of their productivity. As in this period almost all words were of native origin, we shall
apply the term native to negative prefixes. Prefix ​un- could be added to all parts of speech, but was
primarily added to nouns and adjectives. The range of meaning conveyed into bases included both
logical and practical meaning: “not, lacking of, without, deprived of, removal, reversal of the
action” which is best shown in German words, as in the following example.
Example 1:
unwid – not wide,
unmihtan – to deprive of strength,
unmurnlice – without sorrow,
unscrydan – to undress. It
also conveyed pejorative meaning, as in unman and privative meaning, as in ​ungecveme –
unpleasing. It could intensify the meaning of the base, as in ​limp – accident and unlimp ​
–
misfortune​. When attached to simple verbs, both strong and weak, it conveyed the meaning of
“reversal of the action”, as in: ​unbindan – loosen, unlucan – to unlock, ungierwan – to unclothe,
undon – open, loosen, separate.​ Attached to a small group of verbs ending ​in – ian​, it conveyed the
meaning of “deprived of, remove”, as in: ​unhadian – divest of holy order, ​unaedelian –​ to degrade,
debase, ​
uninseglian – to unseal. Prefix ​on​- presents an unstressed form of prefix ​un-.​It was used in
early and late OE; in Middle English, both variants were used so as in early Modern English. Prefix
wan– was predominantly attached to nouns, although it could be added to adjectives and verbs, as in
the following example.
Example 2.
wandian – to hesitate; wansceaft
– misery; wanhal – sick.

22
 It conveyed
specific/practical meaning in the sense of “lacking of, without” as in: ​wana – lack, want, deficiency;
wanhaelan – to weaken. It also conveyed privative meaning, as in ​wandung –​ feeling of respect.
There were a considerable number of words formed with this prefix, but none has survived into
Modern English, and only one into Middle English, i.e. ​wansthed ​– ill-success.
There was prefix ​won-,​ whose destiny was closely connected to ​wan- and which is
considered to be a kind of ​wan- variant. We could not find more details about them or about their
origin.
Prefix ​mis-​ was predominantly added to verbs, participles and nouns of action and condition.
Example 3. ​misbeodan – ill treat; misbyrd – abortion​.
Very rarely, it was added to adjectives and adverbs. It conveyed specific/practical meanings like
“wrongly, improperly” Prefix ​or- was predominantly attached to nouns, rarely to adjectives and
adverbs, conveying specific/practical meaning of “without, void of, bereft of” as in: ​ortriewan – to
despair; ​
ormodness – despair. It conveyed privative meaning, as in ​orsorg – unconcern. Its other
function was to intensify the meaning of the base, as in ​oreald – very old. Words prefixed with ​
or-
survived till early period of Middle English, though the only meaning conveyed was
“without”.​(​H.Marchand; 1960​).
According to B. Strang the great number of borrowed words, particularly abstract nouns,
foreign derivational affixes, patterns and functional words was the heritage of MdE. The process of
borrowings continued but now only “the parts of words, affixes, of which some are prefixes, and
some suffixes” were borrowed (B. Strang; 1970).
Prefix ​a- presents the Greek prefix ​a-. English coinage are all derivatives from nominal
bases but are practically interpreted as opposites of unprefixed adjectives. Its domain of practical
usage is mainly restricted to medical area, with only a few words in common use, i.e​
. amoral,
atonal, atemporal and ​asymmetric.​ It conveys logical and practical meanings of “not, without,
devoid of”. Prefix ​non-​ originates from Latin Law, i.e. from the model ​non-creditor used for
coining new nouns.
As stated L.Bauer (1983), it can be prefixed to almost any adjective, present and participles
used as adjectives, as in ​non-active, non-breakable, non-competent, non-analysed, non-interrupted.
It shows immense productivity, but cannot be used with verbs. It conveys only logical meaning into
bases. Prefix ​de- has always formed denominal verbs with privative meaning, and deverbal verbs

23
with reversative meaning in French. Its range of application is restricted to verbs, mainly
denominative, as in defrost, dethrone, defrock. It conveys logical meaning as in debate, and
practical of “remove from, diminish”, as in dehydrate, ​demolish, depreciate.​
Prefix ​un- competes with ​non- when adjectives are in question, and it seems that ​
non-
pattern is becoming more productive. Regarding verbs, it is more productive than prefix ​
de​- when
conveying the meaning “reversal”, but has lost when conveying the meaning of “deprived of”, as in
decapitate, defraud.​
All foreign negative prefixes convey logical meaning into bases, but obviously only two
negative prefixes, ​un- and ​mis - decompete when range of meaning is in question. Regarding
specific/practical (S/P) meanings: ​
un - conveys: “lacking of, without, deprived of, reversal of the
action​
”; mis - conveys: “wrongly, improperly”; ​dis - conveys: “lacking of, without”, ​in -​ conveys:
“lacking of, absence”, ​a - conveys: “without, devoid of”, ​non - no practical meaning ​de - conveys:
“diminish, removal”​(​H.Marchand; 1960​).
According to B. Strang (1970) the most important feature of a negative prefix is its ability to
convey a kind of logical meaning into a base. Having this in mind, we can also make some further
assumptions regarding the productivity of prefix ​non-​. Namely, as it conveys only logical meaning
into bases, it means that it can coin with basis of all origins and that it will become more and more
productive regarding adjectives and even nouns. This means that prefix ​un- will survive but much
more constrained, and probably prefix ​non-​will gain the same position.
According to Jespersen O. in English, the most common and frequently used negative prefix
is ​
un-​, attached mostly to native English, but also to certain Latinate words. As for the categories, it
is equally used with nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. It is undoubtedly used for opposition,
and, as it is explained above, this type of opposition contradicts one of the two existing terms. Thus,
one is always true, and consequently, the other always false. In most cases, this result is achieved
with the prefix ​un-.​Some typical examples are: unreasonable ~ opposite
of reasonable, unfair ~ opposite of fair,
unable ~ opposite of able,
unsympathetic ~ opposite of sympathetic
unproductive ~ opposite of productive,
unbelievable ~ opposite of believable,
unclear ~ opposite of clear,

24
 unhelpful ~ opposite of helpful,
unintelligible ~ opposite of intelligible unjust ~
opposite of just, unwise ~
opposite of wise ​(Jespersen O.;1917).
The productivity of ​un- ​is obvious in the formation of adjectives with present and past
participles as well:
unfeeling ~ opposite of feeling, unthreatening ~
opposite of threatening, undecided ~ opposite of
decided, unjustified ~ opposite of
justified. When it comes to nouns, the use
and result are the same: untruth ~ opposite of truth,
unemployment ~ opposite of employment,
unrest ~ opposite of rest or peace,
unease ~ opposite of ease,
unprofitability ~ opposite of profitability.
Adverbs also take this prefix:
unwisely ~ opposite of wisely,
unfortunately ~ opposite of fortunately, unoriginally ~
opposite of originally, unlikely ~ opposite of likely
unavoidably ~ opposite of avoidably. (B.
Strang;1970).
A variation of the negative prefix ​un- i​s ​in- w
​ hich is of Latin origin and along with the other
variations ​im-,​​il-,​​ir-,​it is used to express contradiction, as the following examples show:
incomplete ~ opposite of complete,
inconsistent ~ opposite of consistent, incorrect ~
opposite of correct, invulnerable ~ opposite of
vulnerable, insane ~ opposite of sane
inanimate ~ opposite of animate,
inflexible ~ opposite of flexible,
inhuman ~ opposite of human,
insecure ~ opposite of secure,

25
 intolerable ~ opposite of tolerable,
impolite ~ opposite of polite,
impossible ~ opposite of possible,
immature ~ opposite of mature,
improper ~ opposite of proper, immodest
~ opposite of modest, illogical ~ opposite of
logical, illegal ~ opposite of legal,
illiterate ~ opposite of literate,
irregular ~ opposite of regular,
irresponsible ~ opposite of responsible,
irrelevant ~ opposite of relevant,
irresistible ~ opposite of resistible ​( Horn, L.R.;1991).
All these show that it is either one or the other term; they all represent the contradictory
opposition, since the term on the left contradicts the one on the right. Another negative prefix used
in contradiction is ​dis-;​it is a negative prefix of Latin origin that means ‘not’:
disorder ~ opposite of order,
dishonest ~ opposite of honest, discontent
~ opposite of content, disobey ~ opposite of
obey, disagree ~ opposite of
agree, dissatisfied ~ opposite of
satisfied, disloyal ~ opposite of loyal,
dissimilar ~ opposite of similar.
But, some words are not about
negation, that is, in the case with improve we are not dealing with negation of prove. We mention it
here to draw attention to words which seem to be negative, when, as a matter of fact, the word does
not consist of a prefix and base, and has nothing to do with negation, but it is a simple lexeme
instead. For those cases when the negative prefix is really attached to the base of the word, and the
lexeme appears to be negative in form, but pragmatically speaking has a positive meaning.
A- i​s another Greek prefix used
for contradicting things, and it means ‘not’ or ‘without’. It is mostly found in scientific terminology,
especially with words in medical science. The examples are: amoral ~ without moral,

26
 achromatic ~ without form (chromatic:
with form), asymmetry ~ without symmetry (​B.
Strang;1970).
These words should be learned as having a base to which the prefix ​a- ​or its variation ​
ab-
has been prefixed, thus producing a word with negative semantics. It should be taken into account
that the prefix and the base have separate meanings, independent of each other. This prefix is easily
confusable with the native English prefix ​a-​, as in ​ago,​ ​asleep,​ ​aside​, but the latter does not have
anything to do with negation. The prefix ​a- ​is more than often only used with Greek and Latinate
stems, and the stems are often adjectives that describe the properties of certain objects (nouns). The
prefix ​
non- i​s less frequent than ​un- ​and it picks out the set of things that are not in the category
denoted by the stem to which it is attached. It occurs more freely with nouns than many of the other
prefixes do ( L.Bauer;1983).
Here are some examples:
non-essential ~ not essential,
non-existent ~ not existent,
non-standard ~ not standard,
non-violent ~ not violent,
non-native ~ not native, nongovernmental
~ not governmental, nonstandard ~ not standard,
nonsense ~ without sense,
These lexemes show contradictory opposition
because there are only two terms, and by negating the positive element, we come to its negative
counterpart, which is the only left of the two opposing poles. Therefore, the speaker is either ​
native
or not, there is no other choice and term in between.
The examples and the analysis will illustrate the scalarity of this type of opposition and its
manifestation in the language. Firstly, we can look at the interpretation and the explanation which
stem from the use of the example: ​dislike ~ it is not the case that something has been liked and now
the action is reversed, nor is it the case that we express contradictory opposition, because it is not
that we either like or dislike something, or that if we don’t like something, we hate it. It simply
negates the element on the other end of the scale, but there are other terms in between. Thus, we can
like, dislike something, or have neutral feelings and be reserved about it.

27
 With ​unhappy,​ it is not that the person can be either ​happy or unhappy;​ he/she can display
other feelings and be in a state between these two ends. ​Unhappy equals ​miserable ​or ​
sad,​ and a
person can be more or less happy. Contrary opposition is expressed with another Greek prefix ​
anti-,​
which does not merely mean ​‘not’​, but ‘against’, as shown in continuation. The explanation is that a
person can be for something, against something, but can also have neutral feelings and attitudes and
not take one stand specifically (B. Strang; 1970).
There is a crucial distinction among the formations with ​non-,​​anti-​, and ​un-​. If somebody is
nonreligious, then that person is not for religion or against religion, but simply has nothing to do
with religion, that is, he or she is neutral. That person is somewhere else on the scale, and because
of the scalarity here we talk about contradictory opposition, when the positive term is simply
negated. We can have a look at the following examples:
anti-Christian ~ ​someone who is against Christianity,​
anti-American ~ ​someone of any nationality who is against America,​
un-American ~ ​someone who behaves in a way that is not American​,
unchristian ~ ​someone who does not behave in a Christian manner,​
non-Christian ~ ​someone who is not Christian​,
non American ~ ​someone who belongs to a nationality which is not American. As
un- i​s a very productive negating prefix in English, it can actually attach to stems with a wider
range of meanings, and it is the most preferred one when new words are coined. Many words can
form negations with both ​non- a​nd ​un-​, which gives near synonymous pairs like nonreligious /
unreligious, nonproductive / unproductive, and so on. (Jespersen O.; 1917).
Negative prefixes show privative meaning when by adding the negative element to the base
we deprive the base of the thing expressed with the basic element. In other words, with the
negatively prefixed word we take the thing denoted with the assertive item. The reversal meaning is
usually conveyed with verbs when the word with the prefix means to perform an action by which
the action with the base word will be reversed, actually the newly derived – prefixed word denotes
an action after which the result will be condition or state before the action of the base word has been
performed. For example:
untie ~ opposite of tie, undo ~
opposite of do, unpack ~ opposite of

28
pack, unwrap ~ opposite of wrap,
unmask ~ opposite of mask
unzip ~ opposite of zip,
disconnect ~ opposite of connect, distrust ~
opposite of trust , discolour
~ opposite of colour, defrost ~ opposite of
frost, deregulation ~ opposite of
regulation, deform ~ opposite of form,
denationalise ~ opposite of nationalise
decentralise ~ opposite of centralize,
deregulate ~ opposite of regulate ​(Horn, L.R.;1991).
In all these cases, regardless of the negative prefix, the meaning of the prefixed word is to
perform a reversed action, which means that the action denoted by the assertive form has already
been performed, and with the newly derived lexeme we do the opposite action, now cancelling the
result of the previously done activity. In other words, we untie something that has already been ​
tied,​
something has been ​done​, and we reverse it – undo it, etc. There is difference in the semantics
between the ​un- ​and ​dis- o​r ​mis- f​ormations. For instance:
able ​~ unable (​not able)​ ~ disabled (​not being physically able, that is, being an invalid​),
armed ​~ unarmed – (​not carrying a weapon)​ ~ disarmed (​having had one's weapon(s) taken away ​),
infected ~
uninfected (​not having an infection)​ ~ disinfected (​having removed possible sources of infection)​,
used ~
​
disused (​not used)​ ~ misused (​wrongly used, used in a bad way​), qualified ~
unqualified (​not having the proper qualities or qualifications​) ~ disqualified (​having been removed
fromconsideration)​.
On the other hand, there are examples where the negative prefix shows a different kind of
negation. For example, in antinovel, ​anti- s​till negates but the focus of the negation is shifted to the
properties of a (an ordinary) novel, so it is not a novel when the term ‘novel’ is restricted to what is
traditionally viewed as novel-like. Thus, antinovel is a novel that lacks its typical features.
Similarly, anti-hero is a hero that does not have the genuine characteristics of such a character. The
native prefix ​un- ​can be used with participles and even participle phrases that are not common. The

29
prefixes ​dis-,​ ​in-​, and ​non- a​re Latinate in origin. Similarly, words that go along with ​dis- ​and ​
in-
are mostly from Latin/French. They include words like dishonest, discourteous, dissimilar,
inaccessible, inaccurate, insignificant, etc.. (Horn, L.R.;1991).
The object of the study concerns on the usage of words with negative prefixes by the
Armenian native writers in writing articles, textbooks, and novels. The negative prefix -ան - is also
included as the object of the study. This study analyzes the distribution of the words taken from the
usage by the Armenian native writers. This distribution is not analyzed into the etymology of the
words. The concern of the study is mainly on the word formation, function of the prefixes, and the
meaning of the prefixes in a word.
In Armenian the following negative/privative prefixes are used: ​- ան-; դժ-; -չ-; - տ​- and -
ապ-​The given prefixes do however not exhibit equal productivity.
a. ​ան- is the most productive negative prefix. It freely combines with nouns, adjectives and
verbal roots.
ան-​+ noun; forms adjectives with the meaning “lacking of, free of ”, for example:
Տուն“house” >անտուն “homeless”,
Խիղճ“conscience” >անխիղճ “ruthless”
Ամոթ“shame” >անամոթ “shameless”,
ա
​ ն​
-+ adjective; forms an antonym of the adjective, e.g. առողջ “healthy” >անառողջ
“unhealthy”, բնական “natural” >անբնական “unnatural”, կիրթ “educated” >անկիրթ
“uneducated”,
ա
​ ն​
- + verbal roots; forms adjectives with negative a meaning, e.g. շարժել “move”
>անշարժ “motionless, immovable”, համբերել “to bear, to be patient” >անհամբեր “impatient”,
համեմատել “to compare” >անհամեմատ “incomparable,matchless”
b​.-ապ​
- combines with nouns, adjectives and verbs, with which it forms
antonymousmeaning.
ապ- + noun, forms negative adjectives or nouns, e.g. շնորհ “grace” >ապաշնորհ
“maladroit”, երախտ “gratitude” >ապերախտ“ingrate”, ուշ “mind” ապուշ “idiot; silly”,
ապ- + adjective, forms antonyms of adjectives, e.g., երջանիկ “happy” >ապերջանիկ
“unhappy”,
ապ​​+ verb, forms antonyms of verbs, privative verbs and verbs with reversative meaning, e.g.,
զինել “to arm” > ​ապազինել “to disarm”, ​կոդավորել​ “to encode” > ​ապակոդավորել​ “to

30
decode, todecipher”,
դժ​​is not very productive and in many cases is highly lexicalised. It combines withadjectives and
nouns, denoting antonymous meaning. դ
​ ժ​​ +
noun, forms adjectives with the meaning “lacking of, free of ”, sometimesalso real antonyms: գ
​ ույն​
“colour” >​​դժգույն​ “colourless, pale”,​​բախտ​ “fortune” >​​դժբախտ​ “​unfortunate, unlucky”,
​դժ​ + adjective, forms
adjectives with antonymous meaning: ​գոհ “content, satisfied” > ​դժգոհ​ “dissatisfied,
discontented”
d. չ​ - exhibits a very limited use and productivity with nouns and adjectives. Most adjectives
with prefix - ​չ - are lexicalised, e.g. ​բեր ​“harvest, yield, fruit” > ​չբեր “sterile”, ​
կամ
“will,wish” > ​չկ
​ ամ​ “malicious, vicious”. With verbs, however, -​
չ​- č’- is highly productive in
conjugation to negate verbs in the infinitive, subjunctive, aorist and auxiliaries in compound tenses
and moods, as well as copular verbs in the present and imperfect tenses. It is also used to negate
participles in compound tenses or in attributive or adverbial use. Thus, with verbs it also has an
important syntactic function.
E.g.· ​գրել “to write” (infinitive) > ​չգրել “not to write” ​գրեցի​ “I wrote” ​չգրեցի “I did
not write”, ​կգրեմ​“I shall write” (Subj.Fut.1.Sg.) > ​չգրեմ “I shall not write”, ·​Գրում  եմ “I am
writing” , ​գրած ​“written” (Part.Res.) >​չգրած “not written”, e.g. ​իմ գրած նամակը​ “​the letter I
have written” >​իմ չգրած նամակը​ “the letterI have not written”, etc.
տ​- is nowadays unproductive. It combines with nouns, adjectives and verbal roots. - ​տ​-
nouns, forms adjectives with antonymous meaning: ​ձև​ “shape” >​տձև​ “shapeless, formless”
տ​- + adjectives, forms adjectives with antonymous meaning: գ
​ եղեցիկ “beautiful” >
տգեղ​ “ugly”, ​հաճելի​ “pleasant” >​տհաճ​ “unpleasant”.
Prefixes of orientation and attitude
​բաղ​​- “co-, together” combines with nouns, adjectives and often with verbal roots,
e.g ​բաղաձայն​ “consonant” <​ձայն​ “voice, sound”,
բաղադրություն​ “composition” <​​դրություն​ “place, position, situation”,
բաղդատել​ “to compare” < ​դատել​ “to judge” etc.
ընդ​ - “against, opposite; for-”, ​ընդմիշտ​“forever”,
ընդհանուր​“general” -​​հակ​ - “contra-, anti-”, հակասել
“to contradict”, հակազդել​

31
“tocounteract” <​​ազդել​ “to affect, to influence”, հակամարմին​ “antibody”,
հակադիր​ “opposite” etc.
հեղ- “contra-, contrary, inverse”, e.g
հեղախափոխություն​ “revolution”<​փ
​ ոխել​ “to change, to alter” etc.
դեմ​​ ​դիմ - “against” as in
դիմադրություն​ “resistance,opposition”, ​դիմամարտ​ “opponent, enemy.
տար - “different (from);
foreign; extra-”, տ
​ արադրամ​ “foreigncurrency”, ​տարատեսակ​ “various; variety, version”;
տարօրինակ “strange, extravagant”, ​տարամիտել​ “to diverge” <​միտել  ​to lean, to incline, to
bias”​ etc.
տրամ -​ “other, part of, partly, ​տրամադրություն  ​“mood, temper, ​տրամաբանական 
“logical” ​բանական​ “rational, logical​” etc.
փոխ - “trans-; reverse, back; inter-; vice-” as in փ
​ ոխարկում “conversion”,
փոխնախագահ “vice-president”, ​փոխադարձ​ “mutual, reciprocal”, ​փոխազդել “to interact”
etc. (Abrahamyan;1974).
Fauconnier says that people need not have extremely abstract representations of sentences in
their heads, but they do need quite sophisticated and relatively abstract processes to interpret
sentences in particular contexts. This also applies to the interpretation of negative terms: not always
the negative prefix simply negates the base, and not always does the negative form of the word
imply opposite meaning. (Fauconnier G.;1978).
We saw that the negative prefix can be an exponent of two types of opposition, and it is
logic that has to be employed in analysing the meaning and determining the type of opposition, not
the prefix itself. The rational reasoning will help the participants in the conversation decide whether
the negative element expresses contradictory or contrary opposition, and if the negative verbs
display privative or reversal meaning. On the other hand, not always does the negative word denote
an opposite of the positive, but it can show something both similar and dissimilar at the same time,
as were the following examples: anti-novel, contrary to a novel but being a novel at the same time,
and anti-hero, contrary to hero, but with not enough heroic attributes.

32
2.2.Some Ways of Translation of Negative Prefixes
English is abundant in prefixes of negation or opposition, such as ​in-, ir-, il-, in-, de-, contra-, dis-
and others. Although Armenian is a highly inflectional language, which can also encode complex
concepts with help of the prefixes, suffixes and inflections, the repertoire of prefixes for a negative
aspect of meaning is not poor. Armenian grammarians
mention four most frequent prefixes: ա
​ ն- անտուն (homeless), դժ​
- ​դժգույն (colorless), ​չ-
չախորժելի (unpleased)​,տ- տգետ (ignorant) etc. I​t implies that Armenian might lack direct
equivalents for this variety of negation in English, signaling possible morphological gaps with
regards to the English language. ​(Abrahamyan;1974) At first glance,
early bilingual dictionaries may seem inappropriate for a proper analysis of words with negative
prefixation, because they do not contain entries for ​un- words. However, the type of words under
investigation can often be found in the translation of Latin or Latin-derived languages into English.
Bilingual dictionaries made extensive use of both ​in​- and ​un​- words for translating words with the
negative prefix ​in- into English. An examination of the definitions of all entries under the letter I
provides a substantial list of words with the negative prefixes ​in-​or ​un-​. The figures show that
16th-century lexicographers used a higher percentage of ​un- words than 17th-century
lexicographers in the translation of Latinate ​in- words. It is also possible to see the growing number
of ​
in- words in the bilingual dictionaries, while ​un- words slowly decreased. This may have been
caused by the conscious efforts of the earlier lexicographers to translate as many elements of the
source language as possible into the target language. (Johnson,1755). They tend to provide a
large number of entries for ​in- words, and only a limited number of ​un- words, with the exception of
two particular doublets: ​in-/unaccessible​and ​in-/unsatiable.​Although one can already study
translations of frequent words, it is hard to perform a reliable ​research on rare words. Lexical gaps,
unfortunately, usually represent rare words. This is related to ​the nature of the phenomenon – rare
concepts are not salient enough to be lexicalised by a large ​number of language users. Nevertheless,
all translations of English words starting with negative ​prefixes were analysed by different
grammarians. Some instances of translation were striking because they showed different translation
equivalents from those provided in the bilingual dictionary. They also strongly supported ​
the idea
that dictionary translations have to be based on corpus data, especially in case of problematic
instances – and lexical gaps are indeed problematic.​(Swift, 1712)

33
 Data analysis has shown that there is a system in the
way negative English prefixes are translated​​into Armenian:
1. Some English words with a negative prefix have
direct equivalents: ​disappear – ​անհետանալ​; dislike – ​ատել​; disparage – ​նսեմացնել​,
թերագնահատել​; degeneration – այլասերում, ​դեգեներացիա​. I​t is interesting to note that the
Armenian equivalents express the same concepts without a formal negative feature in a word: they
denote a negative aspect without specific negative prefixes.
2. Some English negation prefixes are easily transformed into
the Armenian prefix ​ան​-​, for​​example,​​unfair - անարդար​
; disorder – ​անկարգություն​ etc.
3. Negative prefixes in international words are transformed
into Armenian international words ​with their respective counterparts. In other words, these are the
examples of borrowing: ​disbalance ​– ​դիսբալանս​; antibiotic – ​հակաբիոտիկ​; degeneration -
դեգեներացիա​. 4. Prefix ​anti- istranslated into Armenian by the prefix հ
​ ակա​-:
antimissile – ​հակա​- ​հրթիռային​; antiwar –​հակապատերազմային​; antibiotic –
հակաբիոտիկ​. 5. Many English words with negative prefixes are
explained through a number of synonyms, for ​example, ​immoderate – ​անզուսպ​, ​անչափավոր​,
անխոհեմ​. ​(Ēloyan; 1979) Needless to say, a dictionary user will be at a loss facing the
multitude of equivalents for each ​word. We get into a kind of “a vicious circle” with groups of
synonyms, where words explain or ​illustrate one another, as if they were equivalent (Usonienë
2006:99). Such synonymic explanation ​represents two sides of the problem. First, the proposed
translations are not equal. Although they ​do share common meaning components, they are not
absolute synonyms to be used in identical​​contexts.
Second, it is not at all clear which (if any) translation equivalent
presented without any ​usage context is closest to the original. Therefore we can claim that such
meaning rendering in​​bilingual dictionaries is not effective.
6. Most English words with negative prefixes are simply glossed by free
word combinations: ​misadvise – ​վատ ​խորհուրդ ​տալ​; miscast – ​սխալ ​դերաբաժանում​;
antipollution – ​շրջակա​ ​միջավայրը​ ​պաշտպանել​ ​աղտոտումից​.
Meaning explanations like above are often difficult to use in real language
situations or ​translation. Their incorporation into a sentence by a machine translation system would
produce ​awkward and unnatural structure, thus transformations in cases like these are inevitable.

34
The provided context helps to disambiguate the equivalent that as an individual word would ​
not be
clear. However, such layout of lexicographic data implies that translation units should be ​
expanded,
providing most common phrases the word appears in as well as its possible contexts. In ​
other
words, dictionary entries should be based on corpus material, preferably parallel corpora. 7.
The translation of negative prefixes can be seen by analyzing some English proverbs containing
words with negative prefixation and their Armenian equivalents. In both English and Armenian
translations we can find negative prefixes, but sometimes there are cases, in which the Armenian
equivalent hasn’t negative prefixes. It expresses its negation by the use of words with negative
meaning or by phrases and word combinations. Let’s analyse some of them:
E.g. ​What was ​done c​annot be ​undone.
Եղածը ​չես​ փոխի: A 
known​ devil is better than u
​ nknown​ angel.
Ծանոթ​ սատանան ա
​ նծանոթ​ հրեշտակից լավ է: Unhappy
he who has no one. Դժբախտը ն
​ա
է, ով ոչ ոք չունի: Truth is always
homeless. Ճշմարտությունն ա
​ նտուն է կամ
ճշմարտությունը տ
​ ուն չունի: Those who die through ​ignorance are many;
those who die because they are ​intelligent​are few.
Տգիտության պատճառով մահացողները շատ են,
խելացիության​պատճառով` քիչ;
Ignorance​is blindness.
Տգիտությունը​կուրություն է:
Faith and ​dishonesty​are other words for ​uselessness.​
Հավատքն ​ու ​անազնվությունը ​միասին` ​հավասար ​են ​անօգտակարության​: (​Jahukyan,
1995)

The problems of dictionary translations (when the meaning is explained by descriptive

translation, ​circular synonymic groups or no translation is provided) would be reduced if corpus
data were ​included in dictionary entries. It is natural that all the contextual information from the
corpus ​
cannot fit into a paper dictionary, however, makers of electronic dictionaries and translators
themselves could consult this invaluable lexical resource. Moreover, longer stretches of text, i.e.,

35
extended units of translation should be considered. It is clear that unknown or unclear ​concepts tend
to be translated by multiword expressions.
The concept of negation in translation is crucial and has a central place in communicative
systems, logical presentation and natural languages. As a category, it is present in every part of our
living and is a basis of our life, which is a circle of existence and nonexistence. Negation and
polarity are connected; in principle, opposed terms must be equal in their opposition: that is, one
term cannot be more opposite than another. But, in natural languages, opposites are never equal. As
Horn (1991) says, there is never consistent balance between affirmative and negative expression,
which ensures that denying a negative is never quite the same as asserting the positive. It is also
worth mentioning that not every negative sentence has a direct affirmative counterpart, as not every
affirmative has a simple negation. The universality of this notion enables us to discuss the different
types of negation in a language. Sentential negation negates the action and thus the whole sentence,
clausal – negates a part of a sentence, that is a clause, while word negation negates a word, actually
a person, place, thing, or concept denoted by it. The subject matter of this paper is to discuss lexical
negation, which means negation at lexical or word level through the process of derivation.
Specifically, derivation here consists of adding negative morphemes to the word so that a new
lexeme is being derived. This addition happens when negative morphemes, actually prefixes, are
used before the actual word which is being negated, and, in that way, the new negative lexeme is
produced.
As far as English is concerned, this word formation, derivational and thus lexicological
phenomenon is manifested by the use of the prefixes: ​a-, anti-, counter-, de-, dis-, non-, in-, im-, il-,
ir-, un-, whereas in Armenian, the paper shows how the prefixes: ​(​ան​–/​ա​–, ​տ​–, ​դժ​–, ​ապ​–) ​change
the meaning of the base and illustrates what the newly derived word means. The investigation of the
semantic implications that negative prefixes encode in the words starts with several facts that have
been concluded in the linguistic literature consulted for the purpose of this research. These show
that there are two types of opposition: contradictory and contrary. Contradiction is a purely binary
opposition, that is, a relation between two semantic values which between them exhaust the
possibilities in a given domain. In contradiction, one term must be true and the other false, since
those two are the only elements present. Therefore, one cannot understand what a sentence means
unless one understands what it would mean to contradict that same sentence. On the other hand,
contrary opposition is a relation among many terms on the scale, and it is not the case that if one

36
entity is negated, it is a negative counterpart of the term on the other end, because there are not only
two terms, but several which exhibit the scalar character of this kind of opposition. Consequently, in
contrariety only one term can be true, although both can be false (Israel, 2004, p. 701-702).
The distinction can be illustrated by the following example:
Mary is a smoker. ~ Mary is a non-smoker.
Մերին ծխող է: - Մերին ծխող չէ:  It
is contradiction that is in question here, simply because we are dealing with two features on the
scale: smoker and nonsmoker, and only one of them is true: Mary either smokes or doesn’t smoke,
there is no other option. The second kind of opposition can be exemplified by the following pair of
sentences: Mary is
happy. ~ Mary is unhappy. Մերին 
երջանիկ է: - Մերին ապերջանիկ/դժբախտ է: This is an explicit
kind of contrariety, simply because of the fact that if Mary is not happy, it doesn’t necessarily mean
that she is unhappy. Instead, she can have a characteristic which is somewhere else on the scale but
not to be characterized by any of these two extremes. In other words, she can be neither happy, nor
unhappy but somewhere in between, that is, negation of happy does not bring us to the term
unhappy, because her state can be other than the one described by these two adjectives.
Furthermore, if we take the cases with attractive and not unattractive, we can see that they do not
express the same meaning. Attractive inclines towards the positive end of the scale that has ugliness
at the negative end but beauty at the positive end, with a range of indeterminate looks in the middle.
The ​
un​- moves the adjective towards the lower end of the scale. We can consider the following
sentences: That book is available.
That book is not available. That book is unavailable. Այդ  գիրքը  հասանելի 
է: Այդ գիրքը հասանելի չէ: Այդ գիրքը անհասանելի է: The last two examples are
equivalent of each other and they are both negation of the first sentence. Simply, to be not available
is the same with unavailable. But the following sentences refer to different situations:
Such behaviour is common. Such
behaviour is not common. Such behaviour is uncommon. Նման  պահվածքը  բնական է: Նման 
պահվածքը բնական չէ: Նման պահվածքը անբնական է:
Namely, the second sentence contradicts the
positive, but the third doesn’t, because the behaviour can be either common or not common. While

37
the third – uncommon is contrary to the first, it is somewhere on the scale, but not at the opposing
poles. Therefore, it is possible to say: ​Such behaviour is not common​, but it is ​not uncommon either.
The reasoning behind this is that ​not common covers a far larger area of the scale than ​
uncommon,​
and therefore, ​not common and ​uncommon are not the same. This difference is better shown with
the intensifier very: Such behaviour is not very common. Such behaviour is very
uncommon. Նման  պահվածքը  այդքան  էլ  բնական  չէ:  Նմն  պավածքը  շատ 
աննաան է: Very s​hows a narrower area of the scale than common does, and similarly ​
very
uncommon s​hows a narrower area than ​uncommon, while the in-between area is greater and thus the
difference in meaning is more obvious (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002, p. 821-822). According to the
research done until now, it has to be made clear that the negative prefix ​un-, the most common and
most productive of all negative prefixes attached to English words, has three meanings and
interpretations. The first meaning of ​un- is strictly negative indicating ‘absence or lack of
something’, which means that by putting this prefix before the base, we come to an entity that lacks
the property contained in the base. Such a negative is ​unable ​as opposed to ​able,​when the negated
word means ‘absence or lack of ability’.
The second meaning of this prefix is privative, which implies that by adding the prefix we
remove the entity denoted by the base word. For example, ​unmask​means ‘to remove the mask’.
The third meaning that is established is reversal, that is, the negative word denotes an activity, since
it is most productive with verbs, which will bring the entity to the state it had been before the action
was performed. Reversal undoubtedly involves opposition, because ​unbutton means to perform an
opposite action of the one that has already been performed. Thus, something must have been
buttoned before in order to be unbuttoned later. (Marchand, 1960) The most
common and most productive of all negative prefixes attached to Armenian is the prefix ա
​ ն-
which has three meanings. The first
meaning of ​ան​- ​is that by adding it to nouns, it gives to the adjectives negative possessive
meanings, i.e. shows the absence of something as for example ա
​ նգույն ​means colorless, which has
no color, or  ա
​ նդեմ,  անլեզու,  անյույս,  անմարմին,  անպատասխան,  անվախ,  անշաղկապ, 
անդասակարգ​ and s​ o on. The
second meaning is that by adding to the adjectives this prefixes denies their significations and
meanings, which is equal to the word ​no. E.g. ​անազնիվ​- ​ոչ ​ազնիվ​, ​անարդար​, ​
անխառն​,
անխարդախ​, ​անկեղծ​, ​անհարմար,​ ​անմաքուր​, ​անպատշաճ​, ​անվստահ​,

38
անբարեխիղճ​,​անկարգապահ​, ​անպատասխանատու ​and so on. The third
meaning of the prefix ​ան- is by adding to the verbs it makes adjectives with the meaning of
negative adverbs for example ա
​ նշարժ-չշարժվող, անվարժ-չվարժված, անզգա-չզգացող.
(Jahukyan, 1991) In
this paper, attention is also paid to words that are negative in form, and convey semantically
negative, but pragmatically positive meaning. All these characteristics of negative prefixes shall be
explored in ​Armenian words too, and they will be used for analysis to the extent to which the
morpho-semantic system of the language allows this kind of research. The morphological part lies
in the analysis of the structure of the newly produced word, actually stating what the base is to
which a certain negative prefix is attached. The semantic aspect of the method explains the meaning
of the negatively prefixed word, that is, what type of meaning is implied with the negative prefix.

Of course, fluent speakers have no problem in using the right prefix for the right word, since
the negative adjectives are learned word by word, and so the mistakes are avoided. The native
prefix un- can be used with participles and even participle phrases that are not common. It is
thought that since the period around the Renaissance, many words of Latin, French or Greek origins
have formed their negative forms with ​un-, giving adjectives like ​unconscious, unconditional,
unfortunate, unsympathetic,​ and so forth. This also explains those pairs which use different prefixes
in the nominal and the adjectival counterparts, like ​inability / unable, inequality / unequal, injustice
/ unjust, and instability / unstable.​ The prefixes ​dis-, in-, and ​non- are Latinate in origin. Similarly,
words that go along with ​dis-​ and ​in- are mostly from Latin/French. They include words like
dishonest, discourteous, dissimilar, inaccessible, inaccurate, insignificant,​etc. ( Horn, 1991)
Negative prefixes in Armenian have the same kinds of opposition, as in English, can be
distinguished: contradictory and contrary, with the privative or reversal meaning recognized in
some of the negative prefixes.
In modern Armenian grammatology there are different and sometimes conflicting views
about the nature and origin of the prefixes of the Armenian language. Traditionally dominated view
is that prefixes are not typical for the Armenian language, and existing prefixes with minor
exceptions are artificially imported into the language and relate to its writing period, particularly
created by Hellenizing school. This opinion was first expressed by H. Acharyan. His opinion was
repeated almost uncritically or driven to extremes by S. Kazaryan, G. Sevak, S. Eloyan, A.

39
Sukiasyan, H. Petrosyan, A. Muradyan, L. Hovsepyan, partly by A. Muradyan, A. Margaryan. This
problem had been diametrically opposed and given a correct approach by M. Abegyan, G.
Jahukyan, H. Muradyan. Accordyng to the second point of view the majority of the prefixes in
Armenian language is a heritage of its archaic and ancient periods of development. We can ascribe
the following facts to Hellenizing school: standardization of most Armenian prefixes, specification
of their meanings, matching of their certain usage to synonym and paronym prefixes of Greek,
expanding the use of these meanings, as well as an attempt to create some new prefixes
(​բաղ​
–/​փաղ–, դեր–, մակ–, տրամ–, and perhaps պար–/փար​–), which was efficient just partly.
This point of view was proved by data of H. Acharyan’s “Root dictionary of the Armenian
language”. Contradictory opposition in this indo-european language is mostly expressed with
the prefix ա
​ ն​- as 
​
անարդար​,​​անխառն​,​​անխարդախ​,​​անկեղծ​,​​անհարմար​,​​անմաքուր​,​​անպատշաճ​.
The explanation is the same as that given for English: this opposition includes only two terms which
are at the end poles, and by negating one, we oppose it, and approach the other term, simply
because there are no other elements in between. Here are some examples of this kind:
հմուտ ​(skillful) ~ opposite of ​անհմուտ (​ unskilled),
անարդար ​(unfair) ~ opposite of ​արդար ​(f​air​) անընդունակ
(incapable) ~ opposite of ​ընդունակ​ (capable) անխարդախ  ​(ingenious) ~
opposite of ​խարդախ ​(genious) անբերրի (infertile) ~ opposite
բերրի ​(fertile)
of ​ անհամապատասխան
(untrue) ~ opposite of ​համապատասխան​ (true) անհավատարիմ  ​(unfaithful) ~ opposite of
հավատարիմ​ (faithful) անհարմար (uncomfortable) ~ ​հարմար 
(comfortable) .​ (S
​ ukiasyan, 1995) The person is either հ
​ մուտ  ​(skillful) or
անհմուտ  ​(unskilled)​, no other possibility is left. Therefore, these examples are listed as contrary
opposites. The prefix ​ապ​
- is also used for contradiction,
as in English ​un-​and ​in-​: Negative prefix ​ապ​
- is a Persian loan prefix. The
testimonies of Golden age are , ​ապուշ (idiot), ապաշնորհ (ignorant), ապիկար (incompetent),
ապերախտ (ungrateful​) and so on. The adjusted Greek prefix ​apo- can be found in some
Armenian words as ապասութիւն, ա
​ պուսութիւն, ապերևութիւն and others. In Armenian there
are more than 200 words with negative prefix ​ապ-,​ the part of which was created in ancient times
as for example: ա
​ պաբան, ապագով, ապազեն, ապագործ, ապաժամ, ապաթույն,

40
ապաձայն, ապանշան, ապաջան, ապաշնորհ, ապաշուք, ապերասան, ապերախտ,
ապիկար, ապուշ​and so on. (​Acharyan, 1982)
Another part of words was created later, during the development of
the Western Armenian language. It is interesting that the translation of words with negative prefix
ապ- into English is done by using different negative prefixes such as: ​un-, de-, a-, mis- etc.
Sometimes they are translate by phrases or word combinations. For example:
ապարդյուն - useless,
ապաբախտ – unblessed, unhappy ,
ապանեխում - the process of not decaying,
ապադասակարգային - declassified ,
ապապետականացում - denationalization,
ապառազմականացնել - demilitarize,
ապաքաղաքական - apolitical,
ապաքողարկել - unmask, ապակողմնորոշում -
misled,, ապակենտրոն - decentralized,
ապերջանիկ - unhappy,
ապօրինի - illegal. (M
​ uradyan, 1989)
It can be seen from here that prefix ​ապ​
- was basically added
to the radical of noun by creating the negative meaning of adjectives, as:
ապահարկ-հարկ չտւող,
ապերասան-սանձ չունեցող, անցանձ,
ապաշուք-անշուք,
ապաջան-անջան, ի զուր ջանացող
Nowdays prefix ​ապ-​can be added to the adjectives too, by negating its meaning as for example:
երջանիկ-ապերջանիկ,
քաղաքական-ապաքաղաքական,
դասակարգային-ապադասակարգային,
ռազմական-ապառազմական,
շարային-ապաշարային:
The prefixes ​դժ-/տժ- were derived from the Persian language and they are generally used in
several words borrowed from Persian language as:

41
դժբախտ-անբախտ, բախտ չունեցող,
դժգոհ-անգոհ, ոչ գոհ,
դժգույն-անգոյն,
դժկամ-տհաճող, չուզող,
դժպարիշտ-անբարիշտ, բայց նաև՝
դժմիտ-չարամիտ, անհավան,
դժպատեհ-անպատեհ:
The prefix չ- came from the word ոչ by dropping the vowel ո. As a formative affix, it was very
practical in eastern Armenian where it was making new adjectives and nouns by adding to the
radical of verbs, nouns and adjectives. For example:​​չլուր, չտես, չփոյթ, չգոյ:
E.g. ​չազգ- ոչ ազգ, անպիտան ազգ,
չաստուած- ոչ աստուած, սուտ աստուած,
չերեց- ոչ երեց, իր կոչմանն անարժան երեց,
չախորժելի- անախորժ,
չանցաւոր- ոչ անցաւոր, մնայուն,
չգիտուն- անգէտ, տգէտ,
չհաւանական- անհաւանական: It
is very important to differ between prefix չ- from the grammatical particle չ- which is used with
verbs to express the negation of an action as: ​՝ ​գրել-չգրել, չգրած, չգրող, չգրեց, չգրի. The next
prefix in Armenian language is տ- which was derived from prefix չ- because of the change of the
sounds in some words e.g. ​տգէտ-չգէտ. It is obvious in words borrowed from eastern Armenian as
տգէտ, տխեղծ, տկար, տհալ, տհաճ, տհաս, տքնել, տմահանալ. In these words the meaning
of prefix տ- is equal to the particle ոչ. According to academician Jahukian ​տ​- is a particle which
has an indo-european origin. (Jahukyan, 1995)
Fauconnier (1978, p. 49) says that people need not have extremely abstract representations of
sentences in their heads, but they do need quite sophisticated and relatively abstract processes to
interpret sentences in particular contexts. This also applies to the interpretation of negative terms:
not always the negative prefix simply negates the base, and not always does the negative form of
the word imply opposite meaning. We saw that the negative prefix can be an exponent of two types
of opposition, and it is logic that has to be employed in analysing the meaning and determining the
type of opposition, not the prefix itself. The rational reasoning will help the participants in the

42
conversation decide whether the negative element expresses contradictory or contrary opposition,
and if the negative verbs display privative or reversal meaning. On the other hand, not always does
the negative word denote an opposite of the positive, but it can show something both similar and
dissimilar at the same time, as were the following examples: anti-novel, contrary to a novel but
being a novel at the same time, and anti-hero, contrary to hero, but with not enough heroic
attributes.
Moreover, there are instances when different prefixes attach to the same base giving
different meanings. For example, non-human means only ‘not human’, while inhuman means
‘cruel, brutal’. Amoral means ‘without moral principles’, while immoral means ‘morally wrong’.
Non-American means ‘not a typical American’, and un-American means ‘someone who behaves in
a way that is not American, not necessarily being hostile to America’. An effort has been made to
distinguish between privative and reversal meaning of the prefixes, the first being used for
removing the thing denoted by the base, while the second for doing an action that will be reversed
to the one expressed without the prefix, i.e., the base. For example: unlock ~ remove the lock
unbutton ~ reversed of button. But, unfortunately, a difference of this kind cannot be made because
the privative and reversal prefixes are connected: unharness can mean ‘remove the harness’ or ‘do
the opposite of harnessing’. We can find this similarity and overlapping in almost all examples. For
example, disambiguate can mean remove the ambiguity and make something clear, but by doing
this we also perform the opposite action. Therefore, this prefix can be treated as both privative and
reversal.

43