Fettered-tions and -isms

Edited By Abdul Karim Bangura

Included in this preview:

• Copyright Page• Table of Contents• Excerpt of Chapter 1

For additional information on adopting this book for your class, please contact us at 800.200.3908 x501 or via e-mail at info@cognella.com

FETTERED -TIONS AND -ISMS

EDITED BY ABDUL KARIM BANGURA

Copyright © 2011 Abdul Karim Bangura. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfi lming, and recording, or in any information retrieval system without the written permission of University Readers, Inc.

First published in the United States of America in 2011 by Cognella, a division of University Readers, Inc.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trade-marks, and are used only for identifi cation and explanation without intent to infringe.

15 14 13 12 11 1 2 3 4 5

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN: 978-1-60927-834-2

Dedicated to Global Peace!

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments vii

Chapter 1: General IntroductionAbdul Karim Bangura

Chapter 2: AssassinationMark Bryan

Chapter 3: BalkanizationVassia Gueorguieva

Chapter 4: Colonization and Neo-ColonizationSahardid Kassim

Chapter 5: GlobalizationBrad David

Chapter 6: MilitarizationT. Ravi

Chapter 7: NationalizationTomoko Otsuka

Chapter 8: WesternizationSimran Sodhi

Chapter 9: Liberalism and Neo-LiberalismChris Henson

Chapter 10: CommunismJennifer Ramsey

Chapter 11: AnarchismAndrew Willis 163

Bibliography 179

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We, and hopefully many readers, owe gratitude to the numerous families to which we belong, for off ering their encouragement.

CHAPTER 1

GENERAL INTRODUCTIONAbdul Karim Bangura

INTRODUCTION

T his book is about fettered -tions and -isms. Th ese linguistic units are defi ned here as phenomena that have been perceived by people to hamper development and, consequently, peaceful human relations. What appears here is an amalgamation

of two book projects: (1) Fettered -tions and (2) Daunting -isms. After three years of waiting for some of the authors who had committed themselves to the second book, but failing to submit their chapters, a decision was made to combine the two projects into one book since their objectives were quite similar.

In the summers of 2003 and 2004, groups of scholars in the School of International Service at American University in Washington, DC decided to work on the second volume of what is emerging as a series of books dealing with various issues in the area of language and peace. Th is volume, Fettered -tions and -isms, is the result of that decision. What appear here are thoroughly revised versions of selected papers submitted for the book.

Grammarians generally defi ne a suffi x, such as -tion or ism, as an affi x or a derivational or an infl ectional bound morpheme that is attached at the end of bases or stems and that changes the meanings or syntactic functions of the words to which it is attached—e.g., production. Over the years, many phenomena in the world, some of which are examined in this book, have been labeled with the -tion or -ism suffi x. Th e other types of affi xes are called (a) prefi x—that which is attached to the front of its stem, e.g., disappear, replay, illegal, inaccurate; (b) infi x—that which occurs within another morpheme, e.g., expletives such as guaran-damn-tee, abso-bloody-lutely; and (c) reduplicative—that which duplicates all or part of the stem, e.g., putt-putt, chop-chop, so-so, bon-bon, boo-boo (for more on these, see O’Grady et al. 1989:95–96).

2 | Fettered -tions and -isms

In particular, according to Stuart Robertson and Frederic Cassidy, -ism is a suffi x that English borrowed through French and Latin from Greek. Th e very mention of it, with its suggestion of the prevalence of “isms” is perhaps enough to indicate how English affi xes have often yielded ground to borrowed ones (1954:197). From a phonological perspective, -isms, because of their linguistic origin, when they are added to words show a shift of stress. In contrast, when a prefi x or suffi x of Old English origin is added to a word, it has no eff ect on the position or stress.

Affi xes can have varying eff ects when they are added to roots (Langacker 1967:74, Pyles & Algeo 1982:5). For example, when s is added to giraff e to form giraff es, the eff ect is to further specify giraff e with respect to the number of those animals. Both giraff e and giraff es are nouns; adding the plural morpheme s does not change the grammatical class of the word. Similarly, suffi xing the past tense morpheme of the verb knock yields another verb, knocked. However, swift and swiftly belong to diff erent grammatical classes; swift is an adjective, but swiftly is an adverb. Th ere are still other affi xes that relate to other grammatical classes.

Th us, linguists often distinguish between infl ectional and derivational affi xes (e.g., Langacker 1967:74, Pyles & Algeo 1982:5). Giraff e and giraff es, intuitively, are alternate forms of the same entity, as are swift and swiftly. Th e endings added to giraff e and knock are infl ectional affi xes. English nouns like giraff e can be infl ected for number. Knocked contains an infl ectional ending to indicate past tense.

However, the relation between swift and swiftly is of a diff erent kind. When ly is added to swift, it does not serve to mark agreement with some other element of the sentence or to qualify the root with respect to number, tense, or any other comparable entity. It does not simply yield another version of the same entity; instead, it derives from it an entity that is quite distinct. Th erefore, ly is considered a derivational affi x. In addition, derivational affi xes do not always aff ect a change in grammatical class (Langacker 1967:75, Pyles & Algeo 1982:5–6). For instance, the derivational prefi x re relates construct and reconstruct, yet both are verbs. Also, compare make/remake, happy/unhappy, and plausible/implausible.

Consequently, as Langacker observes, “the lexicon of a language is its inventory of morphemes, together with information about how these morphemes can be combined to form more complex lexical items, such as words” (1967:76). In certain cases, the combina-tion of morphemes into complex units is a regular exercise. For example, the past tense can be added to most English verbs. Th erefore, we have hack/hacked, mince/minced, blow/blew, catch/caught, will/would, is/was, light/lit, praise/praised, etc. Th e combination of roots with derivational affi xes tends to be less regular (Langacker 1967:76, Pyles & Algeo 1982: 5, 8). One can undo a tie, but s/he cannot unopen a window.

Furthermore, affi xes take on very interesting characteristics in pronunciation. Th e fol-lowing discussion is based on extensive notes I took as a graduate student of linguistics at Georgetown University in Washington, DC in courses taught by the late Professor Charles W. Kreidler, one of the leading experts on Phonology at the time.

General Introduction | 3

SUFFIXES AND MOBILE STRESSWhen a prefi x or suffi x of Old English origin is added to a word, it has no eff ect on the position of stress; for example:

‘brother ‘brotherly ‘brotherhood ‘thoughtful un’thoughtful un’thoughtfulness

In contrast, words of Greek, Latin and Romance origin often show a shift of stress when an affi x is added or changed; for instance:

‘origin o’riginal o,rigi’nality‘photo,graph pho’tography ,photo’graphic

As a result, the full vowel of one word becomes a reduced vowel in a related word, and vice versa. Compare the fi rst vowel of origin and original, the second vowel of photograph and photography.

NEUTRAL SUFFIXESAs noted above, when a suffi x of Old English origin is added to a word, stress does not change; e.g., ‘neighbor, ‘neighborly, ‘neighborliness, ‘neighborhood. Th us, linguists say that suffi xes of Old English origin (and a few others) are NEUTRAL: i.e. they are added to independent words and have no eff ect on the stress. For example, the words ab’sorbing, ‘interesting, pre’vailing, and ‘terri,fying have the same stressed syllables as the words without the suffi x -ing. Th is -ing is a neutral suffi x, and so are -hood, -ly, and -ness, as illustrated above. It should also be noted that although most neutral suffi xes are of Old English origin, this does not mean that words in which they occur are necessarily of Old English origin.

PREFIXESClassifying the pieces of language is never a simple task. We call words like down and up particles of prepositions, depending upon how they act in compound verbs. Consider the following sentences:

Th e boat fl oated down the stream.Th e boat fl oated downstream.

It is usual to say that the fi rst sentence contains a phrase down the stream, consisting of a preposition down and a noun phrase the stream, and that the second sentence has a

4 | Fettered -tions and -isms

compound adverb downstream. However, the diff erence is certainly not great. Furthermore, we might equally well say that downstream is composed of a prefi x down- and a base stream.

Earlier, a distinction was made between neutral suffi xes, which are added to indepen-dent words (e.g., arriv-al, build-ing, procure-ment), and other suffi xes which are attached to bases that typically have no independent prefi xes which can be called neutral and others which are non-neutral. Th e distinction is seen, for example, in the following:

re-cover “to cover again”recover “to get over an illness; to re-gain possession of”

Th e fi rst, which we represent as re-cover, has a neutral prefi x; the second, re=cover, does not. Generally, neutral prefi xes are either tonic (the place of greatest prominence in an intonation unit) or countertonic, and non-neutral prefi xes are atonic, unstressed.

Four non-neutral prefi xes, a-, be-, for-, with-, occur in various types of words—nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs—always unstressed; for example:

arise award asleep aheadbehold belief beneath besideforbear forget forgive forsakewithdraw withhold withstand

In contrast, such neutral prefi xes as after-, by-, down-, fore-, in-, off -, on-, over-, under-, and up- are typically stressed on the prefi x in nouns and on the base in verbs (with half-stress on the other part).

Nouns: afterthought bylaw downfall forearm infi eld onset outbreak overcoat underbrush upkeep

Verbs: foreclose infringe offl oad outgrow overcome undergo uphold

Th ere are several noun-verb pairs, written alike, which diff er in speech because the nouns are stressed on the fi rst syllable, the verbs on the second:

off set overfl ow overlap overthrowoverlook upset upturn

General Introduction | 5

Compare also these verb-noun pairs:

,fore’see ‘fore,sight,out’grow ‘out,growth,over’draw ‘over,draft

In a few cases, such as ‘by,pass and ‘out,line, the verbs have been derived from the nouns and so are identical in stress. On the other hand, nouns formed from verbs by addition of a neutral suffi x, such as ,under’stand and ,with’drawal, have the stress pattern of the base word.

Adverbs with these prefi xes have main stress on the second element, the base, as in ,down’stairs, ,off ’stage, ,over’head. Since some of these prefi xes exist in contrastive pairs—down and up, on and off , in and out, stress may shift in a contrastive focus:

‘on,stage and ‘off ,stage‘in,side or ‘out,side

Th e neutral prefi x mis- is regular so far as verbs are concerned: ,mis’judge, ,mis’lead, ,mispro’nounce, ,mis’spell, etc. Nouns are less regular; ‘mis,fi t and ‘mis,print are stressed on the prefi x, but others are stressed on the base, e.g., ,mis’deed, ,mis’fortune; thus, there are some verb-noun pairs which are homophonous: ,mis’rule, ,mis’trust.

Th e prefi x un occurs in verbs, nouns, adjectives, and derived adverbs. Th e following are some examples:

unbutton undo unfurl unpackunbelief unconcern unrest untruthuncertain unclean unfair unrealunmercifully unquestionably unsuitably

In all of these, the main stress is on the base and half-stress on the prefi x. However, un-, like mis-, is often in contrast with zero (the absence of a prefi x) and, therefore, capable of a contrastive stress as in the following examples:

‘deeds and ‘mis,deeds‘locked or ‘un,locked

All the prefi xes discussed so far are of Germanic (Old English or Scandinavian) origin. In words which have come from Latin, directly or through French, the number of prefi xes is larger (about two dozen), the bases to which they are attached are numerous and, of course, the number of words formed this way is large. Some prefi xes vary in form accord-

6 | Fettered -tions and -isms

ing to the fi rst segment of the base to which they are attached, but most of the variations are just a matter of spelling.

abs=tract ab=solvead=apt ac=quire af=fect al=ly an=nexap=pend as=sume at=tendcon=cern com=bine co=here col=lectcor=rectcontra=dictde=tractdis=tract di-vide dif=fuseex=tract e=vict ef=fectin=tend im=pose il=lude ir=ruptinter=ruptintro=duceob=struct oc=cur of=fend op=press o=mitper=fectpost=ponepro=videre=sumese=lectsuper=sedesub=sume suc=ceed suf=fuse sug=gestsup=press

In all the preceding verbs, one can observe a morphological rule for stress: A verb which consists of a prefi x plus a one-syllable base is stressed on the base. One can observe further the following:

1. Most of the bases are heavy syllables, with a tense vowel (post=pone, re=sume, suc=ceed) or a cluster of consonants (de=tract, in=tend, sug=gest), so that the base, the ult of the word, is properly stressed by the phonological rule as well as the morphological rule.

2. Some bases are not heavy syllables—e.g., o=mit, pro=pel, sup=press; the basic verb rule would put stress on the penult, i.e. the prefi x; stress in these verbs is determined by the morphological rule alone.

3. Some verbs have bisyllabic prefi xes—e.g., contra=dict, inter=rupt, super=sede; the basic verb rule would have stress on the antepenult, but they are stressed on the ult because the morphological structure is prefi x plus base. Th e morphological rule takes precedence.

General Introduction | 7

4. A few verbs contain two prefi xes and a base. Th e stress is on the base: com=pre=hend cor=re=spond re=pre=sent re=co=lect re=sur=rect

For the purpose of this book, it should be noted that stress is not only a possible way of distinguishing between parts of speech, it also can be a marker for contrast between words which are similar in form but opposite in meaning.

BASIC ORGANIZATION OF THE REST OF THE BOOKTh e rest of this book is divided into 10 chapters. Chapter 2 by Mark Bryan discusses Assassination. Chapter 3 by Vassia Gueorguieva is on Balkanization. Chapter 4 by Sahardid Kassim looks at Colonization and Neo-colonization. Chapter 5 by Brad David is about Globalization. Chapter 6 by T. Ravi examines Militarization. Chapter 7 by Tomoko Otsuka analyzes Nationalization. Chapter 8 by Simran Sodhi reviews Westernization. Chapter 9 by Chris Henson looks at Liberalism and Neo-liberalism. Chapter 10 by Jennifer Ramsey is about Communism. And Chapter 11 by Andrew Willis analyzes Anarchism. To ensure coherence and cohesion throughout the book, each chapter is divided into four major sections. Th e fi rst section is an introduction that discusses what the chapter is about, the competing defi nitions of the -tion or -ism phenomenon with which the chapter deals, and the essence of the chapter. Th e second section discusses the competing theories on the phenomenon, how each theory fares, and what the chapter adds to those theories. Th e third section analyzes at least three cases vis-a-vis the phenomenon and shows how the cases demonstrate the hampering of development and, consequently, peace. Th e fourth section entails the conclusion that summarizes the main points in the chapter and sugges-tions on how the phenomenon can be amended to promote peace in today’s world and in the future.

Th e -tion and -ism phenomena studied in this book comprise a closed set within which it is easier to understand how and why new insights emerged, and what was overlooked. Occasionally, they show ‘new’ ideas as rediscoveries. But since today’s studies about peace-ful human relations are in process, to understand them, let alone to evaluate them, is more diffi cult. Analysts abandon or redefi ne traditional terms and produce such a welter of innovations that it is not easy to fi nd a neutral framework within which they can be compared.

What unifi es the chapters in this book can appear rather banal. But many linguistic insights are so obvious, so fundamental, that they are diffi cult to absorb, appreciate, and express with fresh clarity. Some of the more basic ones will be isolated from accounts of investigators who have earned their contemporaries’ respect. Th us, the originality of this book hinges upon the clarity with which familiar facts about the -tion and -ism phenomena examined are marshaled into a simpler, linguistically satisfying unity.