Volume 12 - Issue 71
/ November 2023
233
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.71.11.20
How to Cite:
Maharramova, M. (2023). Analysis of the role and use of prefixes in word formation in modern German compared to
English. Amazonia Investiga, 12(71), 233-241. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.71.11.20
Analysis of the role and use of prefixes in word formation in modern
german compared to english
Análisis de la función y el uso de los prefijos en la formación de palabras en el alemán moderno
comparado con el inglés
Received: October 15, 2023 Accepted: November 29, 2023
Written by:
Malahat Maharramova1
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1972-9064
Abstract
The aim of the paper is to formulate and
summarise the research on word formation in
German in comparison with English. The
literature review made it possible to conduct a
typological analysis of word formation rules in
German and English to classify the scope of
current research in this area. The results showed
that the paradigm shift of recent years has led to
increased attention to issues related to language
use and empirical issues, theories, and methods
of word formation not only from a synchronic
perspective but also from a diachronic one. The
fact that words are formed distinguishes them
from a competing process, phrase formation, in
which phrases, i.e., groups of words, form
collocations rather than words, i.e., groups of
words to verbalise concepts. Since a phrase
verbalises a concept in the same way as a word,
these two methods compete both at the intra- and
inter-linguistic levels. We conclude that it is the
potential of word formation that distinguishes
modern language from primitive language. The
comparative compilation of German and English
word formation models has led us to the typology
of language.
Keywords: typology, prefixes, verbalisation,
word formation, word patterns.
Introduction
According to Jalilbayli (2022), language
typology in the most general sense means the
classification of languages or language
components based on common formal features,
i.e., the comparison and classification of
1
PhD in Philology, Associate Professor at the Department of German Grammar Azerbaijan State University of Foreign Languages,
Baku, Azerbaijan. WoS Researcher ID: JQW-4974-2023
languages or language components based on
certain features that are common to two
languages or distinguish them from each other. It
is important to note that typology is not an
independent theory of grammar. Unlike
234
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
functional, cognitive, or relational grammar or
any of the many other systems designed to reveal
how language works, typology aims to identify
cross-linguistic patterns and relationships
between these patterns (Maraieva, 2022). For this
reason, the method and results of typological
research are in principle compatible with any
grammatical theory. Typology is the
classification of languages or language
components based on common formal features. It
aims to identify cross-linguistic patterns and
relationships between these patterns. Typology is
not an independent theory of grammar and is
compatible with any grammatical theory. It
involves interlinguistic comparisons and studies
the formal properties of languages. The selection
of languages for research is a methodological
challenge in typology. Typology can classify
languages based on genetic affinities, geographic
location, or demographics, but it primarily
focuses on classifying languages based on their
formal properties such as word order or
morphology. While typological classification is
distinct from other types of classification, it can
be influenced by factors such as genetic,
geographic, and demographic classifications.
One specific example of how typology can be
used to understand language is through the study
of word order patterns and their correlations with
the grammatical structure of a language. The
correlation between word order and grammatical
structure can extend to other linguistic features as
well. Such typological studies provide valuable
insights into the underlying principles and
tendencies of language structures across different
languages. They serve as evidence for the
systematic relationship between word order,
grammatical features, and broader linguistic
universals. Understanding these correlations can
aid linguists in predicting patterns, explaining
language evolution, and unraveling the
complexities of language typology.
Theoretical Framework or Literature Review
Currently, there is a growing interest in the
diachronic change of word-formation patterns in
cognitive-linguistic and constructionist
approaches (Körtvélyessy et al., 2018). In this
work, linguists convincingly point to the need for
verbal interpretation, as the extension of
communication is not possible with nouns.
Stewart et al., (2023) propose the term “converb”
to describe such constructions that have verbal
but also hybrid properties (i.e., both noun and
verb). Despite this, the authors do not pay enough
attention to the difference between written and
spoken language, which is likely to have a
significant impact on the type of noun or verb.
Thus, typology uses interlinguistic comparisons,
classifies languages or certain aspects of
languages, and typology studies the formal
properties of languages. In this context, Aliyeva
(2023) argues that any typological study is based
on the comparison of languages. In her work, she
concludes that English subordinate clauses
follow the nouns that modify them. However,
this conclusion is incomplete for a typology, as it
lacks a cross-linguistic perspective. In the same
vein, Rakhimov & Mukhamediev (2022) add
that, in a typological approach, one might expect
to find a result like that English is characterised
by placing subordinate clauses after nouns that
describe them in more detail, after collecting data
on subordinate clauses from a representative
sample of languages around the world. Only after
such data collection has been evaluated is it
correct to use the word 'typical' in a statement
such as 'x' is typical of language y (as compared
to languages p and q)'.
Making an adequate selection of languages as a
basis for research is one of the main
methodological problems of typology research
(Zavalniuk et al., 2022). After all, typology
includes either a classification of languages or
their constituent parts. In the first case of
language classification, the goal is to divide
different languages into certain categories. This
is done based on common characteristics. In the
classification of language components, the focus
is on a particular construction of the selected
languages, such as reflexive verbs, flat or
discourse particles. Then, in the next step, all
types of this specific phenomenon are identified
using cross-linguistic data (Iseni & Rexhepi,
2023). The goal here is to better understand how
a particular aspect of language works by finding
out the degree of similarities or differences.
There is also a great interest in finding out if there
are correlations between the different patterns
that can be found in a language.
According to Twardzisz (2023), the
classification of language components includes,
for example, word order typology or
morphological typology. Typology deals with
classification based on formal properties of
language.
There are several types of relationships between
languages that are worth mentioning. For
example, languages can be divided into different
classes based on their genetic affinities
(Hartmann, 2018). If we were talking about
language typology, we would combine all
languages that have the same origin and thus
Maharramova, M. / Volume 12 - Issue 71: 233-241 / November, 2023
Volume 12 - Issue 71
/ November 2023
235
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
arrive at different “language families”, such as
Indo-European, Afro-Asian, etc.
Another aspect would be to group languages by
their geographical location. Then we could talk
about Australian or Indian languages and so on.
We could also classify languages by
demographics, such as languages with more than
100 million speakers, and so on (Khanetnok et
al., 2023). Of course, all of these classification
methods are useful in their own way to achieve a
certain result, but they are not the same as
typology. Typologists classify languages based
on the forms they are composed of, such as
morphemes, syntax, or spoken structures.
However, the above differentiations do not mean
that all other types of classification are not
related to typological classification. Iacobini
(2023), for example, notes that it is clear that
there is a close relationship between typological
and genetic classification.
Thus, although typological classification differs
from genetic, geographical, and demographic
classification, the typological characterisation of
languages can be strongly influenced by these
other factors.
In his work, Haspelmath (2023) uses Swiss
German to show how suffixes and word-
formation patterns are created through
borrowing, as well as how language structure
affects the formation of new suffixes, using
examples of diminutive suffixes. Batool &
Saleem (2023) extend the field of abbreviations
through a corpus-based study, which helps to
bring forward new ideas and broadens the
linguistic aspect of the text.
Fabian (2023) investigates the problem of verb
categorisation and finds that particle verbs can
act as head verbs in complex sentences. He notes
the similarities between participle verbs and
verbs with prefixes, such as bekleiden and
erwärmen. The author goes on to provide
evidence that the resulting words, such as
Übereinkunft or Rückgabe, are not
nominalisations of the words übereinkommen
and rückgeben, but are nominal compounds
because the lexicon uses allomorphs. He also
discusses infinitives, such as Wiederaufkommen,
which are probably of the Zusammenrückung
type. However, the author should check
empirically whether the conversion from verb to
noun might not be a more obvious explanation
for two-component special formations or
neologisms.
Gast & Borges (2023) investigates aspects of
diachronic word formation. The authors
investigate the interaction of noun composition
in German with the recipients' prior knowledge
and intra- and intertextual references using a
corpus of noun compounds. This allows the
authors to successfully build cultural knowledge
through such word formation, for example, by
recontextualising theological knowledge or
differentiating Latin technical terms to create
new categories. This study innovates in the field
in several ways: the authors use a cultural and
linguistic framework of diachronic word
formation and show that in the early stages of
language development, word formation is always
contextualised and integrated into complex
contexts.
In their study, Van Goethem, Norde & Masini
(2023) analyse Schiller's vocabulary, which
covers the poet's entire vocabulary, taking into
account ung-derived and competing substantive
infinitives. For example, some prepositions
influence the formation of words, such as the
preposition “nach”, which only forms ung-
abstracts of perfective verbs (e.g., “nach
geschehener Erkennung”). The adjectives in
participial phrases also show a different
distribution: participial phrases with -würdig and
-wert include both ung derivatives and
substantive infinitives, while formations with
substantive infinitives with -voll are impossible.
According to the authors, the decrease in the use
of ung derivatives can be explained by their
function in functional verb structures, where they
continue to be used today. Since they are most
often found with verbal meaning, conditions
were created for the use of substantive
infinitives, which further emphasise the verbal
nature.
Zhuravlyova (2023) points out that even though
English also has a large number of prefixes, their
use may be somewhat limited compared to
German. For example, the prefix “un-“ is used to
form words with the opposite meaning (e.g.,
“happy” - happy, “unhappy” - unhappy). There
are also prefixes with the meaning of "back"
(e.g., “do” - to do, “undo” - to undo) or “turn”
(e.g., “turn” - to turn, “return” - to return).
Compared to German, where prefixes can have
many different meanings and influence the
grammatical context, in English the use of
prefixes can be more standardised and limited in
their meaning (Baeskow, 2023). However,
prefixes are still used to form new words and
expand vocabulary.
236
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Generally speaking, prefixes are an important
element of word formation in both German and
English. They add additional meanings to words
and help to form new words. However, in
German, prefixes can have a wider range of
meanings and a greater influence on the
grammatical structure of words than in English.
Methodology
In this work, various techniques and tools were
employed to examine and categorize the
morphological structures and patterns present
within the English and German languages. The
following techniques were used: a corpus
analysis of examples helped identifying the range
of morphological phenomena present in the
language; the affix analysis allowed
understanding the affixes meanings, productivity
and their position relative to the root word as well
as the word segmentation. These analyses reveal
the systems and rules underlying word formation
in the language. Additionally, specific
frameworks were used to categorize the
languages based on their morphological
typology. These methods allowed identifying
unique or rare features within the language,
which provide insights into its specific
morphological characteristics and potentially
contribute to linguistic theory. Regularities,
irregularities, and patterns discovered during
analysis inform linguistic descriptions and help
establish a comprehensive understanding of the
language's morphological structure.
To conduct the present typological analysis of the
role and use of prefixes in word formation in
modern German compared to English, a certain
amount of lexical material was processed for
further analysis. This material included words
with prefixes in both languages. A literature
review was used to classify prefixes in German
and English. The common and distinctive
characteristics of prefixes in both languages were
identified. It was also investigated which prefixes
can have similar meanings and be used in similar
contexts. An analysis of the morphological
typology of language was carried out with a
special focus on German and English. The
typological analysis allowed us to consider the
influence of prefixes on the meaning and
grammatical properties of words in German and
English. The method of comparison allowed us
to compare the results of research by different
scholars to identify possible factors that could
explain the differences, such as historical or
morphological features of each language.
The conclusions and generalisations of the study
include the findings on the typological
differences between prefixes in German and
English, as well as the possible impact of
morphological typology on the process of
learning these languages.
Results and Discussion
Of the various approaches that exist within the
framework of linguistic typology, morphological
typology is considered in more detail in this
paper in order to provide a basis for comparing
German and English word formation.
Based on morphological features, languages can
be divided into different language types. This
approach dates back to the classical
morphological typology of the 19th century.
There are synthetic-afflective, synthetic-
agglutinative, and analytical or isolating
languages, with most languages being classified
as synthetic types (Baeskow, 2023). In a
synthetic-afflective language, particles that
contain grammatical information and explain the
relationships in a sentence, i.e., inflectional
morphemes, are attached directly to the word. A
morpheme carries several pieces of information
at the same time. This leads to variable word
order since the relationships of the components
in a sentence are unambiguous. This is the case
in languages with a case system that is still
largely intact, such as Latin or German.
In the group of synthetic languages, there are also
languages that proceed in an agglutinative
manner. Even in synthetic-agglutinating
languages, morphemes are attached to the root of
a word. However, a morpheme always contains
exactly one piece of information, for example,
the singular of a noun. If a word is in the singular
genitive case, the corresponding case must also
be indicated by another morpheme, which must
also be added to the word. This approach allows
for a clear segmentation of the word, as there is a
1:1 relationship between form and meaning
(Gizi, 2018). So, a word in its existing form
clearly has only one meaning. Turkish, Finnish,
or Dravidian languages such as Telugu are
typical examples of language agglutination.
On the other hand, such unambiguous
segmentation as in the above example does not
apply to inflectional languages, as an inflectional
morpheme contains multiple pieces of
information. In an analytic or isolating language,
almost every word consists of only one
morpheme, either the root or the stem morpheme
(Zekun & Yuan, 2022).
Volume 12 - Issue 71
/ November 2023
237
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
A very good example of radically analytical
languages is Chinese or Vietnamese, which are
highly isolated and do not use declension or
inflection (complete loss of inflection), but
instead resort to service words, a certain sentence
order, or intonation. As a result, there are no word
forms and words often consist of only one
morpheme. Therefore, analytical languages are
languages with very low inflection. They are
based on the use of free grammatical morphemes,
such as prepositions, and on certain word order
rules, such as English with its subject-predicate-
complement word order. This word order has
become entrenched as English has moved further
and further towards an analytical/isolative
language and the case system has become
blurred. Thus, inflectional morphemes are
largely absent, and semantic relationships would
not be clear without the fixed word order. Only
this provides information about the subject and
object (Härtl, 2022). This is illustrated by the
following example (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Examples of inflectional language isolation.
Source: author's own design.
If we also assume that a noun is a word form in
the genitive case and a second-word form in the
dative case, then German is rich in word forms,
while English is poor. This is illustrated by the
following example (Figure 2):
Figure 2. Word forms of the German language.
Source: author's own design.
So, we can say that nouns in German have more
word forms than in English.
An important aspect that cannot be ignored is that
languages cannot always be assigned to a single
group. Transitions between language types are
fluid, and not all characteristics are always
present (Simbikangwa, 2022). Indeed, English
uses elements of both the synthetic and
analytical/isolating types to form different verb
238
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
tenses. For example, the past tense is formed by
adding the suffix -ed to the stem of a verb, such
as “walked”. This is an example of synthetic
formation.
At the same time, the future simple tense is used
to form the future will with the auxiliary verb
“will” and the main verb in the base form. For
example, in the sentence “I will go”, the verb “to
go” is used in the form will go. In this case, “will”
is an isolation-type element, as it indicates the
future without the use of a special suffix or
ending.
In general, we can say that the historical
development of European languages has been
“from synthetic to analytical languages”, for
example, French compared to Latin or modern
Germanic languages compared to Germanic
languages 1000 years ago.
German has also lost its inflectional richness and
has therefore become more analytical than before
but is undoubtedly still a synthetically
inflectional language (Oke Loko, 2022).
English, on the other hand, has significantly
reduced its inflectional inventory and thus
undergone “radical typological changes”.
Compared to Old English, it is now a very
analytical language, and, according to
Schweikhard & List (2020), even a largely
isolated language in which individual lexemes
hardly have different word forms.
Thus, nouns in English can appear in only two
forms, either without case marking or in the
possessive form, pronouns in these two forms
and additionally with the object case (e.g., he -
his - him, who - who - whom). However, in the
case of relative and interrogative pronouns, the
object case form (1) is becoming increasingly
rare, at least in informal English, and the
unmarked form (2) or the null form (3) is used
instead, as in the example sentences below
(Figure 3):
Figure 3. English language vocabulary.
Source: author's own design.
Articles and adjectives are not case-sensitive at
all. Thus, there is no congruence in an English
noun phrase, i.e., there is no formal
correspondence between the noun head and the
components that modify it (Bauer, 2020). In
English, there is also no such thing as a clause,
i.e., a case where, for example, a preposition or
verb requires a certain case marker in relation to
the following noun argument (Hüning &
Schlücker, 2023).
However, both are typical features of the German
language, where, in addition to inflectional
gender markers, there is also a distinction
between nominative, genitive, dative, and
accusative cases in nouns, pronouns, articles, and
adjectives.
A typological analysis of the role and use of
prefixes in word formation in modern German
compared to English shows that prefixes play an
important role in word formation and are widely
used in both German and English (Booij, 2020).
However, there are several differences in the use
of prefixes in the two languages.
In German, prefixes are often used to form new
words by combining them with a root. For
example, the prefix “ver” can be used to indicate
reversibility or a negative meaning, as in
“verlieren” (to lose). In some cases, the prefix
changes the meaning of the word completely, as
in the word “versprechen” (to promise). In
German, a prefix can have a meaning not only at
the beginning of a word but also in the middle or
at the end (Sommer-Lolei et al., 2023).
English also uses prefixes to form new words
with a root. However, in English, prefixes are
mostly used at the beginning of a word
(Schweikhard & List, 2020) (Table 1):
1) The woman whom I met yesterday is a famous writer.
2) The woman who I met yesterday is a famous writer.
3) The woman I met yesterday is a famous writer.
Volume 12 - Issue 71
/ November 2023
239
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Table 1.
Word-forming prefixes in English and German
English language
German language
Un-: unhappy, unfair
The prefix “un” is used for a negative meaning:
unglücklich (dissatisfied, unhappy), uninteresting
(uninteresting), unruhig (restless)
Dis- (cancellation or opposition): dislike, disagree
The prefix “ver-” is used to express a change,
approximation, or alteration of a state: verändern (to
change), verbinden (to connect), vertrauen (to trust)
Re- (repetition or again): rewind, redo
The prefix “zer-” is used to indicate breaking,
removing, or destroying: zerbrechen, zerkleinern (to
break), zerstören (to destroy)
Mis- (mistake or wrong): misunderstanding, misbehave
The prefix “vor-” is used to express anticipation,
preliminary advance: vorbereiten (to prepare),
voraussagen (to foresee), vorstellen (to imagine)
Pre- (before or before): prepare, predict
The prefix “nach-” is used to express after,
approaching, or following: nachdenken (to think),
nachfolgen (to follow), nachschlagen (to consult a
reference book)
Source: author's own development.
Comparing the two languages, it can be noted
that the use of prefixes in German is more
flexible and varied, as they can be placed not only
at the beginning of a word but also in the middle
or at the end. However, both languages use
prefixes to form new words and change the
meaning of existing words.
A typological analysis of the role and use of
prefixes in word formation in these languages is
important for understanding the structure and
functions of word formation in German and
English. The study of prefixes can help to
improve word formation skills and understanding
of these languages.
Prefixes are one of the main types of affixes that
are added to a word root to create new words.
They integrate into the structure of the word
before the root and change its meaning or
grammatical characteristics. Prefixes can be
added to verbs, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs,
which allows you to expand the lexicon of a
language and change their meaning.
The typological analysis allows us to classify
prefixes according to various features, such as
semantics, origin, function, and extension. In
German, for example, there are a large number of
prefixes that can have the semantics of modality
formation, intensification, or vice versa,
diminution of meaning, e.g: “ver-”, “ent-”, “be-
”, “er-” and many others. English also has a wide
range of prefixes, for example: “un-”, “re-”, “dis-
”, “pre-”, “in-” and others.
Learning about prefixes in these languages can
help you understand their lexical system and use
them in your own word formation. For example,
knowing the prefixes can help you to form words
correctly, resolve meanings, and understand the
syntactic and grammatical rules of these
languages.
Thus, a typological analysis of the role and use
of prefixes in German and English word
formation is important for improving word
formation skills and understanding the structure
of these languages. Without knowledge of
prefixes, it is difficult to achieve full proficiency
in the use of these languages.
Conclusions
A typological analysis of the role and use of
prefixes in word formation in modern German
compared to English has shown a multifaceted
and interesting result. Prefixes are an important
component of word formation in both languages,
but their use and role in modern German is
different from that in English.
In German, prefixes play an important role in
creating new words and changing the meaning
and lexical characteristics of existing words. In
English, prefixes also play an important role in
word formation, but their use and role is
generally less pronounced than in German. Many
prefixes in English have similar meanings and
are used in different words.
The typological analysis has shown that the use
of prefixes in German is more extensive and
flexible, with more opportunities for word
formation and changes in meaning. In English,
the use of prefixes is less expressive and limited,
although they also play an important role in word
formation.
240
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Such a comparative analysis of the role and use
of prefixes in word formation in modern German
and English emphasises the importance of
studying word formation in different languages
and reveals the specific features of each
language.
Bibliographic references
Aliyeva, G. B. (2023). Educational trends in the
development of philological education in
Azerbaijan in the era of digitalisation: a
forecast of the future. Futurity Education,
3(1), 58-69.
https://doi.org/10.57125/FED.2023.25.03.05
Baeskow, H. (2023). The competition between
noun-verb conversion and-ize derivation:
Contrastive analyses of two productive
English verb-formation processes. Review of
Cognitive Linguistics. https://www.jbe-
platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.0
0155.bae
Batool, R., & Saleem, T. (2023). Comparative
construction morphology of diminutive
forms in English and Urdu. Cogent Arts &
Humanities, 10(1), 2238998.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2238
998
Bauer, L. (2020). Compounds and minor word‐
formation types. The handbook of English
linguistics, 463-482.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119540618.ch2
3
Booij, G. E. (2020). Dutch morphology: A study
of word formation in generative
grammar (Vol. 3). Walter de Gruyter GmbH
& Co KG. https://acortar.link/38Rjug
Fabian, M. (2023). Contrastive Lexicology of
English and Ukrainian. Uzhhorod:
Polygrafcentr "Lira".
https://dspace.uzhnu.edu.ua/jspui/handle/lib/
54305
Gast, V., & Borges, R. (2023). Nouns, Verbs and
Other Parts of Speech in Translation and
Interpreting: Evidence from English
Speeches Made in the European Parliament
and Their German Translations and
Interpretations. Languages, 8(1), 39.
https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8010039
Gizi, M. M. A. (2018). Word Formation in
German Linguistics: Theoretical and
Methodological Analysis. Open Journal of
Modern Linguistics, 8(05), 143. DOI:
10.4236/ojml.2018.85015
Härtl, H. (2022). Syntax des Englischen.
In Linguistics in language comparison:
German studies, Romance studies and
English studies (pp. 155-187). Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/97
8-3-662-62806-5_7
Hartmann, S. (2018). Derivational morphology
in flux: A case study of word-formation
change in German. Cognitive
linguistics, 29(1), 77-119.
https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0146
Haspelmath, M. (2023). Defining the
word. WORD, 69(3).
https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2023.2237
272
Hüning, M., & Schlücker, B. (2023).
Approximation and comparison in word-
formation: The case of denominal adjectives
in Dutch, German, and English. Zeitschrift
für Wortbildung/Journal of Word
Formation, 7(1), 101-129.
https://doi.org/10.21248/zwjw.2023.1.90
Iacobini, C. (2023). Prefixation (Nouns and
Adjectives) in Romance Languages.
In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of
Linguistics.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384
655.013.458
Iseni, A., & Rexhepi, A. (2023). Prefixes of
Germanic origin. ANGLISTICUM. Journal of
the Association-Institute for English
Language and American Studies, 12(1),
40-48.
https://anglisticum.org.mk/index.php/IJLLIS
/article/view/2347
Jalilbayli, O. B. (2022). Philosophy of linguistic
culture and new perspectives in modern
Azerbaijani linguistics. Futurity Philosophy,
1(4), 53–65.
https://doi.org/10.57125/FP.2022.12.30.05
Khanetnok, P., Srihamongkhon, K.,
Daengsaewram, S., & Thabkhoontod, R.
(2023). Morphology: Word Formation in
Linguistics. International Journal of
Sociologies and Anthropologies Science
Reviews, 3(1), 83-92.
https://doi.org/10.14456/jsasr.2023.9
Körtvélyessy, L., Štekauer, P., Genči, J., &
Zimmermann, J. (2018). Word-formation in
European languages. Word Structure, 11(3),
313-358.
https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3
366/word.2018.0132
Maraieva, U. (2022). On the formation of a new
information worldview of the future
(literature review). Futurity Philosophy, 1(1),
18–29.
https://doi.org/10.57125/FP.2022.03.30.02
Oke Loko, A. (2022). Short word formation in
German, English and French medical
terminology: A translation-oriented
investigation into the search for equivalence
formations. (Doctoral dissertation),
Volume 12 - Issue 71
/ November 2023
241
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
University of Nairobi.
http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/
161546
Rakhimov, T., & Mukhamediev, M. (2022).
Peculiarities of the implementation of the
principles of the education of the future
analysis of the main dilemmas. Futurity
Education, 2(3), 4-13.
https://doi.org/10.57125/FED/2022.10.11.29
Schweikhard, N. E., & List, J. M. (2020).
Handling word formation in comparative
linguistics. SKASE Journal of Theoretical
Linguistics, 17(1), 2-26.
https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0006-
8BB5-1
Simbikangwa, M. (2022). German and
Kinyarwanda - a typological comparison on
a phonological, morphological and syntactic
level. (Doctoral dissertation), University of
Cologne. https://kups.ub.uni-
koeln.de/63596/
Sommer-Lolei, S., Mattes, V.,
Korecky-Kröll, K., & Dressler, W. U. (2023).
Acquisition and processing of word
formation in German. Acta Linguistica
Academica, 70(3), 372-396.
https://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2023.00633
Stewart, J., Brown, D., Bennett, P.,
Robles-García, P., Sánchez-Gutiérrez, C. H.,
Miguel, N. M., & McLean, S. (2023). The
contribution of affixes to productive English
vocabulary knowledge for Chinese, German
and Spanish learners: A
comparison. System, 115, 103035.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.10303
5
Twardzisz, P. (2023). English Complex Words:
Exercises in construction and translation.
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.242
Van Goethem, K., Norde, M., & Masini, F.
(2023). The fate of ‘pseudo-’words: A
contrastive corpus-based
analysis. Languages in Contrast.
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.22003.van
Zavalniuk, I., Kholod, I., Bohatko, V., &
Pavlyuk, O. (2022). Lexical-syntactical
repetition in the system of stylistic figures:
status, specification, functions. Ad Alta-
Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 12(1),
268–274.
http://socrates.vsau.org/repository/getfile.ph
p/30865.pdf
Zekun, W. U., & Yuan, L. İ. (2022). Der
Gebrauch von Konnektoren bei chinesischen
DaF-LernerInnen. Eine korpuslinguistische
Untersuchung argumentativer
Lernertexte. Studien zur deutschen Sprache
und Literatur, (48), 11-140.
https://doi.org/10.26650/sdsl2022-1166401
Zhuravlyova, D. (2023). Using prefixes in
English word formation. In Innovative trends
in training specialists in a multicultural and
multilingual globalised world. Kyiv National
University of Technology and Design.
https://acortar.link/0E6W1s