Meaning definitions through lexical (macro) functions: Old English quantity , size and rank 1

inventory of affixes and of affixed nouns and adjectives performing a lexical function belonging to the semantic categories quantity , size or rank , which apply whenever an entity or a property experience an increase or a decrease in quantity, quality or status respectively. Each affix is defined conforming to the different meanings it conveys, the source and target categories involved in the derivation process and the predicates that fit the rule in each case. An approach based on form and meaning associations in the definition of affixal meaning has demonstrated to have major implications not only in the field of lexicology but also of lexicography inasmuch as it permits to revise, complete and enhance dictionary entries and gain systematicity in the manner the information is rendered.


Introduction and state of the art
Research in the field of Old English lexicology and derivational morphology has mostly revolved around formal aspects and the syntagmatics of the process.Although with significant differences, the works published by Kastovsky (1968, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1992, 2006), Trips (2009), Martín Arista (2008, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2012a, 2012b, 2013) and Haselow (2011) conduct analyses of the Old English derivational morphology with an eye to the syntagmatics of word formation.However, studies on meaning associated to word formation processes are less common.The works by Weman (1933) and Penttilä (1956) are taken as reference in the area of Old English semantics, while publications by Martín Arista and Martín de la Rosa (2006), de la Cruz Cabanillas (2007), Guarddon Anelo (2009aAnelo ( , 2009b) ) and Mateo Mendaza (2013, 2016a, 2016b) have provided deep understanding of semantic primes.
This paper addresses affixal meaning in dictionaries and suggests a proposal of improved entries that offers a solution to a lack of systematicity and meaning coverage limitations.The main Old English dictionaries of reference differ as to whether they include affixal entries and also as to the type of information these entries must contain.The following three dictionaries, authoritative lexicographical sources in Old English, record affixes as individual entries, namely Clark-Hall's A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (1896), Bosworth and Toller's An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (1898) and the Dictionary of Old English (Cameron et al., eds. 2018) (henceforth DOE), although they mainly expound the most representative meaning(s), while other less predominant uses of the affix are frequently disregarded.These definitions have proven to follow neither a formal nor a content-based unified criterion.Sweet's The Student's Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon (1896), in turn, fragments the derived lexicon differentiating the affix and the root, however it does not include any affixal entry on its own.
In order to indicate that a form is a word formation element, dictionaries opt for adding a hyphen either right before or after the form itself.To start with, Clark-Hall bound forms are marked with the label 'prefix' or 'suffix' in first position, followed by a definition, which can be occasionally illustrated by examples containing the bound form.Three instances of Clark-Hall affixal entries are provided in (1)-( 3): (1) entry for -en to Clark-Hall: -en suffix I. diminutive (neut.)as in maegden (from maegð).II. to form feminines (a) with mutation (gyden, from god).(b) without mutation (ðeowen from ðeow).Meaning definitions through lexical (macro) functions: Old English quantity, size ... Issue 39, 2023, pages 7-34 III.Adjectival, with mutation, denoting material.
As can be seen in examples (1)-( 3), no systematic definitional pattern is obeyed by the entries above.For other entries, only semantic information is provided, yet nothing is said about the nature of the word formation element.As occurs with example (4), there is no indication about whether sam-and sãm-are compositional or affixal in nature: The dictionary by Bosworth and Toller (henceforth BT) compiles a substantially higher amount of word-formation elements than the dictionary by Clark-Hall.BT distinguishes between affixes, terminations and elements in composition, although their scope remains undefined and to differentiate, for instance, affixes from terminations is not obvious.The entries in ( 5)-( 7) include an instance of each: (5) entry for -icge to BT: -icge a suffix of nouns denoting a female agent, v. ácennicge, bar-[r]icge, drýicge, galdricge, hunticge, scericge (scern-?), sealticge, synnicge.
As shown by these examples, the entries to BT dictionary are not organized alike.For some affixes, etymological information is presented in first position; this is the case of and-(and also of arce-).In other cases, the entry informs about form associations, i.e. what type of bases the bound form is attached to, although there is no hint of the meaning it conveys (e.g. the entry for -feald).Most of the affixal entries list a few predicates that are formed by the word-formation element at stake, although this does not always occur (see example ( 7)).In any case, no entry gives access to the whole inventory of derived or compound predicates containing each element.
In its current state, the DOE is available only for the entries A to I.This dictionary distinguishes between different types of word-formation elements, namely prefixes, suffixes, elements of quasi-compounds and elements in composition.An example of each is provided in ( 8)-( 11): (8) entry for arce-to DOE: arce-Prefix derived ultimately from Gk. ἀρχι-, ἀρχ-'chief' (alternatively rendered as hēah, as in hēah-bisceop, -dīacon, -engel, etc.), borrowed from equivalent Lat.prefix arch-and used in the sense 'chief, principal', as in arcebisceop, -dīacon, etc.
(10) entry for fore-to DOE: fore-In verbal or participial quasi-compounds, usually element-by-element glosses of Latin verbs in ante-/ anti-/ ob-/ prae-/ pro-/ supra-, where fore may be taken as either adverb or prefix (cf.use of fore-as a prefix in nouns / adjectives / Meaning definitions through lexical (macro) functions: Old English quantity, size ... Issue 39, 2023, pages 7-34 adverbs calqued on Lat.nouns / adjectives / adverbs in ante-/ anti-/ ob-/ prae-/ pro-) (11) entry for full-to DOE: full-In composition, (it) denotes the fulness, completeness or perfection of the meaning of the word with which it is joined.

Alicante Journal of English Studies,
The entries to the DOE also present certain dissimilarities if the information contained is compared.Except for arce-, etymology is not a criterion to be incorporated in the entries.In the case of fore-, for instance, the entries only mention their Latin counterparts, while no further reference is made to their meaning.Only in some cases do we know about the source lexical classes involved in the derivative process, as in the entry for -feald, but we are not informed on the lexical class to which this suffix gives rise.Another aspect that is not systematically present in all the entries to this dictionary is the list of predicates that are derived with a specific form; in most cases, entries include a small representation of the derived lexicon, although this information is not provided for some others, as is the case of the entries for fore-and full-.
Against this background, the research question addressed by this article is how the analysis of affixes can contribute to complete and systematize meaning definition.The article, therefore, bears on the more general question of how Lexicology can contribute to the advances of Lexicography in the specific field of Old English.
As opposed to Present Day English, the derived lexicon of Old English is associative by nature, which means that word families hold transparent formal and semantic relationships and productive word formation processes take place in this language.As a consequence of the partial motivation of derived lexical items, generalizations are possible that are harder to find in the underived lexicon.Moreover, Old English shows a marked preference for word formation rather than for borrowing, a fact that supports the feasibility of such a study.In this line, a prior analysis of the Old English derived lexicon can shed light on the type(s) of meanings associated to a particular affix and allow both the completion of affixal entries already available and the suggestion of new ones.

Old English nominal and adjectival affixation
Nerthus is a lexical database of Old English that is founded on a set of dictionaries that have contributed its main morphosemantic information, in particular the dictionaries by Bosworth and Toller, Sweet and, above all, Clark-Hall.To date, the database contains more than 31,000 entries, each of which is provided with information about their alternative spellings, category, translation and inflectional and derivational morphology.This database has thus provided the full inventory of derived nouns and adjectives, which are the lexical categories analysed so far.This lexicon adds up to 7,588 predicates.Divided by category, 4,370 are affixed nouns and 3,218 are affixed adjectives.By word-formation process, 2,001 are prefixed words (802 nouns and 1,199 adjectives), and 5,587 are suffixed (2,010 nouns and 3,577 adjectives).
To recapitulate, the units of analysis are, therefore, derived nouns and adjectives, and the targeted processes are prefixation and suffixation.These word-formation processes are gradually applied, to wit, a maximum of one affix is attached per process.As regards prefixation, it is a category-independent process and, for this reason, no difference is made on categorial grounds in the list provided in example (12).Suffixation, on the contrary, is category-dependent, and suffixes are, as a result, presented by target category.The affixes associated to the macrofunctions quantity, size and rank (these will be fully addressed in section 3) amount to twenty-seven (excluding spelling variants), which are found in 223 predicates that have been assigned one of the aforementioned semantic categories.Example (12) presents the complete list of affixes: (12) prefixes: and-, arce-, eall-, for-, fore-, forð-, fram-, frēa-, ful(l)-, healf-, ofer-, sām-, sin-, sub-, twi-, ðri-(ðry-), undernominal suffixes: -en, -icge, -iht (-eht, -uht), -incel, -ð (-að, -oð), and -ung adjectival suffixes: -en, -feald, -ful, -iht (-eht, -uht), -le, -welle These affixal morphemes are considered bound forms on the basis of Jember et al.'s (1975) inventory of Old English affixes.This criterion has not been fully shared by the dictionaries consulted, which have considered some of these forms compositional or quasi-compositional elements, while others are simply free forms.Once the affixal material is identified for each macrofunction, a detailed analysis of each affix will allow for its further contextualization within the corresponding semantic category.At this point, a terminological clarification, which will be expanded in section 3, must be done with respect to the concept of macrofunction.In this study, macrofunctions are regarded as semantic categories whose definition is couched in terms of the lexical functions that are contained in each one.Section 3 also delves into the theoretical underpinnings of macrofunctions and their Meaning definitions through lexical (macro) functions: Old English quantity, size ... Issue 39, 2023, pages 7-34 definition in relation to lexical functions.This information will be represented in subsection 4.1.and in the final Appendix in the form of dictionary entries, each of which will be duly described in lexicological terms and assigned the roots these affixes are appended to.Subsection 4.2.discusses the contribution of a linguistic-based analysis to the definition of the affixal material.Finally, the paper summarizes the main findings of the study.

Delimiting the scope of analysis: quantity, size and rank macrofunctions
quantity, size and rank are labels that correspond to semantic categories defined by the lexical functions each macrofunction encompasses.In order to obtain more explanatory conclusions, lexical functions lay the descriptive foundations that permit the definition of more general semantic categories (Vea Escarza 2018, 218).In this sense, Vea Escarza (2018, 222) observes that these categories present certain features that distinguish them from lexical functions.Firstly, the term semantic, when used in combination with categories and in this context, has no necessarily derivational or syntactic implications, contrary to what lexical functions entail.Additionally, these categories can be considered descriptive primitives as no definition can be assigned to them different from the lexical functions grouped inside.Lastly, and unlike lexical functions, semantic categories transcend lexical-category-based distinctions that may constitute a distinguishing factor in the case of certain lexical functions.
The three categories (quantity, size and rank) addressed in this study form a coherent whole as they share certain semantic components.In brief, in all three cases there is an entity or a property that experiences an increase or a decrease in quantity, quality or status.Macrofunction quantity comprehends the lexical functions distributive, massive and partitive.size encompasses the functions augmentative and diminutive, and rank comprises the lexical functions magnifier and minimizer.
The full inventory of functions as well as their organization into macrofunctions is to be found in the works by Vea Escarza (2013,2016,2018), where the author devises a complete list of thirty-three lexical functions, which are arranged into nine macrofunctions, for Old English derived nouns and adjectives that account for the form and meaning relationships holding in affixation processes.
In Figure 1 below, semantic macrofunctions are represented together with the lexical functions along with a brief description of them: This list of functions draws on structural and functional sources.The structural part is based, on the one hand, on Mel'cǔk's Meaning and Text Theory (1989, 1996, 2006) and, on the other, on Pounder's (2000) Process and Paradigm Model, a model that goes beyond semantic relations in order to identify lexical functions between words.Mel'cǔk's theory, which provides the foundations of Pounder's model, conceives lexical functions as a group of formal tools that describe any type of lexical relations occurring between lexical units in a systematic way.The full inventory consists of sixty lexical functions that were first applied to Russian and French, although they are intended to be universally valid.One of the functions this vast inventory includes is the rank-related 'magnifier' function, which has been incorporated in this study to describe affixal material designating a higher rank than that of the referent.
Pounder's (2000) Process and Paradigm Model has complemented the structural part.This author's model addressed word-formation meaning processes in German and distinguished between lexical and morphological units that partake in word-formation.Pounder establishes the notion of morphological operation by referring to the modification a stem undergoes and the semantic and syntactic implications it has.The emphasis is then placed on the act of affixing rather than on the affix itself, which lacks intrinsic meaning.Her analytical model, although has given rise to a total of eight lexical functions2 that apply to part of the target lexicon, has revealed some limitations related to the fact that certain functions are only relevant for nouns or for adjectives, but not to both at the same time.Additionally, the distinction Pounder makes between primary and secondary functions, according to which the latter "modify word-formation meanings rather than constituting word-formation meaning on their own" (Pounder 2000, 109), has no effect in the Old English lexicon as there are secondary functions that present the same status as primary functions, being both types applicable to derived and doubly derived lexicon.Pounder's model has motivated the quantitative function 'distributive' and the size-related functions 'augmentative' and 'diminutive'.She has also proposed the 'minimizer' function, which complements the rank-related 'magnifier' one.As for these size-related functions, 'diminutive' is considered primary and 'augmentative' secondary by the author; however, this distinction has proved invalid in the Old English derived lexicon as both apply regardless of the derivative complexity of the predicate.
As regards the functional part, this rests on the main functional theories, which include Functional Grammar (Dik 1997a(Dik , 1997b)), Functional Discourse Grammar (Hengeveld & Mackenzie 2008) and Role and Reference Grammar (Foley & Van Valin 1984;Van Valin & Lapolla 1997;Van Valin 2005).Starting with Functional Grammar, this linguistic theory is concerned with the grammatical organization of natural languages.In order to understand the underpinnings of this theory, it is paramount to address the clause structure model, which is based on the concept of layering (Foley and Van Valin 1984) and on Lyon's (1977) semantic categories taxonomy.The notion of layering relates to the stratified structure of clauses consisting of a core (nucleus and arguments) and a periphery.The concept of layering involves the progressive expansion of semantic-syntactic constituents of the clause through the addition of grammatical features and adverbials.After the predication has been expanded into an underlying clause structure, expression rules come into play in order to specify form, order and prosody and convert the underlying clause structure into linguistic expressions.Regarding Lyon's taxonomy of basic semantic categories, this seminal part of Functional Grammar includes the Individual, State-of-Affairs and Propositional Content, being first-, second-and third-order entities respectively.Dik (1997a, 93) adds to this taxonomy properties or relations, which are zero-order entities, and speech acts, which are fourth-order entities.
Lexical functions are, essentially, tools devised to describe lexical relations that are found in the lexicon of a language in a systematic way.These functions have been further organized into macrofunctions on the basis of a hierarchical and a semantic criterion, which enable more explanatory generalizations relating to affixal meaning.Macrofunctions are, consequently, the result of the combination of lexical functions and a semantic approach.
Being at the core of functional grammars, lexical functions are relations between linguistic units that encapsulate systematic aspects of the language and that allow for generalizations.In the functional tradition framework, Hengeveld & Mackenzie (2008) developed the structural-functional language theory known as Functional Discourse Grammar (henceforth FDG), which takes the Discourse Act as the unit of analysis instead of the clause.This theory combines a formal approach to language, by which the knowledge underlying the user is described in terms of the units s/he is familiar with and their encoding into Discourse Acts, with a functional one, in which the grammatical knowledge is put at the service of interpersonal communication.FDG puts forward an alternative semantic taxonomy that is an enlarged version of Lyons ' (1995) and that includes ten semantic categories 3 , one of which, quantity, has inspired the lexical function 'massive' in this study.In FDG terms, the semantic category Quantity makes reference to both a countable and an uncountable quantity.Based on this category, Pounder has distinguished between singular and plural quantities, giving rise to the lexical functions 'sing' and 'pl'.In this study, as no examples have been found that correspond with an individualizing function that can be defined in terms of singular or plural, the function 'massive' has been preferred to refer to a pluralization or collectivization of the referent.
An extra function was necessary to describe one aspect of nominal derivation that is present when a part of a larger amount is referred to, this is the case of the 'partitive' function.
Below these lines, the three macrofunctions are qualified in terms of the lexical functions that belong to each semantic category, along with a general Macrofunction quantity has been associated with fourteen affixes, five of which are prefixes and nine are suffixes.Within this group, the distributive function is performed by prefixes twi-and ðri-/ðry-, and by suffixes -feald, -ful, -le and -welle.
The massive function applies to predicates prefixed with and-and suffixed with -en, -icge, -iht, -ð and -ung.The distributive function is realized by prefixes healfand sām-.Macrofunction size is performed by five prefixes and one suffix.As for their distribution among lexical functions, eall-, for-, full-, ofer-and sin-are assigned the augmentative function and suffix -incel the diminutive function.
Section 4 and the Appendix present this full list of affixes in the form of dictionary entries.

The contribution of a linguistic-based analysis to affixal meaning definition
This section outlines the methodological underpinnings of the study by focusing on how affixal definitions have been elaborated on the basis of the aforementioned theoretical approach and discusses the extent to which a linguistic-based analysis has proved relevant in the definition of affixal elements.

Preliminary methodological considerations
In light of the lack of a unified methodology evinced in the way the main dictionaries of English compile and define affixal entries, the model of lexical functions and macrofunctions suggested in this study will provide a more profound insight into the scope of affixal meaning and help present it in a more systematic way.The remainder of this section elaborates on how individual entries for each of the twenty-seven affixes that realize any of the three macrofunctions this study attends to have been created and, more importantly, how a linguisticbased analysis can contribute to affixal meaning definition.
The Appendix (The definition of affixal entries) compiles the full list of affixal entries including the different meanings each affix conveys, the source and target categories involved in the derivation process and a list of the predicates that fit the rule in each case.In order to understand how these entries have been elaborated, a number of methodological considerations are needed.In the first place, the analytical framework rests on previous work by the Nerthus research group, particularly on the principles and criteria of morphological and lexical analysis developed in several scientific works4 .Secondly, the delimitation of the units of analysis relies on the process the derivational morpheme participates in: in the case of Old English, there are cases of prefixes and suffixes that are formally identical.Besides, certain derivational processes may change the category of the base while others cannot: prefixation, at least in Old English, frequently leaves the category of the base of derivation unchanged, whereas suffixation normally involves a change of category5 .As regards the boundary between affixation and compounding, the status of units must be used as the baseline for their distinction.In this regard, compounding requires free forms, as in ǣr 'early, former, ancient' and woruld 'world' in ǣrworuld 'ancient world', while affixation makes use of a bound form attached to a new form in order to express a new meaning, as in sinhīwscipe (< hīwscipe 'family, household'), where prefix sinattaches the meaning 'perpetuity, constancy'.
The general assumptions about Old English affixation are primarily based on Jember et al. (1975), whose inventory of affixes is more detailed than Kastovsky's (1992).
Once these analytical underpinnings have been defined, the inventory of lexical functions and macrofunctions, which has been presented in section 3, can be applied accordingly.This part of the analysis has permitted to deduce the meanings each affix conveys by delving into the array of lexical functions associated to them.
As observed in examples ( 13) and ( 14) above, each affixal definition incorporates, in first place, the meaning the affix contributes once it is attached to the derivational base, also the source and target categories involved in the derivative process and the list of predicates that fit the rule.In case the affix is associated with more than one meaning, which is the norm, meaning definitions are added placing the most representative ones in first position and concluding with the less frequent meanings of the affix in question.
The following subsection examines in greater accuracy the contribution of this approach to the definition of affixal material by taking as a reference the information gathered by the lexicographical sources consulted.Meaning definitions through lexical (macro) functions: Old English quantity, size ... Alicante Journal of English Studies, Issue 39, 2023, pages 7-34

A lexicological approach to the definition of affixal meaning
The proposal presented in this paper has settled on an analytical approach that addresses meaning change caused by prefixal and suffixal processes in Old English nouns and adjectives on the grounds of lexical (macro)functions and that is conducted prior to defining the entries.The fact that the relations that hold among the derived lexicon of this language are relatively transparent, both formally and semantically speaking, has facilitated the identification of form and meaning associations.
By way of illustration, fram-is a prefix that derives nouns and that conveys two meanings: on the one hand, it denotes a figurative locative meaning related to the idea of a starting point, such as in framcynn 'origin, ancestry' (< cynn 'kind, sort; family, generation'); on the other, it designates higher rank, like in framrinc 'chief, prince' (< rinc 'man, warrior, hero').Another example is prefix frēa-, a nominal affix that attaches to certain nouns to designate higher position in an organizational (frēareccere 'chief ruler' < reccere 'teacher, ruler') or in an intensity hierarchy (frēamiht 'great strength' < miht 'might, bodily strength; power'); this prefix can be also attached to an adjective to indicate greater intensity (frēaglēaw 'very wise or prudent' < glēaw 'prudent, wise, skillful').
Affixal entries in the main dictionaries of reference in this language have revealed some limitations.Among the improvable aspects are the following ones.Firstly, it has been noted that dictionaries are not systematic in the presentation of affixal content and, in some cases, relevant information is absent from the entries, including the whole array of meanings an affix covers, the lexical categories they derive or the predicates that contain that affix.To give an example, BT proposes two entries for suffix -en that exclusively contain morphological information, namely that this affix is, on the one hand, an ending of adjectives, and, on the other, that it forms many feminine and only a few masculine nouns.However, we have no insight into the meaning this affix conveys when adjectival and nominal.As observed in example ( 14), the entry for this suffix has been completed with the six meanings associated with it, specifying whether that meaning applies to derived nouns, derived adjectives or both.
Another aspect that deserves attention is the fact that, for some entries, meaning information proves partial or scarce.This occurs with prefix and-in BT; according to this dictionary, this prefix only denotes opposition.By delving into its lexical realizations, we know that, in addition to its privative value, it also has a pluralizer (andgelōman 'tools, utensils, implements' < (ge)lōma 'tool, utensil, article of furniture') and a locative function, the latter being either literal (andwlite 'forehead' < wlita 'face, countenance') or figurative (andwīg 'resistance' < wīg 'strife, contest, war, battle').In like manner, BT uniquely assigns prefix fore-circumstantial meaning, while in the DOE this prefix is described in terms of its Latin counterparts.In neither case, however, is fore-associated to rank, a meaning that can be conveyed when attached to nominal bases (forefrēfrend 'proconsul' < frēfrend 'comforter, consoler'), or to a figurative circumstantial meaning (foreðanc 'consideration' < (ge)ðanc 'thought, consideration').Another example is prefix forð-, categorized by the DOE as a verbal prefix.The entry for forð-(see Appendix) proposed in this study reveals this prefix also attaches to nouns (forðfaeder 'ancestor' < faeder 'father') and adjectives (forðmǣre 'very glorious' < mǣre 'pure'), presenting as well noticeable differences in the meanings conveyed depending on the lexical category involved.The entry in the DOE describes this affix in terms of "element-by-element glosses of Latin verbs in pro-".The definition suggested in this study specifies and considerably expands its semantic value by referring to the intensification undergone by the property designated by the base, its locative and figurative locative nature and the experience of a greater charge or responsibility.Likewise, Clark-Hall concedes exclusively an intensitive value to prefix frēa-, but no distinction is drawn between its nominal and adjectival nature and the meaning(s) associated in each case.The entry for this affix (see Appendix) suggested in this study has discerned two related but not identical meanings of frēa-when applied to nouns and adjectives, designating a higher position in an organizational or in an intensity hierarchy in nominal predicates and conveying greater intensity in the case of adjectival predicates.
It may be also the case that there is a mismatch between the definition suggested by a dictionary and the definition this study puts forward on the grounds of a lexical-function-based analytical framework.By way of example, according to BT, prefix sām-conveys agreement, combination and imperfection, whereas this study resolves that this prefix is related to a decrease in the characteristic(s) denoted in the referent (sāmmelt 'half-digested' < (ge)meltan 'to dissolve, digest') as well as to a reduction of a whole to a certain degree (sāmbryce 'partial breach or violation' < (ge)bryce 'breach, fracture').Prefix and-experiences a similar situation.Both BT and Clark-Hall's dictionary make mention of its oppositive value, although the definition proposed in this study prefers to refer to this prefix as a privative one (andgietlēas 'foolish, senseless, doltish' < andgiete 'intellect, understanding, knowledge, perception').
Another possible scenario is the absence of an entry with an affixal value in these dictionaries for some of the forms considered affixes in this study.This occurs with the forms eall-, ful(l)-, healf-, -le, ofer-, sub-, -ð, ðri-/ðry-, -ung, andwelle (see Appendix).
From the perspective adopted here, a study of these characteristics has allowed, in the first place, to complete the definition of word formation elements Meaning definitions through lexical (macro) functions: Old English quantity, size ... Issue 39, 2023, pages 7-34 as they would appear in a dictionary entry by relying upon previous linguistic analysis.Additionally, this study has provided new entries for those elements that have not been labelled as bound forms by the Old English reference dictionaries.Apart from that, further conclusions can be reached, particularly in what regards the polysemous character of the affixal material under analysis, which means that most of these affixes are associated to more than one meaning.The study indicates that the most polysemous affixes are -en, -for-, fore-, forð-, ofer-, sin-, -ð and -ung, comprising four or more different meanings.Exceptions to this polysemy are prefixes arce-, ful(l)-, sub-, twi-, ðri-and under-, and suffixes -feald, -incel, -le and -welle, which convey just one meaning.

Alicante Journal of English Studies,
Finally, a brief reference must be made to the distribution of prefixation and suffixation in the definition of meaning.In this respect, a total of seventeen prefixes and ten suffixes perform a function comprised under the semantic categories quantity, size and rank, which evinces that a wider range of meanings relating to these categories is expressed through prefixation, being generally more contentful.On the contrary, suffixation is normally more structural.To illustrate this point, the formation of feminine predicates (-en, -icge) as well as the creation of diminutives (-incel) are realized suffixally.On the other side, the magnifier function, denoting rank, (arce-, fore-, forð-, fram-, frēa-, ofer-) or the partitive distributive function (healf-, sām-) are eminently prefixal.

Conclusion
This paper has adopted a lexicological and lexicographical perspective in order to deal with the affixal material involved in three semantic categories sharing a conceptual proximity, namely quantity, size and rank, as has been previously classified by Vea Escarza (2013,2016,2018).The analytical framework mostly relies on a structural-functional approach to the derived lexicon of Old English based on an inventory of lexical functions that help systematize the description of lexical relations occurring in the derived vocabulary of this language.Their organization into macrofunctions provides a much more exhaustive and coherent description of Old English affixation based on the lexical functions defined within each semantic category.
Of utmost importance to this study has been to obtain a closer approximation to the assortment of meanings the affixes in question convey and to contribute to their systematization.The main Old English dictionaries accredited in the area have proved not to hold a unified criterion as regards the organization of affixal entries and their content.
A number of valuable insights emerge from this paper.In the first place, the contribution of a linguistic-based study to affixal meaning definition has important implications in the field of lexicography.This can be seen in the fact that new affixal entries have been devised that had no presence in any dictionary.This is the case of affixes eall-, ful(l)-, healf-, -le, ofer-, sub-, -ð, ðri-/ðry-, -ung, and -welle.Secondly, a review of the affixal entries that appear in the dictionaries consulted has permitted to identify mismatches between what these dictionaries suggest and what the results of a study based on form and meaning associations have revealed.As referred to in this study, prefix sām exemplifies this incompatibility evinced by the information provided by the lexicographical sources and the lexical analysis conducted.Thirdly, the collation of all the possible meanings an affix can express has considerably facilitated the completion of the entries in terms of more detailed and accurate information.
Dictionary of Old English: A to I online.Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project.clark-hall, John R. 1996 (1896).A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary.Toronto: U of Toronto P.
It derives adjectives from nominal basis with the meaning 'similarity' with Meaning definitions through lexical (macro) functions: Old English quantity, size ...
-welle.Adjectival suffix attached to a nominal base to designate the scaling of the referent by the amount indicated in the base: hund-welle 'a hundred-fold'.

( 4 )
entry for sam-and sãm-to Clark-Hall: sam-(= together) denotes union, combination, or agreement.[ON.sam-] sãm-(= half-) denotes a partial or imperfect condition.[L.semi-] priv (privative): absence of a property or entity opp (oppositive): the opposite of the entity or property expressed by the base countfact (counterfactual): the equivalent to the oppositive function but applied to verbal bases circumstance loc (locative): concrete location temp (temporal): temporal reference com (comitative): company or association withent (with entity): possession of a concrete entity withprop (with property): possession of an abstract property degree intens (intensifier): intensification of the properties denoted by the base mit (mitigator): decrease in the characteristics denoted by the base first participant ag (agent): agent of the action expressed in the verbal base eff (effector): predication of the verbal base fem (feminine): gender change to feminine pat (patient): patient of a stative verbal base quality rel (relative): reference relation to the meaning of the base ex (origin): the base denotes origin (local, causal, material, etc.) like (similarity): a characteristic of the base is taken in order to establish a comparison pej (pejorative): negative evaluation of the base quantity part (partitive): reference to a part of a larger amount mass (massive): pluralization or collectivization of the referent of the base dist (distributive): scaling of the referent by an amount or number rank magn (magnifier): higher rank than that of the referent min (minimizer): lower rank than that of the referent second participant ent (entity): concrete entity abst (abstract): abstract meaning pred (predicative): objective type of deverbal predications prop (property): abstract property Meaning definitions through lexical (macro) functions: Old English quantity, size ... Alicante Journal of English Studies, Issue 39, 2023, pages 7-34 sta (stative): property derived from a verbal base size dim (diminutive): reduced size of the referent augm (augmentative): the referent becomes increased Figure 1.Distribution of lexical functions across semantic categories.
definition and illustrative examples of each function (the affix is marked in bold type): quantity partitive: a part of a larger amount glaesful 'glassful' < glaes 'glass' healffers 'hemistich' > fers 'verse' massive: a pluralization or collectivization of the referent of the base (ge)fyrhð 'wooded country' < fyrh 'fir' scraefen 'place with caves' < (ge)scraef 'cave' distributive: the scaling of the referent by an amount or number twidaeglic 'lasting two days' > daeglic 'of a day' ðrilēfe 'three-leaved' < lēaf 'leaf' size diminutive: a reduced size of the referent sūlincel 'small furrow' > sūl 'furrow' tūnincel 'small property' < tūn 'field' augmentative: a referent that becomes increased eallmiht 'omnipotence' < miht 'might, power' 3 Functional Discourse Grammar distinguishes the following semantic categories: Property, Individual, State-of-affairs, Propositional Content, Location, Time, Episode, Manner, Reason, Quantity.Hengeveld and Mackenzie (2008, 135) remark these are relevant in those languages in which there are grammatical phenomena that refer to these categories.oferslǣp 'too much sleep' > slǣp 'sleep' Adjectival prefix attached to mainly verbal bases to indicate that the characteristics of the referent become diminished: sām-baerned 'half-burned', to convey an increase in size: sin-here 'huge army', -snǣd.It also derives nouns from nominal bases denoting a higher rank than the referent: sinfrēa 'overlord'.Meaning definitions through lexical (macro) functions: Old English quantity, size ...