ВУЗ: Не указан
Категория: Не указан
Дисциплина: Не указана
Добавлен: 06.04.2021
Просмотров: 4709
Скачиваний: 79
II. Nouns converted from verbs (deverbal substantives).
The verb generally referring to an action, the converted noun may de-
note:
1)
instance of the action, e.g.
jump
v —
jump
n
— ’sudden spring
from the ground’;
move
v
—
move
n — ‘
a change of position’;
2)
agent of the action, e.g.
help
v
— help
n — ‘a
person who helps’; it
is of interest to mention that the deverbal personal nouns denoting the doer
are mostly derogatory, e.g.
bore
v —
bore
n
— ‘a person that bores’;
cheat
v
— cheat
n
— ‘a person who cheats’;
3)
place of the action, e.g.
drive
v —
drive
n — ‘a
path or road along
which one drives’;
walk
v —
walk
n
— ‘a place for walking’;
4)
object or result of the action, e.g.
peel
v
— peel
n
— ‘the outer skin
of fruit or potatoes taken off;
find
v
—
find
и — ’something found,” esp.
something valuable or pleasant’; etc.
For convenience the typical semantic relations as briefly described
above may be graphically represented in the form of a diagram (see below,
pp. 132-133).
In conclusion it is necessary to point out that in the case of polyseman-
tic words one and the same member of a conversion pair, a verb or a noun,
belongs to several of the above-mentioned groups making different deriva-
tional bases. For instance, the verb
dust
belongs to Group 4 of Denominal
verbs (deprivation of the object) when it means ‘remove dust from some-
thing’, and to Group 3 (acquisition or addition of the object) when it
means ‘cover with powder’; the noun
slide
is referred to Group 3 of
Deverbal substantives (place of the action) when denoting ‘a stretch of
smooth ice or hard snow on which people slide’ and to Group 2 (agent of
the action) when it refers to a part of an instrument or machine that slides,
etc.
Denominal Verbs
132
Deverbal Substantives
It follows from the foregoing discussion that
within conversion pairs one of the two words
has a more complex semantic structure,
hence the problem of the criteria of semantic derivation: which of the two
words within a conversion pair is the derived member?
T h e f i r s t c r i t e r i o n makes use of the non-correspondence
between the lexical meaning of the root-morpheme and the part-of-speech
meaning of the stem in one of the two words making up a conversion pair.
In cases like
pen
n
—
pen
v,
father
n
— father
v,
etc. the noun is the
name for a being or a concrete thing. Therefore, the lexical meaning of the
root-morpheme corresponds to the part-of-speech meaning of the stem.
This type of nouns is regarded as having a simple semantic structure.
The verbs
pen, father
denote a process, therefore the part-of-speech
meaning of their stems does not correspond to the lexical meaning of the
roots which is of a substantival character. This distinction accounts for the
complex character of the semantic structure of verbs of this type. It is natu-
ral to regard the semantically simple as the source of the semantically
complex, hence we are justified in assuming that the verbs
pen, father
are
derived from the corresponding nouns. This criterion is not universal being
rather restricted in its application. It is reliable only when there is no doubt
that the root-morpheme is of a substantival character or that it denotes a
process, i.e. in cases like
to father, to pen, a fall, a drive,
etc. But there
are a great many conversion pairs in which it is extremely difficult to ex-
actly determine the semantic character of the root-morpheme, e.g.
answer
v
— answer
n
; match
v
—
match
n
,
etc. The non-correspondence crite-
rion is inapplicable to such cases.
T h e s e c o n d c r i t e r i o n involves a comparison of a conver-
sion pair with analogous word-pairs making use of the synonymic sets, of
which the words in question are members. For instance, in comparing
conversion pairs like
chat
v
— chat
n
;
show
v
— show
n
; work
v
—
work
n,
etc. with analogous synonymic word-pairs like
converse
—
con-
versation; exhibit — exhibition; occupy — occupation; employ — em-
ployment,
etc. we are led to conclude that the nouns
chat, show, work,
etc. are the derived
133
§ 19. Basic Criteria
of Semantic Derivation
members. We are justified in arriving at this conclusion because the se-
mantic relations in the case of
chat
v
— chat
n
;
show
v
— show
n
; work
v
— work
n
are similar to those between
converse — conversation; ex-
hibit — exhibition; employ — employment.
Like the non-
correspondence criterion the synonymity criterion is considerably re-
stricted in its application. This is a relatively reliable criterion only for ab-
stract words whose synonyms possess a complex morphological structure
making it possible to draw a definite conclusion about the direction of se-
mantic derivation. Besides, this criterion may be applied only to deverbal
substantives
(v
->
n)
and not to denominal verbs
(n
->
v).
Of more universal character is t h e c r i t e r i o n b a s e d on
d e r i v a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s within the word-cluster of which
the converted words in question are members. It will be recalled that the
stems of words making up a word-cluster enter into derivational relations
of different degrees.
1
If the centre of the cluster is a verb, all derived words
of the first degree of derivation have suffixes generally added to a verb-
base (see fig. below. p. 135). The centre of a cluster being a noun, all the
first-degree derivatives have suffixes generally added to a noun-base.
Proceeding from this regularity it is logical to conclude that if the first-
degree derivatives have suffixes added to a noun-base, the centre of the
cluster is a noun, and if they have suffixes added to a verb-base, it is a
verb.
2
It is this regularity that the criterion of semantic derivation under
discussion is based on. In the word-cluster
hand
n
— hand
v
— handful
— handy — handed
the derived words have suffixes added to the noun-
base which makes it possible to conclude that the structural and semantic
centre of the whole cluster is the noun
hand.
Consequently, we can as-
sume that the verb
hand
is semantically derived from the noun
hand.
Likewise, considering the derivatives within the word-cluster
float
n
—
float
v
— floatable — floater — floatation — floating
we see that the
centre is the verb
to float
and conclude that the noun
float
is the derived
member in the conversion pair
float
n
— float
v.
The derivational criterion
is less restricted in its application than the other two described above.
However, as this criterion necessarily involves consideration of a whole set
of derivatives it can hardly be applied to word-clusters which have few
derived words.
Of very wide application is t h e c r i t e r i o n of s e m a n t i c
d e r i v a t i o n based on semantic relations within conversion pairs. It is
natural to conclude that the existence within a conversion pair of
a
type of
relations typical of, e.g., denominal verbs proves that the verb is the derived
member. Likewise, a type of relations typical of deverbal substantives
marks the noun as the derived member. For instance, the semantic relations
between
crowd
n
—
crowd
v
are perceived as those of an object and an
action characteristic of the object, which leads one to the ,
1
See ‘Word-Formations’, § 6, p. 114.
2
Information concerning the stems of the parts of speech the English suffixes are regu-
larly added to may be found in “Exercises in Modern English Word-Building” by D. Vesnik
and S. Khidekel, M., 1964.
134
conclusion that the verb
crowd
is the derived member; likewise, in the
pair take
v
—
take
n
the noun is the derived member, because the relations
between the two words are those of an action and a result or an object of
the action — type 4 relations of deverbal substantives, etc. This semantic
criterion of inner derivation is one of the most important ones for deter-
mining the derived members within a conversion pair, for its application
has almost no limitations.
To sum up, out of the four criteria considered above the most important
are the derivational and the semantic criteria, for there are almost no limi-
tations to their application. When applying the other two criteria, their
limitations should be kept in mind. As a rule, the word under analysis
should meet the requirements of the two basic criteria. In doubtful cases
one of the remaining criteria should be resorted to. It may be of interest to
point out that in case a word meets the requirements of the non-
correspondence criterion no additional checking is necessary.
Of late a n e w c r i t e r i o n of s e m a n t i c d e r i v a t i o n
for conversion pairs has been suggested.
1
It is based on t h e frequency of
o c c u r r e n c e in various utterances of either of the two member-
words related through conversion. According to this frequency criterion a
lower frequency value testifies to the derived character of the word in
question. The information about the frequency value of words although on
a limited scale can be found in the available dictionaries of word-
frequency with semantic counts.
2
To give an illustration, according to M. West’s
A General Service List
of English Words,
the frequency value of four verb — noun conversion
pairs in correlative meanings taken at random is estimated as follows:
to answer (
V
= 63%) — answer (
N
=35%), to
help (
V
= 61%) — help
(N = 1%),
to sample
(V=
10%) — sample
(N=90%),
to joke
(V=8%) — joke
(N=82%).
By the frequency criterion of semantic derivation in the first two pairs
the nouns
(answer
and
help)
are derived words (deverbal
1
See
H. О.
Волкова.
К вопросу о направлении производности при конверсии в
парах имя — глагол (на материале современного английского языка). — Сб., Иностр.
яз. в высшей школе, вып. 9. М., 1974.
2
See ‘Fundamentals of English Lexicography’, § 5, p. 214.
135
substantive’s), in the other two pairs the verbs
(to sample
and
to joke)
are
converted from nouns (denominal verbs).
Of interest is also t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l c r i t e r i o n
of semantic derivation for conversion pairs suggested in linguistic litera-
ture not so long ago.
1
The procedure of the transformational criterion
is
rather complicated, therefore only part of it as applied to deverbal substan-
tives is described here.
The transformational procedure helping to determine the direction of
semantic derivation in conversion pairs is the transformation of nominali-
sation (the nominalising transformation).
2
It is applied to a change of
a
predicative syntagma into a nominal syntagma.
By analogy with the transformation of predicative syntagmas like “The
committee elected John” into the nominal syntagma “John’s election by
the committee” or “the committee’s election of John” in which the deriva-
tional relationship of
elect
and
election
is that of a derived word
(election)
to its base
(elect)
the possibility of transformations like
Roy loves nature -> Roy’s love of nature
3
John visited his friend -> John’s
visit to his friend She promised help -> her promise of help proves the de-
rived character of the nouns
love, visit, promise.
Failure to apply the
nominalising transformation indicates that the nouns cannot be regarded as
derived from the corresponding verb base,
e.g. She bosses the establishment -> her boss of the establishment
4
I
skinned the rabbit -> my skin of the rabbit He taxied home -> his
taxi home
Modern English vocabulary is exceedingly
rich in conversion pairs. As a way of forming
words conversion is extremely productive and
new conversion pairs make their appearance in fiction, newspaper articles
and in the process of oral communication in all spheres of human activity
gradually forcing their way into the existing vocabulary and into the dic-
tionaries as well. New conversion pairs are created on the analogy of those
already in the word-stock on the semantic patterns described above as
types of semantic relations. Conversion is highly productive in the forma-
tion of verbs, especially from compound nouns. 20th century new words
include a great many verbs formed by conversion, e.g.
to motor
— ‘travel
by car’;
to phone
— ‘use the telephone’;
to wire
— ’send a telegram’;
to
microfilm — ‘
produce a microfilm
of;
to tear-gas
— ‘to use tear-gas’;
to
fire-bomb
— ‘drop fire-bombs’;
to spearhead
— ‘act as a spearhead for’;
to blueprint
— ‘work out, outline’, etc. A diachronic survey of the pre-
sent-day stock of conversion pairs reveals, however, that not all of them
have been created on the semantic patterns just referred to. Some of them
arose as a result of the disappear-
1
See
П. А. Соболева.
О трансформационном анализе словообразовательных от-
ношений. — Сб. Трансформационный метод в структурной лингвистике. М., 1964.
2
See ‘Methods and Procedures of Lexicological Analysis’, § 5, p. 251.
3
The
sign -> shows the possibility of transformation.
4
The sign ->
denotes the impossibility of transformation.
136
§ 20. Diachronic Approach
of Conversion. Origin