ВУЗ: Не указан
Категория: Не указан
Дисциплина: Не указана
Добавлен: 06.04.2021
Просмотров: 4712
Скачиваний: 79
ance of inflections in the course of the historical development of the Eng-
lish language due to which two words of different parts of speech, e.g. a
verb and a noun, coincided in pronunciation. This is the case with such
word-pairs, for instance, as
love
n (OE.
lufu) —
love
v (OE.
lufian);
work
n (OE.
wēōrc) —
work
v (OE.
wyrcan);
answer
n (OE.
andswaru)
—
answer
v (OE.
andswarian) and many others. For this reason certain
linguists consider it necessary to distinguish between homonymous word-
pairs which appeared as a result of the loss of inflections and those
formed by conversion. The term conversion is applied then only to cases
like
doctor
n
— doctor
v;
brief
a
— brief
v
that came into being after
the disappearance of inflections, word-pairs like
work
n
— work
v
being
regarded exclusively as cases of homonymy.
1
Other linguists share Prof. Smirnitsky’s views concerning discrimina-
tion between conversion as a derivational means and as a type of word-
building relations between words in Modern English. Synchronically in
Modern English there is no difference at all between cases like
taxi
n
—
taxi
v
and cases like
love
n
— love
v
from the point of view of their mor-
phological structure and the word-building system of the language. In ei-
ther case the only difference between the two words is that of the para-
digm: the historical background is here irrelevant. It should be emphati-
cally stressed at this point that the present-day derivative correlations
within conversion pairs do not necessarily coincide with the etymological
relationship. For instance, in the word-pair
awe
n
—
awe
v
the noun is
the source, of derivation both diachronically and synchronically, but it is
quite different with the pair
mould
v
— mould
n:
historically the verb is
the derived member, whereas it is the other way round from the angle of
Modern English (cf. the derivatives
mouldable, moulding, moulder
which have suffixes added to verb-bases).
A diachronic semantic analysis of a conversion pair reveals that in the
course of time the semantic structure of the base may acquire a new
meaning or several meanings under the influence of the meanings of the
converted word. This semantic process has been termed r e c o n v e r -
s i o n in linguistic literature.
2
There is an essential difference between
conversion and reconversion: being a way of forming words conversion
leads to a numerical enlargement of the English vocabulary, whereas re-
conversion only brings about a new meaning correlated with one of the
meanings of the converted word. Research has shown that reconversion
1
Because of the regular character of semantic correlation within such word-pairs
as well as within conversion pairs formed on the semantic patterns I. P. Ivanova intro-
duces the notion of patterned homonymy. She points out that conversion is one of the
sources of homonymy, there are also other sources such as coincidence in sound-form of
words of different parts of speech, borrowing two words of different parts of speech in the
same phonetic shape, and some others. (See
И. П. Иванова.
О морфологической харак-
теристике слова в современном английском языке. — Сб. : Проблемы морфологиче-
ского строя германских языков. М., 1963; see also
I. Arnold.
The English Word. M.,
1973, ch. VIII.)
2
See
П. М. Каращук.
Реконверсия и ее роль в развитии семантических структур
соотносящихся по конверсии слов. — Сб. “Словообразование и его место в курсе
обучения иностранному языку”, вып. I. Владивосток, 1973.
1.37
only operates with denominal verbs and deverbal nouns. As an illustration
the conversion pair
smoke
n
— smoke
v
may be cited. According to the
Oxford English Dictionary
some of the meanings of the two words are:
SMOKE я
1. the visible volatile product
given off by burning or smoul-
dering substances (1000)
1
c) the
act of smoke coming out into a
room instead of passing up the
chimney (1715)
SMOKE
v
1.
intr.
to produce or give forth
smoke (1000)
'c) of a room, chimney, lamp,
etc.: to be smoky, to emit
smoke as the result of imper-
fect draught or improper
burning (1663)
Comparison makes it possible to trace the semantic development of
each word. The verb
smoke
formed in 1000 from the noun
smoke
in the
corresponding meaning had acquired by 1663 another meaning by
a
meta-
phorical transfer which, in turn, gave rise to a correlative meaning of the
noun
smoke
in 1715 through reconversion.
Conversion is not an absolutely productive
way of forming words because it is restricted
both semantically and morphologically.
With reference to semantic restrictions it is assumed that all verbs can
be divided into two groups: a) verbs denoting processes that can be repre-
sented as a succession of isolated actions from which nouns are easily
formed, e.g.
fall
v
— fall
n
;
run
v
—
run
n
;
jump
v
— jump
n,
etc.; b)
verbs like
to sit, to lie, to stand
denoting processes that cannot be repre-
sented as a succession of isolated actions, thus defying conversion. How-
ever, a careful examination of modern English usage reveals that it is ex-
tremely difficult to distinguish between these two groups. This can be ex-
emplified in such pairs as
to invite — an invite, to take — a take, to sing
— a sing, to bleed — a bleed, to win
—
a win,
etc. The possibility for
the verbs to be formed from nouns through conversion seems to be illimit-
able.
The morphological restrictions suggested by certain linguists are found
in the fact that the complexity of word-structure does not favour conver-
sion. It is significant that in
MnE.
there are no verbs converted from nouns
with the suffixes
-ing
and
-ation.
This restriction is counterbalanced, how-
ever, by innumerable occasional conversion pairs of rather complex struc-
ture, e.g.
to package, to holiday, to wireless, to petition, to reverence,
etc. Thus, it seems possible to regard conversion as a highly productive
way of forming words in Modern English.
The English word-stock contains a great many words formed by means
of conversion in different periods of its history. There are cases of tradi-
tional and occasional conversion. Traditional conversion refers to the ac-
cepted use of words which are recorded in dictionaries, e.g.
to age, to
cook, to love, to look, to capture,
etc. The individual or occasional
1
The figures in brackets show the year of the first use of the word in the given mean-
ing.
138
§ 2 1 . Productivity.
Traditional
and Occasional Conversion
use of conversion is also very frequent; verbs and adjectives are converted
from nouns or vice versa for the sake of bringing out the meaning more
vividly in a given context only. These cases of individual coinage serve
the given occasion only and do not enter the word-stock of the English
language. In modern English usage we find a great number of cases of oc-
casional conversion, e.g.
to
girl
the
boat; when his guests had been
washed,
mended, brushed
and
brandied;
How am
I
to preserve the respect of
fellow-travellers, if I'm to be
Billied
at every turn?
Sound-interchange in English is often com-
bined with a difference in the paradigm. This
raises the question of the relationship between
sound-interchange and conversion. To find a solution of the problem in
terms of A. I. Smirnitsky’s conception of conversion the following three
types of relations should be distinguished:
1) breath — to breathe
As far as cases of this type are concerned, sound-interchange distin-
guishes only between words, it does not differentiate word-forms of one
and the same word. Consequently it has no relation to the paradigms of the
words. Hence, cases of this type cannot be regarded as conversion.
2)
song — to sing
In the above given example the vowel in
song
interchanges with three
different vowels, the latter interchanging with one another in the forms of
the verb
to sing:
Like the previous type, the words
song — to sing
are not related by
conversion:
song
differs from
to sing (sang, sung)
not only in the para-
digm. Its root-vowel does not occur in the word-forms of the verb and vice
versa.
3)
house — to house
In such cases the type of sound-interchange distinguishing the two
words (verb and noun) is the same as that which distinguishes the word-
forms of the noun, cf,
house
[haus] —
houses
[hauziz] and
to house
[hauz] — houses [hauziz]. Consequently, the only difference between the
two words lies in their paradigms, in other words, word-pairs like
house
— to house
are cases of conversion.
It is fairly obvious that in such cases as
present — to present, accent
— to accent,
etc. which differ in the position of stress, the latter does not
distinguish the word-forms within the paradigm of the two words. Thus, as
far as cases of this type are concerned, the difference in stress is similar
139
§ 22. Conversion and Sound-
(stress-) Interchange
to the function of sound-interchange in cases like
breath — "to breathe.
Consequently, cases of this type do not belong to conversion.
There is, however, another interpretation of the relationship between
conversion and sound (stress)-interchange in linguistic literature. As
sound- and (stress-)interchange often accompanies cases of affixation,
e.g.
courage — courageous, stable — stability,
it seems logical to assume
that conversion as one of the types of derivation may also be accompanied
by sound- (stress-)interchange. Hence, cases like
breath — to breathe; to
sing — song; present — to present; increase
—
to increase,
etc. are to be re-
garded as those of conversion.
1. Conversion, an exceedingly productive way
of forming words in Modern English, is
treated differently in linguistic literature. Some linguists define it as a
morphological, others as a morphological-syntactic way of forming words,
still others consider conversion from a purely syntactic angle.
2.
There are several criteria of semantic derivation within conversion
pairs. The most universal are the semantic and the frequency criteria.
3.
On the synchronic plane conversion is regarded as a type of deriva-
tive correlation between two words making up a conversion pair.
4., On the diachronic plane conversion is a way of forming new words
on the analogy of the semantic patterns available in the language. Dia-
chronically distinction should be made between cases of conversion as
such and those of homonymy due to the disappearance of inflections in the
course of the development of the English language.
Word-Composition
C o m p o u n d i n g
or
w o r d -
c o m p o s i t i o n is one of the productive
types of word-formation in Modern English. Composition like all other
ways of deriving words has its own peculiarities as to the m e a n s
u s e d , t h e n a t u r e of b a s e s a n d t h e i r d i s t r i b u -
t i o n , as to t h e r a n g e of a p p l i c a t i o n , t h e s c o p e of
s e m a n t i c c l a s s e s a n d t h e f a c t o r s c o n d u c i v e to
prod u c t i v i t y .
Compounds, as has been mentioned elsewhere, are made up of two ICs
which are both derivational bases. Compound words are inseparable vo-
cabulary units. They are formally and semantically dependent on the con-
stituent bases and the semantic relations between them which mirror the
relations between the motivating units. The ICs of compound words repre-
sent bases of all three structural types.
1
The bases built on stems may be of
different degree
2
of complexity as, e.g.,
week-end, office-management,
postage-stamp, aircraft-carrier, fancy-dress-maker,
etc. However, this
complexity of structure of bases is not typical of the bulk of Modern Eng-
lish compounds.
1
See ‘Word-Structure’, § 8, p. 97.
2
See ‘Word-Formation’, § 6, p. 114.
§ 23. Summary and Conclusions
§ 24. Compounding
In this connection care should be taken not to confuse compound
words with polymorphic words of secondary derivation, i.e. derivatives
built according to an affixal pattern but on a compound stem for its base
such as, e.g.,
school-mastership
([n+n]+suf),
ex-housewife
(prf+[n+n]),
to weekend, to spotlight
([n+n]+
conversion).
Compound words like all other inseparable vo-
cabulary units take shape in a definite system of
grammatical forms, syntactic and semantic features. Compounds, on the one
hand, are generally clearly distinguished from and often opposed to free
word-groups, on the other hand they lie astride the border-line between
words and word-groups and display close ties and correlation with the sys-
tem of free word-groups. The structural inseparability of compound words
finds expression in the unity of their specific distributional pattern and spe-
cific stress and spelling pattern.
S t r u c t u r a l l y compound words are characterised by the spe-
cific order and arrangement in which bases follow one another. T h e or-
d e r in which the two bases are placed within a compound is r i g i d ly
f i x e d in Modern English and it
is the second IC that makes the head-
member of the word, i.e. its structural and semantic centre. The head-
member is of basic importance as it ‘preconditions both the lexico-
grammatical and semantic features of the first component. It is of interest
to note that the difference between stems (that serve as bases in compound
words) and word-forms they coincide with
1
is most obvious in some com-
pounds, especially in compound adjectives. Adjectives like
long, wide,
rich
are characterised by grammatical forms of degrees of comparison
longer
,
wider, richer.
The corresponding stems functioning as bases in
compound words lack grammatical independence and forms proper to the
words and retain only the part-of-speech meaning; thus compound adjec-
tives with adjectival stems for their second components, e.g.
age-long, oil-
rich, inch-wide,
do not form degrees of comparison as the compound ad-
jective
oil-rich
does not form them the way the word rich does, but con-
forms to the general rule of polysyllabic adjectives and has analytical
forms of degrees of comparison. The same difference between words and
stems is not so noticeable in compound nouns with the noun-stem for the
second component.
Phоnetiсallу compounds are also marked by a specific structure of
their own. No phonemic changes of bases occur in composition but the
compound word acquires a new stress pattern, different from the stress in
the motivating words, for example words
key
and
hole or hot
and
house
each possess their own stress but when the stems of these words are
brought together to make up a new compound word, ‘
keyhole
— ‘a hole
in a lock into which a key fits’, or ‘
hot-house
— ‘a heated building for
growing delicate plants’, the latter is given a different stress pattern — a
unity stress on the first component in our case. Compound words have
three stress patterns:
a) a high or unity stress on the first component as in ‘
honeymoon,
doorway,
etc.
1
See ‘Word-Structure’, § 8, p. 97,
141
§ 25. Structure