A course In Modern English Lexicology

M. Rayevskaya, English Lexicology. Kiev, 1957; D. Vesnik, S. Khidekel. Exercises in Modern English Word-Building. M., 1964; О. Д. Мешков. Словообразование английского языка. М., 1976.
1 See also ‘Word-Structure’, § 7, p. 96.
127
It is necessary to call attention to the fact that the paradigm plays a significant role in the process of word-formation in general and not only in the case of conversion. Thus, the noun cooker (in gas-cooker) is formed from the word to cook not only by the addition of the suffix -er, but also by the change in its paradigm. However, in this case, the role played by the paradigm as a word-building means is less obvious, as the word-building suffix -er comes to the fore. Therefore, conversion is characterised not simply by the use of the paradigm as a word-building means, but by the formation of a new word s о l e l у by means of changing its paradigm.
Hence, the change of paradigm is the only word-building means of conversion. As a paradigm is a morphological category conversion can be described as a morphological way of forming words. The following indisputable cases of conversion have bееn discussed in linguistic literature: 1) formation of verbs from nouns and more rarely from other parts of speech, and
2) formation of nouns from verbs and rarely from other parts of speech.
Opinion differs on the possibility of creating adjectives from nouns through conversion. In the so-called “stone wall” complexes the first members are regarded by some linguists as adjectives formed from the corresponding noun-stems by conversion, or as nouns in an attributive function by others, or as substantival stems by still others so that the whole combination is treated as a compound word. In our treatment of conversion on the pages that follow we shall be mainly concerned with the indisputable cases, i.e. deverbal substantives and denominal verbs.
Conversion has been the subject of a great many linguistic discussions since 1891 when H. Sweet first used the term in his New English Grammar. Various opinions have been expressed on the nature and character of conversion in the English language and different conceptions of conversion have been put forward.
The treatment of conversion as a morphological way of forming words accepted in the present book was suggested by the late Prof. A. I. Smirnitsky in his works on the English language.
Other linguists sharing, on the whole, the conception of conversion as a morphological way of forming words disagree, however, as to what serves here as a word-building means. Some of them define conversion as a non-affixal way of forming words pointing out that the characteristic feature is that a certain stem is used for the formation of a different word of a different part of speech without a derivational affix being added. Others hold the view that conversion is the formation of new words with the help of a zero-morpheme.
The treatment of conversion as a non-affixal word-formation process calls forth some criticism, it can hardly be accepted as adequate, for it fails to bring out the specific means making it possible to form, for instance, a verb from a noun without adding a derivational affix to the base. Besides, the term a non-affixal word-formation process does not help to distinguish between cases of conversion and those of sound-128
interchange, e.g. to sing — song; to feed — food; full — to fill, etc.
which lie outside the scope of word-formation in Modern English.
The conception of conversion as derivation with a zero-morpheme, however, merits attention. The propounders of this interpretation of conversion rightly refer to some points of analogy between affixation and conversion. Among them is similarity of semantic relations between a derived word and its underlying base, on the one hand, and between words within a conversion pair,
e.g. 1. action — doer of the action: to
walk — a walker (affixation) to
tramp — a tramp (conversion);
2. action — result of the action: to
agree — agreement (affixation), to
find — a find (conversion), etc.
They also argue that as the derivational complexity of a derived word involves a more complex semantic structure as compared with that of the base, it is but logical to assume that the semantic complexity of a converted word should manifest itself in its derivational structure, even though in the form of a zero derivational affix.
There are also some other arguments in favour of this interpretation of conversion, which for lack of space cannot be considered here.
If one accepts this conception of conversion, then one will have to distinguish between two types of derivation in Modern English: one effected by employing suffixes and prefixes, the other by using a zero derivational affix.
There is also a point of view on conversion as a morphological-syntactic word-building means,1 for it involves, as the linguists sharing this conception maintain, both a change of the paradigm and a change of the syntactic function of the word, e.g. I need some good paper for my rooms and He is papering his room. It may be argued, however, that as the creation of a word through conversion necessarily involves the formation of a new word-stem, a purely morphological unit, the syntactic factor is irrelevant to the processes of word-formation proper, including conversion.
Besides, there is also a purely syntactic approach commonly known as a functional approach to conversion. Certain linguists and lexicographers especially those in Great Britain and the USA are inclined to regard conversion in Modern English as a kind of functional change. They define conversion as a shift from one part of speech to another contending that in Modern English a word may function as two different parts of speech at the same time. If we accept this point of view, we should logically arrive at the conclusion that in Modern English we no longer distinguish between parts of speech, i.e. between noun and verb, noun and adjective, etc., for one and the same word cannot simultaneously belong to different parts of speech. It is common knowledge, however, that the English word-stock is subdivided into big word classes each having its own 1 See, for instance , I. V. Arnold. The English Word. L. — M., 1973.
129
semantic and formal features. The distinct difference between nouns and verbs, for instance, as in the case of doctor — to doctor discussed above, consists in the number and character of the categories reflected in their paradigms. Thus, the functional approach to conversion cannot be justified and should be rejected as inadequate.
Conversion pairs are distinguished by the
§ 17. Synchronic Approach structural identity of the root and phonetic identity of the stem of each of the two words. Synchronically we deal with pairs of words related through conversion that coexist in contemporary English. The two words, e.g. to break and a break, being phonetically identical, the question arises whether they have the same or identical stems, as some linguists are inclined to believe.1 It will be recalled that the stem carries quite a definite part-of-speech meaning; for instance, within the word-cluster to dress — dress — dresser — dressing — dressy, the stem dresser — carries not only the lexical meaning of the root-morpheme dress-, but also the meaning of substantivity, the stem dressy- the meaning of quality, etc. These two ingredients — the lexical meaning of the root-morpheme and the part-of-speech meaning of the stem — form part of the meaning of the whole word. It is the stem that requires a definite paradigm; for instance, the word dresser is a noun primarily because it has a noun-stem and not only because of the noun paradigm; likewise, the word materialise is a verb, because first and foremost it has a verbal stem possessing the lexico-grammatical meaning of process or action and requiring a verb paradigm.
What is true of words whose root and stem do not coincide is also true of words with roots and stems that coincide: for instance, the word atom is a noun because of the substantival character of the stem requiring the noun paradigm. The word sell is a verb because of the verbal character of its stem requiring the verb paradigm, etc. It logically follows that the stems of two words making up a conversion pair cannot be regarded as being the same or identical: the stem hand- of the noun hand, for instance, carries a substantival meaning together with the system of its meanings, such as: 1) the end of the arm beyond the wrist; 2) pointer on a watch or clock; 3) worker in a factory; 4) source of information, etc.; the stem hand- of the verb hand has a different part-of-speech meaning, namely that of the verb, and a different system of meanings: 1) give or help with the hand, 2) pass, etc. Thus, the stems of word-pairs related through conversion have different part-of-speech and denotational meanings. Being phonetically identical they can be regarded as homonymous stems.
A careful examination of the relationship between the lexical meaning of the root-morpheme and the part-of-speech meaning of the stem within a conversion pair reveals that in one of the two words the former does not correspond to the latter. For instance, the lexical meaning of the root-morpheme of the noun hand corresponds to the part-of-speech meaning of 1 See, for instance, А. И. Смирницкий. Лексикология английского языка. М., 1956, с. 71 — 72, also О. С. Ахманова. Некоторые вопросы семантического анализа слов. —
Вестн. МГУ, 1957, № 2, с. 70.
130
its stem: they are both of a substantival character; the lexical meaning of the root-morpheme of the verb hand, however, does not correspond to the part-of-speech meaning of the stem: the root-morpheme denotes an object, whereas the part-of-speech meaning of the stem is that of a process. The same is true of the noun fall whose stem is of a substantival character (which is proved by the noun paradigm fall — falls — fall’s — falls’, whereas the root-morpheme denotes a certain process.
It will be recalled that the same kind of non-correspondence is typical of the derived word in general. To give but two examples, the part-of-speech meaning of the stem blackness — is that of substantivity, whereas the root-morpheme black-denotes a quality; the part-of-speech meaning of the stem eatable- (that of qualitativeness) does not correspond to the lexical meaning of the root-morpheme denoting a process. It should also be pointed out here that in simple words the lexical meaning of the root corresponds to the part-of-speech meaning of the stem, cf. the two types of meaning of simple words like black a, eat v, chair n, etc. Thus, by analogy with the derivational character of the stem of a derived word it is natural to regard the stem of one of the two words making up a conversion pair as being of a derivational character as well. The essential difference between affixation and conversion is that affixation is characterised by both semantic and structural derivation (e.g. friend — friendless, dark —
darkness, etc.), whereas conversion displays only semantic derivation, i.e.
hand — to hand, fall — to fall, taxi — to taxi, etc.; the difference between the two classes of words in affixation is marked both by a special derivational affix and a paradigm, whereas in conversion it is marked only by paradigmatic forms.
As one of the two words within a conversion
§ 18. Typical Semantic pair is semantically derived from the other, it Rela-is of great theoretical and
practical importance to determine the semantic
relations between words related through conversion. Summing up the findings of the linguists who have done research in this field we can enumerate the following typical semantic relations.
I. Verbs converted from nouns (denominal verbs).
This is the largest group of words related through conversion. The semantic relations between the nouns and verbs vary greatly. If the noun refers to some object of reality (both animate and inanimate) the converted verb may denote:
1) action characteristic of the object, e.g. ape n — ape v — ‘imitate in a foolish way’; butcher n — butcher v — ‘ kill animals for food, cut up a killed animal’;
2) instrumental use of the object, e.g. screw n — screw v — ‘fasten with a screw’; whip n — whip v — ’strike with a whip’; 3) acquisition or addition of the object, e.g. fish n — fish v — ‘ catch or try to catch fish’; coat n — ‘covering of paint' — coat v — ‘put a coat of paint on’;
4) deprivation of the object, e.g. dust n — dust v — ‘ remove dust from something’; skin n — skin v — ’strip off the skin from’; etc.
5*
131

II. Nouns converted from verbs (deverbal substantives).
The verb generally referring to an action, the converted noun may denote:
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 polysemantic 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 derivational bases. For instance, the verb dust belongs to Group 4 of Denominal verbs (deprivation of the object) when it means ‘remove dust from something’, 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
§ 19. Basic Criteria within conversion pairs one of the two words of Semantic Derivation 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 natural 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 exactly determine the semantic character of the root-morpheme, e.g. answer v — answer n; match v — match n, etc. The non-correspondence criterion 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 conversion 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 — conversation; exhibit — exhibition; occupy — occupation; employ — employment, etc. we are led to conclude that the nouns chat, show, work, etc. are the derived
133
members. We are justified in arriving at this conclusion because the semantic relations in the case of chat v — chat n; show v — show n; work v — work n are similar to those between converse — conversation; exhibit — exhibition; employ — employment. Like the non-correspondence criterion the synonymity criterion is considerably restricted in its application. This is a relatively reliable criterion only for abstract words whose synonyms possess a complex morphological structure making it possible to draw a definite conclusion about the direction of semantic 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 assume 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 regularly 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 determining 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 limitations 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 literature not so long ago.1 The procedure of the transformational criterion is rather complicated, therefore only part of it as applied to deverbal substantives is described here.
The transformational procedure helping to determine the direction of semantic derivation in conversion pairs is the transformation of nominalisation (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 derivational 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 derived 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