|
Реферат: Конверсионное словообразование прилагательных цветообозначения. Методика преподавния в нач.классах (Иностранные языки)
Contents.
I. Introduction_______________________________2.
II. Theoretical part___________________________4.
III. Practical part_____________________________32.
IV. Conclusion______________________________36.
V. Bibliography_____________________________37.
VI. Appendix I______________________________39.
VII. Appendix II_____________________________40.
VIII. Appendix III____________________________43.
IX. Appendix IV_____________________________46.
X. Appendix V ______________________________48.
XI. Appendix VI_____________________________51.
XII. Appendix VII____________________________53.
I. Introduction.
This diploma paper is the logic continuation of course paper. The choice of
a theme of this paper is caused by the small studying of this question by
way of teaching it in primary school. The word-formation, as one of
branches of lexicon, is a difficult and volumetric question, therefore
requires the careful studying. The basic theme of this paper is the
question on conversion, as the most productive way of a word-formation
however the other kinds of formation of new words: prefix and suffix word-
formation, also are mentioned. The special place is allocated for
productivity of adjectives of a colourmarking. Having the rather large
ability to formation the new words it is interesting the fact, that formed
from them by any of ways of a word, it is more often nouns, formed on
conversion, have a tendency to enter into the structure of various
phraseologies, phraseological word combinations, that speaks about
connection between phraseological and word-formation systems of the
language.
The paper consists of two basic parts: theoretical and practical ones,
which examine one problems, but from the different corners of sight. The
theoretical part includes some subitems. At first it is necessary to tell
some words about the term "word", which is the main one in the paper and
should be definite. The term "word" is taken to denote the smallest
independent unit of speech susceptible of being used in isolation. Also it
is impossible to disregard the definition of the field of word-formation.
The mention about affix (suffix and prefix) word-formation in the paper is
not casual, the conversion is more productive way, in comparison with them,
because the formation of new words on conversion is possible practically
from any part of speech, including prepositions and proper names. Speaking
about the abilities to a word-formation of colourmarking adjectives, it is
necessary to note three ways, on which this process passes: The suffix,
conversion word-formation and the word addition way , though the more often
English language prefers a word combination. Also the formation of
derivative verbs on conversion is typical for the English language.
Having analysed some courses of studying the foreign language it was
interesting to find out, that the conversion is not mentioned at all there,
though, being one of the most productive ways of a word-formation, could
be a good way of updating the child’s active and passive vocabulary. Taking
into account the opportunities, which are given by the knowledge of this
way of formation the new words, it is easy to estimate a role of studying
this material at school, it is natural that the beginning of presenting
some items of this phenomenon to children is necessary to start from that
moment, as soon as the children would have the sufficient lexical base for
this purpose. It is possible to consider the third year of training as the
most successful moment for the beginning of presenting the essence of this
phenomenon to children. For confirmation of this hypothesis three
experiments were spent: ascertaining, forming and control ones, with group
of children studying the English the third year. By the purpose of all
these experiments was to establish: have the children a representation
about this phenomenon, can they acquire the offered information, is it
possible to develop the skill of using such words in their speech .
It would be desirable to note the works of some authors, which were
used in this work, such as: “English word-formation” by L. Bauer, “The
categories and types of present day word-formation” by H. Marchand, “The
word-formation abilities of colourmarking adjectives in modern German
languages” by M. Jirmunskaya.
II. Theoretical part.
The term «word».
The term «word» should be defined. It is taken to denote the smallest
independent, indivisible unit of speech, susceptible of being used in
isolation. A word may have a heavy stress, thought, some never take one.
To preceding the ‘infinitive’ never has a heavy stress, but it is a word as
it can be separated from the verbal stem by an adverb (as in to carefully
study). A composite may have two heavy stresses so long as it is not
analyzable as a syntactic group. There is a marked tendency in English to
give prefixes full stress thought they do not exist as independent words.
Indivisible composites such as arch-enemy, crypto-communist, unlucky,
therefore are morphological units whereas combination, like stone, wall,
gold watch, are syntactic groups. As for the criterion of indivisibility,
it is said that the article a is a word as IT can interpolate words between
article and substantive (a nice man, a very nice man, an exceptionally
gifted man). But a as in aglitter can’t be separated from the verb stem
with which it forms a group and therefore is not a free morpheme (word).
With regard to the criterion of usability, it must not be assumed that all
words can be used by themselves, in isolation. It is in the very nature of
determiners like the article the to be used in conjunction with the word
they determiners.
Definition of the field of word-formation.
Word-formation is that branch of the science of language which studies
the patterns on which a language forms new lexical units, i.e. words. Word-
formation can only treat of composites which are analyzable both formally
and semantically. The study of the simple words, therefore, insofar as it
is an , unmotivated sign, has no please in it. It is a lexical matter. A
composite rests on a relationship between morphemes though which it is
motivated. By this token, do-er, un-do, rain-bow are relevant to word-
formation, but do, rain, bow are not.
Conversion.
Conversion is the change in form class of a form without any
corresponding change of form. Thus the change whereby the form napalm,
which has been used exclusively as a noun, came to be as a verb (They
decided to napalm the village) is a case of conversion.
The exact status of conversion within word-formation is unclear.
For some scholars (Marchand/10/) conversion is a brunch of derivation, for
others (Koziol /Marchand/10/) it is a separate type of word-formation, on a
level with derivation and compounding. Whether this distinction has any
real effect on the structure of a theory of word-formation is not clear.
Conversion is frequently called zero-derivation, a term which many
scholars prefer (Adams, Jespersen, Marchand/1,5,8/). Most writers who use
both terms appear to use them as synonyms (although Marchand/10/ is an
exception). However, as Lyons/9/ points out, the theoretical implications
of the two are rather different. Cruber/2/, for example, argues that to
treat ordinary derivation and zero-derivation differently in the grammar is
to lose a generalization, since both involve changes of form class, but
claims that they can only by treated the same way, if a zero-affix is
permitted. Otherwise, he says, derivation can be treated as a rule-governed
process, but zero-derivation can’t be; that is, the relation between some
napalm and to napalm and other similar pairs must be, considered to be
totally coincidental Lyon’s/9/ own view (as noted by Matthews) is that in
cases of so-called zero-derivation, an identity operation can be said to
have been carried out between the base and the new lexeme. This means that
there is a process linking the two lexeme, napalm, lent that this process
defines the form of the derived lexeme as being identical to the form of
the base. This is also more or less the line taken by Matthews himself,
when he speaks of a ‘formation involving zero operation’. The theoretical
dubiousness of speaking of zero affixes in language leads Bauer/2/ to
prefer the theoretical position enshrined in the term ‘conversion’,
especially when this can be given a dynamic interpretation, and that term
will be used exclusively from now (on in this book). It should, however, be
noted that this is an area of dispute in the literature. For a
comprehensive review of the literature on conversion and a discussion of
the implication of talking in terms of zero-derivation, the reader is
referred to Pannanen.
Productivity.
Conversion is an extremely productive way of producing new words in
English. There do not appear to be morphological restrictions on the forms
can undergo conversion, so that compounds, derivatives, acronyms, blends,
clipped forms and simplex words are all acceptable inputs to the conversion
process. Similarly, all ford classes seem to be able to undergo conversion,
and conversion seems to de able to produce words of almost any form class,
particularly the open form classes (noun, verb, adjective, adverb ). This
seems to suggest that rather than English having specific rules of
conversion (rules allowing the conversion of common nouns into verbs or
adjectives into nouns, for example) conversion is a totally free process
and any lexeme can undergo conversion into any of the open form classes as
the need arises. Certainly, if there are constraints on conversion they
have yet to de demonstrated. The only partial restriction that it is award
of is that discussed by Marchand. Marchand/10/ points out that derived
nouns rarely undergo conversion, and particularly not to verb. This is
usually because of blocking. To take one of Marchand’s/10/ examples, a
derived noun like arrival will not de converted into a verb if that verb
means exactly the same as arrive, from which arrival is derived. In cases
where blocking is not a relevant concern, even derived nouns can undergo
conversion, as is shown by the series a sign > to sign > a signal > to
signal and to commit > commission > to commission.
The commonness of conversion can possibly be seen as breaking down the
distinction between form classes in English and leading to a system where
there are closed sets such as pronouns and a single open set of lexical
that can be used as required. Such a move could be seem as part of the
trend away from synthetic structure and towards analytic structure which
has been fairly typical of the history of English over the last millennium.
This suggestion is, of course highly speculative.
Conversion as a syntactic process.
Conversion is the use of a form which is regarded as being basically
of one form class as though it were a member of a different form class,
without any concomitant change of form. There are, however, a number of
instances where changes of this type occur with such ease and so regularly
that many scholars prefer to see that as matters of syntactic usage rather
that as word-formation.
The most obvious cases are those where the change of form class is not
a major one (such as from noun to verb or adjective to noun ) but a change
from one type of noun to another or one type of verb to another. The
clearest example of this type is the use of countable nouns as uncountable
and vise versa. In some tea, tea is used as an uncountable noun, while in
two teas it is used as a countable noun; goat is normally a countable noun,
but if a goat is being eaten it is quite in order to ask for a slice of
goat, where goat is used as an uncountable noun. In general, given a
suitable context, it is possible to use almost any noun on either way: for
example, when the Goons took part in a mountain-eating competition, it
would have been perfectly possible to ask whether anyone wanted some more
mountain, using mountain as an uncountable noun. Similarly, proper nouns
can be easily used as common nouns as in Which John do you mean? or The
Athens in Ohio is not as interesting as the Athens in Greece. Intransitive
verbs are frequently used as transitive verbs, as in He is running a horse
in the Derby or The army flew the civilians to safety. Finally, non-
gradable adjectives are frequently used as gradable adjectives, as in She
looks very French or New Zealander are said to be more English. Such
processes are very near the inflectional end of word-formation.
Another case where it is not completely clear whether or not
conversion is involved is with conversion to adjectives. This depends
crucially on how an adjective is defined. For some scholars it appears to
be the case that the use of an element in attributive position is
sufficient for that element to be classified as an adjective. By this
criterion bow window, head teacher, model airplane and stone well all
contain adjectives formed by conversion formed by conversion. However, it
has already been argued that such collocations should be seen as compounds,
which makes it unnecessary to view such elements as instances of
conversion. Quirk suggest that when such elements can occur not only in
attributive position but also in predicative position, it is possible to
speak of conversion to an adjective. On the basis of:
*This window is bow
This teacher is head
*This airplane is model
This wall is stone
they would thus conclude that, in the examples above, head and stone
but not bow and model have become adjectives by conversion. But this
introduces a distinction between two kinds of modifier which is not
relevant elsewhere in the grammar and which masks a great deal of
similarity. It is therefore not clear that this suggestion is of any great
value. This is not meant to imply that conversion to an adjective is
impossible, merely that it is least controversial that conversion is
involved where the form is not used attributively. Where the form is used
attributively, criteria for concluding that conversion has taken place must
be spelled out with great care. Apart from those mentioned, possible
criteria are the ability to be used in the comparative and superlative, the
ability to be modified by and very, the ability to be used as a base for
adverbial -ly or nominal -ness suffixation. It must be pointed out that
very few adjectives fit all these criteria.
Marginal cases of conversion.
There are cases of change in form class from a verb to a noun and from
a verb to an adjective which do not involve any affixation, but which are
not clearly instances of conversion. These are cases there is a shift of
stress, frequently with a concomitant change in segmental form, but no
change in the morphophonemic form (or in the orthography). Established
examples of verb >noun shift kind are abstract, discount, import, refill,
transfer Gimson/2/, and of verb > adjective shift: abstract, frequent,
moderate, perfect. There is a certain amount of evidence that, at least in
some varieties of English, these distinction are no longer consistently
drawn, and such examples are becoming clear cases of conversion.
Nevertheless, the pattern is still productive, particularly so in the
nominalization of phrasal verbs: established examples are show off, walr-
over and recent examples are hang-up, put-down.
There is also a kind of partial conversion where a noun ending in a
voiceless fricative (but excluding / /) is turned into a verb by replacing
the final consonant with the corresponding voiced fricative. The process is
no longer productive. Examples are belief / believe, sheath / sheathe,
advice / advise.
Clear cases of conversion.
The least clear cases of conversion have been considered first, but
there are innumerable perfectly clear cases. For many types a variety of
subclassifications is possible. Thus instances of noun > verb conversion
can be classified according to whether the noun shows location (to garage
the car ) or instrument ( to hammer a nail ) and so on, or according to
formal criteria of whether the base is simplex or complex and so on. No
attempt is made below to distinguish of these kinds.
The major kinds of conversion are noun > verb, verb >noun, adjective >
noun and adjective >verb. Established examples of noun > verb conversion
are to badger, to bottle, to bridge, to commission, to mail, to mushroom,
to skin, to vacation. Recent examples are to chopper, to data-dank, to
leaflet, to network, and to trash. Established examples of verb >noun
conversion are a call, a command, a dump, a guess, a spy and recent
examples are a commute, a goggle, and an interrupt. Established examples of
adjective > verb conversion are to better, to dirty, to empty, to faint, to
open, to right and a recent example is to total (a car). Established
examples of adjective >noun conversion are relatively rare and are
frequently restricted in their syntactic occurrence. For example, the poor
cannot be made plural or have any other determiner. Less restricted
examples are a daily, a regular, a roast. This type seems to have become
much more productive recently, and recent examples includes a creative, a
crazy, a double, a dyslexic, a gay, a given, a nasty.
Prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, interjections and even affixes
can all act as bases of conversion, as in shown by to up (prices), but me
no buts, the hereafter, to heave-no (a recent example) and a maxi (this
might be a case of clipping). Moreover, most of these form classes can
undergo conversion into more than one form class, so that a preposition
down, for example, can become a verb (he downed his beer), a noun (he has a
down on me) and possibly an adjective (the down train).
Extrocentric phrase compounds might also be classified here as
instances of conversion of whole phrase. Established examples where the
phrase acts as a noun are an also-ran, a forget-me-not, a has-been and a
recent examples as a don’t-know. An established example where the phrase
acts as an adjective is under-the-weather.
Derivation by a zero-morpheme.
The term ‘zero-derivation’.
Derivation without a derivative morpheme occurs in English as well as
mother languages. Its characteristic is that a certain stem is used for the
formation of a categorically different word without a derivative element
being added. In synchronic terminology, they are syntagmas whose
determinatum is not expressed in the significant (form). The significate
(content) is represented in the syntagma but zero marked (i.e. it has no
counterpart in form): loan vb ‘(make up) loan’, look substantive is ‘(act,
instance of) look(ing)’. As the nominal and verbal forms which occur most
frequently have no ending end (a factor which seems to have played a part
in the coining of the term ‘conversion’ by Kruisinga/8/) are those in which
nouns and verbs are recorded in dictionaries, such words as loan, look may
come to be considered as ‘converted’ nouns or verbs. It has become
customary to speak of the ‘conversion’ of substantive adjectives and verbs.
The term ‘conversion’ has been used for various things. Kruisinga/8/
himself speaks of conversion whenever a word takes on function which is not
its basic one, as the use of an adjective as a primary (the poor, the
British, shreds of pink, at his best). He includes quotation words (his «I
don’t knows») and the type stone wall (i.e. substantives used as
preadjuncts). One is reminded of Bally’s ‘transposition’. Koziol/10/
follows Kruisinga’s/8/ treatment and Biese/4/ adopts the same method. Their
standpoints is different. The foregoing examples illustrate nothing but
syntactic patterns. That poor (presented by the definite article,
restricted to the plural, with no plural morpheme added) can function as a
primary, or that government, as in government job, can be used as
preadgunct, is a purely syntactic matter. At the most it could be said,
with regard to the poor, that an inflectional morpheme understood but zero
marked. However inflectional morphemes have a predominantly function
character while the addition of lexical content is of secondary importance.
As for government job the syntactic use of primary as a preadjunct is
regularly unmarked, so no zero morpheme can be claimed. On the other hand,
in government-al, -al adds lexical content, be it ever so little:
‘pertaining to characterizing government’. Therefore governmental is a
syntagma while government (job) is not. That the phrase jar-off can be used
as a preadjunct is again a syntactic matter. Characterized adverbs do not
develop such functions in any case. We will not therefore, used the term
conversion. As a matter of fact, nothing is converted, but certain stem are
used for the derivation of lexical syntagmas, with the determinatum
assuming a zero form. For similar reasons, the term ‘functional change’ is
infelicitous. The term itself doesn’t enter another functional category,
which becomes quite evident when it is considered the inflected forms.
Endings and derivation.
In inflected languages the derivant and derivative usually have a
characteristic nominal or verbal ending. But, ending are not derivative
morphemes. When English was still a more amply inflected language, the
present type existed, but inflectional differences were more in evidence.
Cf. the OE verbs besceopian, fugelian, gamenian, hearmian, freon
(freogian), dernian and their respective bases besceop, fugol, and the
weakening of ending was little bearing on this subject. With regard to
denominate derivation, however, it is interesting to note that the
levelling of endings brought about the loss of distinction in ME between
the OE conjugations. The -an of ryth-an as well as the -ian of loc-ian
resulted in -en. This reducted the number of patterns for denominal verbs
to one.
Derivation connection between verbs and nouns.
With respect to both denominal verbs (type loan verb f. loan
substantive) and deverbal substantives (type look substantive f look verb)
it can be seen that as early as Old English a derivational connection
existed between the present-infinitive stem of weak verb on the one hand
and the stem of nouns on the other. As for deverbal substantive, there was
some competition in the early stages of the language. Like other Germanic
languages, Old English had strong verbs that were connected with
substantives containing an ablaut vowel of the verb (ridan/rad,
bindan/bend, beran/bora). However , this derivational type was unproductive
so far back as Old English. The present-infinitive stem of strong verbs
came to be felt to represent the derivative basis for deverbal substantives
in exactly the same way as did the corresponding stem of weak verbs: ride
verb/ride substantive=look verb/look substantive. But this contention of
Biese’s/4/ needs qualification: ‘these facts indicate the resistance should
by strong verbs to the process of converting them into nouns before, owing
to the introduction of weak inflections, a distinct idea of a universal
verb-stem had been developed’. Many of the verbs had weak forms that
derived substantives at an early date have either never had weak forms are
rare or later than the substantives. Verbs such as bite, fall, feel, fold,
freeze, have, grind, hide make steal, tread are cases in point. This goes
to show that the existence of weak verb forms is incidental to the rise of
a derivational connection between the present infinitive stem of strong
verbs and the stem of substantive.
This derivational connection is partly due to class where a strong
verb and a substantive of the same root existed in OE and where phonetic
development resulted in closely resembling forms for both in ME. OE for,
faru was fare by the end of the 12th century while the corresponding OE
verb faran had reached the stage of faren or fare about the same time.
Other examples of pairs are bidan ‘stay’/bid ‘delay, dwelling place’,
bindan ‘bind’/bind ‘band, tie’, drincan ‘drink’/drinc, drinca ‘drink’,
fleotan ‘float’/fleot ‘place, where water flows’, helpan ‘help’/help,
hreowan ‘rue’/hreow ‘rue’, slepan ‘sleep’/sl p, slep ‘sleep’. The
derivational relation as it have been described them were fully established
around 200.
Zero-derivation as a «specifically English process».
It is usually assumed that the loss of ending gave rise to derivation
by a zero morpheme. Jespersen/7/ gives a somewhat to simplifying picture of
its rise and development . ‘As a great many native nouns and verbs
had...come be identical in form..., as the same things happened with
numerous originally French words..., it was quite natural that the speech-
instinct should take it as a matter of course that whenever the need of a
verb arose, it might be formed without any derivative ending from the
corresponding substantive’. He called the process ‘specifically English’.
As a matter of fact, derivation by a zero morpheme is neither specifically
English nor does it start, as Jespersen’s/7/ presentation would make it
appear when most ending had disappeared. Biese’s/4/ study shows quit
clearly that it began to develop on a larger scale at the beginning of the
13th century , i.e. at a time when final verbal -n had not yet been
dropped, when the plural ending of the present was not yet -en or zero, and
when the great influx of French loan words had not yet started. Bauer/2/
doesn’t think that the weakening of the inflectional system had anything to
do with the problem of zero derivation. Stems are immediate elements for
the speaker, who is aware of the syntagmatic character of an inflected
form. He therefor has no trouble in connecting verbal and nominal stems
provided they occur in sufficiently numerous pairs to establish a
derivational pattern. In Latin which is a highly inflected language,
denominal verbs are numerous: corona/coronare, catena/catenare,
lacrima/lacrimare; cumulus/cumulare, locus/locare, truncus/truncare, nomen,
nomin-/nominare; sacer/sacrare. In Modern Spanish there are full sets of
verbal ending (though in the declension only gender and number are
expressed) both types of zero-derivation are very productive. The weakening
of the inflectional system in English, therefor , can’t have much to do
with development of zero-derivation.
On the other hand, it cannot be denied that despite the relative
productivity of corresponding derivational types in other languages, the
derivative range the English patterns, that of denominal verbs, is still
greater. The explanation of this seems to de that English, unlike Latin,
French, Spanish, or German, never had any competitive types. So, whenever
a derivation was made nouns, it followed the one pattern that existed, i.e.
derivation by zero morpheme. The only derivative morphemes PE has for
denominal verbs are -ate, -ize, -ify. They have restricted range of
derivative force: -ate is latinizing and leaned, -ify is learned while -ize
is chiefly technical. All three derive almost exclusively on a Latin
morphologic basis. The suffixal type dark-en was not originally a
deadjectival pattern; in any case, it would have to a certain extent
rivaled the type idle verb f. Idle adjective only. Derivation by a
morpheme, esp. The type loan verb f. Loan substantive, must therefore be
considered the norm and is quite naturally very strong in English. In
German, there are many competitive types. It is bath mutated and unmutated
verbs (faul-en, hart-en, draht-en, haut-en). There are also denominal verbs
with a derivative morpheme ( stein-ig-en, rein-ig-en; with a foreign
morpheme telefon-ier-en, lack-ier-en ). In addition, German makes use of
the prefixes be-, er-, ver-. Such types as ver-rohen, ver-jung-er,
vergrosser-n; er-kalt-en, er-leichter-n; be-end-ig-en, be-herz-ig-en, ver-
eid-ig-en have no counterparts in English. English be- has never played a
serious role in denominal derivation. Nor has the type em-bed ever become
productive to any larger extent. The productivity of the type loan verb f.
Loan substantive seems to be thus reasonably for. The deverbal type look
substantive f. Look verb has been less prolific and is partly bound up with
certain syntactic patterns of grouping. For this, it is do had competitive
patterns. There are the suffixal types arriv-al, break-ade, guid-ance,
improve-ment, organiz-ation and the verbal substantive type writ-ing though
the latter has now chiefly role of deriving action nouns proper. This is
the reason why so many zero-derivatives from verbs of Latin and French
origin, coined the 15th and 16th centuries, were subsequently replaced by
suffixal derivatives in -al, -age, -ance, ment. «After 1650 the suffix
formation have completely gained the upper hand of the direct conversion of
the disyllabic and trisyllabic words derived from French and Latin
verbs»(Biese/4/).
Zero-derivation with loan-words.
As for Latin and French words and derivation from, there are
comparatively few derivatives before (Biese/4/). French words were for some
time felt to be foreign elements and were not «converted» with the same
ease as native stems were. The phenomenon is in no way different from the
one it is observed with derivation by suffixes. Loan words remain strangers
for a time, and it usually takes time before a derivation type is applied
to a heterogeneous class of words. Zero - derivation was facilitated by the
eo-existence of borrowed substantives and verbs., as anchor substantive a
880 (=L) / anchor verb e 1230 (the OED has doubts, but F ancrer is recorded
in the 12th e., as Bloeh ). Account substantive 1260/verb 1303, change
substantive 1225/verb 1230, charge substantive 1225/verb 1297, cry
substantive 1275/verb 1225, dance substantive 1300/verb 1300, double
adjective 1225/verb 1290, doubt substantive 1225/verb 1225, poison
substantive 1230/verb 13.., rule substantive 1225/verb 1225.
There are quite a few verbs with French roods for which no French
verbs are recorded and which may accordingly be treated as zero
derivatives: feeble verb 1225/adjective 1175, hardy verb 1225/adjective
1225, master verb 1225/substantive a 1000, pool verb 1275/adjective 1200,
saint verb 1225/substantive 1175. On the other hand, the substantive grant
1225 may be derived from the verb grant 1225. It is only after 1300 that
the process of zero-derivation is as firmly rooted with French as with
native words. Though French originals for later English words may occur, it
is just as safe to consider them as derivatives, as centre verb 1610 fr,
centre substantive 1374, combat verb 1564 fr, combat substantive 1567 (or
the reverse), guard verb 1500 fr, guard substantive 1426 and others.
Words of Scandinavian origin were more easily incorporated than French
words, and derivation occurs as early as the 13th c.: trist «trust», boon
«ask as a boon, pray for», brod «shoot, sprout», smithy «make into a
smithy» a.o. (see Biese /4/).
The illustration of various types.
Type loan verb fr. loan substantive
(desubstantival verbs.)
Many PE verbs. go back to OE : answer (andsharu / andswarian), blossom
(blostm / blostnian), claw (clawu / clawian), fish (fisc / fiscian), fire
(fyr / fytian), harm (hearm / hearmian),wonder (wundor / wundrian), bill
«strike with the bill, peck», ground «bring to the ground», loan (1240),
back (OE), butter (OE), experiment (ME), lamb (OE), night (OE), piece (ME),
pit «cart into a pit»(OE), plank (ME), plate (ME), plow, plough (OE),
plague (ME), priest (OE), promise (ME), prose (ME), ridge (OE), rivet (ME),
rode (ME), root (EME), sack (OE), sauce «season» (ME), scale (ME), screen
(ME), shoulder (OE), side (OE), silver (OE), sponge (OE), spot (ME), story
(ME), streak (OE), summer (OE), table (ME), thong (OE), tin (OE), veil
(ME), winter (OE), all before 1500.
Angle «run into a corner» (ME), balance (ME), butcher (ME), cipher
(ME), cloister (ME), coffin (ME), collar (ME), colt «run wild as a colt»
(ME), cipher (ME), fancy (1465), fin (OE), gesture (ME), girdle (OE), glove
(OE), gossip (OE), grade (1511), husk (ME), kennel (ME), knob (ME), ladle
(OE), latch (ME), launder (ME), lecture (ME), libel (ME), mother (OE),
neighbor (OE), place (ME), pole (ME), riddle «speak in riddles» (OE), shell
(OE), shop (ME), star (OE), stomach «be offended» (ME), sun (OE), vision
(ME), all 16th century blanket (ME), casket (1467), lamp (ME), leaf (OE),
pilot (1530), race «run» (ME), soldier (ME), all 17th century Capture
(1541), diamond (ME), onion (ME), stocking (1583), tour (ME), all 18th
century Scrimmage (1470), shin (OE), signal (ME), torpedo (1520), vacation
(ME), wolf «eat like a wolf» (OE), 19th century, major 1927.
It would be difficult to give a complete list of derivatives as there
is an ever growing tendency verbs from substantives without derivative
morphemes. A few recent are service, contact (1929), audition, debut,
package, chairman, page, date (1928), process (1945), waitress (1946),
pressure (not in OED or Spl.), feature (rec., as in the play features).
Mencken/11/ gives many more, most of which are, however, hardly used.
It is likewise useless to try a classification to sense-groups, as
there is no class-denoting formative. The verb may denote almost any verbal
action connected with the basis of the underlying substantive. The verb bed
has or has had the meanings «spread a bed», «put to bed» (with various
implications), «go to bed», «sleep with», and there are more technical
meanings. Bladin/5/ had already pointed out that «every action or
occurrence can be designated by a verb derived from the very noun the idea
of which most easily enters the mind of the person wanting to state a
fact», and if Jespersen/7/ says that «it is difficult to give a general
definition of the sense-relation between substantive and de-substantival
verbs», this is rather an understatement. It may be recognized certain
groups, as «put in ...», «furnish, cover, affect ...», but it should be
noted that each of these senses is only one the many which the same verb
has or may have. Biese/4/, therefore, makes no attempt at classification,
and he is certainly right in doing so. It may, however, be worthy of note
that the privative sense as in dust «remove the dust (from)» is frequent
only with technical terms denoting various kinds of dressing or cleaning.
Exs are bur wool or cotton, burl cloth, poll, pollard trees, bone, gut,
scale fish.
The meaning of a certain verb is clear in a certain speech situation.
That brain means «smash the b.»,can «preserve in cans», winter «pass the
winter», is a result of given circumstances which establish the bridge of
understanding between the speaker and the person or persons spoken to.
There are derivatives from proper names, as boycott 1880 (orig. spelt
with a capital, from the name of Captain Boycott who was first boycotted),
Shanghay 1871 ‘drug and press on board a vessel’, Zeppelin 1916 ‘bomb from
a zeppelin’ (also clipped = zap).
Some verbs often occur in the -ing substantive only (originally or
chiefly), while finite verb forms or infinitives are not or rarely used, as
hornpiping ‘dancing a hornpipe’ (no verb rec.), slimming, orcharding
‘cultivation of fruit trees (no verb rec.). Dialling ‘the art of
construction dials’, speeching, electioneering, engineering,
parlamenteering, volunteering are the original forms. Converted cpds with
-monger for a second-word are current only in the -ing form (merit-
mongering, money-mongering etc.). Innings are not matched by any other verb
form, nor are cocking ‘cock-fighting’, hopping ‘hop-picking’, moon-shining
‘illicit distilling’ and others.
Type idle verb fr. idle adjective. (deadjectival verbs).
To the OE period go back bitter, busy, cool, fair, fat, light, open,
right, yellow (obs black, bright, dead, strong, old).
From the period between about 1150 and 1200 are recorded obs sick
‘suffer illness’, soft, low (obs meek, hory, hale). The following date
from the period between about 1200 and 1300 (Biese/4/ has included the
Cursor Mundi in this period): black, brown, loose, slight, better, blind
(obs hardly, certain, rich, wide, broad, less). From the 14th century are
recorded ready, clear, grey, sore, pale, full, dull, round, gentle,
English, tender, perfect (obs able, sound, weak, unable, honest, noble).
From the 15th century purple, stale, clean, from the 16th century shallow,
slow, quiet, empty, bloody, idle, equal, dirty, parallel (and many other
now obs words, as Biese/4/ points out). The 17th century coined crimson,
giddy, worst, blue, gallant, shy, tense, ridicule, unfit, ruddy (and many
how obs words. Biese/4/). From 18th century Are recorded net ‘gain as a net
sum’ 1758, total (once 1716, then 1859), negative, northern (said of
landscape), invalid ‘enter on the sick-list’, queer ‘cheat’ , from the
19th century desperate ‘drive desperate’, stubborn, sly ‘move in a
stealthy manner’, chirk ‘make cheerful’, gross ‘make a gross profit’
1884, southern (said of wind), aeriform, true. From our century there are
such words as pretty, wise, lethal, big.
Usually, deadjectival verbs denote change of state, and the meaning is
either ‘become ...’ or ‘make ...’. Intransitive verbs with meaning ‘be...’
(as idle, sly, equal) from quite a small group. Some verbs have a
comparative or superlative as root: better, best, worst, perhaps lower.
Type out verb fr out particle (verbs derived from
locative particles).
Derivation from locative particles is less common than the preceding
types. In Old English there are yppan, fremman (with i-mutation from up,
fram), framian, utian. Later are over ‘to master’ 1456, obs under ‘cast
down’ 1502, off ‘put off’ 1642, down 1778, nigh ‘draw near’ 1200, thwart
1250, west ‘move towards the west’ 1381, south 1725, north 1866, east 1858.
These words, however, are not very common (except out and thwart).
Type hail verb fr hail interjection (verbs derived
from minor particles).
Derivation from exclamation and interjection (most of there
onomatopoeias) is more frequent. It will, however, be noted that many of
these conversions have undergone functional and formal changes only without
acquiring a well - grounded lexical existence, their meaning merely being
«say..., utter the sound...». Exs are hail 1200, nay «say nay, refuse»
13.., mum 1399, obs. Hosht «reduce to silence» etc., whoo (16th century),
humph (17th century), encore, dee-hup (to a horse), pshaw, halloa, yaw
(speak affectedly», hurrah (18th century), tally-ho (fox-hunting term),
boo, yes, heigh-ho «sigh», bravo, tut, bow-wow, haw-haw, boo-hoo «weep
noisily» etc. (Biese/4/ also Jespersen/7/).
The meaning ‘say...’ may occur with other words also when they are
used as exclamation or interjections, as with iffing (other verb forms are
not recorded), hence ‘order hence’ (obs., 1580). And it may be reckoned
here all the words of the type sir ‘call sir’.
From about 1600 on, geminated forms also occur as verbs. A few have
been mentioned in the foregoing paragraph; others are snip-snap
(1593),dingle-dangle, ding-dong, pit-pat (17th century), pitter-patter,
wiggle-waggle (18th century), criss-cross, rap-tap, wig-wag (19th century)
etc.
The limits of verbal derivation.
Derivation from suffixed nouns is uncommon. Biese’s/4/ treatment of
the subject suffers from a lack of discrimination. He has about 600
examples of substantives and adjectives; but the ‘suffixes’ are mere
terminations. Words such herring, pudding, nothing, worship are not
derivatives. The terminations -ace, -ice, -ogue, -y (as in enemy) have
never had any derivative force.
Theoretically it would seem that the case of a suffixal composite such
as boyhood is not different from that of a fill compound such as spotlight.
But obviously the fact that suffixes are categorizes generally prevents
suffixal derivatives from becoming the determinants of pseudo-compound
verbs. There are very few that are in common use, such as waitress (rec.),
package (rec., chiefly in form packaged, packaging), manifold OE
(obsolescent today), forward 1596, referee 1889, such adjectives as dirty,
muddy. Many more are recorded in OED (as countess, patroness, squiress,
traitress ‘play the...’, fellowship, kingdom a.o.).
Another reason seems to be still more important. Many of the nominal
suffixes derive substantives from verbs., and it would be contrary to
reason to form such verbs as arrival, guidance, improvement, organization
when arrive, guide, improve, organize exist. Similar consideration apply to
deadjectival derivatives like freedom or idleness. The verb disrupture is
recorded in OED (though only in participial forms) but it is not common.
Reverence is used as a verb, but it is much older (13.., 1290) than the
verb revere (1661). It should also be noted that the alternation
revere/reverence shows characteristics of vowel change and stress which are
irregular with derivation by means of -ance, -ence. For same reason
reference is not a regular derivative from refer, which facilitated the
coinage reference ‘provide with references’ etc. 1884.
There are no verbal derivatives from prefixed words either. The verb
unfit ‘make unfit’ 1611 is isolated.
Type look substantive fr. look verb (deverbal
substantives).
Deverbal substantives are much less numerous than denominal verbs. The
frequency-relation between the two types has been approximately the same in
all periods of the language. An exception is to be made for the second half
of the 13th century «when the absolute number of conversion-substantives is
larger that of the verbs formed from substantives» (Biese/4/).
Form the 13th century are recorded (unless otherwise mentioned in
parentheses, the resp. Verbs are OE) dread (1175), have, look, steal, weep,
call (1225), crack, ‘noise’, dwell, hide, make, mislike, mourn, show, spit,
‘spittle’, stint, wrest ‘act of twisting’ a.o.
From the later ME period are recorded (indications in parentheses
refer to the respective verbs) fall (OE), feel (OE), keep (OE), lift (ME),
move (ME), pinch (ME), put (ME), run (OE), snatch (ME), sob (ME), walk
(OE), wash (OE).
From the 16th century date craze (ME), gloom (ME), launch (ME), push
(ME), rave (ME), say (OE), scream (ME), anub (ME), swim (OE), wave (OE);
from the 17th century contest (1579), converse (ME), grin (OE), laugh (OE),
produce (1499), sneeze (1493), take (ME), yawn (OE); from the 18th century
finish (ME), hand (OE), pry (ME), ride (OE), sit (OE). From the 19th
century fix (ME), meet (OE), shampoo (1762), spill (OE).
As for the meaning of deverbal substantive, the majority denote the
act or rather a specific instance of what the verbal idea expresses quote,
contest, fall, fix, knock, lift etc. This has been so from the beginning
(Hertrampf and Biese/4/). «The abstract nouns, including nouns of action,
are not only the most common type of conversion-substantives; they are also
those of the greatest importance during the early periods of the
development of conversions» (Biese/4/). «The conversion-substantive used in
a personal or concrete sense are, especially in the earlier stages, of
comparatively slight importance» (ib.).
Concrete senses show mince ‘minced meat’, produce ‘product’, rattle
‘instrument’, sprout ‘branch’, shoot ‘branch’, shear ‘shorn animal’, sink
‘sewer’, clip ‘instrument’, cut ‘passage, opening’, spit ‘spittle’, stride
‘one of a flight of steps’.
Sbs denoting the result of the verbal action are catch, take, win
‘victory’, cut ‘provision’, find, melt ‘melded substance’, snatch ‘excerpt
from a song’ e.c.
Place-denoting are fold, bend, slip, wush ‘sandbank’, dump etc.
Sbs denoting the impersonal agent are draw ‘attraction’, catch (of a
gate, a catching question etc.), sting ‘animal organ’, tread ‘part of the
sole that touches the ground’, do, take-in, all ‘tricky contrivance’, wipe
‘handkerchief’ sl etc.
There are also number of substantives denoting a person. OE knew the
type boda ‘bode’ (corresponding to L scriba, OHG sprecho) which in ME was
replaced by the type hunter. Several words survived, however, as bode, help
(OE help), hint (the last quotation in OED is from 1807), and they are
occasional ME formations, as ally 1380 (if it is not rather French allie);
but could be apprehended as formed after the type. Obs. Cut (a term of
abuse) 1490 does not seem to have any connection with the verb cut, and
scold ‘scolding woman’ 1200 is doubtful, the verb is first quoted 1377.
The word wright, which now occurs only as a second-word of cpds (cart-
wright etc.) is no longer apprehended as an agent noun (belonging to wolk).
Otherwise all deverbal substantives denoting a personal agent are of Modern
English origin, 16th century or more recent. The type probably came into
existence under the influence of the types pickpocket and runabout. Exs are
romp ‘child or woman fond of romping’ 1706, flirt 1732, crack ‘cracksman’
1749 (thieves’ sl), bore ‘tiresome p.’ 1812, sweep ‘chimney sweeper’ 1812,
coach ‘tutor, trainer’ 1848 (misleadingly classed in OED, as if from
substantive coach), discard ‘discarded person’. The great number of
depreciative terms is striking.
For the sake of convenience it is repeated here the examples of such
personal deverbal substantives as form the second-words of cpds: upstart
1555, by-blow 1595=obs. By-slip 1670 ‘bastard’, chimney-sweep 1614, money-
grub 1768, shoeblack and bootbleck 1778, new-come ‘new arrival’ 1577,
bellhop, carhop rec.
The formation if deverbal substantives may be considered from the
angle of syntactical grouping. No doubt there are different frequency-rates
for a word according to the position which it has in a sentence. Biese/4/
has devoted a chapter to the question and has established various types of
grouping which have influenced the growth of the type. It can be seen that
deverbal substantives frequently occur in prepositional groups (to be in
the know), that type are often the object of give, make, have, take (less
so of other verbs), that only 11% of the examples show the deverbal
substantives as subject of the sentence and that they are frequently by
adjuncts. The most important patterns are ‘(be) in the know’ and ‘(have) a
look’. Exs of the first type are phrases such as in the long run, upon the
go, with a thrust of his hair, after this sit, for a tell, for the kill,
for the draw, of English make, at a qulp, etc.
As for the t. ‘(have) a look’, «the use of phrasal verbs with
conversion-substantives may be said to be a very marked feature during all
periods from early ME up to the present time. As shown by these quotations,
the origins of this use may be said to go back as far as the OE period»
(Biese/4/). Exs are; have a wash, a smoke, a swim, a chat etc., give a
laugh, a cry, a break, a toss, a whistle, the chick, the go-by etc., take a
ride, a walk, a swim, a read, the lead etc., make a move, a dive, a bolt, a
bow etc. etc.
It will be interesting to compare zero-derivatives with the -ing
substantives. Historical speaking there is no longer a competition so far
as the formation of common substantives is concerned. The number of new-
formed -ing substantives has been steadily decreasing since the beginning
of the MoE period. According to Biese/4/ the figures for newly introduced
-ing substantives, as compared with zero-derivatives of the same verbs, are
as follows: 13th century = 62, 14th = 80, 15th = 19, 16th =12, 17th century
=5, 18th century =2, 19th century =0. Biese/4/ has obviously considered the
rise of new forms only, but the semantic development of -ing substantives.
Otherwise his figures would have been different. Any verb may derive an
-ing substantive which can take the definite article. The -ing then
invariably denotes the action of the verb: the smoking of the gentlemen
disturbed me. The zero-derivative, as compared with the ing, never denotes
the action but gives the verbal ideal in a nominalized form, i.e. the
notional content of the verbal idea (with the secondary implication of the
idea ‘act’): the gentlemen withdrew for a smoke. «In their use with phrasal
verbs -ing forms have become obsolete, whereas there is an ever increasing
number of conversion substantives used in conjunction with verbs like make,
take etc....»(Biese/4/). On the other hand, common substantives in ing are
now chiefly denominal, denoting something concrete, chiefly material which
eliminates ing as a rival for zero-derivatives. According to Biese/4/ this
distinction is already visible in the early stages of conversion. Biese/4/
points out that a prepositional substantive following a substantive is
almost always a ‘genitivus subjectivus’ (the grind of wheels), whereas the
same type of group following an -ing substantive is most often a
‘genitivens objectivus’ which is certainly an observation to the point, as
it shows the verbal character of the -ing substantives as compared with the
more nominal character of zero-derivatives.
A few instances of semantically differentiated derivatives are
bother/bothering, build/building, proceeds/proceedings, meet/meeting,
set/setting, turn/turning, bend/bending, find/finding, sit/sitting,
cut/cutting, feel/feeling, paint/painting.
Sometimes deverbal substantives are only idiomatic in the plural: it
divers me the creeps (the jumps), turn on the weeps A sl, have the prowls A
sl, the bends ‘caisson disease’, for keeps ‘for good’.
An apparent exception are derivatives from expressive verbs in -er
(type clatter) and -le (type sparkle) which are pretty numerous (Biese/4/),
but in fact most of these verbs are not derivatives in the way verbs in
-ize or -ify are, because few simple verbs exist alongside of the
composites. These words are better described as composites of expressive
elements, so the suffixes are not categorizes.
Derivation from prefixed verbs is restricted to composites with the
prefixes dis-, mis-, inter-, and re- (see the respective prefixes). With
other prefixes, there have only been attempts at nominal derivation.
Biese/4/ has befall, beget, begin, behave, belay, belove, beseech, bespeak,
bestow, betide, betrust as substantives. But they were all short-lived and
rare. With the exception of belay 1908, a technical term, none seems to be
in use today.
Biese/4/ has established a so-called detain- type, i.e. substantives
derived from what he considers to be prefixed verbs. It do not seen the
point of this distinction as one could analyze very few of his 450 words or
so. The majority are unit words.
Zero-derivation and stress.
It shall now be made a few remarks about such types as have not been
treated in this chapter. The stressing tendencies differ according to
whether the basis is a unit word or a composite, also according to whether
derivation is made from a noun or a verb.
Nominal derivation from composite verbs involves shift of stress.
Examples are the types runaway / blackout, overthrow, interchange, misfit,
reprint which are derived from actual or possible verbal composites with
the stress pattern --. The process has not yet come to an end which will
explain that the OED, Webster and others very often give stress indications
which no longer tally with the speech habits of the majority. Many cbs of
the blackout type and all the substantives of the types misfit and reprint
are stressed like the verbs resp. Verbal phrases in OED.
Of prefixal types only verbs with inter-, mis- and re- have developed
stress-distinguished substantives. No similar pairs exist for neg. un- (no
verbal type exists, anyway), reversative un-, be-, de- (be- and de- are
only deverbal).
Verbs derived from composite substantives do not change their stress
pattern. Cp. such verbs as backwash, background, afterdate, by-pass,
counterweight, outlaw, outline, underbrush which are forestressed like
their underlying nominal bases. This also explains the fluctuation in the
stressing of counter- verbs, as counter-sign, counter-sink, stressed like
the substantives though the verbal stress pattern is middle stress/heavy
stress.
With unit words the current tendency is to retain the stress of the
underlying basis in deverbal nouns as well as in denominal verbs. We may
call this homologic stressing. Bradin/5/ had stated the fact for denominal
verbs without, however, discussing the problem as to the obvious
exceptions, while Jespersen/7/ speaks of ‘such an important thing in ford-
formation as the stress-shifting in record substantive and verb’.
To a certain extent, it is a stress distinction between nouns and
verbs which are otherwise homophonous. This distinctive stress pattern
occurs chiefly with disyllabic words, record substantive / record verb.
examples are contract, accent, affix, infix, prefix, suffix, augment,
impress, concert, contrast, convert, escort, essay, export, object,
subject, project, present, progress, protest, survey, torment, transfer.
The number of non-shifting examples is much greater, however. It will
be first given instances of forestressed words with homologic stress:
comment, compact, exile, figure, plaster, preface, prelude, prison,
quarrel, climax, focus, herald, process, program, triumph, waitress, rivet,
segment, sojourn, turmoil, contact, ‘bring or come into contact’, congress
‘meet in a congress’, incense ‘burn incense’, probate. To these may be
added such verbs as are felt to be derived from a substantive and therefore
forestressed like the underlying bases, at least in AE: accent, conflict,
concrete (as in concrete a wall, also in OED), contract (as in contract a
document), digest (as digest a book), export, import (prob. originating in
contrastive stressing), recess (as recess a wall), survey (in certain
senses), torment (frequent), transfer (the regular stressing as a railway
team).
The group of non-shifting endstressed words is considerably larger.
Unit words beginning with de-, dis-, re- are especially numerous. Examples
are: accord, advance, assent, attack, decay, delay, defeat, dispatch,
despute, escape, exclaim, (as a deverbal substantive ‘presenting position
of a rifle’), precise, relax, remove, repay, reform, support (Biese/4/).
On the other hand, it is found instances of distinctive stressing in
AE: address, conserves, discard, discharge are often heard with forestress
when substantives, also relay and research; reject substantive with
forestress is the only pronunciation possible. Of these, relay and research
may be explained as reinterpretations after the t. reprint substantive
/reprint verb; reject is perh. influenced by subject, object, project,
traject. In any case, this tendency towards distinctive stress in deverbal
substantives is weak as compared with that towards homologic stress.
To sum up: the tendency with denominal verbs is to give them the
stress of the underlying nominal basis, which has in many cases led to
homologic stress with all or part of the verbal meanings versus older
distinctive stress. Deverbal substantives, on the whole, show the same
inclination to homologic stress. But there is also a weak tendency towards
distinctive stress, though chiefly in AE. As for the tendency toward stress
distinction between nominal and verbal homophones pointed out by
Jespersen/7/, it was perhaps vaguely on the analogy of composites that it
came into existence. The original stress with these loans from French or
Latin was on the last syllable (F absent, L abstract(um)), so verbs
retained this stress all the more easily as many native verbs were so
stressed: become, believe, forbid, forget, mislead etc., whereas almost all
disyllabic native substantives, unit words as well as composites were
forestressed (the few contrary examples such as unhealth, unrest, untruth,
belief hardly count against the overwhelming majority). This may have led
to a tendency towards forestress with non-native disyllabic substantives
too. But what has taken on the character of a strong derivative device with
composites has proved much weaker with unit words on account of their
entirely different structure. Further development seems to point in the
direction of homologic stressing.
Combination of the type hanger-on may be mentioned here. As they are
functionally characterized by the suffix -er, the absence of stress shift
is only natural. The stress pattern of the underlying verbal phrase is
retained.
The abilities in production new words from colourmarcking adjectives.
The world around of us is the world of colour and paints, for which a
variety of combinations and shades is characteristic. The colour is one of
properties of objects of the material world and is perceived as the
realized visual sensation. The adjectives are used as a special part of
speech serving for a colour designation . The word-formation serves for a
designation of colour shades of adjectives, and also for the parts of
speech formed from them. Between that, the word-formation aspect of lexic
has remained indifferently, word-formation relations inside this layer,
with its originality, deserves the attention by way of their description
and study in the language.
The word-formation is a system, which unites grammatical and lexical,
that speaks about its enterlevel character and allows to apply the complex
approach to the investigated phenomena. Essence of grammar of a word-
formation suffix, which signals about the belonging a derivative word to
this or that part of speech and defines its paradigm, confirms this idea.
Also, on the basic purpose, which consists in creation of a new word and
updating of the vocabulary , the indissoluble unity of a word-formation and
lexicon is shown. Besides the word-formation, having own sphere of
research, studies word-formation resources and processes conducting to
creation of word-formation models, and also condition of functioning and
filling the lasts.
As the adjectives of a colourmarking concern to the most ancient layer
of lexicon, at their analysis there was necessary to pay attention to the
facts of diachronic, and also to consider an originality of the given group
of words, which is allocated with the various symbolic. This circumstance
finds the reflection in formation of portable meanings which are included
in lexical-semantic structure | |
