Semantic Relations in Conversion

As one of the two words in the converted pair is semantically derived from the other we should determine the semantic relations between those words.

1. Verbs converted from nouns (denominal verbs). This is the largest group of converted words. The lexical meaning of the verb converted from a noun can point out the instrument, the agent, the place, the cause, the result and the time of the action.

Verbs converted from nouns denoting some part of a human body have instrumental meaning: e.g. to eye (to watch), to finger (to touch with a finger), to elbow (to push one's way with elbows), to toe (to touch with a toe).

The same instrumental meaning can be observed in verbs formed from nouns denoting tools, machines, and weapons: e.g. to hammer, to knife, to machine-gun, to wheel, to pump, to saw, to spur.

Sometimes the noun from which the verb is formed names the agent of the action: e.g. to crowd, to flock, to ape, to dog, to monkey, to wolf (down).

Very often such verbs have metaphorical meanings.

With nouns denoting places, buildings, containers the meaning of the converted verb will denote the action performed at (he place expressed by the noun stem from which the verb originated: e.g. to bottle, to can, to corner, to floor, to garage, to park, to pocket.

With nouns denoting time the meaning of the converted verb will denote an action performed at the time expressed by the noun stem from which it originated: e.g. to honeymoon, to weekend, to winter.

R.S. Ginsburg, in summing up the findings of the linguists who have done research in this field, enumerates the following typical semantic relations in denominal verbs converted from nouns:

1) action characteristic of the object,

e.g. ape n. – ape v. – imitate in a foolish way;

2) instrumental use of the object,

e.g. 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;

4) deprivation of the object,

e.g. dust n. – dust v. – remove dust from something.

So, as we see, summing up R.S. Ginsburg points out some semantic relations we did not speak about and does not point out some of the above-mentioned ones. So, points of view of linguists differ in this.'

2. Nouns converted from verbs (deverbal substantives). Such nouns can have the following meanings:

1) process, feeling, action: e.g. hiss, hunt, knock, whisper, sleep;

2) the result of the action expressed by the verb stem: e.g. burn, cut, offer;

3) the place where the action expressed by the verb stem occurs: e.g. drive, stand;

4) the doer of the action expressed by the verb stem (usually with the derogatory meaning): e.g. bore, cheat, flirt, scold, tease.

From the point of view of R.S. Ginsburg, 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;

2) agent of the action,

e.g. help v. – help 11. – a person who helps;

3) place of the action,

e.g. 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 n. – something found, especially something valuable or pleasant.

In the case of polysemantic words one and the same member of a conversion pair belongs to several of the above-mentioned groups, e.g. dust v. – can belong to group 4 of denominal verbs and to group 3 of denominal verbs: deprivation of the object and acquisition, addition of the object.

From the point of view of some linguists (see the previous paragraph on 'Stone Wall Problem' in this lecture) there not only exists conversion of verbs and nouns, but of other parts of speech, too. We share their opinion. Such linguists consider that verbs can be also converted from adjectives. In such cases they denote the change of a state:

e.g. to clean, to warm, to empty, to idle, to tame, to loose, to tidy, to total.

Care should be taken not to mix up cases of conversion with cases of substantivization of adjectives.

Some scientists (Otto Jespersen, Kruisinga and others) consider substantivization of adjectives to be cases of conversion. This is not correct from the point of view of some of our scholars (Arnold, Vinokurov, Ivanov and others), because substantivization of adjectives is characteristic of many languages, Russian included, where the morphological system is very rich. And conversion is characteristic of English where the system of morphological forms is poor. Substantivization of adjectives is not the result of changing the paradigm, it is the result of the slow process of changing the syntactical functions of a word.

In cases of substantivization of adjectives, we primarily have word combinations of an adjective with a noun, where the adjective is much stronger semantically because the noun expresses some general notion (e.g. a native man, a captive man, a conservative man). Later on, the noun is dropped as it is less important semantically, and the attribute is now used in the function and with the meaning of the whole combination:

e.g. a native man – a native, a captive man – a captive, a conservative man – a conservative, a criminal man – a criminal, a dear man – a dear, an equal man – an equal, a female being – a female, a grown-up person – a grown-up, an intellectual person – an intellectual, a male being – a male, a private soldier – a private, a general officer – a general.

A group of substantivized adjectives is only used with the definite article and denotes a class, a group of people or nationality. Having the meaning of the plural, they are used without the -s inflexion, but the verb used with them has the plural form:

e.g. the rich, the poor, the dead, the English, the French, etc. But if a single person is meant other words are used, not substantivized adjectives:

e.g. an Englishman, a Spaniard, a blind man, etc.

The problem of correlation of substantivization and conversion is a complicated one and demands further investigation.

As for the semantic relations in converted pairs of words belonging to other parts of speech, this problem is connected with different points of view on the 'stone wall' problem and has not yet been properly investigated and, therefore, requires further research.

The role of conversion in English word-building is extremely significant and cannot be overestimated. Conversion is highly productive in modern English.

Lecture 4.Word-building.Derivation.

Не знайшли потрібну інформацію? Скористайтесь пошуком google:

Генерація сторінки за: 0.004 сек.