33 Criteria of semantic derivation in Conversion

Within conversion pairs one of the two words has a more complex semantic structure, so the problem of the criteria of semantic derivation: which of the two words within a conversion pair is the derived member?

The first criterion 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. So the verbs pen, father are derived from the corresponding nouns. This criterion 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 second criterion involves a comparison of a conversion pair with analogous word-pairs making use of the synonymic sets. For instance, in comparing conversion pairs like chat v — chat n; show v — shown; work v — work n, etc. with analogous synonymic word-pairs like converse — conversation; exhibit — exhibition; occupy — occupation; employ — employment, etc. the nouns chat, show, work, etc. are the derive members because the semantic relations in the case of chat v — chat n; show v — shown; work v — work n are similar to those between converse — conversation; exhibit — exhibition; employ — employment. Like the non-correspondence criterion the synonymity criterion is restricted. (reliable only for abstract words) Besides, this criterion may be applied only to deverbal substantives (v -> n) and not to denominal verbs (n -> v).

Of more universal character is the criterion based on derivational relations within the word-cluster of which the converted words in question are members. 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. The centre of a cluster being a noun, all the first-degree derivatives have suffixes generally added to a noun-base.

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 but it can hardly be applied to word-clusters which have few derived words.

Of very wide application is the criterion of semantic derivation based on semantic relations within conversion pairs. Denominal verbs proves that the verb is the derived member. 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 ,

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. This semantic criterion has almost no limitations.

The most important are the derivational and the semantic criteria, for no limitations to their application.

the nouns (answer and help) are derived words (deverbal substantive’s), in the other two pairs the verbs (to sample and to joke) are converted from nouns (denominal verbs).

Of interest is also the transformational criterion of semantic derivation for conversion pairs suggested in linguistic literature not so long ago.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

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

38 Word-building meaning in composition

It follows that the meaning of a compound is made up of the combined lexical meaning of the bases and the structural meaning of the pattern. The semantic centre of the compound is the lexical meaning of the second component modified and restricted by the meaning of the first. The semantic centres of compounds and the semantic relations in the structural patterns refer compound words to certain lexico-semantic groups and semantic sets within them as, for example: 1) compound words denoting action described as to its agent, e.g. sunrise, earthquake, handshake, 2) compounds denoting action described as to its time or place, e.g. day-flight, street-fight, 3) compounds denoting individual objects designed for some goal, e.g. bird-cage, table-cloth, diving-suit, 4) compounds denoting objects that are parts of the whole, e.g. shirt-collar, eye-ball, 5) compounds denoting active doers, e.g. book-reader, shoe-maker, globe-trotter.

Mainly compound words are monosemantic and motivated but motivation in compounds like in all derivatives varies in degree. There are compounds that are completely motivated like sky-blue, foot-pump (педальный насос)

34. Productivity if conversion. occasional conversion.

Conversion 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 represented 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 represented as a succession of isolated actions.It is extremely difficult to distinguish between these two groups. This can be exemplified 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 illimitable.

The morphological restrictions.Complexity of word-structure does not favour conversion. It is significant that in MnE. there are no verbs converted from nouns with the suffixes -ing and -ation. This restriction is balanced by occasional conversion pairs of rather complex structure, e.g. to package, to holiday, to wireless, to petition, to reverence, etc.

The English word-stock contains a great many words formed by means of conversion in different periods of its history. There are cases of traditional and occasional conversion. Traditional conversion refers to the accepted 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 use of conversion is also very frequent; verbs and adjectives are converted from nouns or vice versa. These cases of individual production 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 occasional 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?

35 Structural aspect of Composition.

W-C is the type of W-B in which new words are produced by combining 2ws which are both derivational bases. Compound Ws are inseparable voc. units, they take shape in definite system gram, syntactic and semantic features.

The structural meaning of compounds is formulated on the bases of 1)the meaning of their distributional pattern .

2)-\\- of their derivational pattern. The distributional pattern of a comp. is understood is the order in which the bases follow one another. A change in the order signals the compound Ws of different lexical meanings. a fruit-market — ‘market where fruit is sold’ with market-fruit — ‘fruit designed for selling’. The order is fixed in MED. Thus the distributional pattern of a comp. Carries a certain meaning which is largely independent of its lexical meaning.

The meaning of the derivational pattern of compound can be described through the interrelation. Underlying pattern n+Ven conveys the generalised meaning of instrumental relations, duty-bound can be interpreted as ‘done by’ or ‘with the help of something’. The derivational pattern in compounds may be monosemantic and polysemantic. Structural pattern n+n -> N conveys different semantic relations 1) of purpose, e.g. bookshelf, bed-room, 2) relations of resemblance, e.g. needle-fish, bowler-hat, 3) instrumental relations, steamboat, sunrise.

36 Semantis aspect of composition.

Semantically compound words are motivated units. The meaning of the compound is first of all derived from the combined lexical meanings of its components. The semantic peculiarity of the derivational bases and the semantic difference between the base and the stem is most obvious in compound words. The stem of the word board is polysemantic and its meanings serve as different derivational bases, each with its own selective range for the semantic features of the other component, each forming a separate set of compound words, based on ’specific derivative relations. Thus the base board meaning ‘a flat piece of wood square or oblong’ makes a set of compounds chess-board, notice-board, key-board, diving-board, foot-board, sign-board; the base board-meaning ‘an authorised body of men’, forms compounds school-board, board-room. The same can be observed in words built on the polysemantic stem of the word foot. For example, the base foot- in foot-print, foot-pump, foothold, foot-bath, foot-wear has the meaning of ‘the terminal part of the leg’, in foot-note, foot-lights, foot-stone the base foot- has the meaning of ‘the lower part’.