Конверсионное словообразование прилагательных цветообозначения. Методика преподавния в нач.классах

Конверсионное словообразование прилагательных цветообозначения. Методика преподавния в нач.классах

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),

Страницы: 1, 2