Replenishment of dictionary structure of tongue at the present stage

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

12

Contents

Introduction

1. The historical development of conversion

2. Productivity. Traditional and occasional conversion

3. Reasons for high productivity of conversion in modern English

4. Synchronic approach of conversion

5. Relations within a conversion pair

6. Substantivation and other cases of transposition

7. Conversion and sound (stress-) interchange

8. Diachronic approach of conversion

Conclusion

Literature

INTRODUCTION

The process of coining a new word in a different part of speech and with a different distribution characteristics but without adding any derivative element, so that the basic form of the original and the basic form of the derived words are homonymous, is called conversion. Conversion, one of the principal ways of forming words in Modern English is highly productive in replenishing the English word-stock with new words. The term conversion, which some linguists find inadequate, refers to the numerous cases of phonetic identity of word-forms, primarily the so-called initial forms, of two words belonging to different parts of speech. This may be illustrated by the following cases: work - to work; love - to love, etc. As a rule we deal with simple words, although there are a few exceptions, e.g. wireless - to wireless. It is fairly obvious that in case of a noun and a verb not only are the so-called initial forms (i.e. the infinitive and the common case singular) phonetically identical, but all the other noun forms have their homonyms within the verb paradigm. It will be recalled that, although inflectional categories have been greatly reduced in English in the last eight or nine centuries, there is a certain difference on the morphological level between various parts of speech, primarily between nouns and verbs. But in case of such words as water - to water we see, on the derivational level, that the verb is formed from the verb without any morphological change, but if we probe deeper into the matter, we inevitably come to the conclusion that the two words differ in the paradigm. Thus it is a paradigm that is used as a world-building means. Hence, we may define conversion as the formation of a new word through changes in its paradigm and consequently the change in paradigm is the only word-building means of conversion.

The main reason for the widespread development of conversion in present-day English is no doubt the absences of morphological elements serving as classifying signals or of formal signs marking the part of speech to which the word belongs.

1. The Historical Development of Conversion

The problem of conversion may prove a pitfall because of possible confusion of the synchronic and diachronic approach. Although the importance of conversion has long been recognized, and the causes that foster it seem to have been extensively studied, the synchronic research of its effect in developing a special type of patterned homonymy in the English vocabulary system has been somewhat disregarded until the last decade.

This patterned homonymy is in which words belonging to different parts of speech differ in their lexico-grammatical meaning but possess an invariant component in their lexical meanings, so that the meaning of the derived component of the homonymous pair from a subset of the meaning of the prototype.

The causes that made conversion so widely spread are to be approached diachronically. Nouns and verbs have become identical in form firstly as a result of the loss of endings. More rarely it is the prefix that is dropped.

When endings have disappeared phonetical development resulted in the merging of sound forms for both elements of these pairs. (e.g. OE: carian V; caru N > ModE: care V, N)

A similar homonymy resulted in the borrowing from French of numerous pairs of words of the same root but belonging in French to different parts of speech. These words lost their affixes and became phonetically identical in the process of assimilation. (OFr: crier V; cri N > ModE: cry V, N)

Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky is of the opinion that on synchronic level there is no difference in correlation between such cases as listed above, i.e. words originally differentiated by affixes and later becoming homonymous after the loss of endings (sleep V : : sleep N) and those formed by conversion (pencil N : : pencil V). He argues that to separate these cases would mean substituting the description of its sources. He is quite right in pointing out the identity of both cases considered synchronically. His mistake lies in the wish to call both cases conversion, which is illogical if this scholar accepts the definition of conversion as a word-building process which implies the diachronic approach. So actually it is Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky's own suggestion that leads to a confusion of synchronic and diachronic methods of analysis.

Conversion is a type of word-building - not a pattern of structural relationship. On the other hand, this latter is of a paramount importance and interest. Synchronically both types `sleep' V : : `sleep' N and `pencil' N : : `pencil' V must be treated together as cases of patterned homonymy. But it is essential to differentiate the cases of conversion and treat them separately when the study is diachronic.

2. Productivity. Traditional and Occasional Conversion

Conversion is not an absolutely productive way of forming words because it 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. `to fall - fall', `to run - run', etc; b) verbs like `to sit, to lie, to stand' denoting processes that cannot be represented as a succession of isolated actions, thus defying conversion. However, a careful examination of modern English usage reveals that it is extremely difficult to distinguish between these two groups. The possibility for the verbs be formed from nouns through conversion seems to be illimitable.

The morphological restrictions suggested by certain linguists are found in the fact that the complexity of word-structure does not favour conversion. It is significant that in Modern English there are no verbs converted from nouns with the suffixes -ing and -ation. This restriction is counterbalanced, however, by innumerable occasional conversion pairs of rather complex structure: `to package, to holiday, to reverence'. Thus, it seems possible to regard conversion as a highly productive way of forming words in Modern English.

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. The individual or occasional use of conversion is also very frequent; verbs and adjectives are converted from nouns and vice versa for the sake of bringing out the meaning more vividly in a given context only. These cases of individual coinage serve the given occasion only and do not enter the word-stock of the English language. In modern English usage we find a grea number of cases of occasional conversion.

3. Reasons for High Productivity of Conversion in Modern English

While affixation has always been a productive means of word-formation in English, conversion became active only in the Middle English period and it is widely used in modern English.

There was no homonymy between initial forms of words belonging to different parts of speech in Old English having a complex system of inflections. Due to loss of inflections in Middle English many of these words became lexical-grammatical homonyms.

Another reason for the existence of conversion pairs in modern English is assimilation of borrowings. The modern English verb and noun `cry', for example, had different forms in Old French from which they were borrowed: `crier V' and `cri N'.

But the main reason that conversion pairs are so widely spread in present-day English is the word-forming process of conversion itself. Due to the limited number of morphological elements serving as classifying, marking signals of a certain part of speech, word-formation executed by changing the morphological paradigm is very economical and efficient. The majority of conversion pairs (more than 60%) in modern English are the result of conversion.

When conversion is studied diachronically scholars distinguish between cases of conversion and other processes leading to the same results like loss of inflections or assimilation of borrowings. When studied synchronically this difference does not matter.

4. Synchronic Approach of Conversion

Conversion pairs are distinguished by the structural identity of the root and phonetic identity of the stem of each of the two words. Synchronically we deal with pairs of words related through conversion that coexist in contemporary English. The two words, e.g. `to break' and `a break', being phonetically identical stems, as some linguists are inclined to believe. It will be recalled that the stem carries quite a definite part-of-speech meaning and what is also important the root carries the lexical meaning as well. And these two ingredients form part of the meaning of the whole word.

What is true of words whose root and stem do not coincide is also true of words with roots and stems coincide, for instance, the word `atom' is a noun because of the substantival character of the stem requiring the noun paradigm. The word `sell' is a verb because of the verbal character of its stem requiring the verb paradigm, etc. It logically follows that the stems of two words making up a conversion pair cannot be regarded as being the same or identical: the stem hand- of the noun `hand', for instance, carries a substantival meaning together with the system of its meaning; the stem hand- of the verb `hand' has a different part-of-speech meaning, namely that of the verb, and a different system of meanings. Thus, the stems of word-pairs related through conversion have different part-of-speech and denotational meanings. Being phonetically identical they can be regarded as homonymous stems.

A careful examination of the relationship between the lexical meaning of the root-morpheme and the part-of-speech meaning of the stem within a conversion pair reveals that in one of the two words the former does not correspond to the latter.

Speaking about the difference between affixation and conversion we should say that affixation is characterized by both semantic and structural derivation (e.g. 'friend-friendless'), whereas conversion displays only semantic derivation, i.e. `hand-to hand, fall-to fall'; the difference between the two classes of words in affixation is marked both by a special derivational affix and a paradigm, whereas in conversion it is marked only by paradigmatic forms.

5. Relations Within a Conversion Pair

From a synchronical point of view the biggest problem concerning conversion is establishing derivational relations within a conversion pair, that is establishing the direction of derivation and setting up a simple and derived word there.

Linguists use a number of different criteria to determine the direction of derivation, though none of them is absolutely reliable.

Semantic criteria

a) The criterion of non-correspondence between part-of-speech meaning of the stem and lexical meaning of the root morpheme.

Stems of words related through conversion are phonetically identical but have different part of speech and denotational meanings (hand N > hand V). So, semantically they are not identical. The problem is to identify which stem, or word, is primary and which one is derived.

In the noun `hand', for example, the part-of-speech meaning of the stem `an object' doesn't contrast with the lexical meaning of the root morpheme `the end of the arm beyond the wrist' which also refers to an object. In the case of the verb `to hand', however, the part-of-speech meaning of the stem `an action' contrasts with the lexical meaning of the root `the end of the arm beyond the wrist'. So, we may state that to hand is a derivative, as only in simple words the part-of-speech meaning of the stem corresponds to the lexical meaning of the root morpheme.

The same kind of non-correspondence of lexical meaning of the root and the stem in a derived word is observed in affixationally derived words (`teacher'). The difference between an affixationally derived word and the word derived by conversion is that in the former case the derived word retains signs of the derivation process both in its formal morphological and in its semantic structure, too. In the latter case the traces of derivation are observed only in the semantic structure of the derivative.

b) The criterion of typical semantic relations between the words in a conversion pair.

Semantic relations in a conversion pair are diverse. Yet, scholars, such as P.A. Soboleva, point out that verbs converted from nouns (denominal verbs) typically denote:

a) action characteristic of the object (`to monkey')

b) action with the object (`to water')

c) acquisition of the object (`to milk')

d) deprivation of the object (`to dust')

Nouns converted from verbs (deverbal nouns) usually denote:

a) instance of the action (`a jump')

b) agent of the action (`a help')

c) place of the action (`a run')

d) object or result of the action (`a peel')

According to G.B. Antrushina there are following regular associations in the groups of verbs made from nouns:

I. The noun is the same of a tool or implement, the verb denotes an action performed by the tool: to hammer.

II. The noun is the same of an animal, the verb denotes an action or aspect of behaviour considered typical of this animal: `to dog'. Yet `to fish' does not mean “to behave like a fish” but “to try to catch fish”. The same meaning of hunting activities is conveyed by the verb `to whale' and one of the meanings of `to rat'; the other is “to turn informer, squeal” (sl.)

III. The name of a part of the human body - an action performed by it: `to eye'. However, `to face' does not imply doing something by or even with one's face but turning it in a certain direction. `To back' means either “to move backwards” or, in the figurative sense, “to support somebody or something”.

IV. The name of a profession or occupation - an activity typical of it: `to cook'.

V. The name of a place - the process of occupying the place or of putting something/somebody in it (`to room')

VI. The name of a container - the act of putting something within the container (`to can').

VII. The name of a meal - the process of taking it (`to lunch').

The suggested groups do not include all the great variety of verbs made from nouns by conversion. They just represent the most obvious cases and illustrate, convincingly enough, the great variety of semantic interrelations within so-called converted pairs and the complex nature of the logical associations which specify them.

E.M. Dubenets has also got her own classification, though it is quite similar to the preceding one.

Verbs can be formed of different semantic groups and have different meanings because of that, e.g.:

a) Verbs have instrumental meaning if they are formed from nouns denoting parts of a human body: `to finger'. They have instrumental meaning if they are formed from nouns denoting tools, machines, instruments, weapons: `to rifle'.

b) Verbs can denote an action characteristic of the living being denoted by the noun from which they have been converted: `to crowd'.

c) Verbs can denote acquisition, addition or deprivation if they are formed from nouns denoting an object: `to paper'.

d) Verbs can denote an action performed at the place denoted by the noun from which they have been converted: `to park'.

e) Verbs can denote an action performed at the time denoted by the noun from which they have been converted: 'to week-end'.

Nouns can also be formed by means of conversion from verbs. Converted nouns can denote:

a) Instant of an action: `a move'.

b) Process or state: `sleep'.

c) Object or result of an action expressed by the verb from which the noun was formed by means of conversion: `a cut'.

d) Agent of the action expressed by the verb from which the noun has been converted: `a scold'.

e) Place of the action expressed by the verb from which the noun has been converted: `a walk'.

Many nouns converted from verbs can be used only in the singular form and denote momentaneous actions. In such cases we have partial conversion. Such deverbal nouns are often used with verb: to have, to get, to take, etc.: `to have a try'.

Though the types of meaning in a derived word may be predictable, a lot of memory work is necessary to remember the exact meaning of the word derived by conversion because like any other derived word it is highly idiomatic:

A knife - to knife `to stab or wound with a knife';

A boot - to boot `to put boots on; to kick';

c) The polysemy degree of criterion

Derived words are usually less polysemantic than the simple ones used as their sources (cf.: a great number of meanings in the simple noun `head', for example, and much more limited their number in its derivative `to behead'). Words derived by conversion are not exceptions to this rule, and derived units in a conversion pair usually display a smaller degree of polysemy. The simple noun `house', for example, has such meanings as

1. a building as a living quarters for one or a few families;

2. a) a shelter for a wild animal

b) a shelter for something;

3. household;

4. a residence for a religious or other community itself;

5. a legislative assembly;

6. a place of business or entertainment;

7. the audience of a theatre.

While the verb `to house' derived by conversion has only three meanings:

1. to provide with living quarters;

2. to encase, enclose;

3. to serve as shelter.

So, a lower degree of polysemy of a word in a conversion pair may be regarded as an indicator of its derived character.

The synonymity criterion

This criterion is based on a comparison of a conversion pair with a synonymic word pair where the direction of derivation is clear, and analogical relations are deduced. For example, the relations between the words in the conversion pair `to chat - a chat' is believed to be the same as in their synonymic pair where derivational relations are formally expressed: `to converse - a conversation'. `To chat', like `to converse', is believed to be a simple verb and `a chat', like `a conversation', is regarded as a derived noun.

The derivational criterion

This criterion is based on the analysis of the derivatives of the first degree of derivation. The noun is simple in a conversion pair (`a hand - to hand') if a derivational base in the majority of the first-degree derivatives is nominal (`handful, handy, handsome'). Vice versa, the verb is simple in the conversion pair and the noun is derived (`to laugh - laugh') if a derivational base in the majority of the first-degree derivatives is verbal (`laughter, laugher, laughingly')

The frequency criterion

Lower frequency value of a word in a conversion pair indicates its derived character (`to answer 65% - answer 35%'; `to joke 8% - joke 82%')

The transformation criterion

In case if the transformation of nominalization of the verb in a conversation pair is possible (race V in the horse is racing - the race of a horse), we are dealing with a simple verb. When such transformation is impossible (he daily mothered `protected' the pet - the pet's daily mother) the verb should be regarded as derived. Similar patterns occur in a pair composed of a simple and a suffixationally derived words: nominalization is possible when the verb is simple and the noun is derived: `John arrives tomorrow - John's arrival tomorrow', and impossible if the verb is suffixationally derived and the noun is simple: `They will behead him tomorrow - His tomorrow's head'.

6. Substantivation and Other Cases of Transposition

conversion english transposition

Some scholars extend the term `conversion' and include in it instances of transposition of any word into any kind of speech, for example, of adjectives into verbs (dirty - to dirty; better - to better).

Those who view conversion in its narrower sense, as a process of word-derivation limited to the formation of verbs from nouns and nouns from verbs, use a different terminology for other cases of transposition. Thus, the process of forming nouns from adjectives (`the blind') is usually call substantivation.

In contrast to conversion substantivation is a gradual process: adjectives are first only partially substantivized and for a long time can be modified by an adverb like regular adjectives but not nouns (`the extravagantly jealous man'). Scholars also point out that in contrast to conversion substantivation is limited to a certain class of words: human beings (`the poor, the black, a creative') and some abstract concepts (`the impossible'). Still another argument they give to prove that substantivation is a process different from conversion is that the former is mainly the result of ellipsis as in `the elastic (cord)' taking place only under certain circumstances. That is why not every adjective can be used as a noun.

There are other cases involving the use of words in a different syntactic function, less frequent and less regular. One of them is called adverbialization. It takes place in a limited number of English adjectives have adverbial uses (`he spoke loud/loudly') which allows to consider them adverbs derived by adverbialization, or a functional shift/transposition/conversion.

Another case of transposition is adjectivalization - the use of nouns and participles as adjective. The so-called stone wall combinations.

The problem whether adjectives can be formed by means of conversion from nouns is the subject of many discussions. In Modern English there are a lot of word combinations of the type, e.g. `price rise, wage freeze, steel helmet, sand castle'.

If the first component of such units is an adjective converted from a noun, combinations of this type are free word-groups typical of English (adjective + noun). This point of view is proved by O. Yespersen by the following facts:

1. “Stone” denotes some quality of the noun “wall”.

2. “Stone” stands before the word it modifies, as adjectives in the function of an attribute do in English.

3. “Stone” is used in the singular though its meaning in most cases is plural, and adjectives in English have no plural form.

4. There are some cases when the first component is used in the comparative or the superlative degree, and adjectives can have degrees of comparison, e.g. `the bottomest end of the scale'.

5. The first component can have an adverb which characterizes it, and adjectives are characterized by adverbs, e.g. `a purely family gathering'.

6. The first component can be used in the same syntactical function with a proper adjective to characterize the same noun, e.g. `lonely bare stone houses'.

7. After the first component the pronoun one can be used instead of a noun, e.g. 'I shall not put on a silk dress. I shall put on a cotton one'.

However, Henry Sweet and some other scientists say that these criteria are not characteristic of the majority of such units.

They consider the first component of such units to be a noun in the function of an attribute because in modern English almost all parts of speech and even word groups and sentences can be used in the function of an attribute, e.g. `the then president (an adverb), out-of-the-way villages (a word-group), a devil-may-care speed (a sentence).

There are different semantic relations between the components of “stone wall” combinations" (nominative binominals). E.I. Chapnik classified them into the following groups:

1. time relations: `evening paper';

2. space relations: `top floor';

3. relations between the object and the material of which it is made: `steel helmet';

4. cause relations: `war orphan';

5. relations between a part and a whole: `a crew member';

6. relations between the object and an action: `arms production';

7. relations between the agent and an action: `price rise';

8. relations between the object and its designation: `reception hall';

9. the first component denotes the head, organizer of the characterized object: `Bush government;

10. the first component denotes the field of activity of the second component: `language teacher';

11. comparative relations: `moon face';

12. qualitative relations: `winter apples'.

7. Conversion and Sound (Stress)-Interchange

Sound interchange in English is often combined with a difference in the paradigm. This raises the question of the relationship between sound-interchange and conversion. To find a solution of the problem in terms of A.I. Smirnitsky's conception of conversation the following three types of relations should be distinguished:

1) breath - to breathe

As far as cases of this type are concerned, sound-interchange distinguishes only between words, it does not differentiate word-forms of one and the same word. Consequently it has no relation to the paradigms of the words. Hence, cases of this type cannot be regarded as conversion.

2) song - to sing

In the above given example the vowel in `song' interchanges with three different vowels, the latter interchanging with one another in the forms of the verb `to sing':

Like the previous type, the words `song - to sing' are not related by conversion: `song' differs from `to sing (sang, sung)' not only in the paradigm. Its root-vowel does not occur in the word-forms of the verb and vice versa.

3) house - to house

In such cases the sound-interchange distinguishing the two words (verb and noun) is the same as that which distinguishes the word-forms of the noun, cf. `house [haus] - houses [hauziz]' and `to house [hauz] - houses [hauziz]. Consequently, the only difference between the two words lies in their paradigms, in other words, word-pairs like `house - to house' are cases of conversion.

It is fairly obvious that in such cases as `present - to present', `accent - to accent', etc. which differ in the position of stress, the latter does not distinguish the word-forms within the paradigm of the two words. Thus, as far as cases of this type are concerned, the difference in stress is similar to the function of sound-interchange in cases like `breath - to breathe'. Consequently, cases of this type do not belong to conversion.

There is, however, another interpretation of the relationship between conversion and sound (stress)-interchange in linguistic literature. As sound-and (stress-) interchange often accompanies cases of affixation, e.g. `courage - courageous, stable - stability', it seems logical to assume that conversion as one of the types of derivation may also be accompanied by sound- (stress-) interchange. Hence, cases like `breath - to breathe, to sing - song, present - to present', etc. are to be regarded as those of conversion.

8. Diachronic Approach of Conversion. Origin

Modern English vocabulary is exceedingly rich in conversion pairs. As a way of forming words conversion is extremely productive and new conversion pairs make their appearance in fiction, newspaper articles and in the process of oral communication in all spheres of human activity gradually forcing their way into the existing vocabulary and into the dictionaries as well. New conversion pairs are created on the analogy of those already in the word-stock on the semantic patterns above as types of semantic relations. Conversion is highly productive in the formation of verbs, especially from compound nouns. 20^th century new words include a great many verbs formed by conversion: `to motor', `to phone', `to wire', etc.

A diachronic survey of the present-day stock of conversion pairs reveals, however, that not all of them have been created on the semantic patterns just referred to. Some of them arose as a result of the disappearance of inflections in the course of the historical development of the English language due to which two words of different parts of speech, e.g. a verb and a noun, coincided in pronunciation. For this reason certain linguists consider it necessary to distinguish between homonymous word-pairs which appeared as a result of the loss of inflections and those formed by conversion. The term conversion is applied then only to cases like `doctor-to doctor' that came into being after the disappearance of inflections, word-pairs like `work-to work' being regarded exclusively as cases of homonymy.

Other linguists share Prof. Smirnitsky's view concerning discrimination between conversion as a derivational means and as a type of word-building relations between words in Modern English. Synchronically in Modern English there is no difference at all between cases like `taxi - to taxi' and cases like `love - to love' from the point of view of their morphological structure and the word-building system of the language. In either case the only difference between the two words is that of the paradigm: the historical background is here irrelevant. It should be emphatically stressed at this point that the present-day derivative correlations within conversion pairs do not necessarily coincide with the etymological relationship. For instance, in the word-pair `awe - to awe' the noun is the source, of derivation both diachronically and synchronically, but it is quite different with the pair `to mould - mould': historically the verb is the derived member, whereas it is the other way round from the angle of Modern English (cf. the derivatives `mouldable, moulding, moulder' which have suffixes added to verb-bases).

A diachronic semantic analysis of a conversion pair reveals that in the course of time the semantic structure of the base may acquire a new meaning or several meanings under the influence of the meanings of the converted word. This semantic process has been termed reconversion in the linguistic literature. There is an essential difference between conversion and reconversion: being a way of forming words conversion leads to a numerical enlargement of the English vocabulary, whereas reconversion only brings about a new meaning correlated with one of the meanings of the converted word. Research has shown that reconversion only operates with denominal verbs and deverbal nouns.

CONCLUSION

Conversion, an exceedingly productive way of forming words in modern English, is treated differently in linguistic literature. Some linguists define it as a morphological; others as a morphological-syntactic way of forming words, still others consider conversion from a purely syntactic angle.

Conversion is not an absolutely productive way of forming words as it is restricted semantically and morphologically. Moreover, there are cases of occasional and traditional conversion. The latest means existence of words in dictionaries.

On the synchronic plane conversion is regarded as a type of derivative correlation between two words making up a conversion pair. There is the opinion that on synchronic level there is no difference in correlation between words originally differentiated by affixes and later becoming homonymous after the loss of endings and those formed by conversion.

The main reasons for the existence of conversion pairs in modern English are assimilation of borrowings and the word-forming process of conversion itself.

There are several derivational relations within a conversion pair. The most difficult problem is that of establishing the direction of derivation and setting up a simple and derived word there. Linguists use a number of different criteria to determine the direction of derivation, though none of them is absolutely reliable. The most universal are the semantic and the frequency criteria, though there are also derivational criterion, transformation criterion and synonymity criterion

There different points of view depending on the linguist. Some include in the term conversion some other types of transposition, but those who view conversion in its narrower sense, as a process of word-derivation limited to the formation of verbs from nouns and nouns from verbs, use a different terminology for other cases of transposition.

Sound interchange in English is often combined with a difference in the paradigm. This raises the question of the relationship between sound-interchange and conversion. To find a solution of the problem in terms of A.I. Smirnitsky's conception of conversation there are three types of relations that should be distinguished.

On the diachronic plane conversion is a way of forming new words on the analogy of the semantic patterns available in the language. Diachronically distinction should be made between cases of conversion as such and those of homonymy due to the disappearance of inflections in the course of the development of the English language.

Before proposing you the words made up with help of conversion we should say that the two categories of parts of speech especially affected by conversion are nouns and verbs. Verbs made from nouns are the most numerous amongst the words produced by conversion. We have got certain groups of verbs that are arranged according to some semantic associations. In actual fact, these associations are not only complex but sometimes perplexing. It would seem that if you know that the verb formed from the name of an animal denotes behaviour typical of the animal, it would be easy for you to guess the meaning of such a verb provided that you know the meaning of the noun. Yet, it is not always easy as it turns out that the meanings of the two verbs arose from different associations.

Moreover, to find out if it is a case of conversion you should also be very careful and remember the cases of substantivation of adjectives and stone wall combinations. And, of course remember a number of different criteria to determine the direction of derivation, though none of them absolutely reliable. Here we should also mention that many of the converted verbs are used informally in British English as well as in American English. To some verbs the explanation is given in order it was more easily understood. All the cases were taken from Ayto J. The Longman Register of New words. Harlow, 1989 - 1990.

Verbs converted from nouns:

1. air - to be broadcast.

The verb, converted from the phrase “on the air”, is fairly well established transitively in British as well as American English.

2. bin - to throw away by putting into a wastepaper basket.

3. box - inf., to present on television.

4. buddy - to act as a buddy to.

This verb was derived by conversion from the noun buddy which means a volunteer who acts as a companion and helper to someone with AIDS, specifically one working under the auspices of the Terrence Higgins Trust.

5. cash-limit --to impose a cash limit on.

6. cowboy - Br. inf., to drive recklessly.

7. de-accession - euphemistic, to sell or otherwise to dispose (an article, that is in a museum, library).

8. dog-and-pony - Am. inf., to attempt to influence by extravagant claims or high pressure salesmanship.

The verb has been converted from dog-and-pony show, an American expression for a perhaps overelaborate salespitch or publicity presentation.

9. duke -- Am. sl., "duke it out", to fight with one's fists.

The verb derives from the noun dukes, which means “fists”.

10. feeder - to convey by means of a subsidiary transport system linking with a main transport centre.

Converted from A feeder - is a railway, airline, shipping route, etc. that serves outlying areas, joining them up to a main transport system.

11. flan - to assault with a custard pie.

12. gender - to associate something stereotypically with one sex or gender.

13. grey - (of a population) to come to have an increasingly large proportion of old people.

14. hip pocket - Am., to retain possession of something (as if) by putting it in one's hip pocket.

15. jangle -- Br. inf., to gossip.

16. lag - to lag behind somebody, something.

17. namecheck - inf., chiefly Am., to refer to somebody specifically by name.

18. network - to establish a set of contracts with people in a similar business or situation as oneself, to provide for interchange of information, furtherance of one's own prospects, etc.

The noun network is now fairly well established in British English and its conversion to verbal use is a logical next step.

19. nutmeg - Br. inf., (in sport) to deceive a player or make him look foolish by passing the ball between his legs.

Nutmeg has been current for some time with reference to soccer, although not recorded elsewhere, but the reference to other sports (cricket, in this case) seems to be a new development. The word probable converted from the colloquial use of nutmegs.

20. office - Am., To work in an office.

21. outsource - to subcontract work to another company.

22. pipe - sl., to smoke the drug crack.

23. pogo - to jump up and down on the spot to music

This form of stationary dancing originated with the punks. It no doubt owes its name to the pogo stick, whose movements it imitates.

24. port - (in computing) to transfer (e.g. software) to another system without the need for modification.

This verb derives from the noun `port' meaning a place on a computer to which peripherals can be connected for the input and output of data.

25. short - Am. (on the Stock Exchange) to sell (shares which one does not own)

The expression `selling short' (in its literal sense) dates back to the middle of the 19^th century, but this conversion of the adverb to the verb is a comparatively new development.

26. silicone - to implant silicone into a woman's breasts as a cosmetic surgery procedure, to alter their shape.

27. steam - to engage in steaming.

28. stiff - sl., to be a commercial failure; flop.

The verb derives from the noun `stiff', the macabre colloquialism for a corpse; appropriate enough for a record, theatrical production, etc. that dies.

29. tag - sl., To spray one's tag (on).

This verb was derived from the noun `tag'. The craze of tagging, imported from the USA, quickly caught among young teenagers, and soon spawned its own subculture, with its own vocabulary. Armed with spraycans, the youngsters roam around leaving their mark wherever they can. To those in the know the graffiti-devices, usually bizarre nicknames (Dime, Riz, Rut, etc.) and often very stylishly drawn, are instantly identifiable with their owners. And `own' is very much the appropriate word: the tags are highly personal but also markable possessions, which can be sold to the highest bidder when the owner decides to move on to a new one.

30. trail - a) to advertise in advance or by means of a trailer.

b) to give advance notice or indication of.

31. Velcro - to be fastened by means of Velcro.

`Velcro' joins the list of proprietary names, from the now defunct to Kodak (`photograph with a Kodak') to the commonplace to hoover (`clean with a hoover'), that have been turned into verbs.

32. Wide - (of a cricket umpire) to call (a bowler) for bowling a wide ball.

This coinage was no doubt formed on analogy with `to no-ball', a verb first recorded in the 1860s. That `to wide' has only put in an appearance so recently is probably due to the upsurge in the number of deliveries penalized as `wides' to discourage defensive bowling in limited-over cricket.

33. wok - to cook using a wok.

34. woman - to supply with female operatives or crew.

In my work verbs converted from nouns are mostly presented because it is much more difficult to define other parts of speech made up with the help of conversion.

LITERATURE

1. Антрушина Г.Б., Афанасьева О.В., Морозова Н.Н. Лексикология английского языка: Учеб. пособие для студентов. - 3-е изд., стереотип. - М.: Дрофа, 2001. - 288 с.

2. Арнольд И.В. Лексикология современного английского языка: Учеб. для ин-тов и фак. иностр. яз. - 3-е изд., перераб. и доп. - М.: Высш. шк., 1986. - 295с., сл. - На англ. яз.

3. Гинзбург Р.З., Хидекель С.С., Князева Г.Ю. и др. Лексикология английского языка: Учебник для ин-тов и фак. иностр. яз. - 2-е изд., испр. и доп. - М.: Высш. шк., 1979. - 269с., сл. - На англ. яз.

4. Дубенец Э.М. Современный английский язык. Лексикология: Пособие для студентов гуманитарных вузов - М./СПб.: ГЛОССА/КАРО, 2004. - 192 с.

5. Лещева Л.М. Славо в английском языке. Курс лексикологии современного английского языка: Учебник для студентов факультетов и отделений английского языка (на англ. языке). - Мн: Академия управления при Президенте Республики Беларусь, 2001. - 179 с.

6. Смирницкий А.И. Лексикология английского языка. - М.: Издательство литературы на иностранных языках, 1956. - 260 с.

7. Суша Т.Н. Лексикология английского языка. Практикум: Учеб.-метод. пособие / На англ. языке; Минск. гос. лингв. ун-т. - Мн., 2001. - 62 с.

8. Харитончик З.А. Лексикология английского языка: Учеб. пособие. - Мн.: Выш. шк., 1992. - 229 с.

9. Ayto J/ The Longman Register of New Words. Harlow, 1989 - 1990/ Vol. 1.

Размещено на Allbest.ru