И. В. Арнольд
 Скачать 1.82 Mb.
|
|
§ 8.2 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, 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 form a subset of the meaning of the prototype, will be further discussed in the chapter on homonymy. The causes that made conversion so widely spread are to be approached diachronically.1 Nouns and verbs have become identical in form firsth as a result of the loss of endings. More rarely it is the prefix that is dropped: mind < OE zemynd. When endings have disappeared phonetical development resulted in the merging of sound forms for both elements of these pairs. OE ModE carian v cam n carev' n drincan v drinca, drinc n drmkv- n slsepan v step, slep n SleepV* 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 phone-ticalh identical in the process of assimilation. OFr ModE eschequier v eschec n check2 v, n crier v cri n cry v,n Prof A.I. Smirnitsky is of the opinion that on a synchronic level there is no difference in correlation between such cases as listed above, i.e. 1  See: JespersenO. English Grammar on Historical Principles. Pt. VI.2 The etymology of the word is curious from another point of view as well. Eschequier (OFr) means 'to play chess'. It comes into Old French through Arabic from Persian shak 'king*. In that game one must call "Check*." on putting one's opponent's king in danger. Hence the meaning of 'holding someone in check'; check also means 'suddenly arrest motion of and 'restrain*. Both the noun and the verb are polysemantic in Modern English. 155 words originally differentiated by affixes and later becoming homonym-ous 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 the present state of things by the description of its sources.1 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 oprcess 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 paramount importance and interest. Synchronically both types sleep n : : sleep v and pencil n : : pencil v must be treated together as cases of patterned ho-monymy.2 But it is essential to differentiate the cases of conversion and treat them separately when the study is diachronic. § 8.3 CONVERSION IN PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH Recent research suggests that this regular or patterned or modelled homonymy has some characteristic features: statistical data obtained at Leningrad University show, for example, that it regularly involves monosyllabic words of a simple morphological structure. Conversion from suffixed and prefixed words, although quite possible (c f. commission n : : commission v) is uncommon. This is easily accounted for, as a word of complete divisibility is already a member of certain structural correlations. There is, of course, no point in forming a verb from the noun arrival by conversion when there exists a verb of the same root, arrive. As the percentage of root words among adjectives is smaller than in other parts of speech and as English adjectives mostly show a complex morphological structure, it is but seldom that they serve as basis for conversion. On the other hand conversion may be considered to be the predominant method of EnglfsTi verb-formatiom\ Actually, apart from the stand up type there are no competitive ways "as far as English verbs are concerned: composition is almost non-existent, prefixation extremely scarce. One might think of the denominal verbs with the suffixes -ate, -ify, -ize, but these are stylistically limited to learned and technical formations. One more debatable point has to be dealt with Prof. A.I. Smirnits-ky and his school consider the paradigm to be the only word-forming means of conversion. A.I. Smirnitsky sees conversion as a case where 1  See: СмирницкийА.И. Лексикология английского языка, с. 78 and other works by the same author.2 Prof. I.P. Ivanova uses the term "modelled homonymy". See: Иванова И.П. О морфологической характеристике слова в современном английском языке// Проблемы морфологического строя германских языков. М., 1963. 156 a word is transferred from one paradigm to another and the paradigm is the only means at work. It is difficult to accept this view as it ignores the syntactic pattern which is in fact of great importance. If we bear in mind that a new word coined in this way appears not in isolation but only in a definite environment of other words, we shall invariably come to the conclusion that conversion is a combined morphological and syntactic way of word-building.1 The following example will make it clear: // one struck lucky, one had a good buy (C.P. Snow). Here buy is a noun, because it occupies the position of a noun and possesses the syntactical ties of а пэип (it is preceded by the indefinite article and modified by an adjective) and not because being used in the plural it would take the ending -s and so enter the paradigm of nouns. Actually in this case the linguist can go by what he has before him. E.g.: The bus stops. The conductor rips off the platform mid round to the front for a lean on the radiator and a quick drag with the driver. Conversion here is partly usual and partly occasional. Moreover, it is impossible to identify the paradigm in the isolated form. Having the form buys one cannot say whether it is the plural of a noun or the third person singular (Present Indefinite Tense) of a verb. Thus, even the paradigm can be recognized only on the evidence of distribution, i.e. by contrasting formal arrangements. It is the context that shows whether a word is to be taken as a noun or as a verb. In the humorous complaint: Why when quitting a taxi do I invariably down the door handle when it should be upped, and up it wlien it should be downed? (O. Nash) the fact that down and up are verbs is signalled not by the possibility of upped and downed but by the syntactical function and syntactical ties. It also seems illogical to introduce a paradigm in an argument about nonce-words or rare words when we have no proof that the word occurs in the other form involved in the corresponding paradigm. There seems no point in arguing for the probability of madamed or madams, although she madams everybody is acknowledged by the English as quite possible. Compare the following: When he saw who it was7 he condescended a sarcastic Thank you, but no Madam. He did not madam anybody, even good customers like Mrs Moore (M. Dickens). Also, if the paradigm is accepted as the only word-building means in conversion, it necessarily follows that conversion does not exist for the parts of speech or separate words where either the prototype or the derived word possess no paradigm, i.e. do not change. What is, for example, the word-building pattern in the following pairs? must v — must n why adv — why particle down adv — down a2 1  This point of view was firs.t expressed by Prof. V.N. Yartseva. See: Ярцева В.Н. К. вопросу об историческом развития системы языка // Вопросы теории и истории языка. М., 1952.2 Жлуктенко Ю.А. Конверсия в современном английском языке как морфо-лого-синтаксический способ словообразования // Вопр. языкознания. 1958. № 5. 157 These very numerous cases remain then completely out of the general system and there is no telling how they are to be classified. As has been mentioned above, the bulk of words coined by means of conversion is constituted by verbs. Among them we find those correlating not only with nouns (the predominating pattern) but with adjectives, adverbs and other parts of speech as well. Among verbs derived from adverbs and other parts of speech there are some that are firmly established in the English vocabulary: to down, to encore, to pooh-pooh. This pattern is highly productive so that many neologisms can be quoted by way of illustration, e. g. to chair 'to preside over a meeting'; to campaign 'to organize a campaign': Communists in Newcastle are campaigning against rent increases ("Morning Star"). Other examples are: to microfilm *to make a photographic film of a document or a book, which can be enlarged in projection'; to screen 'to make a motion picture of a novel or play'; to star 'to appear, or to present as a star actor'; to wireless 'to send a message by wireless'; to orbit 'to travel in orbit, to put into orbit'. § 8.4 SEMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN CONVERSION The change in syntactic function and paradigm, i.e. in distribution, that the stem undergoes in conversion is obvious from the examples. As to the semantic changes, they are at first sight somewhat chaotic. Many authors have pointed out that dust v means lto remove dust from smth* and also the opposite, i.e. 'to powder', 'to cover with smth' (e. g. to dust a cake with sugar); stone v means 'to throw stones at1, 'to put to death by throwing stones at1 and also 'to remove the stones' (from fruit). A closer investigation will show, however, some signs of patterned relationships, especially if one observes semantically related groups. The lexical meaning of the verb points out the instrument, the agent, the place, the cause, the result and the time of action. The examples below serve only to illustrate this, the classification beingfarfromexhaustive.lt should be also borne in mind that the verbs are mostly polysemantic and have other meanings in addition to those indicated. Like other verbs creating a vivid image they often receive a permanent metaphorical meaning. Verbs based on nouns denoting some part of the human body will show a regularity of instrumental meaning, even though the polysemantic ones among them will render other meanings as well, e. g. eye 'to watch carefully' (with eyes); finger 'to touch with the fingers1; hand lto give or help with the hand": elbow *to push or force one's way with the elbows'; toe 'to touch, reach or kick with the toes'. The verb head conforms to this pattern too as alongside its most frequent meaning 'to be at the head of, and many others,it possesses the meaning 'to strike with one's head' (as in football). The same type of instrumental relations will be noted in stems denoting various tools, machines and weapons: to hammer, to knife, to machine-gun, to pivot, to pump, to rivet, to sandpaper, to saw, to spur, 158 to flash-light, to wheel, to free-wheel (said about a car going with the engine switched off), or more often 'to travel on a bicycle without pedalling (usually downhill)', etc. Sometimes the noun names the agent of the action expressed in the verb, the action being characteristic of what is named by the noun: crowd 'to come together in large numbers'; flock 'to gather in flocks'; herd 'to gather into a herd'; swarm 'to occur or come in swarms'. The group of verbs based on the names of animals may be called metaphorical, as their meaning implies comparison. They are also agential, in so far as the verb denotes the behaviour considered characteristic of this or that animal (as an agent), e. g. ape 'to imitate in a foolish way as an ape does'; dog 'to follow close behind as a dog does*; monkey 'to mimick, mock or play mischievous tricks like those of a monkey'; wolf (down) 'to eat quickly and greedily like a wolf. A smaller subgroup might be classified under the heading of resultative relations with the formulas: 'to hunt some animal' and 4to give birth to some animal', e. g. to fox, to rabbit, to rat, to foal. With nouns denoting places, buildings, containers and the like the meaning of the converted verb will be locative: bag 'to put in a bag'; bottle 'to store in bottles'; can 'to put into cans'; corner 'to set in a corner'; floor 'to bring to the floor*; garage 'to put (a car) in a garage'; pocket 'to put into one's pocket'. Verbs with adjective stems, such as blind, calm, clean, empty, idle% lame, loose, tidy, total show fairly regular semantic relationships with the corresponding adjectives. Like verbs with adjective stems that had been formerly suffixed and lost their endings (e. g. to thin Deverbal nouns formed by conversion follow the regular semantic correlations observed in nouns formed with verbal stems by means of derivation. They fall, among others, under the categories of process, result, place or agent. Thus, for instance, go, hiss, hunt, knock name the process, the act or a specific instance of what the verbal stem expresses. The result or the object of the verbal action is denoted in such nouns as burn, catch, cut, find, lift, offer, tear, e. g.: ... he stood up and said he must go. There were protests, offers of a lift back into town and invitations (McCrone).1 Tory cuts were announced ("Morning Star"). The place where the action occurs is named by the nouns drive, forge, stand, walk, and some others. H. Marchand2 points out a very interesting detail, namely, that the deverbal personal nouns formed by means of conversion and denoting the doer are mostly derogatory. This statement may be illustrated by the following examples: bore, cheat, flirt, scold 'a scolding woman*, tease 'a person who teases'. E. g.: But as soon as he (Wagner) puts his 1 The noun protests is not referred to as conversion, because its basic form is not homonymous to that of the verb due to the difference of stress: 'protest n : : protest v. 2 Marchand H. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation, p.p. 293-308. 159 Wotans and Siegfrieds and Parcivals on the stage, so many heavy men, who stand in one place for an hour heavily wrestling with a narrative that nobody can understand, he is the very emperor of the bores (Priestley). This is significant as it shows that the language has in store some patterned morphological ways to convey emotional meaning; these ways can form a parallel to the suffixes denoting deprecation, such as -ard, -ling, -ster.1 The list of sense groups mentioned above is by no means exhaustive, there are many more that are difficult to systematize or are less numerous, such as, for instance, instrumental relations. Nouns may be formed by conversion from any other part of speech as well, for instance from adverbs: ... the bounding vitality which had carried her through what had been a life of quite sharp ups and downs (Mc-Crone). Alongside these regular formations many occasional ones are coined every day as nonce-words. Sometimes, though not necessarily, they display emotional colouring, give a jocular ring to the utterance or sound as colloquialisms. E. g.: "Now then, Eeyore/' he said. "Don't bustle me," said Eeyore, getting up slowly. "Don't now-then me.'* (Milne) This rough approximation to a patterned system should not be overemphasized. As a matter of fact, words formed by conversion readily adapt themselves to various semantic development and readily acquire figurative meanings; on the other hand, there are many cases of repeated formations from the same polysemantic source, each new formation being based on a different meaning. Interesting examples of these were investigated by S.M. Kostenko. The polysemantic noun bank was used as a basis for conversion several times. Bank 4to contain as a bank', 'to enclose with a bank' (1590) is derived from the meaning 'the margin of a river, lake, etc.'; bank (earth or snow) lto pile up1 (1833) is derived from the meaning 'a mound'; bank (a car) 'to tilt in turning1, 'to travel with one side higher' is coined metonymically, because in motor car racing the cars performed the turn on the raised bank at the end of the racing ground. Later on the word was borrowed into aviation terminology where it is used about aircraft both transitively and intransitively with the same meaning 'to tilt in turning'. All the above listed meanings of bank n and bank v exist in the English vocabulary today, which brings us to a conclusion of great importance. It shows that a polysemantic verb (or noun) formed by conversion is not structured semantically as a separate unit and does not constitute a system of meanings, because its separate meanings are not conditioned by each other but by respective meanings of the prototype. If we take the semantic aspect as the level of contents, and the phonetic aspect of the word as the level of expression, we shall see one semantic structure corresponding to the phonetic complex Ibaerjkl and not two semantic structures, one corresponding to the noun and the other to the verb, like the two morphological paradigms. * For a more detailed treatment see Ch. 5. 160 It goes without saying that very much yet remains to be done in elucidating these complex relationships.1 |