double arrow

Substantivisation of adjectives

Conversion in present-day English.

I. Conversion consists in making a new word from some existing word by changing the category of a part of speech, the morphemic shape of the original word remains unchanged. The new word has a meaning which differs from that of the original one. It has also a new paradigm peculiar to this part of speech.

Conversion is a characteristic feature of the English word-building system. It is also called affixless derivation or zero-suffixation.

Conversion is the main way of forming verbs in Modern English. Verbs can be formed from nouns 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 e.g. to eye, to finger, to elbow, to shoulder etc. They have instrumental meaning if they are formed from nouns denoting tools, machines, instruments, weapons, e.g. to hammer, to machine-gun, to rifle, to nail,

b) verbs can denote an action characteristic of the living being denoted by the noun from which they have been converted, e.g. to crowd, to wolf, to ape,

c) verbs can denote acquisition, addition or deprivation if they are formed from nouns denoting an object, e.g. to fish, to dust, to peel, to paper,

d) verbs can denote an action performed at the place denoted by the noun from which they have been converted, e.g. to park, to garage, to bottle, to corner, to pocket,

e) verbs can denote an action performed at the time denoted by the noun from which they have been converted e.g. to winter, to week-end.

Verbs can be also converted from adjectives, in such cases they denote the change of the state, e.g. to tame (to become or make tame), to clean, to slim, to pale, to yellow, to cool, to grey, to rough etc.

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

a) instant of an action e.g. a jump, a move,

b) process or state e.g. sleep, walk,

c) agent of the action expressed by the verb from which the noun has been converted, e.g. a help, a flirt, a scold,

d) object or result of the action expressed by the verb from which the noun has been converted, e.g. a burn, a find, a purchase,

e) place of the action expressed by the verb from which the noun has been converted, e.g. a drive, a stop, a walk.

Many nouns converted from verbs can be used only in the Singular form and denote momentary actions. In such cases we have partial conversion. Such deverbal nouns are often used with such verbs as: to have, to get, to take etc., e.g. to have a try, to give a push, to take a swim.

The high productivity of conversion finds its reflection in speech where numerous cases of conversion can be found, which are not registered by dictionaries. "If anybody oranges me again tonight, I'll knock his face off, says the annoyed hero of a story by O'Henry when a shop-assistant offers him oranges (for the tenth time in one night) instead of peaches for which he is looking ("Little Speck in Garnered Fruit"). There is no verb “to orange” in any dictionary, but in this situation it answers the need for brevity, expressiveness and humour.

II. Some scientists (Jespersen, Kruisina) refer Substantivisation of adjectives to conversion. But most scientists disagree with them because in cases of Substantivisation of adjectives we have a different changes in the language. Substantivisation is the result of ellipsis (syntactical shortening) when a word combination with a semantically strong attribute loses its semantically weak noun (man, person etc),

e.g. «a grown-up person» is shortened to «a grown-up».

In cases of perfect Substantivisation the attribute takes the paradigm of a countable noun,

E.g. a criminal man – a criminal, criminals, a criminal’s (mistake), criminals’ (mistakes). Such words are used in a sentence in the same function as nouns,

E.g. I am fond of musicals. (musical comedies).

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 etc.

4.Conversion в современном английском языке.

Substantivisation прилагательных.

I. преобразования состоит в создании нового слова от некоторых существующих слово, изменяя категориючасть речи,морфемные форму исходное слово остается неизменной. Новое слово имеет значение, которое отличается от исходного. Она также имеет новую парадигму свойственные этой части речи.

Преобразование является характерной особенностью английского слова потенциала системы. Его также называют affixless выводе или нулевой суффиксации.

Преобразование является основным способом формирования глаголов в современном английском языке. Глаголы могут быть образованы от существительных различных смысловых групп и имеют разные значения из-за этого, например,

а) глаголы имеют инструментальный смысл, если они образованы от существительных, обозначающих части человеческого тела, например, в глаза, чтобы пальцем, до локтя, к плечу и т.д. Они имеют инструментальное значение, если они образуются из существительных, обозначающих инструменты, машины, инструменты, оружие, например, забить, пулеметных, чтобы винтовка, для ногтей,

б) глаголы могут обозначатьдействие характеристика живого существа обозначаются существительное, из которых они были преобразованы, например для толпы, волк, подражать,

в) глаголы могут обозначать приобретения, добавление или лишение, если они образуются из существительных, обозначающих объект, например, ловить рыбу, пыль, чистить, бумага,

г) глаголы могут обозначатьдействие, выполненное в том месте, обозначается существительным, из которых они были преобразованы, например Парка, в гараж, к бутылке, в угол, в карман,

д) глаголы могут обозначатьдействие выполняется в то время, обозначается существительным, из которых они были преобразованы например, к зиме, на выходных.

Глаголы также могут быть преобразованы из прилагательных, в таких случаях они обозначают изменение состояния, например, приручить (стать или сделать ручными), почистить, тонкий, с бледным, до желтого, чтобы охладиться, к серым, грубым и т.д.

Существительные могут быть также образованы посредством преобразования из глаголов. Старинная существительных может обозначать:

а) моментдействия, например, прыжок,движение,

б) процесс или состояние, например, спать, ходить,

в) агент действие, выраженное глаголом, из которого существительное был преобразован, например, помощи,флирт,ругать,

г) целью или результатом действие, выраженное глаголом, из которых существительное было преобразовано, например, ожог, находка,покупка,

д) место действие, выраженное глаголом, из которого существительное был преобразован, например, диска,остановки, на прогулку.

Многие существительные от глаголов преобразован может быть использован только в единственном числе и обозначим мгновенного действия. В таких случаях мы имеем частичную конверсию. Такие deverbal существительных часто используются с такими глаголами, как: иметь, чтобы получить, взять и т.д., например, чтобы попробовать, дать толчок, чтобы поплавать.

Высокая производительность преобразования находит свое отражение в речи, где многочисленные случаи перехода можно найти, которые не зарегистрированы по словарям. " Если кто-то апельсины меня снова сегодня вечером, я нокаутирую его Face Off, говорит раздраженно героя рассказа О'Генри, когдамагазин - помощник предлагает ему апельсины (в десятый раз за одну ночь) вместо персиков, за которые он ищет («Маленькая песчинка в Получил Фрукты"). Там нет глагола " оранжевые" ни в одном словаре, но в этой ситуации он отвечает на необходимость краткость, выразительность и юмор.

II. Некоторые ученые (Есперсен, Kruisina) относятся Substantivisation прилагательных к обращению. Но большинство ученых не согласны с ними, потому что в случаях Substantivisation прилагательных у нас есть различные изменения в языке. Substantivisation является результатом многоточием (синтаксический сокращение), когдасловосочетание с семантически сильным атрибутом теряет семантически слабым существительным (мужчина, человек и т.д.),

например «Взрослый человек» сокращается до «по-взрослому».

В тех случаях, совершенного Substantivisation атрибут принимает парадигму исчисляемое существительное,

Например уголовное человек - преступник, преступники,преступника (ошибка), преступники (ошибки). Такие слова используются в предложении в той же функции, как существительные,

Например Я люблю мюзиклы. (музыкальная комедия).

Проблема ли прилагательных может быть образована посредством преобразования имен является предметом многих дискуссий. В современном английском языке есть много словосочетаний типа, например, рост цен, замораживание заработной платы, стальной шлем, замок из песка и т.д.

All lexical units semantically fall into two types:

1. monosemantic words (the words having only one lexical meaning and denoting, accordingly, one concept)

2. Polysementic words (words having several meanings, thus denoting a whole set of related concepts grouped according to the national peculiarities of a given language)

Most of the lexical units marked by high frequency value arepolysemantic.

Ex. The hand (the meaning of hand is часовая стрелка) of my watch points to three.

Give me your hand (the meaning of hand is рука)

The farmer has hired an extra hand (the meaning of handis с/х рабочий)

The different semantic variants of polysemantic word manifest (проявлять) themselves in different word combination, i.e. constructions which remain constant irrespective of the actual sentences in which they occur. (происходить)

Ex. The meaning of the verb to make are manifested in the structural pattern

“to make smth (to make a dress), to make smbd (to make friends), to make smbd do smth” (to make a child wash his hands)

The semantic variation of words may be analyzed into:

1. lexico-semantic 2. lexico-phraseological

Ex. In the case of the word “fellow” the semantic variants may be revealed by changing the type of sentence: “good fellow”, “jolly good fellow”.

When used predicatively or in exclamatory sentences the word “fellow” acquires an altogether different meaning

Ex. She is a jolly good fellow – Она не жилец на этом свете.

The primary meaning is usually less dependent on the lexical environment.

The secondary meanings are inseparably bound up with specific structure and patterns.

Polysemy is also discovered through an examination of the nature of synonymic and antonymic groupings typical of a given word.

Synonymy and antonymy are of great assistance in the establishment of semantic variants because each individual semantic variant implies its own synonymic and antonymic series or grouping, not synonymous (or antonymous) between themselves.

Ex. Feel (1) touch, handle, probe; 2) sound, try, prove, put to test; 3) experience, suffer or enjoy, have sense of; 4) be affected or be moved by; 5) have the impression, have the consciousness of being, be conscious of being)

Ex. The antonyms of the adj. “awkward” are

1. deft, handy, skilful. Dexterous

2. manageable, convenient, fit

3. graceful, elegant, polite

There is also some connection between polysemy and the structure of words.

The simpler the structure is the wider the range of its meanings.

Compound words are practically monosemantic.

The development of polysemy in word is due to their neutrality of style and the absence of emotive factors.

Generally monosyllabic simple words of neutral style are more polysemantic.

Все лексические единицы семантически падают на два типа:

1. однозначные слова (слова, имеющие только одного лексического значения и обозначая, соответственно, одно понятие

2. Polysementic слов (слов, имеющих несколько значений, таким образом, обозначающее целый комплекс связанных с ним понятий сгруппированы в соответствии с национальными особенностями данного языка)

Большинство лексических единиц отмечены высокими arepolysemantic значения частоты.

Ex. Рука (смысл рука часовая стрелка) моей точки часов до трех.

Дай мне руку (смысл рука рука)

Фермер нанял дополнительные руки (смысл handis с / х рабочий)

Различные семантические варианты многозначного слова манифеста (проявлять) себя в различной комбинации слов, то есть конструкции, которые остаются неизменными независимо от фактического предложения, в которых они происходят. (происходить)

Ex. Значения глагола сделать проявляются в структурной схеме

", Чтобы сделать что-л (сделать платье), чтобы сделать Smbd (подружиться), чтобы сделать Smbd сделать что-л " (заставить ребенка мыть руки)

Семантические изменения слова могут быть проанализированы в:

1. лексико- семантических

2. лексико- фразеологических

Ex. В случае слово " товарищ "семантических вариантов могут быть выявлены путем изменения типа предложения: " молодец ", " славный парень ".

При использовании предикативно или восклицательные предложения слово " товарищ " приобретает совсем другой смысл

Ex. Она славный парень - Она не жилец на этом свете.

Основное значение, как правило, менее зависимой от лексического окружения.

Вторичные значения неразрывно связаны с определенной структурой и узоров.

Многозначность также обнаружены в ходеизучения природы и синонимический антонимический групп характерными для деятельности данного слова.

Синонимия и антонимия оказывают огромную помощь в создании семантических вариантов, потому что каждый отдельный вариант предполагает семантическую свой синонимический и антонимический серии или группировки, не являются синонимами (или антонимичных) между собой.

Ex. Feel (1) сенсорный, ручка, зонд; 2) звук, попробуйте, докажите, поставлен на испытания, 3) опыт, страдать и наслаждаться, есть чувство, 4) быть затронуты или быть перемещены, 5) сложилось впечатление, были сознанием бытия, быть сознательным бытия)

Ex. Антонимыприл. " Неловко " являются

1. ловкий, удобный, точнее. Ловкий 2. управляемым, удобным, нужным 3. изящный, элегантный, вежливый

Существует также некоторая связь между многозначностью и структуры слов.

Чем проще структурашире диапазон его значений.

Сложные слова практически однозначным.

Развитие многозначности в слове связано с их нейтралитет стиль и отсутствие эмоциональных факторов.

Вообще односложные простые слова нейтральном стиле более многозначно

Polysemy. Semantic Structure of the Word

The semantic structure of the word does not present an indissoluble unity (that is, actually, why it is referred to as "structure"), nor does it necessarily stand for one concept. It is generally known that most words convey several concepts and thus possess the corresponding number of meanings. A word having several meanings is called polysemantic, and the ability of words to have more than one meaning is described by the term polysemy.

Two somewhat naive but frequently asked questions may arise in connection with polysemy:

1. Is polysemy an anomaly or a general rule in English vocabulary?

2. Is polysemy an advantage or a disadvantage so far as the process of communication is concerned?

Let us deal with both these questions together.

Polysemy is certainly not an anomaly. Most English words are polysemantic. It should be noted that the wealth of expressive resources of a language largely depends on the degree to which polysemy has developed in the language. Sometimes people who are not very well informed in linguistic matters claim that a language is lacking in words if the need arises for the same word to be applied to several different phenomena. In actual fact, it is exactly the opposite: if each word is found to be capable of conveying, let us say, at least two concepts instead of one, the expressive potential of the whole vocabulary increases twofold. Hence, a well-developed polysemy is not a drawback but a great advantage in a language.

On the other hand, it should be pointed out that the number of sound combinations that human speech organs can produce is limited. Therefore at a certain stage of language development the production of new words by morphological means becomes limited, and polysemy becomes increasingly important in providing the means for enriching the vocabulary. From this, it should be clear that the process of enriching the vocabulary does not consist merely in adding new words to it, but, also, in the constant development of polysemy.

The system of meanings of any polysemantic word develops gradually, mostly over the centuries, as more and more new meanings are either added to old ones, or oust some of them (see Ch. 8). So the complicated processes of polysemy development involve both the appearance of new meanings and the loss of old ones. Yet, the general tendency with English vocabulary at the modern stage of its history is to increase the total number of its meanings and in this way to provide for a quantitative and qualitative growth of the language's expressive resources.

When analysing the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, it is necessary to distinguish between two levels of analysis.

On the first level, the semantic structure of a word is treated as a system of meanings. For example, the semantic structure of the noun fire could be roughly presented by this scheme (only the most frequent meanings are given):

Fire, n.

I. Flame

II. An instance of destructive burning; e. g. a forest fire.

III. Burning material in a stove, fireplace, etc.; e. g. ^ There is a fire in the next room. A camp fire.

IV. The shooting of guns, etc.; e. g. to open (cease) fire.

V. Strong feeling, passion, enthusiasm; e. g. a speech lacking fire.

The above scheme suggests that meaning I holds a kind of dominance over the other meanings conveying the concept in the most general way whereas meanings II—V are associated with special circumstances, aspects and instances of the same phenomenon.

Meaning I (generally referred to as the main meaning) presents the centre of the semantic structure of the word holding it together. It is mainly through meaning I that meanings II—V (they are called secondary meanings) can be associated with one another, some of them exclusively through meaning I, as, for instance, meanings IV and V.

Dull, adj.

I. Uninteresting, monotonous, boring; e. g. a dull book, a dull film.

II. Slow in understanding, stupid; e. g. a dull student.

III. Not clear or bright; e. g. dull weather, a dull day, a dull colour.

IV. Not loud or distinct; e. g. a dull sound.

V. Not sharp; e. g. a dull knife.

VI. Not active; e. g. Trade is dull.

VII. Seeing badly; e. g. dull eyes (arch.).

VIII, Hearing badly; e. g. dull ears (arch.),

Yet, one distinctly feels that there is something that all these seemingly miscellaneous meanings have in common, and that is the implication of deficiency, be it of colour (m. III), wits (m. II), interest (m. I), sharpness (m. V), etc. The implication of insufficient quality, of something lacking, can be clearly distinguished in each separate meaning.

In fact, each meaning definition in the given scheme can be subjected to a transformational operation to prove the point.

The transformed scheme of the semantic structure of dull clearly shows that the centre holding together the complex semantic structure of this word is not one of the meanings but a certain component that can be easily singled out within each separate meaning.

This brings us to the second level of analysis of the semantic structure of a word. The transformational operation with the meaning definitions of dull reveals something very significant: the semantic structure of the word is "divisible", as it were, not only at the level of different meanings but, also, at a deeper level.

Each separate meaning seems to be subject to structural analysis in which it may be represented as sets of semantic components. In terms of componential analysis, one of the modern methods of semantic research, the meaning of a word is defined as a set of elements of meaning which are not part of the vocabulary of the language itself, but rather theoretical elements, postulated in order to describe the semantic relations between the lexical elements of a given language.

The scheme of the semantic structure of dull shows that the semantic structure of a word is not a mere system of meanings, for each separate meaning is subject to further subdivision and possesses an inner structure of its own.

Therefore, the semantic structure of a word should be investigated at both these levels: a) of different meanings, b) of semantic components within each separate meaning. For a monosemantic word (i. e. a word with one meaning) the first level is naturally excluded.

Types of Semantic Components

The leading semantic component in the semantic structure of a word is usually termed denotative component (also, the term referential component may be used). The denotative component expresses the conceptual content of a word.

The following list presents denotative components of some English adjectives and verbs:

Denotative components

lonely, adj. [ alone, without company ]

notorious, adj. [ widely known ]

celebrated, adj. [ widely known ]

to glare, v. [ to look ]

to glance, v. [ to look ]

to shiver, v. [ to tremble ]

to shudder, v. [ to tremble ]

It is quite obvious that the definitions given in the right column only partially and incompletely describe the meanings of their corresponding words. To give a more or less full picture of the meaning of a word, it is necessary to include in the scheme of analysis additional semantic components which are termed connotations or connotative components.

Let us complete the semantic structures of the words given above introducing connotative components into the schemes of their semantic structures.

Denotative components Connotative components

lonely, adj. ===> alone, without company melancholy, sad motive connotation

notorious, adj. ===> widely known for criminal acts or bad traits of character Evaluative connotation, negative

celebrated, adj. -- widely known for special achievement in science, art, etc. Evaluative connotation, positive

to glare, v. — | to look | steadily, lastingly in anger, rage, etc. 1.Connotation of duration

2. Emotive connotation

to glance, v. ===> | to look | briefly, passingly Connotation of duration

to shiver, v. — | to tremble [ lastingly ]

with the cold 1. Connotation of duration

2. Connotation of cause

to shudder, v. — [ to tremble | [ briefly ]

with horror, disgust, etc. 1. Connotation of duration

2. Connotation of cause 3. Emotive connotation

The above examples show how by singling out denotative and connotative components one can get a sufficiently clear picture of what the word really means. The schemes presenting the semantic structures of glare, shiver, shudder also show that a meaning can have two or more connotative components.

The given examples do not exhaust all the types of connotations but present only a few: emotive, evaluative connotations, and also connotations of duration and of cause. (For a more detailed classification of connotative components of a meaning, see Ch. 10.)

Meaning and Context

In the beginning of the paragraph entitled "Polysemy" we discussed the advantages and disadvantages of this linguistic phenomenon. One of the most important "drawbacks" of polysemantic words is that there is sometimes a chance of misunderstanding when a word is used in a certain meaning but accepted by a listener or reader in another. It is only natural that such cases provide stuff of which jokes are made, such as the ones that follow:

Customer. I would like a book, please. Bookseller. Something light? Customer. That doesn't matter. I have my car with me.

In this conversation the customer is honestly misled by the polysemy of the adjective light taking it in the literal sense whereas the bookseller uses the word in its figurative meaning "not serious; entertaining".

In the following joke one of the speakers pretends to misunderstand his interlocutor basing his angry retort on the polysemy of the noun kick:

The critic started to leave in the middle of the second act of the play.

"Don't go," said the manager. "I promise there's a terrific kick in the next act."

"Fine," was the retort, "give it to the author."-1

Generally speaking, it is common knowledge that context is a powerful preventative against any misunderstanding of meanings. For instance, the adjective dull, if used out of context, would mean different things to different people or nothing at all. It is only in combination with other words that it reveals its actual meaning: a dull pupil, a dull play, a dull razor-blade, dull weather, etc. Sometimes, however, such a minimum context fails to reveal the meaning of the word, and it may be correctly interpreted only through what Professor N. Amosova termed a second-degree context [1], as in the following example: The man was large, but his wife was even fatter. The word fatter here serves as a kind of indicator pointing that large describes a stout man and not a big one.

Current research in semantics is largely based on the assumption that one of the more promising methods of investigating the semantic structure of a word is by studying the word's linear relationships with other words in typical contexts, i. e. its combinability or collocability.

Scholars have established that the semantics of words characterised by common occurrences (i. e. words which regularly appear in common contexts) are correlated and, therefore, one of the words within such a pair can be studied through the other.

Thus, if one intends to investigate the semantic structure of an adjective, one would best consider the adjective in its most typical syntactical patterns A + N (adjective + noun) and N + l + A (noun + link verb + adjective) and make a thorough study of the meanings of nouns with which the adjective is frequently used.

kick. n. -- 1 thrill, pleasurable excitement (inform.); 2. a blow with the foot

For instance, a study of typical contexts of the adjective bright in the first pattern will give us the following sets: a) bright colour (flower, dress, silk, etc.). b) bright metal (gold, jewels, armour, etc.), c) bright student (pupil, boy, fellow, etc.), d) bright face (smile, eyes, etc.) and some others. These sets will lead us to singling out the meanings of the adjective related to each set of combinations: a) intensive in colour, b) shining, c) capable, d) gay, etc.

For a transitive verb, on the other hand, the recommended pattern would be V + N (verb + direct object expressed by a noun). If, for instance, our object of investigation are the verbs to produce, to create, to compose, the correct procedure would be to consider the semantics of the nouns that are used in the pattern with each of these verbs: what is it that is produced? created? composed?

There is an interesting hypothesis that the semantics of words regularly used in common contexts (e. g. bright colours, to build a house, to create a work of art, etc.) are so intimately correlated that each of them casts, as it were, a kind of permanent reflection on the meaning of its neighbour. If the verb to compose is frequently used with the object music, isn't it natural to expect that certain musical associations linger in the meaning of the verb to compose?

Note, also, how closely the negative evaluative connotation of the adjective notorious is linked with the negative connotation of the nouns with which it is regularly associated: a notorious criminal, thief, gangster, gambler, gossip, liar, miser, etc.

All this leads us to the conclusion that context is a good and reliable key to the meaning of the word. Yet, even the jokes given above show how misleading this key can prove in some cases. And here we are faced with two dangers. The first is that of sheer misunderstanding, when the speaker means one thing and the listener takes the word in its other meaning.

The second danger has nothing to do with the process of communication but with research work in the field of semantics. A common error with the inexperienced research worker is to see a different meaning in every new set of combinations. Here is a puzzling question to illustrate what we mean. Cf.: an angry man, an angry letter. Is the adjective angry used in the same meaning in both these contexts or in two different meanings? Some people will say "two" and argue that, on the one hand, the combinability is different (man — name of person; letter — name of object) and, on the other hand, a letter cannot experience anger. True, it cannot; but it can very well convey the anger of the person who wrote it. As to the combinability, the main point is that a word can realise the same meaning in different sets of combinability. For instance, in the pairs merry children, merry laughter, merry faces, merry songs the adjective merry conveys the same concept of high spirits whether they are directly experienced by the children (in the first phrase) or indirectly expressed through the merry faces, the laughter and the songs of the other word groups.

The task of distinguishing between the different meanings of a word and the different variations of combinability (or, in a traditional terminology, different usages of the word) is actually a question of singling out the different denotations within the semantic structure of the word.

1) a sad woman,

2. a sad voice,

3. a sad story,

4. a sad scoundrel (= an incorrigible scoundrel)

5. a sad night (= a dark, black night, arch, poet.)


Понравилась статья? Добавь ее в закладку (CTRL+D) и не забудь поделиться с друзьями:  



Сейчас читают про: