1. General survay of the problem

Conversion.

1. General survay of the problem

2. Difinition. Difference between conversion and fixation.

3. Semantic relations within a conversion

4. Different conceptions of the problem of conversion.

5. Real and false conversion.

6. Sourse of derivation

Conversion is a highly productive means of the word formation in the Eng language.The term conversion refers to the numerous cases of phonetic and graphic identity of two words belonging to differeте parts of speech: a doctor, a corner – to corner.

The term conversion was 1^st introduced by Henry Sweat in 1892 in his new Eng grammar to define the seeming identity of such pairs as to work – wors, to love – love, answer – to answer.

As the stem of the part of speech meaning the stems of 2 words making up a conversion pair are different. Each having a different part of speech meaning. The stem of one of the 2 words of the conversion pair is regarded as being of a derivational character. That means that one word is primary and the second is its derivative.

2 question.

The difference between a fixation and conversion is that a fixation is characterized by both semantic and structural derivation. While conversion displays only semantic derivation.

The Eng vocabulary abounds mostly in the verbs converted from nouns that is demonical verbs and nouns converted from verbs – deverbal nouns.

A pin – to pin, to bottle – a bottle, a finger – to finger, an eye – to eye, a shoulder – to shoulder, a pocket – to pocket (прикарманивать), to fall – a fall, to find – a find, to buy – a buy. There are some other cases of conversion: better – to better, up – to up, but these cases are not numerous.

A very peculiar way of word building through conversion is forming of solid nouns from composite verbs: to come back – a comeback, to hang over – a hangover, a holdup, to knock out – a knockout.

Verbs are converted also from compound nouns: a weekend – to weekend, honey moon – to honey moon.

3 question.

As a word within a conversion pair is semantically derived from the other there are certain semantic relations between them. Denominal verbs make up the largest group and display the following semantic relations with the nouns:

a. Action characteristic of the thing: a butcher – to butcher.

b. Instrumental use of the thing: a nail – to nail, a hammer – to hammer, a whip – to whip.

c. Accuisition or addition of the thing: a coat – to coat, fish – to fish

d. Deprivation of the thing: skin – to skin, dust – to dust

Deverbal nouns denote:

a. Instance of an action: to move – a move, to jump – a jump.

b. Agent of the action: to swith – a swith, to help – a help

c. A place of the action: to walk – a walk, to drive – a drive, to stop – a stop.

d. Object or result of the action: to find – a find, to cut – a cut.

4 question.

Since the time the term conversion was introduced conversion has been the subject of much controversy. It is treated differently in the linguistic literature. Some linguists define it as a morphological or morphological syntactic way of forming words. Others consider conversion from a purely syntactic angle. Professor Смерницкий treats conversion as a morphological way of word building. The two words within a converson air differ only in their paradygmes thuss it is the paradigm that is used as a word building means. Thuss conversion is a formation of a new word though the change in its paradigm and a change of the paradigm is the only word building means of conversion. As the paradigm is a morphological category conversion can be described as a morphological way of forming words. Thus conversion is a formation of new words through the change of the paradigm.

Some linguists define conversion as a non affixed way of building words. Characterized by formation of a categorical … from a stem without a derivational morpheme. Черкасская и Гальперин are of this opinion. Henry Marchand holds the view that conversion is the formation of new words with the help of a zero morpheme. Желтенко regards conversion as a morphological syntactic word building means for it involves both a change of the paradigm and a change of the syntactic function of the word. Some American and English lexicographers show a functional approach of conversion as the shift from one part of speech to another considering that in modern Eng a word may function as 2 or more different parts of speech at the same time.

5 question.

The diachronic survey of the present day stock of conversion has reveals that not all of them were created on the semantic pattern. Some of them appeared as a result of the disappearance of the flexions. Linguists call such cases false conversion because they are not formed by the change of the paradigm. It appeared as a result of the disappearance of inflexions in the course of the historical development. By real conversion they understand not affixal formation of the new words. Смерницкий says that this approaches right if we treat conversion diacronichally and sincronically одновременно. If treated syncronically there’s no difference between a taxi to taxi.

In modern Eng a lot of words are formed by conversion, but which of the 2 words may be regarded as the derivational sourse? Is the noun hand derived from the verb to hand or is it the other way round? There are 2 indisputable types of conversion:

a. Formation of verbs from nouns and more rarely from other parts of speech.

b. Formation of nouns from verbs and rarely from other parts of speech.

Opinions differ in the possibility of creating adjectives from noun stems though conversion. These differences gave rise to a so called …. Conversion is a very productive way of creating new words because it corresponds to the …. That’s the 1^st factor that

Simplicity of paradigms of parts of speech.

A great number of one syllable words because they are more mobile and flexible.

Conversion is a convenient and easy way of enriching the vocabulary with new words.

I have 2 room with other dalls – вынуждены жить с другими девочками.

A splendid read. My had-been husband. Hand me the book. You have to face the problem. Don’t orange me again. Stop girling me.

Semantucally verbs may be group in two:

1. Verbs denoting processes that can be expressed as a succession of isolated actions. From that type nouns are easily formed.

2. Verbs like to sit, to lie, to stand denote processes that can’t be represented as a succession of isolated actions. The second group defines convertion. But in modern Eng it’s very difficult to distinguish between 2 groups beceuse it proves nouns: to take – a take, to lie – a lie. These were semantical restrictions of the possibility of formation of new words formed by conversion. Morphological restrictions are revealed in a supposition that the complexity of the word structure doen’t favor conversion. As a rule words … do not form the words by the conversion. However we find converted words of rather complex structure: a packge – to package, a holiday – to holiday, a wireless – to wireless.

There are traditional and occasional conversion.

Traditional conversion refers to accepted use words which are recorded in the dictionaries. To age, to cap, to cook, to ape etc. The indidual or occasional use of conversion is also very frequent. Such cases are not recorded in the dictionaries. But often met in litearlly works and individual speech of people.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-04