Word formation Problems for discussion - Dinshunoslik asoslari - Referatlar

Word formation Problems for discussion

Yuklangan vaqt:

20.09.2019

Ko'chirishlar soni:

0

Hajmi:

55 KB

Ko'chirib olish

Word formation Problems for discussion Plan: 1. Different points of view to the study of conversion. 2. The study of conversion on the diachronic level and on the synchronic level. 3. The most common types of conversion. 4. The connection of derived and underlying word in converted pairs.

Word formation Problems for discussion W o r d - F o r m a t i o n is the system of derivative types of words and the process of creating new words from the material available in the language after certain structural and semantic formulas and patterns. For instance, the noun driver is formed after the pattern v+-er, i.e. a verbal stem +-the noun-forming suffix -er. The meaning of the derived noun driver is related to the meaning of the stem drive- ‘to direct the course of a vehicle’ and the suffix -er meaning ‘an active agent’: a driver is ‘one who drives’ (a carriage, motorcar, railway engine, etc.). Likewise compounds resulting from two or more stems joined together to form a new word are also built on quite definite structural and semantic patterns and formulas, for instance adjectives of the snow-white type are built according to the formula п + а , etc. It can easily be observed that the meaning of the whole compound is also related to the meanings of the component parts. The structural patterns with the semantic relations they signal give rise to regular new creations of derivatives, e.g. sleeper, giver, smiler or soat-bl ас k, tax-free, etc. In conformity with structural types of words described above 1 the following two types of word-formation may be distinguished, word-derivation and wordcomposition (or compounding). Words created by word-derivation have in terms of word-formation analysis only one derivational base and one derivational affix, e.g. cleanness (from clean), to overestimate (from to estimate), chairmanship (from chairman), openhandedness (from openhanded), etc. Some derived words have no derivational affixes, because derivation is achieved through conversion 2 , e.g. to paper (from paper), a fall (from to fall), etc. Words created by word- composition have at least two bases, e.g. lamp-shade, ice-cold, looking-glass,” daydream, hotbed, speedometer, etc. Within the types, further distinction may be made between the ways of forming words. The basic ways of forming words i n w o r d - d e r i v a t i о n , for instance, are a f f i x a t i o n and c o n v e r s i o n . It should be noted that the understanding of word-formation as expounded here excludes semantic wordbuilding as well as shortening, sound- and stress-interchange which

traditionally are referred, as has been mentioned above, to minor ways of word- formation. By semantic word-building some linguists understand any change in word-meaning, e.g. stock — ‘the lower part of the trunk of a tree’; ’something lifeless or stupid’; ‘the part of an instrument that serves as a base’, etc.; bench — ‘a long seat of wood or stone’; ‘a carpenter’s table’, etc. The majority of linguists, however, understand this process only as a change in the meaning 3 of a word that may result in the appearance of homonyms. Conversion is a very productive way of forming new words in Modern English, (ex. work—to work, pen—to pen, to walk—walk). The term «conversion» was first used by Sweet in his book «New English Grammar» in 1892. There are a lot of approaches to the study of conversion. Some linguists think that conversion is the formation of words without affixes. Others say that conversion is the formation of new words with the help of a zero morpheme. Conversion is also defined as a shift from one part of speech to another 2 . These treatments of conversion cause some doubt. The treatment of conversion as a non-affixal word-building does not help us to distinguish the cases of conversion and soundinterchange. Ex. Sing-song and paper n- pa-per v. If we accept the point of view of the linguists who treat conversion as «a shift from one part of speech to another» we can't differ between parts of speech, i. e. between noun and verb, noun and adjective etc. Prof. A. L. Smirnitsky says that conversion is the formation of a new word by a change of paradigm. It is the pa radigm that is used as a wordbuilding means. Ex. in Uzbek: китоблар , китобнинг , китобни , китобга , китобдан , китобда , китоби , китобим , китобинг , - лар ,- нинг ,- ни ,- га ,- дан ,- да , и ,- им , - инг etc are the paradigms of the noun « китоб ». In English book, books'; book's; -s, 's, s' are the paradigms of the noun «book»; book v—booked, (he) books, booking, booked,-ed, ed (the ending of P II)-s,-ing, are the paradigms of the verb «to book». So conversion can be described as a morphological way of forming words.

There are two approaches to the study of conversion: synchronic and diachronic. On the diachronic level we study the origin of conversion, how the converted pairs appeared in the language. Conversion was born in XIII century as a result of the disappearance of inflexions in the course of the historical development of the English language in Middle English. Ex. lufu — luf — love n. lufian — luf — love v andswarn — andswar — answer n andswarian — andswar — answer v Some new words formed by conversion were created on the anology of the semantic patterns existed in the language. Ex. to motor—travel by car to phone— use the telephone to wire—send a telegram On the synchronic level conversion is considered as a type of forming new words by means of paradigms. The two words differ only in their paradigms. Synchronically the most common types of conversion are the creation of verbs from nouns and the formation of nouns from verbs: 1) verbs converted from nouns: ape — to ape, a face — to face, a butcher — to butcher, a dust—to dust, a doctor—to doctor etc. 2) nouns converted from verbs: to jump—a jump, to move—a move, to help—a help, to drive—a drive, to walk—a walk etc. Derivations from the stems of other parts of speech are less common. Ex. wrong {ad]} — to wrong, up (adj) — to up, down (adv)— to down. Nouns may be also formed from verb + postpositive phrases. Ex. to make up — a make + up. to call up—a call up, to take off—a take off etc. New words formed from simple or root stems are more frequent than those formed from suffixed stems. No verbal formations from prefixed stems are found. In converted pairs the derived word and the underlying word are connected with each other in their meaning. The derived verb shows the act performed by the thing denoted by the noun.

Ex. «to finger» means «to touch with the finger», «to hand» means «to give the hand», «to help with the hand», «to train» means «to go by train, «to buss means «to go by bus», «to week-end means to spend the week-end». Derived nouns denote the act or the result of an action. Ex, «a knock» means «the result of knocking», «a cut» means «the result of cutting», «a call» means «the result of calling», a find means «the result of finding», «a run» means «the result of running. Synchronically it is difficult to define which of the two words within a converted pair is the derived member. How should we say that one of the members of converted pairs is a derived word? The problem of the criterion of semantic derivation was raised in linguistic literature not so long ago. Prof. Smirnitsky was the first to put forward the theory of semantic derivation in his book on English Lexicology. Later on P. A. Soboleva developed Smirnitsky's ideas and worked out three more criteria. 1) If the lexical meaning of the root morpheme coincides with the lexico- grammatical meaning of the stem we say that the noun has the simple stem. Ex. man (n)—man (v), father (n)— father (v), map (n)—map (v), paper (n)— paper (v). The noun is the name for a concrete thing here the verbs map, man. father, paper denote a process, therefore the lexico-grammatical meaning of their stems does not coincide with the lexical meaning of the roots which is of a substantival character. 2) According to analogous synonymic word pairs like converse — conversation, exhibit — exibition, occupy — occupation we say in converted pairs work (v)— work (n), show (u), — show (n) chat (v) — chat (n) the verb has the simple stem. 3) if the noun has more derivatives than the verb, the verb is a derived word in converted pairs and vice versa. Ex. hand(ra)—handed, handful, handy, handless etc. hand (v) — handable. Here the verb «hand» is formed from the noun «hand», because the noun has more derivatives than the verb. Semantic Structure of Polysemantic Words

The word table, e.g., has at least nine meanings in Modern English: 1. a piece of furniture; 2. the persons seated at a table; 3. sing. the food put on a table, meals; 4. a thin flat piece of stone, metal, wood, etc.; 5. pl. slabs of stone; 6. words cut into them or written on them (the ten tables); 2 7. an orderly arrangement of facts, figures, etc.; 8. part of a machine-tool on which the work is put to be operated on; 9. a level area, a plateau. Each of the individual meanings can be described in terms of the types of meanings discussed above. We may, e.g., analyse the eighth meaning of the word table into the part-of-speech meaning — that of the noun (which presupposes the grammatical meanings of number and case) combined with the lexical meaning made up of two components The denotational semantic component which can be interpreted as the dictionary definition (part of a machine-tool on which the work is put) and the connotational component which can be identified as a specific stylistic reference of this particular meaning of the word table (technical terminology). Cf. the Russian планшайба , стол станка . In polysemantic words, however, we are faced not with the problem of analysis of individual meanings, but primarily with the problem of the interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings in the semantic structure of one and the same word. Polysemy and Arbitrariness of Semantic Structure The words of different languages which are similar or identical in lexical meaning, especially in the denotational meaning are termed c o r r e l a t e d w o r d s. The wording of the habitual question of English learners, e.g. “What is the English for стол ?”, and the answer “The English for стол is ‘table'” also shows that we take the words table стол to be correlated. Semantic correlation, however, is not to be interpreted as semantic identity. From what was said about the arbitrariness of the sound-form of words and complexity of their semantic structure, it can be inferred that oneto-one correspondence between the semantic structure of correlated polysemantic words in different languages is scarcely possible. 1

Arbitrariness of linguistic signs implies that one cannot deduce from the sound-form of a word the meaning or meanings it possesses. Languages differ not only in the sound-form of words; their systems of meanings are also different. It follows that the semantic structures of correlated words of two different languages cannot be coextensive, i.e. can never “cover each other". A careful analysis invariably shows that semantic relationship between correlated words, especially polysemantic words is very complex. The actual meanings of polysemantic words and their arrangement in the semantic structure of correlated words in different languages may be altogether different. This may be seen by comparing the semantic structure of correlated polysemantic words in English and in Russian. As a rule it is only the central meaning that is to a great extent identical, all other meanings or the majority of meanings usually differ. If we compare, e.g., the nine meanings of the English word table and the meanings of the Russian word стол , we shall easily observe not only the difference in the arrangement and the number of meanings making up their As can be seen from the above, only one of the meanings and namely the central meaning ‘a piece of furniture’ may be described as identical. The denotational meaning ‘the food put on the table’ although existing in the words of both languages has different connotational components in each of them. The whole of the semantic structure of these words is altogether different. The difference is still more pronounced if we consider all the meanings of the Russian word стол , e.g. ‘department, section, bureau’ (cf. адресный стол , стол заказов ) not to be found in the semantic structure of the word table.

Summary and Conclusions 1. The problem of polysemy is mainly the problem of interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings of the same word. Polysemy viewed diachronically is a historical change in the semantic structure of the word resulting in disappearance of some meanings (or) and in new meanings being added to the ones already existing and also in the rearrangement of these meanings in its semantic structure. Polysemy viewed synchronically is understood as coexistence of the various meanings of the same word at a certain historical period and the arrangement of these meanings in the semantic structure of the word. 2. The concepts of central (basic) and marginal (minor) meanings may be interpreted in terms of their relative frequency in speech. The meaning having the highest frequency is usually the one representative of thesemantic structure of the word, i.e. synchronically its central (basic) meaning. 3. As the semantic structure is never static the relationship between the diachronic and synchronic evaluation of the individual meanings of the same word may be different in different periods of the historical development of language. 4. The semantic structure of polysemantic words is not homogeneous as far as the status of individual meanings is concerned. Some meaning (or meanings) is representative of the word in isolation, others are perceived only in certain contexts. 5. The whole of the semantic structure of correlated polysemantic words of different languages can never be identical. Words are felt as correlated if their basic (central) meanings coincide.

Recommended literature: 1. P. 3. Гинзбург, C. C. Хидекель, Г. Ю. Kнязева, A. A. Caнкин. Jieксикология английс-кого языка. М. 1979. 2. C. C. Санкин, P. 3. Гинзбург, Г. Ю. Князева. A. A. Caнкин. Aнглийская лексикология в выдержках и извлечениях. Л., 1969. 3. A. И. Cмирницкий. Jieксикология английского языка. M., 1956. 4. M. И. Фомина. Cовременный русский язык. Лексикология. M., 1983. 5. Дж. Буранов. Cpaвнительная типология английского и тюркских языков. M., 1983. 6. У. K. lOcyпoв. Проблемы сопоставительной лингвистики. АДД. M., 1983. cтp. 21—25.

O'xshashlar

Islom dinining vujudga kelishi

Диннинг моҳияти жамият ҳаётида диннинг тутган ўрни

Христианлик

Исломдаги йўналиш ва мазҳаблар

Монотеистик ва жаҳон динлари