Типичные семантические отношения между членами конвертируемых пар (синхронический подход)

As one of the two words within a conversion pair is semantically derived from the other, it is of great theoretical and practical importance to determine the semantic relations between words related through conversion. Summing up the findings of the linguists who have done research in this field we can enumerate the following typical semantic relations.

I. Verbs converted from nouns (denominal verbs)

This is the largest group of words related through conversion. The semantic relations between the nouns and verbs vary greatly. If the noun refers to some object of reality (both animate and inanimate) the converted verb may denote:

1. action characteristic of the object, e.g. ape n — ape v — ‘imitate in a foolish way’; butcher n — butcher v — ‘kill animals for food, cut up a killed animal’;

2. instrumental use of the object, e.g. screw n — screw v — ‘fasten with a screw’; whip n — whip v — ’strike with a whip’;

3. acquisition or addition of the object, e.g. fish n — fish v — ‘catch or try to catch fish’; coat n — ‘covering of paint' — coat v — ‘put a coat of paint on’;

4. deprivation of the object, e.g. dust n — dust v — ‘remove dust from something’; skin n — skin v — ’strip off the skin from’; etc.

II. Nouns converted from verbs (deverbal substantives)

The verb generally referring to an action, the converted noun may denote:

1. instance of the action, e.g. jump v — jump n — ’sudden spring from the ground’; move v — move n — ‘a change of position’;

2. agent of the action, e.g. help v — help n — ‘a person who helps’; it is of interest to mention that the deverbal personal nouns denoting the doer are mostly derogatory, e.g. bore v — bore n — ‘a person that bores’; cheat v — cheat n — ‘a person who cheats’;

3. place of the action, e.g. drive v — drive n — ‘a path or road along which one drives’; walk v — walk n — ‘a place for walking’;

4. object or result of the action, e.g. peel v — peel n — ‘the outer skin of fruit or potatoes taken off; find v — find и — ’something found,” esp. something valuable or pleasant’; etc.

In conclusion it is necessary to point out that in the case of polysemantic words one and the same member of a conversion pair, a verb or a noun, belongs to several of the above-mentioned groups making different derivational bases. For instance, the verb dust belongs to Group 4 of Denominal verbs (deprivation of the object) when it means ‘remove dust from something’, and to Group 3 (acquisition or addition of the object) when it means ‘cover with powder’; the nounslide is referred to Group 3 of Deverbal substantives (place of the action) when denoting ‘a stretch of smooth ice or hard snow on which people slide’ and to Group 2 (agent of the action) when it refers to a part of an instrument or machine that slides, etc.

Проблема субстантивации Nouns converted from adjectives

The question now arises whether such cases when words with an adjective stem have the paradigm of a noun should also be classified as conversion, e. g. a private, the private's uniform, a group of privates. Other examples of words that are completely substantivized (i.e. may have the plural form or be used in the Possessive case) are captive, conservative, criminal, female, fugitive, grown-up, intellectual, male, mild, native, neutral, radical, red, relative and many more. Completely substantivized adjectives may be associated with determinatives, e. g.: Swinton combed out all the undesirables (Lindsay).

There is no universally accepted evaluation of this group. E. Kruisinga speaks of conversion whenever a word receives a syntactic function which is not its basic one.

The prevailing standpoint among Leningrad linguists is different. L.P. Vinokurova, I.P. Ivanova and some other scholars maintain that substantivation in which adjectives have the paradigm and syntactic features of nouns differs from conversion, as in substantivation a new word arises not spontaneously but gradually, so that a word already existing in the language by and by acquires a new syntactic function and changes its meaning as a result of a gradual process of isolation. There are other scholars, however, who think this reasoning open to doubt: the coining of a new word is at first nothing but a fact of contextual usage, be it a case of recognized conversion or substantivation. The process of conversion is impossible outside a context. No isolated word can ever be formed by conversion.

L.P. Vinokurova distinguishes two main types of substantivation:

1. it may be the outcome of ellipsis in an attributive phrase, e. g. the elastic (cord)

2. it may be due to an unusual syntactic functioning. E.g.: I am a contemplative, one of the impossibles.

It may be argued, however, that there must be a moment of the first omission of the determined word or the first instance when the adjective is used in speech in a new function.

There is one more point to be considered, namely a radical difference at the synchronic level: whereas words coined by conversion form regular pairs of homonyms with words from which they are derived, no such regular pattern of modelled homonymy is possible in substantivation of adjectives. It has already been emphasized that in nouns and verbs it is the morphologically simple words that form the bulk of material used in conversion. The predominance of derived adjectives prevents this class of words from entering modelled homonymy.

The degree of substantivation may be different. Alongside with complete substantivation of the type already mentioned (the private, the private’s, the privates), there exists partial substantivation. In this last case a substantivised adjective or participle denotes a group or a class of people: the blind, the dead, the English, the poor, the rich, the accused, the condemned, the living, the unemployed, the wounded, the lower-paid.

We call these words partially substantivised, because they undergo no morphological changes, i.e. do not acquire a new paradigm and are only used with the definite article and a collective meaning. Besides they keep some properties of adjectives. They can, for instance, be modified by adverbs. E.g.: Success is the necessary misfortune of human life, but it is only to the very unfortunate that it comes early (Trollope). It was the suspicious and realistic, I thought, who were most easy to reassure. It was the same in love: the extravagantly jealous sometimes needed only a single word to be transported into absolute trust (Snow).

Besides the substantivised adjectives denoting human beings there is a considerable group of abstract nouns, as is well illustrated by such grammatical terms as: the Singular, the Plural, the Present, the Past, the Future, and also: the evil, the good, the impossible. For instance: “One should never struggle against the inevitable,” he said (Christie)/ It is thus evident that substantivation has been the object of much controversy. Some of those, who do not accept substantivation of adjectives as a variant of conversion, consider conversion as a process limited to the formation of verbs from nouns and nouns from verbs. But this point of view is far from being universally accepted.