V. Derivation by a zero morpheme The term 'zero-derivation'

5.1.1. Derivation without a derivative morpheme occurs in English as well as in other languages. Its characteristic is that a certain stem is used for the formation of a categorically different word without a derivative element being added. In synchronic terminology, we have syntagmas whose determinatum is not expressed in the significant (form). The significate (content) is represented in the syntagma but zero marked (i.e. it has no counterpart in form): to loan — make a loan, to look at sb — an act, instance of look (ing). As the nominal and verbal forms which occur most frequently have no endings and (a factor which seems to have played a part in the coining of the term 'conversion' by Kruisinga) are those in which nouns and verbs are recorded in dictionaries, such words as loan, look may come to be considered as 'converted' nouns or verbs. It-has become .customary to speak of the 'conversion' of substantives, adjectives, and verbs. The term 'conversion' has been used for various things. Kruisinga himself .peaks of conversion whenever a word takes on a function which is not its basic one, as the use of an adjective as a primary (the poor, the British, shreds of pink, at his best). [...] Our standpoint is different. The foregoing examples illustrate nothing, but syntactic patterns. That poor (preceded by the definite article, restricted to the plural with no plural morpheme added) can-function as a primary, or that government, as in government fob, can be used as a preadjunct, is a purely syntactic matter. At the most we could say, with regard to the poor, that an inflectional morpheme is understood but zero marked. [...] We will not, therefore, use the term conversion. As a matter of fact, nothing is converted, but certain stems are used for the derivation of lexical syntagmas, with the determinatum assuming a zero form. For similar reasons, the term 'functional-change' is infelicitous. The word itself does not enter another functional category, which becomes quite evident when we consider the inflected forms.

VI. Backderivation

6.4. Backderivation offers linguistically interesting problems. Synchronically speaking, not all backderivations have the same status. We distinguish two groups: 1) burgle — burglar 2) swindler — swindle. While a swindler is 'one who swindles', surely a burglar is not 'one who burgles'. In terms of synchronic analysis this means that swindler is no longer felt to be a pseudo-agent substantive but is considered a genuine derivative from swindle vb. With regard to the pair burglar/burgle, however, the relationship is different. Here the deriving basis is burglar while burgle is the derivative. The verb burgle is zero derived from burglar, analyzable as 'be, act as a burglar'. It is parallel to the verb father derived from the substantive father, the only difference being the pseudo-morpherne /ə(г)/ which is clipped from burglar. Originally, all backderived verbs belong to this type and most present derivatives must still be analyzed as zero-derivatives from their 'suffixal' basis. The verb televise is naturally analyzable as 'put on television'. The type swindler — swindle therefore represents an advanced stage of semantic development that many correlative pairs will perhaps never attain. Pseudo-compound verbs of the type stagemanage from stagemanager, for instance, are all derivatives of the semantic type burgle — burglar. The use of such verbs is still widely restricted with regard to their acceptance by speakers as well as with regard to their use in all verb forms alike. While the derivative correlation of agent sb in -er and verb is absolute (any verb can derive an agent substantive as a grammatical form), that of composite agent substantives in -er and pseudo-composite verbs derived from them is not: we are far from being at liberty to derive such verbs, and a great number of speakers are still reluctant to use them, at least in all verb forms. Historical knowledge of the problem here greatly helps us to understand the present-day linguistic situation; and explains the limited functional yield of both the type, stagemanage — stagemanager and the type burgle — burglar. On the other hand, we cannot grant derivative status to alternations (such as enthuse/enthusiasm) unless they are represented by at least several derivationally connected pairs of words. We have included them to show the possible patterns that may develop in speech. With regard to their linguistic value, however, we have to state that non-typical alternations are not relevant to word-formation, which is essentially a system of functional, i.e. type-forming patterns.