1887
Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The process of noun-verb conversion, which is highly productive in English, has been dealt with from a variety of theoretical perspectives. What is missing so far is a systematic analysis of conceptual-semantic factors which motivate this process and set it apart from another productive verb-formation process, namely - derivation. The present article is intended to fill this gap. While some conceptual-semantic patterns which are displayed by converted verbs but not by - verbs have already been identified in the literature, more fine-grained contrastive analyses show that converted verbs display even more patterns not attested for the overtly derived verbs. Even if the two verb-formation types share a conceptual-semantic pattern, they may be in complementary distribution at a lower level of abstraction. Moreover, non-derived denominal verbs allow for a wider range of metaphorical meanings. The difference in semantic diversity is ascribed here to the fact that - verbs denote more specialized activities, whereas converted verbs typically (though not necessarily) express activities reflecting speakers’ interaction with basic-level objects, which may be based on experience or imagination. Since the activities denoted by converted verbs are readily transferred to different domains of experience (e.g., ), these verbs more frequently undergo metaphorical meaning extension. Formally, the higher degree of semantic versatility observed for converted verbs is reflected by the fact that conversion – unlike - derivation – is constrained neither by predetermined Lexical Conceptual Structures nor by selectional restrictions, but motivated by metonymy, which may be enriched by metaphorical extension.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00155.bae
2023-05-30
2024-05-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baeskow, H.
    (2006) Reflections on noun-to-verb conversion in English. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 251, 205–237. 10.1515/ZFS.2006.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ZFS.2006.008 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2019) Denominal verbs in morphology. InR. Lieber & M. Aronoff (Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.502
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.502 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2021) Noun-verb conversion as a metonymic metamorphosis. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 18(1), 2–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2022a) Experiencing the conceptual wealth of non-derived denominal verbs: A multi-level, simulation-based approach. Studia Linguistica, 76(2), 591–625. 10.1111/stul.12189
    https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12189 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2022b) Noun-verb conversion between the poles of predictability and idiosyncrasy: How do denominal verbs build their argument structures?Zeitschrift für Wortbildung / Journal of Word Formation, 6(2), 6–46. 10.3726/zwjw.2022.02.01
    https://doi.org/10.3726/zwjw.2022.02.01 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barsalou, L. W.
    (2003) Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(5/6), 513–562. 10.1080/01690960344000026
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960344000026 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2009) Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, biological sciences, 3641, 1281–1289. 10.1098/rstb.2008.0319
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0319 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2020) Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition. Journal of Cognition, 3(1), 311, 1–24. 10.5334/joc.116
    https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.116 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bauer, L.
    (1983) English word-formation. Reprinted 1993. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165846
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165846 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I.
    (2013) The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bauer, L.
    (2018) Conversion as metonymy. Word Structure, 11(2), 175–184. 10.3366/word.2018.0123
    https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2018.0123 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bergen, B.
    (2012) Louder than words. The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Brdar, M.
    (2017) Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
    (2014) Where does metonymy begin? Some comments on Janda (2011). Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), 313–340. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0013 [Google Scholar]
  15. Brekle, H. E.
    (1976) Delokutive Verben: Ein sprechakttheoretisch fundierter Wortbildungstypus [Delocutive verbs: a word-formation type grounded in speech act theory]. InK. Braunmüller & W. Kürschner (Eds.), Grammatik. Akten des 10. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Tübingen 1975 (pp.69–76). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cetnarowska, B.
    (2011) Conversion as metonymy and the question of recursiveness. InB. Bierwiaczonek, B. Cetnarowska & A. Turula (Eds.), Syntax in Cognitive Grammar (pp.13–26). Częstochowa: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Lingwistycznej.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Clark, E., & Clark, H.
    (1979) When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 551, 767–811. 10.2307/412745
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412745 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dirven, R.
    (1999) Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.275–287). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.16dir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.16dir [Google Scholar]
  19. Dokulil, M.
    (1968) Zur Frage der sog. Nullableitung [On the question of the so-called zero-derivation]. InH. Brekle & L. Lipka (Eds.), Wortbildung, Syntax und Morphologie. Festschrift für Hans Marchand [Word-formation, syntax, and morphology. Festschrift for Hans Marchand] (pp.55–64). The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783111349152‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111349152-008 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dowty, D. R.
    (1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 671, 547–619. 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G.
    (2005) The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3/4), 455–479. 10.1080/02643290442000310
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290442000310 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gibson, J. J.
    (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Indurkhya, B.
    (2010) On the role of metaphor in creative cognition. InD. Ventura, A. Pease, R. Pérez y Pérez, G. Ritchie & T. Veale (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Creativity: ICCC-X (pp.51–59). Coimbra: Department of Informatics Engineering University of Coimbra.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Jackendoff, R.
    (1983) Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (1991) Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 411, 9–45. 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90031‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90031-X [Google Scholar]
  27. Jespersen, O.
    (1942) A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Part VI: Morphology. Reprinted 1974. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kaliuščenko, V. D.
    (2000) Typologie denominaler Verben [Typology of denominal verbs]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110952148
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110952148 [Google Scholar]
  29. Karius, I.
    (1985) Die Ableitung der denominalen Verben mit Nullsuffigierung im Englischen [The derivation of denominal verbs by means of null-suffixation in English]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111679235
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111679235 [Google Scholar]
  30. Koch, P.
    (2001) Metonymy. Unity in diversity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 2(2), 201–244. 10.1075/jhp.2.2.03koc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.2.2.03koc [Google Scholar]
  31. Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistics view. Cognitive Linguistics, 91, 37–77. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kövecses, Z.
    (2010) Metaphor. A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lieber, R.
    (1981) On the organization of the lexicon. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club (IULC).
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (1992) Deconstructing morphology. Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (1998) The suffix -ize in English: implications for morphology. InS. G. Lapointe, D. K. Brentari & P. M. Farrell (Eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax (pp.12–34). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2004) Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486296
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486296 [Google Scholar]
  37. Neef, M.
    (2005) On some alleged constraints on conversion. InL. Bauer & S. Valera (Eds.), Approaches to conversion/zero-derivation (pp.103–130). New York [etc.]: Waxman.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Plag, I.
    (1998) The polysemy of -ize derivatives: On the role of semantics in word formation. InG. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1997 (pp.219–242). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑4998‑3_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4998-3_8 [Google Scholar]
  39. (1999) Morphological productivity: Structural constraints on English derivation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Plank, F.
    (2005) Delocutive verbs, crosslinguistically. Linguistic Typology, 91, 459–491. 10.1515/lity.2005.9.3.459
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2005.9.3.459 [Google Scholar]
  41. Primus, B.
    (1999) Cases and thematic roles – ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110912463
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110912463 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2012) Semantische Rollen [Semantic roles]. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Rauh, G.
    (1988) Tiefenkasus, thematische Relationen, Thetarollen. Die Entwicklung einer Theorie von semantischen Relationen [Deep cases, thematic relations, theta-roles. The development of a theory of semantic relations]. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Rimell, L.
    (2012) Nominal roots as event predicates in English denominal conversion verbs. Doctoral dissertation. New York: New York University.
  45. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P.
    (1976) Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 81, 382–439. 10.1016/0010‑0285(76)90013‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X [Google Scholar]
  46. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L.
    (2001) Metonymy and the grammar. Motivation, constraints and interaction. Language & Communication, 211, 321–357. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(01)00008‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8 [Google Scholar]
  47. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Pérez-Hernández, L.
    (2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 261, 1–25. 10.1080/10926488.2011.583189
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583189 [Google Scholar]
  48. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  49. Sanders, G.
    (1988) Zero derivation and the Overt Analogue Criterion. InM. Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics (pp.155–175). San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Schneider, E. W.
    (1987) Beobachtungen zur Paradigmatik der verbbildenden Suffixe -en, -ify und -ize im Englischen [Observations on the paradigmatics of the verb-forming suffixes -en, -ify, and -ize in English]. Sprachwissenschaft, 121, 88–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Schönefeld, D.
    (2005) Zero-derivation – functional change – metonymy. InL. Bauer & S. Valera (Eds.), Approaches to conversion / zero-derivation (pp.131–159). Münster: Waxmann Verlag GmbH.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Štekauer, P.
    (1996) A theory of conversion in English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Valera, S.
    (2015) Conversion. InP.-O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe. Volume 1 (pp.322–339). Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH. 10.1515/9783110246254‑019
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110246254-019 [Google Scholar]
  54. Vogel, P. M.
    (1996) Wortarten und Wortartenwechsel. Zu Konversion und verwandten Erscheinungen im Deutschen und in anderen Sprachen [Word-classes and word-class change. On conversion and related phenomena in German and other languages]. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110905106
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110905106 [Google Scholar]
  55. Davies, M.
    2008– The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990–present. Available online atcorpus.byu.edu/coca/
  56. 2018– The 14 Billion Word iWeb Corpus. Available online athttps://corpus.byu.edu/iWeb/
  57. Oxford English Dictionary
    Oxford English Dictionary. www.oed.com
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00155.bae
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00155.bae
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error