Конверсионное словообразование прилагательных цветообозначения. Методика преподавния в нач.классах

Конверсионное словообразование прилагательных цветообозначения. Методика преподавния в нач.классах

Contents.

I. Introduction_______________________________2.

II. Theoretical part___________________________4.

III. Practical part_____________________________32.

IV. Conclusion______________________________36.

V. Bibliography_____________________________37.

VI. Appendix I______________________________39.

VII. Appendix II_____________________________40.

VIII. Appendix III____________________________43.

IX. Appendix IV_____________________________46.

X. Appendix V ______________________________48.

XI. Appendix VI_____________________________51.

XII. Appendix VII____________________________53.

I. Introduction.

This diploma paper is the logic continuation of course paper. The choice of

a theme of this paper is caused by the small studying of this question by

way of teaching it in primary school. The word-formation, as one of

branches of lexicon, is a difficult and volumetric question, therefore

requires the careful studying. The basic theme of this paper is the

question on conversion, as the most productive way of a word-formation

however the other kinds of formation of new words: prefix and suffix word-

formation, also are mentioned. The special place is allocated for

productivity of adjectives of a colourmarking. Having the rather large

ability to formation the new words it is interesting the fact, that formed

from them by any of ways of a word, it is more often nouns, formed on

conversion, have a tendency to enter into the structure of various

phraseologies, phraseological word combinations, that speaks about

connection between phraseological and word-formation systems of the

language.

The paper consists of two basic parts: theoretical and practical ones,

which examine one problems, but from the different corners of sight. The

theoretical part includes some subitems. At first it is necessary to tell

some words about the term "word", which is the main one in the paper and

should be definite. The term "word" is taken to denote the smallest

independent unit of speech susceptible of being used in isolation. Also it

is impossible to disregard the definition of the field of word-formation.

The mention about affix (suffix and prefix) word-formation in the paper is

not casual, the conversion is more productive way, in comparison with them,

because the formation of new words on conversion is possible practically

from any part of speech, including prepositions and proper names. Speaking

about the abilities to a word-formation of colourmarking adjectives, it is

necessary to note three ways, on which this process passes: The suffix,

conversion word-formation and the word addition way , though the more often

English language prefers a word combination. Also the formation of

derivative verbs on conversion is typical for the English language.

Having analysed some courses of studying the foreign language it was

interesting to find out, that the conversion is not mentioned at all there,

though, being one of the most productive ways of a word-formation, could

be a good way of updating the child’s active and passive vocabulary. Taking

into account the opportunities, which are given by the knowledge of this

way of formation the new words, it is easy to estimate a role of studying

this material at school, it is natural that the beginning of presenting

some items of this phenomenon to children is necessary to start from that

moment, as soon as the children would have the sufficient lexical base for

this purpose. It is possible to consider the third year of training as the

most successful moment for the beginning of presenting the essence of this

phenomenon to children. For confirmation of this hypothesis three

experiments were spent: ascertaining, forming and control ones, with group

of children studying the English the third year. By the purpose of all

these experiments was to establish: have the children a representation

about this phenomenon, can they acquire the offered information, is it

possible to develop the skill of using such words in their speech .

It would be desirable to note the works of some authors, which were

used in this work, such as: “English word-formation” by L. Bauer, “The

categories and types of present day word-formation” by H. Marchand, “The

word-formation abilities of colourmarking adjectives in modern German

languages” by M. Jirmunskaya.

II. Theoretical part.

The term «word».

The term «word» should be defined. It is taken to denote the smallest

independent, indivisible unit of speech, susceptible of being used in

isolation. A word may have a heavy stress, thought, some never take one.

To preceding the ‘infinitive’ never has a heavy stress, but it is a word as

it can be separated from the verbal stem by an adverb (as in to carefully

study). A composite may have two heavy stresses so long as it is not

analyzable as a syntactic group. There is a marked tendency in English to

give prefixes full stress thought they do not exist as independent words.

Indivisible composites such as arch-enemy, crypto-communist, unlucky,

therefore are morphological units whereas combination, like stone, wall,

gold watch, are syntactic groups. As for the criterion of indivisibility,

it is said that the article a is a word as IT can interpolate words between

article and substantive (a nice man, a very nice man, an exceptionally

gifted man). But a as in aglitter can’t be separated from the verb stem

with which it forms a group and therefore is not a free morpheme (word).

With regard to the criterion of usability, it must not be assumed that all

words can be used by themselves, in isolation. It is in the very nature of

determiners like the article the to be used in conjunction with the word

they determiners.

Definition of the field of word-formation.

Word-formation is that branch of the science of language which studies

the patterns on which a language forms new lexical units, i.e. words. Word-

formation can only treat of composites which are analyzable both formally

and semantically. The study of the simple words, therefore, insofar as it

is an , unmotivated sign, has no please in it. It is a lexical matter. A

composite rests on a relationship between morphemes though which it is

motivated. By this token, do-er, un-do, rain-bow are relevant to word-

formation, but do, rain, bow are not.

Conversion.

Conversion is the change in form class of a form without any

corresponding change of form. Thus the change whereby the form napalm,

which has been used exclusively as a noun, came to be as a verb (They

decided to napalm the village) is a case of conversion.

The exact status of conversion within word-formation is unclear.

For some scholars (Marchand/10/) conversion is a brunch of derivation, for

others (Koziol /Marchand/10/) it is a separate type of word-formation, on a

level with derivation and compounding. Whether this distinction has any

real effect on the structure of a theory of word-formation is not clear.

Conversion is frequently called zero-derivation, a term which many

scholars prefer (Adams, Jespersen, Marchand/1,5,8/). Most writers who use

both terms appear to use them as synonyms (although Marchand/10/ is an

exception). However, as Lyons/9/ points out, the theoretical implications

of the two are rather different. Cruber/2/, for example, argues that to

treat ordinary derivation and zero-derivation differently in the grammar is

to lose a generalization, since both involve changes of form class, but

claims that they can only by treated the same way, if a zero-affix is

permitted. Otherwise, he says, derivation can be treated as a rule-governed

process, but zero-derivation can’t be; that is, the relation between some

napalm and to napalm and other similar pairs must be, considered to be

totally coincidental Lyon’s/9/ own view (as noted by Matthews) is that in

cases of so-called zero-derivation, an identity operation can be said to

have been carried out between the base and the new lexeme. This means that

there is a process linking the two lexeme, napalm, lent that this process

defines the form of the derived lexeme as being identical to the form of

the base. This is also more or less the line taken by Matthews himself,

when he speaks of a ‘formation involving zero operation’. The theoretical

dubiousness of speaking of zero affixes in language leads Bauer/2/ to

prefer the theoretical position enshrined in the term ‘conversion’,

especially when this can be given a dynamic interpretation, and that term

will be used exclusively from now (on in this book). It should, however, be

noted that this is an area of dispute in the literature. For a

comprehensive review of the literature on conversion and a discussion of

the implication of talking in terms of zero-derivation, the reader is

referred to Pannanen.

Productivity.

Conversion is an extremely productive way of producing new words in

English. There do not appear to be morphological restrictions on the forms

can undergo conversion, so that compounds, derivatives, acronyms, blends,

clipped forms and simplex words are all acceptable inputs to the conversion

process. Similarly, all ford classes seem to be able to undergo conversion,

and conversion seems to de able to produce words of almost any form class,

particularly the open form classes (noun, verb, adjective, adverb ). This

seems to suggest that rather than English having specific rules of

conversion (rules allowing the conversion of common nouns into verbs or

adjectives into nouns, for example) conversion is a totally free process

and any lexeme can undergo conversion into any of the open form classes as

the need arises. Certainly, if there are constraints on conversion they

have yet to de demonstrated. The only partial restriction that it is award

of is that discussed by Marchand. Marchand/10/ points out that derived

nouns rarely undergo conversion, and particularly not to verb. This is

usually because of blocking. To take one of Marchand’s/10/ examples, a

derived noun like arrival will not de converted into a verb if that verb

means exactly the same as arrive, from which arrival is derived. In cases

where blocking is not a relevant concern, even derived nouns can undergo

conversion, as is shown by the series a sign > to sign > a signal > to

signal and to commit > commission > to commission.

The commonness of conversion can possibly be seen as breaking down the

distinction between form classes in English and leading to a system where

there are closed sets such as pronouns and a single open set of lexical

that can be used as required. Such a move could be seem as part of the

trend away from synthetic structure and towards analytic structure which

has been fairly typical of the history of English over the last millennium.

This suggestion is, of course highly speculative.

Conversion as a syntactic process.

Conversion is the use of a form which is regarded as being basically

of one form class as though it were a member of a different form class,

without any concomitant change of form. There are, however, a number of

instances where changes of this type occur with such ease and so regularly

that many scholars prefer to see that as matters of syntactic usage rather

that as word-formation.

The most obvious cases are those where the change of form class is not

a major one (such as from noun to verb or adjective to noun ) but a change

from one type of noun to another or one type of verb to another. The

clearest example of this type is the use of countable nouns as uncountable

and vise versa. In some tea, tea is used as an uncountable noun, while in

two teas it is used as a countable noun; goat is normally a countable noun,

but if a goat is being eaten it is quite in order to ask for a slice of

goat, where goat is used as an uncountable noun. In general, given a

suitable context, it is possible to use almost any noun on either way: for

example, when the Goons took part in a mountain-eating competition, it

would have been perfectly possible to ask whether anyone wanted some more

mountain, using mountain as an uncountable noun. Similarly, proper nouns

can be easily used as common nouns as in Which John do you mean? or The

Athens in Ohio is not as interesting as the Athens in Greece. Intransitive

verbs are frequently used as transitive verbs, as in He is running a horse

in the Derby or The army flew the civilians to safety. Finally, non-

gradable adjectives are frequently used as gradable adjectives, as in She

looks very French or New Zealander are said to be more English. Such

processes are very near the inflectional end of word-formation.

Another case where it is not completely clear whether or not

conversion is involved is with conversion to adjectives. This depends

crucially on how an adjective is defined. For some scholars it appears to

be the case that the use of an element in attributive position is

sufficient for that element to be classified as an adjective. By this

criterion bow window, head teacher, model airplane and stone well all

contain adjectives formed by conversion formed by conversion. However, it

has already been argued that such collocations should be seen as compounds,

which makes it unnecessary to view such elements as instances of

conversion. Quirk suggest that when such elements can occur not only in

attributive position but also in predicative position, it is possible to

speak of conversion to an adjective. On the basis of:

*This window is bow

This teacher is head

*This airplane is model

This wall is stone

they would thus conclude that, in the examples above, head and stone

but not bow and model have become adjectives by conversion. But this

introduces a distinction between two kinds of modifier which is not

relevant elsewhere in the grammar and which masks a great deal of

similarity. It is therefore not clear that this suggestion is of any great

value. This is not meant to imply that conversion to an adjective is

impossible, merely that it is least controversial that conversion is

involved where the form is not used attributively. Where the form is used

attributively, criteria for concluding that conversion has taken place must

be spelled out with great care. Apart from those mentioned, possible

criteria are the ability to be used in the comparative and superlative, the

ability to be modified by and very, the ability to be used as a base for

adverbial -ly or nominal -ness suffixation. It must be pointed out that

very few adjectives fit all these criteria.

Marginal cases of conversion.

There are cases of change in form class from a verb to a noun and from

a verb to an adjective which do not involve any affixation, but which are

not clearly instances of conversion. These are cases there is a shift of

stress, frequently with a concomitant change in segmental form, but no

change in the morphophonemic form (or in the orthography). Established

examples of verb >noun shift kind are abstract, discount, import, refill,

transfer Gimson/2/, and of verb > adjective shift: abstract, frequent,

moderate, perfect. There is a certain amount of evidence that, at least in

some varieties of English, these distinction are no longer consistently

drawn, and such examples are becoming clear cases of conversion.

Nevertheless, the pattern is still productive, particularly so in the

nominalization of phrasal verbs: established examples are show off, walr-

over and recent examples are hang-up, put-down.

There is also a kind of partial conversion where a noun ending in a

voiceless fricative (but excluding / /) is turned into a verb by replacing

the final consonant with the corresponding voiced fricative. The process is

no longer productive. Examples are belief / believe, sheath / sheathe,

advice / advise.

Clear cases of conversion.

The least clear cases of conversion have been considered first, but

there are innumerable perfectly clear cases. For many types a variety of

subclassifications is possible. Thus instances of noun > verb conversion

can be classified according to whether the noun shows location (to garage

the car ) or instrument ( to hammer a nail ) and so on, or according to

formal criteria of whether the base is simplex or complex and so on. No

attempt is made below to distinguish of these kinds.

The major kinds of conversion are noun > verb, verb >noun, adjective >

noun and adjective >verb. Established examples of noun > verb conversion

are to badger, to bottle, to bridge, to commission, to mail, to mushroom,

to skin, to vacation. Recent examples are to chopper, to data-dank, to

leaflet, to network, and to trash. Established examples of verb >noun

conversion are a call, a command, a dump, a guess, a spy and recent

examples are a commute, a goggle, and an interrupt. Established examples of

adjective > verb conversion are to better, to dirty, to empty, to faint, to

open, to right and a recent example is to total (a car). Established

examples of adjective >noun conversion are relatively rare and are

frequently restricted in their syntactic occurrence. For example, the poor

cannot be made plural or have any other determiner. Less restricted

examples are a daily, a regular, a roast. This type seems to have become

much more productive recently, and recent examples includes a creative, a

crazy, a double, a dyslexic, a gay, a given, a nasty.

Prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, interjections and even affixes

can all act as bases of conversion, as in shown by to up (prices), but me

no buts, the hereafter, to heave-no (a recent example) and a maxi (this

might be a case of clipping). Moreover, most of these form classes can

undergo conversion into more than one form class, so that a preposition

down, for example, can become a verb (he downed his beer), a noun (he has a

down on me) and possibly an adjective (the down train).

Extrocentric phrase compounds might also be classified here as

instances of conversion of whole phrase. Established examples where the

phrase acts as a noun are an also-ran, a forget-me-not, a has-been and a

recent examples as a don’t-know. An established example where the phrase

acts as an adjective is under-the-weather.

Derivation by a zero-morpheme.

The term ‘zero-derivation’.

Derivation without a derivative morpheme occurs in English as well as

mother 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, they are 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): loan vb ‘(make up) loan’, look substantive is ‘(act,

instance of) look(ing)’. As the nominal and verbal forms which occur most

frequently have no ending end (a factor which seems to have played a part

in the coining of the term ‘conversion’ by Kruisinga/8/) 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 substantive adjectives and verbs.

The term ‘conversion’ has been used for various things. Kruisinga/8/

himself speaks of conversion whenever a word takes on 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). He includes quotation words (his «I

don’t knows») and the type stone wall (i.e. substantives used as

preadjuncts). One is reminded of Bally’s ‘transposition’. Koziol/10/

follows Kruisinga’s/8/ treatment and Biese/4/ adopts the same method. Their

standpoints is different. The foregoing examples illustrate nothing but

syntactic patterns. That poor (presented by the definite article,

restricted to the plural, with no plural morpheme added) can function as a

primary, or that government, as in government job, can be used as

preadgunct, is a purely syntactic matter. At the most it could be said,

with regard to the poor, that an inflectional morpheme understood but zero

marked. However inflectional morphemes have a predominantly function

character while the addition of lexical content is of secondary importance.

As for government job the syntactic use of primary as a preadjunct is

regularly unmarked, so no zero morpheme can be claimed. On the other hand,

in government-al, -al adds lexical content, be it ever so little:

‘pertaining to characterizing government’. Therefore governmental is a

syntagma while government (job) is not. That the phrase jar-off can be used

as a preadjunct is again a syntactic matter. Characterized adverbs do not

develop such functions in any case. We will not therefore, used the term

conversion. As a matter of fact, nothing is converted, but certain stem are

used for the derivation of lexical syntagmas, with the determinatum

assuming a zero form. For similar reasons, the term ‘functional change’ is

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4