conversion-substantives may be said to be a very marked feature during all
periods from early ME up to the present time. As shown by these quotations,
the origins of this use may be said to go back as far as the OE period»
(Biese/4/). Exs are; have a wash, a smoke, a swim, a chat etc., give a
laugh, a cry, a break, a toss, a whistle, the chick, the go-by etc., take a
ride, a walk, a swim, a read, the lead etc., make a move, a dive, a bolt, a
bow etc. etc.
It will be interesting to compare zero-derivatives with the -ing
substantives. Historical speaking there is no longer a competition so far
as the formation of common substantives is concerned. The number of new-
formed -ing substantives has been steadily decreasing since the beginning
of the MoE period. According to Biese/4/ the figures for newly introduced
-ing substantives, as compared with zero-derivatives of the same verbs, are
as follows: 13th century = 62, 14th = 80, 15th = 19, 16th =12, 17th century
=5, 18th century =2, 19th century =0. Biese/4/ has obviously considered the
rise of new forms only, but the semantic development of -ing substantives.
Otherwise his figures would have been different. Any verb may derive an
-ing substantive which can take the definite article. The -ing then
invariably denotes the action of the verb: the smoking of the gentlemen
disturbed me. The zero-derivative, as compared with the ing, never denotes
the action but gives the verbal ideal in a nominalized form, i.e. the
notional content of the verbal idea (with the secondary implication of the
idea ‘act’): the gentlemen withdrew for a smoke. «In their use with phrasal
verbs -ing forms have become obsolete, whereas there is an ever increasing
number of conversion substantives used in conjunction with verbs like make,
take etc....»(Biese/4/). On the other hand, common substantives in ing are
now chiefly denominal, denoting something concrete, chiefly material which
eliminates ing as a rival for zero-derivatives. According to Biese/4/ this
distinction is already visible in the early stages of conversion. Biese/4/
points out that a prepositional substantive following a substantive is
almost always a ‘genitivus subjectivus’ (the grind of wheels), whereas the
same type of group following an -ing substantive is most often a
‘genitivens objectivus’ which is certainly an observation to the point, as
it shows the verbal character of the -ing substantives as compared with the
more nominal character of zero-derivatives.
A few instances of semantically differentiated derivatives are
bother/bothering, build/building, proceeds/proceedings, meet/meeting,
set/setting, turn/turning, bend/bending, find/finding, sit/sitting,
cut/cutting, feel/feeling, paint/painting.
Sometimes deverbal substantives are only idiomatic in the plural: it
divers me the creeps (the jumps), turn on the weeps A sl, have the prowls A
sl, the bends ‘caisson disease’, for keeps ‘for good’.
An apparent exception are derivatives from expressive verbs in -er
(type clatter) and -le (type sparkle) which are pretty numerous (Biese/4/),
but in fact most of these verbs are not derivatives in the way verbs in
-ize or -ify are, because few simple verbs exist alongside of the
composites. These words are better described as composites of expressive
elements, so the suffixes are not categorizes.
Derivation from prefixed verbs is restricted to composites with the
prefixes dis-, mis-, inter-, and re- (see the respective prefixes). With
other prefixes, there have only been attempts at nominal derivation.
Biese/4/ has befall, beget, begin, behave, belay, belove, beseech, bespeak,
bestow, betide, betrust as substantives. But they were all short-lived and
rare. With the exception of belay 1908, a technical term, none seems to be
in use today.
Biese/4/ has established a so-called detain- type, i.e. substantives
derived from what he considers to be prefixed verbs. It do not seen the
point of this distinction as one could analyze very few of his 450 words or
so. The majority are unit words.
Zero-derivation and stress.
It shall now be made a few remarks about such types as have not been
treated in this chapter. The stressing tendencies differ according to
whether the basis is a unit word or a composite, also according to whether
derivation is made from a noun or a verb.
Nominal derivation from composite verbs involves shift of stress.
Examples are the types runaway / blackout, overthrow, interchange, misfit,
reprint which are derived from actual or possible verbal composites with
the stress pattern --. The process has not yet come to an end which will
explain that the OED, Webster and others very often give stress indications
which no longer tally with the speech habits of the majority. Many cbs of
the blackout type and all the substantives of the types misfit and reprint
are stressed like the verbs resp. Verbal phrases in OED.
Of prefixal types only verbs with inter-, mis- and re- have developed
stress-distinguished substantives. No similar pairs exist for neg. un- (no
verbal type exists, anyway), reversative un-, be-, de- (be- and de- are
only deverbal).
Verbs derived from composite substantives do not change their stress
pattern. Cp. such verbs as backwash, background, afterdate, by-pass,
counterweight, outlaw, outline, underbrush which are forestressed like
their underlying nominal bases. This also explains the fluctuation in the
stressing of counter- verbs, as counter-sign, counter-sink, stressed like
the substantives though the verbal stress pattern is middle stress/heavy
stress.
With unit words the current tendency is to retain the stress of the
underlying basis in deverbal nouns as well as in denominal verbs. We may
call this homologic stressing. Bradin/5/ had stated the fact for denominal
verbs without, however, discussing the problem as to the obvious
exceptions, while Jespersen/7/ speaks of ‘such an important thing in ford-
formation as the stress-shifting in record substantive and verb’.
To a certain extent, it is a stress distinction between nouns and
verbs which are otherwise homophonous. This distinctive stress pattern
occurs chiefly with disyllabic words, record substantive / record verb.
examples are contract, accent, affix, infix, prefix, suffix, augment,
impress, concert, contrast, convert, escort, essay, export, object,
subject, project, present, progress, protest, survey, torment, transfer.
The number of non-shifting examples is much greater, however. It will
be first given instances of forestressed words with homologic stress:
comment, compact, exile, figure, plaster, preface, prelude, prison,
quarrel, climax, focus, herald, process, program, triumph, waitress, rivet,
segment, sojourn, turmoil, contact, ‘bring or come into contact’, congress
‘meet in a congress’, incense ‘burn incense’, probate. To these may be
added such verbs as are felt to be derived from a substantive and therefore
forestressed like the underlying bases, at least in AE: accent, conflict,
concrete (as in concrete a wall, also in OED), contract (as in contract a
document), digest (as digest a book), export, import (prob. originating in
contrastive stressing), recess (as recess a wall), survey (in certain
senses), torment (frequent), transfer (the regular stressing as a railway
team).
The group of non-shifting endstressed words is considerably larger.
Unit words beginning with de-, dis-, re- are especially numerous. Examples
are: accord, advance, assent, attack, decay, delay, defeat, dispatch,
despute, escape, exclaim, (as a deverbal substantive ‘presenting position
of a rifle’), precise, relax, remove, repay, reform, support (Biese/4/).
On the other hand, it is found instances of distinctive stressing in
AE: address, conserves, discard, discharge are often heard with forestress
when substantives, also relay and research; reject substantive with
forestress is the only pronunciation possible. Of these, relay and research
may be explained as reinterpretations after the t. reprint substantive
/reprint verb; reject is perh. influenced by subject, object, project,
traject. In any case, this tendency towards distinctive stress in deverbal
substantives is weak as compared with that towards homologic stress.
To sum up: the tendency with denominal verbs is to give them the
stress of the underlying nominal basis, which has in many cases led to
homologic stress with all or part of the verbal meanings versus older
distinctive stress. Deverbal substantives, on the whole, show the same
inclination to homologic stress. But there is also a weak tendency towards
distinctive stress, though chiefly in AE. As for the tendency toward stress
distinction between nominal and verbal homophones pointed out by
Jespersen/7/, it was perhaps vaguely on the analogy of composites that it
came into existence. The original stress with these loans from French or
Latin was on the last syllable (F absent, L abstract(um)), so verbs
retained this stress all the more easily as many native verbs were so
stressed: become, believe, forbid, forget, mislead etc., whereas almost all
disyllabic native substantives, unit words as well as composites were
forestressed (the few contrary examples such as unhealth, unrest, untruth,
belief hardly count against the overwhelming majority). This may have led
to a tendency towards forestress with non-native disyllabic substantives
Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
