Способы словообразования английского языка

      Type look substantive fr. look verb (deverbal

      substantives).

      Deverbal substantives are much less numerous than denominal verbs. The frequency-relation between the two types has been approximately the same in all periods of the language. An exception is to be made for the second half of the 13^th century "when the absolute number of conversion-substantives is larger that of the verbs formed from substantives" (Biese/3/).

      Form the 13^th century are recorded (unless otherwise mentioned in parentheses, the resp. Verbs are OE) dread (1175), have, look, steal, weep, call (1225), crack, 'noise', dwell, hide, make, mislike, mourn, show, spit, 'spittle', stint, wrest 'act of twisting' a.o.

      From the later ME period are recorded (indications in parentheses refer to the respective verbs) fall (OE), feel (OE), keep (OE), lift (ME), move (ME), pinch (ME), put (ME), run (OE), snatch (ME), sob (ME), walk (OE), wash (OE).

      From the 16^th century date craze (ME), gloom (ME), launch (ME), push (ME), rave (ME), say (OE), scream (ME), anub (ME), swim (OE), wave (OE); from the 17^th century contest (1579), converse (ME), grin (OE), laugh (OE), produce (1499), sneeze (1493), take (ME), yawn (OE); from the 18^th century finish (ME), hand (OE), pry (ME), ride (OE), sit (OE). From the 19^th century  fix (ME), meet (OE), shampoo (1762), spill (OE).  

      As for the meaning of deverbal substantive, the majority denote the act or rather a specific instance of what the verbal idea expresses quote, contest, fall, fix, knock, lift etc. This has been so from the beginning (Hertrampf and Biese). "The abstract nouns, including nouns of action, are not only the most common type of conversion-substantives; they are also those of the greatest importance during the early periods of the development of conversions" (Biese). "The conversion-substantive used in a personal or concrete sense are, especially in the earlier stages, of comparatively slight importance" (ib.).

      Concrete senses show mince 'minced meat', produce 'product', rattle 'instrument', sprout 'branch', shoot 'branch', shear 'shorn animal', sink 'sewer', clip 'instrument', cut 'passage, opening', spit 'spittle', stride 'one of a flight of steps'.

      Sbs denoting the result of the verbal action are catch, take, win 'victory', cut 'provision', find, melt 'melded substance', snatch 'excerpt from a song' e.c. 

      Place-denoting are fold, bend, slip, wush 'sandbank', dump etc.  

        Sbs denoting the impersonal agent are draw 'attraction', catch (of a gate, a catching question etc.), sting 'animal organ', tread 'part of the sole that touches the ground', do, take-in, all 'tricky contrivance', wipe 'handkerchief' sl etc.

        There are also number of substantives denoting a person. OE knew the type boda 'bode' (corresponding to L scriba, OHG sprecho) which in ME was replaced by the type hunter. Several words survived, however, as bode, help (OE help), hint (the last quotation in OED is from 1807), and they are occasional ME formations, as ally 1380 (if it is not rather French allie); but could be apprehended as formed after the type. Obs. Cut (a term of abuse) 1490 does not seem to have any connection with the verb cut, and scold 'scolding woman' 1200 is doubtful, the verb is first quoted 1377.

        The word wright, which now occurs only as a second-word of cpds (cart-wright etc.) is no longer apprehended as an agent noun (belonging to wolk). Otherwise all deverbal substantives denoting a personal agent are of Modern English origin, 16^th century or more recent. The type probably came into existence under the influence of the types pickpocket and runabout. Exs are romp 'child or woman fond of romping' 1706, flirt 1732, crack 'cracksman' 1749 (thieves' sl), bore 'tiresome p.' 1812, sweep 'chimney sweeper' 1812, coach 'tutor, trainer' 1848 (misleadingly classed in OED, as if from substantive coach), discard 'discarded person'. The great number of depreciative terms is striking.

        For the sake of convenience it is repeated here the examples of such personal deverbal substantives as form the second-words of cpds: upstart 1555, by-blow 1595=obs. By-slip 1670 'bastard', chimney-sweep 1614, money-grub 1768, shoeblack and bootbleck 1778, new-come 'new arrival' 1577, bellhop, carhop rec.  

        The formation if deverbal substantives may be considered from the angle of syntactical grouping. No doubt there are different frequency-rates for a word according to the position which it has in a sentence. Biese/3/ has devoted a chapter to the question and has established various types of grouping which have influenced the growth of the type. It can be seen that deverbal substantives frequently occur in prepositional groups (to be in the know), that type are often the object of give, make, have, take (less so of other verbs), that only 11% of the examples show the deverbal substantives as subject of the sentence and that they are frequently by adjuncts. The most important patterns are '(be) in the know' and '(have) a look'. Exs of the first type are phrases such as in the long run, upon the go, with a thrust of his hair, after this sit, for a tell, for the kill, for the draw, of English make, at a qulp, etc.  

        As for the t. '(have) a look', "the use of phrasal verbs with 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/3/). 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 the figures for newly introduced -ing substantives, as compared with zero-derivatives of the same verbs, are as followes: 13^th century = 62, 14^th = 80, 15^th = 19, 16^th =12, 17^th century =5, 18^th century =2, 19^th century =0. Biese/3/ 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/3/). 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/3/ this distinction is already visible in the early stages of conversion. Biese 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/3/), 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/3/ 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/3/ 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/4/ had stated the fact for denominal verbs without, however, discussing the problem as to the obvious exceptions, while Jespersen/5/ 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/3/).

        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/5/, 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 too. But what has taken on the character of a strong derivative device with composites has proved much weaker with unit words on account of their entirely different structure. Further development seems to point in the direction of homologic stressing.

        Combination of the type hanger-on may be mentioned here. As they are functionally characterized by the suffix -er, the absence of stress shift is only natural. The stress pattern of the underlying verbal phrase is retained.  
 
 
 
 
 

Practical part.

        At first, I would like to mention that word-formation is not  learned at all neither at primary nor at secondary school. But some items of it we can find there. I've analyzed two courses: Russian (English by Vereshchagina, Pretykina) and foreign (Magic Time) one.

        The course by Vereshchagina, Pretykina consists of : the text book, the teacher's book, the reading book, the activity book, the audio cassette.

        In the book for the 3rd class I've found the points of word-formation: the suffixal formation of adverbs. There is said that adverbs usually derive from adjectives by adding the suffix -ly:

        quick-quickly              bad-badly

        slow-slowly

        At the same time there are given some exceptions:

        good-well.

           Remember!

        bad-badly

        slow-slowly               But   good-well

        quick-quickly

         dear-dearly

        It's offered to children to do the exercise, where the task is to read and compare. 
 

        She is a slow reader.            She reads slowly.

        He is a quick runner.           He runs quickly.

        She is a bad cook.               She cooks badly.

        He is a good footballer.       He plays football well. 

        It is interesting to mention that in the one exercise there are the words derived in suffixal way of word-formation and also a conversion cook N and cook V. But nothing is explained. 

        "Magic Time" is a fully integrated two-level course for children learning English as a foreign language.  It's also may be used either with students who have had a first introduction to English or with complete beginners.

        The 1^st (2^nd) level consist of: the student's book, the activity book, the teacher's book, the set of 2 cassettes.

        But there is not any word about word formation.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

                       

        Conclusion. 

        At first there are some words about the term 'word', which should be definite. It is taken to denote the smallest independent indivisible unit of speech susceptible of being used in isolation. In "Definition of fields of word-formation" is said that brаnch of the linguistics which studies the patterns on which a language forms new lexical units, i.e. words. At the next part there are some points of affixal formation: suffixal and prefixal. I've made some tables of derivatives: nouns, verbs, adjectives. You can find the columns named productivity, word-formative model, meaning and semantic classes of stems, historical appearance and evolution, where the suffix is used and some more notes all these points are discussed in the table of derivative nouns. The suffixal word formation: nouns -er, -or, -ee, -ist, -ite; -ness, -ity, -ism, -ship, -dom, -ment, -ation, -ery, -acy, -age; adjectives -ed, -y, -ish, -en(-n), -less, -able, -ous, -an(-ean, -ian); verbs -ize, -fy(-ify), -ate, -en. The prefixal word formation: adjectives un-, in-, non-, a-, self-, well-, ill-; verbs un-, de-, dis-, mis-, under-, over-, up-, re-, be.