The semantics of noun-to-verb zero-derivation in English and Spanish

This paper has been supported by the Spanish State Research Agency (SRA, Ministry of Science and Innovation) and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (Ref. PID2020- 119851GB-I00-AEI-10.13039-501100011033).The semantics of zero-derivation/conversion has attracted renewed interest both as a subject of description and as a means towards refined descriptions of the process. This paper takes the latter stance and compares which semantic categories occur in zero-derivation/conversion and in overt affixation in two languages with a different morphological model: English and Spanish. For attestation and distribution of the semantic categories, the paper relies on a stratified sample of denominal verbs collected from two comparable corpora: the British National Corpus and the Corpus de Referencia del Espanol Actual. The sample consists in sets of ca. 50 denominal verb-forming resources, one per affixation process, namely affixation by -ate, -(i)fy, -ize/-ise, -en, en- in English, a- horizontal ellipsis -ar, en- horizontal ellipsis -ar, -ear, -ecer, -(i)ficar, -izar in Spanish, and zero-derivation/conversion in both languages. The results are contrasted within and across affixes/processes, within each language and across the two languages for the adequacy of a description as zero-derivation or as conversion. Statistical analysis shows that the process/affixes form a cline with overlaps and closer associations between specific affixes/processes and semantic categories, but no clear divide between zero-derivation/conversion and the rest of processes as far as the semantic categories are concerned.Spanish State Research Agency (SRA, Ministry of Science and Innovation)European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) PID2020-119851GB-I00-AEI-10.13039-50110001103

Introduction

This monograph is aimed at the examination of derivational networks across European languages. The concept of a derivational network is not new. The first ideas of network regularities and the network organization of derivational morphology can be traced back to the 1960s in relation to the Dokulilean tradition in word-formation. Unfortunately, apart from an outline of general principles, very little has been done in the field since. In recent years, however, we have been witnessing a growing interest in derivational paradigms and larger derivational systems based on them.This article has been supported by the Spanish State Research Agency (SRA, Ministry of Economy and Enterprise) and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (Ref. FFI2017-89665-P)

Many questions and few answers: on conversion in English

Conversion is a well-known word-formation process which, a priori, seems relatively easy to identify. However, a close look at its basics brings to light some critical questions which still remain unanswered to this day. The very nature of this operation, and the concepts of full and partial conversion are therefore here examined in the light of a need for explicit criteria for recognition of actual cases of conversion. Evidence supporting this need is supplied by a review of a variety of processes which have the same results as conversion when they operate on English adjectives and adverbs

Polysemy versus homonymy

Polysemy and homonymy are traditionally described in the context of paradigmatic lexical relations. Unlike monosemy, in which one meaning is associated with one form, and unlike synonymy, in which one meaning is associated with several forms, in polysemy and homonymy several meanings are associated with one form. The classical view of polysemy and homonymy is as a binary opposition whereby the various meanings of one form are described either as within one word (polysemy) or as within as many words as meanings (homonymy). In this approach, the decision is made according to whether the meanings can be related to one or two different sources. This classical view does not prevail in the literature as it did in the past. The most extreme revisions have questioned the descriptive synchronic difference between polysemy and homonymy or have subsumed the separation as under a general use of one term (homophony) and then established distinctions within, according to meaning and distribution. A more widespread reinterpretation of the classical opposition is in terms of a gradient where polysemy and homonymy arrange themselves along a continuum. Such a gradient arranges formally identical units at different points according to their degree of semantic proximity and degree of entrenchment (the latter understood as the degree to which a form recalls a semantic content and is activated in a speaker’s mind). The granularity of this type of gradient varies according to specific proposals, but, in the essential, the representation ranges from most and clearest proximity as well as highest degree of entrenchment in polysemy to least and most obscure proximity and lowest degree of entrenchment in homonymy.This article has been supported by the Spanish State Research Agency (SRA, Ministry of Economy and Enterprise) and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (Ref. FFI2017-89665-P)

Semantic Patterns in Noun-to-Verb Conversion in English

The paper researches all the occurrences of a stratified sample of lemmas tagged both as noun and as verb in the British National Corpus, plus a set of parallel samples of denominal verbs derived by affixation intended for comparison. This design records the distribution of semantic categories not according to the lemmas in the sample, but according to how much and where they are actualized in each occurrence of the lemma (i.e. it separates the various senses within the lemmas). The sample starts out from the lowest frequency of occurrence (1). In the case of conversion, the sample spans from frequency 1 to frequency 960. Semantic categories are recorded according to the analysis of the concordances available under each of the lemmas recorded in the sample, and based on the terms of the definitions available in the Oxford English Dictionary for each sense of each lemma. The results show that the patterns described for noun-to-verb conversion have a rather dissimilar relevance with respect to each other. The distribution of semantic categories according to their occurrences in the senses attested by each of the occurrences reported for the lemmas of the corpus sample in conversion and in affixation is quite uneven.This article has been supported by the Spanish State Research Agency (SRA, Ministry of Economy and Enterprise) and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (Ref. FFI2017-89665-P)

Main morphological formal means (III): Approaches to conversion

This chapter takes the conditions of formal identity and word-class change as a reference for the delineation of the main types of conversion that have been considered in Spanish, for alternative approaches and for some of the open questions regarding conversion in Spanish. In Spanish word formation, conversion is defined in line with this characterisation, except that the formal identity may hold between word-classes and also between word-subclasses. The concept of conversion thus relies on two conditions: formal identity and word-(sub)class change. As in other languages, the definition, types and approaches to conversion raise a number of questions that have been debated for decades and still are. The separate categorisation of such closely connected word-classes as noun and adjective leads to questions but which are outlined here for convenince. In denominal verbs and deverbal nouns, conversion is in competition with other pro-cesses for the expression of the same semantic category, especially with affixation.This article has been supported by the Spanish State Research Agency (SRA, Ministry of Economy and Enterprise) and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (Ref. FFI2017-89665-P)

Competing patterns in English affixation

This is a collection of research papers on competition in English affixation. The book presents diachronic and synchronic research both onomasiological and semasiological. The first three chapters review the literature and provide the theoretical framework for the experimental description of the remaining chapters

Conversion in English: homonymy, polysemy, and paronymy

Conversion is a key type of word-formation process in English, but the precise nature of the relation between base and derivative in conversion is rarely discussed, even if conversion is considered as a dynamic process. When it is considered explicitly, the relation has been described in terms of paradigmatic relations between lexemes, specifically homonymy or polysemy. This is usually without any specification of how converted words accommodate the conditions set by the definition of each of these relations, and as a special type of one or the other, because conversion-related words violate some of those conditions. This article is intended as a systematic review of the literature that discusses the relation between conversion-related words in English. We show that a wide range of proposals have been made to describe the relation: homonymy, heterosemy, homomorphy, zero-derivation (as a relation), polysemy, lexical extension, synsemy, hyponymy and paronymy. We review the extent to which each of these terms fits the relationship in major types of conversion, and argue that, if a relationship is to be described between conversion-related pairs, then Cruse’s (1986) separation of semantic relations of a paradigmatic type from paronymic relations is of special relevance here. We propose that, regardless of the direction and type of meaning, paronymy applies across the various specific semantic patterns that conversion may involve. We emphasize, however, the possibility of several relations according to the type of conversion, i.e. different types of conversion may need description in terms of a different relation.This article has been supported by the Spanish State Research Agency (SRA, Ministry of Economy and Enterprise) and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (Ref. FFI2017-89665-P)

49 Derivational networks in European languages: A cross-linguistic perspective

In this final chapter, these preceding chapters and the 1,200 derivational networks on which they are based serve as an important and rich source of data and observations for drawing relevant cross-linguistic conclusions on the similarities and differences among the languages, as well as those language genera and/or languages that are sufficiently represented in our sample. In particular, we examine and compare the maximum derivational networks, saturation values, consistency of derivations at the language level and at the genera level, correlations between saturation values and the paradigmatic capacity, maximum and average numbers of orders of derivation, numbers of derivatives, correlations between semantic categories and orders of derivation, semantic categories with blocking effects, typical combinations of semantic categories, multiple occurrences of semantic categories, reversibility of semantic categories and the reasons for structurally poor derivational networks. The data are evaluated in terms of word-classes and orders of derivation, with a special focus on the role of genera and/or families, morphological types and the nature of the word-formation systems of individual languages. It is hypothesized that each of these five factors has an impact on (the possibility of) the generalization of our data.This article has been supported by the Spanish State Research Agency (SRA, Ministry of Economy and Enterprise) and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (Ref. FFI2017-89665-P)