Loading...
Title: Directionality in English morphological conversion

Directionality in English morphological conversion

by Alba E. Ruz (Author)
©2025 Monographs 208 Pages
Linguistics
Series: Linguistic Insights, Volume 317

Summary

This book tests semantic and quantitative-distributional criteria for directionality in present-day English noun/verb conversion. Directionality is claimed to be ascertained accurately if identified at the level of sense, not lexeme, as in Plank (2010). This is particularly relevant where polysemy allows multiple directions within a lexeme.

Table Of Contents

  • Cover
  • Title Page
  • Copyright Page
  • Contents
  • List of Figures
  • List of Tables
  • List of Abbreviations
  • CHAPTER 1 Introduction
  • 1.1 Focus of study
  • 1.2 Justification and hypothesis
  • 1.3 Aims and methods
  • CHAPTER 2 Directionality in conversion
  • 2.1 Conversion or zero-derivation
  • 2.2 Approaches to conversion
  • 2.2.1 Conversion as a word-formation process
  • 2.2.2 Conversion outside word formation
  • 2.3 The approach in this study
  • 2.3.1 Conversion as a lexeme-creation process
  • 2.3.2 The conditions for canonical conversion
  • 2.4 The issue of directionality
  • 2.4.1 Is there a need to establish directionality?
  • 2.4.1.1 Directionality as irrelevant
  • 2.4.1.2 Directionality as unpredictable
  • 2.4.1.3 Directionality as relevant
  • 2.4.2 Why is directionality an issue in conversion?
  • 2.4.3 Difficulties in the study of directionality
  • 2.4.3.1 Conversion as root-, stem-, or word-based
  • 2.4.3.2 Diachronic vs synchronic analysis
  • 2.4.3.3 Directionality at the level of lexeme vs sense
  • 2.5 Criteria to determine directionality
  • 2.5.1 Historical criteria
  • 2.5.2 Intuition criterion
  • 2.5.3 Morphological and phonological criteria
  • 2.5.4 Structural criteria
  • 2.5.5 Contextual or paradigmatic criteria
  • 2.5.6 Semantic criteria
  • 2.5.7 Quantitative-distributional criteria
  • 2.5.8 Recapitulation
  • CHAPTER 3 Methodological approach
  • 3.1 Resources: Dictionary and corpus
  • 3.2 Procedures for the analysis of directionality
  • 3.2.1 Data sampling
  • 3.2.2 Sense classification of the concordances
  • 3.2.2.1 Corpus-derived issues
  • 3.2.2.2 Dictionary-derived issues
  • 3.2.3 Semantic categorization of the senses
  • 3.2.4 Application of Marchand’s (1964) criteria in conversion
  • 3.2.4.1 Semantic dependence (SD)
  • 3.2.4.2 Restrictions of usage (RU)
  • 3.2.4.3 Semantic range: Qualitative analysis (SR)
  • 3.2.4.4 Semantic pattern (SP)
  • 3.2.4.5 Frequency of occurrence (FO)
  • 3.2.4.6 Range of registers (RR)
  • 3.3 Distribution of senses into orders of derivation
  • 3.4 Methodological remarks
  • 3.5 Implications of the sense organization
  • CHAPTER 4 Applicability of the criteria for directionality
  • 4.1 Individual applicability of the criteria
  • 4.1.1 Semantic dependence (SD)
  • 4.1.2 Semantic pattern (SP)
  • 4.1.3 Semantic range: Qualitative analysis (SR)
  • 4.1.4 Restrictions of usage (RU)
  • 4.1.5 Frequency of occurrence (FO)
  • 4.1.6 Range of registers covered (RR)
  • 4.1.7 Comparison of the criteria individual applicability
  • 4.2 Cross-criteria consistency
  • 4.2.1 Consistency between SD and SP
  • 4.2.2 Consistency between SD and SR
  • 4.2.3 Consistency between SD and RU
  • 4.2.4 Consistency between SD and FO
  • 4.2.5 Consistency between SD and RR
  • 4.2.6 Consistency between SP and SR
  • 4.2.7 Consistency between SP and RU
  • 4.2.8 Consistency between SP and FO
  • 4.2.9 Consistency between SP and RR
  • 4.2.10 Consistency between SR and RU
  • 4.2.11 Consistency between SR and FO
  • 4.2.12 Consistency between SR and RR
  • 4.2.13 Consistency between RU and FO
  • 4.2.14 Consistency between RU and RR
  • 4.2.15 Consistency between FO and RR
  • 4.3 Overview on the cross-criteria consistency
  • 4.3.1 Semantic dependence (SD)
  • 4.3.2 Semantic pattern (SP)
  • 4.3.3 Semantic range (SR)
  • 4.3.4 Restrictions of usage (RU)
  • 4.3.5 Frequency of occurrence (FO)
  • 4.3.6 Range of registers (RR)
  • CHAPTER 5 On the issues and relevance of the criteria
  • 5.1 Introduction
  • 5.2 Semantic dependence (SD)
  • 5.3 Semantic pattern (SP)
  • 5.4 Semantic range (SR)
  • 5.5 Restrictions of usage (RU)
  • 5.6 Quantitative-distributional criteria: FO and RR
  • 5.6.1 Level of application: lexeme vs sense
  • 5.6.2 FO and RR: issues in their applicability
  • CHAPTER 6 Conclusions
  • 6.1 Introduction
  • 6.2 Findings
  • 6.2.1 The influence of methodological decisions
  • 6.2.2 Relevance of the criteria
  • 6.2.3 Theoretical implications
  • 6.3 Limitations and future research
  • Bibliography
  • Appendix
  • Index

List of Figures

Figure 1: Conversion as parallel to derivation and other word-formation processes

Figure 2: Zero-derivation as affixation

Figure 3: Conversion within derivation and different from affixation

Figure 4: Conversion as conceptual recategorization

Figure 5: Conversion as multifunctionality or underspecification

Figure 6: Exemplification of related categories for the pair fussN/V

Figure 7: Directionality for three related senses of the pair hooverN/V

Figure 8: Directionality for three related senses of the pair hooverN/V

Figure 9: Model A: Directionality for related senses of the pair pissN/V

Figure 10: Model B: Directionality for related senses of the pair pissN/V

List of Tables

Table 1: Raw frequency distribution of the screened list of terms attested as noun (N) and verb (V) in the BNC up to frequency 1,000

Table 2: The semantic categories for Noun-to-Verb conversion (adapted from Plag 1999: 9; Bauer et al. 2013: 285; plus EFFECTIVE and DIRECTIONAL from Rainer 1993: 239; Valera 2023: 158–161; and DURATION from Clark & Clark 1979: 773)

Table 3: The semantic categories for Verb-to-Noun conversion (Plag 1999; Bauer et al. 2013: 286; plus PROCESS in Bauer 1983: 185, for nominalizations in -ation)

Table 4: Analysis of the criterion of SD at the level of sense for the conversion-related pair fussN/V

Table 5: Restrictions of usage in the pair skiveN3/V3 (OED). Sense restrictions appear in grey font

Table 6: Semantic range (SR) for the pair whimperN/V

Table 7: Analysis of the criterion of SP at the level of sense for the conversion-related pair fussN/V

Table 8: Exemplification of the variation of the raw frequency of some terms of the sample after concordance reclassification for the effect of homonymy

Table 9: Exemplification of the variation of the raw frequency of some terms of the sample after concordance reclassification

Table 10: Register classification of sledge by senses. The absolute frequency of each register is under column number four Freq.

Table 11: Sense distribution for jogN/V (senses related by conversion appear in the same row)

Table 12: Sense distribution for picketN/V (senses related by conversion appear in the same row)

Table 13: Sense distribution for hollerN/V (senses related by conversion appear in the same row)

Table 14: Results of SD by sense

Table 15: SD: Results by lexeme pair according to a sense analysis in D1

Table 16: SD: Results by lexeme pair according to a sense analysis in D2

Table 17: Results of SP by sense

Table 18: SP: Results by lexeme pair according to a sense analysis in D1

Table 19: SP: Results by lexeme pair according to a sense analysis in D2

Table 20: Results of a qualitative analysis of SR

Table 21: RU analysis for barrackN/V

Table 22: Direction indicated by RU for pairs of lexemes after a comparison of the restrictions by pairs of senses in D1

Table 23: Applicability of RU by sense

Table 24: RU: Results by lexeme pair according to a sense analysis in D1

Table 25: RU: Results by lexeme pair according to a sense analysis in D2

Table 26: BNC’s raw frequency of occurrence for the senses of dupeN2/V2, lesionN/V, scytheN/V, and skidN/V by order of derivation

Table 27: Analysis of FO for dupeN2/V2, lesionN/V, scytheN/V, and skidN/V based on a Chi-squared test

Table 28: Direction by sense according to FO

Table 29: FO: Results by lexeme pair according to a sense analysis in D1

Table 30: FO: Results by lexeme pair according to a sense analysis in D2

Table 31: Analysis of RR for huddleN/V and scytheN/V according to the BNC’s classification into 71 registers

Table 32: Direction by sense according to BNC’s David Lee’s classification into 71 registers

Table 33: David Lee’s classification (BNC): Results of RR by lexemes-pairs according to a sense analysis in D1

Table 34: David Lee’s classification (BNC): Results of RR by lexemes-pairs according to a sense analysis in D2

Table 35: Individual applicability of the criteria of SD, SP, RU, FO and RR for the 466 pairs of senses analysed

Table 36: Directionality of the semantic criteria for the pairs by sense in D1

Table 37: Directionality of the criteria for the pairs based on a sense analysis in D2

Table 38: Consistency between SD and SP by sense

Table 39: Consistency between SD (D1) and SR by sense

Table 40: Consistency between SD and RU by sense

Table 41: Consistency between SD and FO by sense. Significance is indicated for FO (Y/N)

Table 42: Consistency between SD and RR by sense according to BNC’s David Lee’s classification into 71 registers

Table 43: Consistency between SP and SR by sense

Table 44: Consistency between SP and RU by sense

Table 45: Consistency between SP and FO by sense

Table 46: Consistency between SP and RR by sense according to BNC’s David Lee’s classification into 71 registers

Table 47: Consistency between SR and RU by sense

Details

Pages
208
Publication Year
2025
ISBN (PDF)
9783034358408
ISBN (ePUB)
9783034358415
ISBN (Hardcover)
9783034357883
DOI
10.3726/b22914
Language
English
Publication date
2026 (January)
Keywords
Morphology lexical semantics word formation corpus linguistics directionality conversion semantic criteria quantitative-distributional criteria sense analysis lexical senses
Published
Lausanne, Berlin, Bruxelles, Chennai, New York, Oxford, 2025. 208 pp., 10 fig. b/w, 60 tables.
Product Safety
Peter Lang Group AG

Biographical notes

Alba E. Ruz (Author)

Alba E. Ruz holds a PhD in English Linguistics from the University of Granada (Spain). Her research is on English morphology, with a special focus on word formation and lexical semantics.

Previous

Title: Directionality in English morphological conversion