Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:13:48.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conversion in English: homonymy, polysemy and paronymy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

SALVADOR VALERA  and
ALBA E. RUZ
SALVADOR VALERA
Affiliation:
Departamento de Filologías Inglesa y Alemana, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Campus de Cartuja s/n, University of Granada, Granada, 18071, [email protected], [email protected]
ALBA E. RUZ
Affiliation:
Departamento de Filologías Inglesa y Alemana, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Campus de Cartuja s/n, University of Granada, Granada, 18071, [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

conversionlexical semanticshomonymypolysemyparonymy
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 181 - 204
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on a previous version of this article. 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).

References

Ackrill, John L. 1963. Aristotle: Categories and De interpretatione. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, Valerie. 1973. An introduction to Modern English word-formation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Adams, Valerie. 2001. Complex words in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian, Demers, Richard A., Farmer, Ann K. & Harnish, Robert M.. [1995] 2001. Linguistics: An introduction to language and communication, 5th edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Allen, Reginald E. 1970. Plato's ‘Euthyphro’ and the earlier theory of forms. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2018. Conversion as metonymy. Word Structure 11(2), 175–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Lexical word-formation. In Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K., The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 1621–721. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie & Valera, Salvador. 2005. Conversion or zero-derivation: An introduction. In Bauer, Laurie & Valera, Salvador (eds.), Approaches to conversion/zero-derivation, 7–17. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1998. Derivation. In Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 44–65. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Béjoint, Henri. 2010. The lexicography of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergenholtz, Henning & Agerbo, Heidi. 2014. There is no need for the terms polysemy and homonymy in lexicography. Lexikos 24, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugman, Claudia. 1984. Metaphor in the elaboration of grammatical categories in Mixtec. Linguistics department, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. & Clark, Herbert H.. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55(4), 767–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colman, Fran & Anderson, John M.. 2004. On metonymy as word-formation: With special reference to Old English. English Studies 85, 547–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crocco-Galeas, Grazia. 1990. Conversion as morphological metaphor. In Dosuna, Julián Méndez & Pensado, Carmen (eds.), Naturalists at Krems. Papers from the Workshop on Natural Phonology and Morphology, 23–32. Salamanca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar
Cruse, Alan. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 1996. The French influence on Middle English morphology. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deane, Paul. 1988. Polysemy and cognition. Lingua 75, 325–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, René. 1999. Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In Panther & Radden (eds.), 275–87.Google Scholar
Dokulil, Miloš. 1968. Zur Frage der Konversion und verwandter Wortbildungsvorgänge und -beziehungen. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 3, 215–39.Google Scholar
Don, Jan. 1993. Morphological conversion. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2006. Heterosemy and the grammar-lexicon trade-off. In Ameka, Felix K., Dench, Alan & Evans, Nicholas (eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing, 298–320. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Farrell, Patrick. 2001. Functional shift as category underspecification. English Language and Linguistics 5(1), 109–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frăţilă, Loredana. 2011. Words about words: An introduction to English lexicology. Timisoara: Editura Universităţii de Vest.Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. [1998] 2011. Semantic analysis: A practical introduction, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane. 1983. The ‘be’ + past participle construction in spoken English: With special emphasis on the passive. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Kaarlo J. 1959. Aristotle and the ambiguity of ambiguity. Inquiry 2, 137–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanová, Martina. 2016. Variation and variants in the dictionary of multiword expressions (focussing on complex nominals/noun compounds). SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 13(3), 14–28.Google Scholar
Ivanová, Martina & Ološtiak, Martin. 2015. Slovak. In Müller, et al. (eds.), 2892–912.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1909–49. A Modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. VI. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1933. Essentials of English grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jones, Barrington. 1972. Individuals in Aristotle's ‘Categories’. Phronesis 17(2), 107–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Barrington. 1975. An introduction to the first five chapters of Aristotle's ‘Categories’. Phronesis 20(2), 146–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1977. Word-formation, or: At the crossroads of morphology, syntax, semantics and the lexicon. Folia Linguistica 10, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1989. Typological changes in the history of English word-formation. In Müllenbrock, Heinz-Joachim & Noll-Wiemann, Renate (eds.), Anglistentag 1988, Göttingen: Vorträge, 281–93. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1994. Verbal derivation in English: A historical survey or Much Ado About Nothing. In Britton, Derek (ed.), English Historical Linguistics 1994. Papers from the 8th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (8. ICEHL, Edinburgh, 19–23 September 1994), 93–117. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1995. The syntactic aspects of word-formation: Where are we today? In Melchers, Gunnel & Warren, Beatrice (eds.), Studies in Anglistics, 157–69. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Kerleroux, Françoise. 1999. Identification d'un procédé morphologique: La conversion. Faits de Langues: Revue de Linguistique 14, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskela, Anu & Lynne Murphy, M.. 2006. Polysemy and homonymy. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 742–4. Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán & Radden, Günter. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9(1), 37–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreidler, Charles W. 1988. Review of Ulf Magnusson & Gunnar Persson, Facets, phases and foci: Studies in lexical relations in English, 1986. In Cannon, Garland, Barton, Ellen L. & Kreidler, Charles W. (eds.), Reviews, Word 39(1), 74–8.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1974. Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Lehrer, Adrienne. 1990. Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon. Cognitive Linguistics 1–2, 207–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991. Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language 67(3), 475–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1981. On the organization of the lexicon. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Lipka, Leonhard. 1971. Grammatical categories, lexical items and word-formation. Foundations of Language 7, 211–38.Google Scholar
Lipka, Leonhard. 1986. Homonymie, Polysemie und Ableitung im heutigen Englisch. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 34(2), 128–38.Google Scholar
Lipka, Leonhard. 1988. A rose is a rose is a rose: On simple and dual categorization in natural languages. In Hüllen, Werner & Schulze, Rainer (eds.), Understanding the lexicon: Meaning, sense and world knowledge in lexical semantics, 355–66. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Lipka, Leonhard. 1990. An outline of English lexicology: Lexical structure, word semantics, and word-formation. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1981. Language and linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnusson, Ulf & Persson, Gunnar. 1986. Facets, phases and foci: Studies in lexical relations in English. Umeå: University of Umeå.Google Scholar
Malcolm, John. 1981. Semantics and self-predication in Plato. Phronesis 26(3), 286–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manova, Stela. 2011. Understanding morphological rules: With special emphasis on conversion and subtraction in Bulgarian, Russian and Serbo-Croatian. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1963. On a question of contrary analysis with derivationally connected but morphologically uncharacterized words. English Studies 44, 176–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchand, Hans. [1960] 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach, 2nd edn. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Martsa, Sándor. 2002. Homonymy vs. polysemy: Conversion in English. In Gottlieb, Henrik, Mogensen, Jens E. & Zettersten, Arne (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Lexicography, 211–29. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Martsa, Sándor. 2013. Conversion in English: A cognitive semantic approach. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Miller, George. 1978. Semantic relations among words. In Halle, Morris, Bresnan, Joan & Miller, George A. (eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality, 60–118. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Peter O., Ohnheiser, Ingeborg, Olsen, Susan & Rainer, Franz (eds.). 2015. Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. Lynne. 2010. Lexical meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagórko, Alicja. 2015. Polish. In Müller, et al. (eds.), 2831–52.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. 1975. Exploring semantic structures. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
O'Grady, William & de Guzman, Videa P.. 1996. Morphology: The analysis of word structure. In O'Grady, William, Dobrovolsky, Michael & Katamba, Francis (eds.), Contemporary linguistics: An introduction, 132–80. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Owen, G. E. L. 1960. Logic and metaphysics in some earlier works of Aristotle. In Düring, Ingemar & Owen, G. E. L. (eds.), Aristotle and Plato in the mid-fourth century. Papers of the Symposium Aristotelicum held at Oxford in August, 1957, 163–90. Gothenburg: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Radden, Günter (eds.). 1999. Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Peter. 1982. Homonyms, semantic divergence and valency. Lingua 58(3–4), 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennanen, Esko V. 1984. What happens in conversion? In Ringbom, Håken & Rissanen, Matti (eds.), Proceedings from the Second Nordic Conference for English Studies, Hanasaari/Hanaholmen, 19th–21st May 1983, 79–93. Åbo: Åbo Akademi.Google Scholar
Persson, Gunnar. 1988. Homonymy, polysemy, heterosemy: The types of lexical ambiguity in English. In Hyldgaard-Jensen, Karl & Zettersten, Arne (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Lexicography, 269–80. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Persson, Gunnar. 1990. Meanings, models and metaphors: A study in lexical semantics in English. Umeå: University of Umeå.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological productivity: Structural constraints across speech and writing. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo, Braun, Maria, Lappe, Sabine & Schramm, Mareile. 2007. Introduction to English linguistics. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pounder, Amanda. 2000. Processes and paradigms in word-formation morphology. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph & Wrenn, Charles L.. 1957. An Old English grammar. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & Zoltán, Kövecses. 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In Panther & Radden (eds.), 17–59.Google Scholar
Rainer, Franz. 2014. Polysemy in derivation. In Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology, 338–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Riese, Timothy. 2015. Mari. In Müller, et al. (eds.), 3275–88.Google Scholar
Robins, Robert H. 1987. Polysemy and the lexicographer. In Burchfield, Robert W. (ed.), Studies in lexicography, 52–75. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ross, James F. 1981. Portraying analogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Saeed, John I. 1997. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sanders, Gerald. 1988. Zero derivation and the overt analogue criterion. In Hammond, Michael & Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, 155–75. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schönefeld, Doris. 2005. Zero-derivation – functional change – metonymy. In Bauer, Laurie & Valera, Salvador (eds.), Approaches to conversion/zero-derivation, 131–59. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Steinvall, Anders. 2002. English colour terms in context. Umeå: Umeå University.Google Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol. 1996. A theory of conversion in English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sterkenburg, Piet van (ed.). 1996. A practical guide to lexicography. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert & Minkova, Donka. 2001. English words: History and structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabor, Whitney & Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In Ramat, Anna G. & Hopper, Paul J. (eds.), The limits of grammaticalization, 229–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tătaru, Cristina. 2002. An outline of English lexicology: Word formation. Cluj-Napoca: Limes.Google Scholar
Tournier, Jean. [1985] 2007. Introduction descriptive à la lexicogénétique de l'anglais contemporain, 2nd edn. Paris and Geneva: Champion-Slatkine.Google Scholar
Twardzisz, Piotr. 1997. Zero derivation in English: A cognitive grammar approach. Lublin: Uniwersytetu Marii Curie Skłodowskiej.Google Scholar
Ullmann, Stephen. [1951] 1957. The principles of semantics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ullmann, Stephen. 1962. Semantics: Introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Valera Hernández, Salvador. 1996. Adjetivos y adverbios en inglés: La relación de homomorfia. Granada: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Granada.Google Scholar
Vogel, Petra M. 1996. Wortarten und Wortartenweschel: Zu Konversion und verwandten Erscheinungen im Deutschen und in anderen Sprachen (Studia Linguistica Germanica 39). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin L. 1945. Grammatical categories. Language 21, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wik, Berit. 1973. English nominalisations in -ing: Synchronic and diachronic aspects. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Zawada, Britta E. 2006. Linguistic creativity from a cognitive perspective. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Linguistics 24(2), 235–25.Google Scholar