Cover not available
Part of
Competition in Word-Formation
Edited by Alexandra Bagasheva, Akiko Nagano and Vincent Renner
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 284] 2024
► pp. 208–246

Chapter 7
Competition between affixation and conversion in Present-Day English denominal verbs

ORCID logo | Université Lumière Lyon 2
This study investigates the competition between conversion and affixation in forming denominal verbs (to pixel / to pixelate, to glass / to glassify, to acronym / to acronymize) in a dataset of 588 verbs first attested since 1950 and collected from the Oxford English Dictionary and the Corpus of Contemporary American English. The morphophonological analysis of the inputs reveals constraints preventing the formation of doublets, while the semantic analysis of the outputs shows how conversion and affixation are used for the expression of different semantic categories, thus limiting the number of semantic competitors. We argue that the tension between economy of expression and transparency of meaning is resolved by each verb-forming process specialising in distinct niches. Our analyses thus reveal some complementary distribution between conversion and affixation: each process tends to select different types of inputs and tends to convey different meanings.
Keywords: competition, conversion, affixation, Present-Day English denominal verbs, morphophonological constraints, semantic niches
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Conversion and affixation in Present-Day English
    • 2.1Noun-to-verb conversion
      • 2.1.1Definition of conversion and delimitation of its scope
      • 2.1.2Semantic specifications of conversion
    • 2.2Noun-to-verb affixation
      • 2.2.1Prefixation
      • 2.2.2Suffixation
  • 3.Competition between conversion and affixation
    • 3.1Competition on a formal level
      • 3.1.1Definition of formal competition
      • 3.1.2Competition within the onomasiological approach
    • 3.2Competition on a semantic level
      • 3.2.1Definition of semantic competition
      • 3.2.2The issue of synonymy
    • 3.3The resolution of competition
    • 3.4Previous studies on morphological competition
  • 4.Hypotheses and methodology
    • 4.1Hypothesis and aims of this study
    • 4.2Data selection
      • 4.2.1Dictionary data
      • 4.2.2Corpus data
      • 4.2.3Collecting formal doublets
  • 5.Results and discussion
    • 5.1Morphological and etymological features of the base nouns
      • 5.1.1Etymology and origin of the simplex inputs
      • 5.1.2Morphological analysis of the complex inputs
    • 5.2Phonological features of the base nouns
      • 5.2.1Number of syllables
      • 5.2.2Vowel versus consonant phonemic ending
    • 5.3Semantic analysis of the denominal verbs
      • 5.3.1Verbal semantics categories
      • 5.3.2The semantics of converted and affixed verbs
      • 5.3.3The semantics of doublets
      • 5.3.4Semantic competition in doublets
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.284.07deb
References (43)
References
Adams, Valerie. 2001. Complex Words in English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Algeo, John. 1991. Fifty Years Among the New Words: A Dictionary of Neologisms 1941–1991. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1980. Contextuals. Language 56(4): 744–758. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Competition and the lexicon. In Livelli di Analisi e fenomeni di interfaccia. Atti del XLVII congresso internazionale della società di linguistica Italiana, Annibale Elia, Claudio Iacobini & Miriam Voghera (eds), 39–52. Roma: Bulzoni Editore.Google Scholar
. 2019. Competitors and alternants in linguistic morphology. In Competition in Inflection and Word Formation, Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Wolfgang U. Dressler & Hans Christian Luschützky (eds), 39–66. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word-formation. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2007. The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology. 2nd edition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bréal, Michel. 1897. Essai de sémantique. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. & Clark, Herbert H. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55(4): 767–811. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 2019. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, 3rd edition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, Mark. 2008–. The Corpus of American English (COCA). Available online at [URL]
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2014. Making New Words: Morphological Derivation in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Alcaina, Cristina. 2017. Availability and unavailability in English word-formation. In Competing Patterns in English Affixation, Juan Santana-Lario & Salvador Valera (eds), 163–205. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2021. Competition in the Derivational Paradigm of English Verbs. PhD dissertation, University of Granada.
Fernández-Alcaina, Cristina & Čermák, Jan. 2018. Derivational paradigms and competition in English: A diachronic study on competing causative verbs and their derivatives. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 15(3): 69–98.Google Scholar
Fernández-Domínguez, Jesús. 2017. Methodological and procedural issues in the quantification of morphological competition. In Competing Patterns in English Affixation, Juan Santana-Lario & Salvador Valera (eds), 67–117. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gardani, Francesco, Rainer, Franz & Luschützky, Hans Christian. 2019. Competition in morphology: A historical outline. In Competition in Inflection and Word-Formation, Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Wolfgang U. Dressler & Hans Christian Luschützky (eds), 3–38. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gause, Georgij F. 1934. The Struggle for Existence. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A Contribution to Historical Lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gottfurcht, Carolyn A. 2008. Denominal Verb Formation in English. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University.
Guzmán Naranjo, Matías and Olivier Bonami. 2023. A distributional assessment of rivalry in word formation. Word Structure 16(1): 87–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Sims, Andrea. 2010. Understanding Morphology, 2nd edition. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Huyghe, Richard & Varvara, Rossella. 2023. Affix rivalry: Theoretical and methodological challenges. Word Structure 16(1): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 2005. Conversion and/or zero: Word-formation theory, historical linguistics, and typology. In Approaches to Conversion / Zero-Derivation, Laurie Bauer & Salvador Valera (eds), 7–17. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Katamba, Francis. 2005. English Words: Structure, History, Usage, 2nd edition. Abington: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. English word-formation processes: Observations, issues, and thoughts on future research. In Handbook of Word-Formation, Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber (eds), 375–427. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lindsay, Mark. 2012. Rival suffixes: Synonymy, competition, and the emergence of productivity. In Morphology and the Architecture of Grammar: On-Line Proceedings of the 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Angela Ralli, Geert Booij, Sergio Scalise & Athanasios Karasimos (eds), 192–203. Rio: University of Patras. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, Mark & Aronoff, Mark. 2013. Natural selection in self-organizing morphological systems. In Morphology in Toulouse, Selected Proceedings of Décembrettes 7, Nabil Hathout, Fabio Montermini & Jesse Tseng (eds), 133–153. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. 2nd revised edition. München: C.H. Bech.Google Scholar
Martsa, Sándor. 2013. Conversion in English: A Cognitive Semantic Approach. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Nagano, Akiko. 2008. Conversion and Back-Formation in English: Toward a Theory of Morpheme-Based Morphology. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
OED Online. OUP. Available online at [URL]
Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Word-Formation in English, 2nd edition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo, Andreou, Marios & Kawaletz, Lea. 2018. A frame-semantic approach to polysemy in affixation. In The Lexeme in Descriptive and Theoretical Morphology, Olivier Bonami, Gilles Boyé, Georgette Dal, Hélène Giraudo & Fiammetta Namer (eds), 467–486. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Renner, Vincent. 2020. An ecosystem view of English word-formation. The Mental Lexicon. 15(1): 4–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2016. English Morphology and Word-Formation: An Introduction, 3rd edition. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol. 2005. Onomasiological approach to word-formation. In Handbook of Word-Formation, Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber (eds), 207–232. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
. 2017. Competition in natural languages. In Competing Patterns in English Affixation, Juan Santana-Lario & Salvador Valera (eds), 15–31. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Tribout, Delphine. 2010. Les conversions de nom à verbe et de verbe à nom en français. PhD dissertation, Paris Diderot University.