MODERN EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Выпуск журнала №-20
Часть–4_ Февраль –2025
318
DIACHRONIC AND SYNCHRONIC APPROACHES
TO THE STUDY OF THE VOCABULARY OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Iskandarxonova (Tolibjonova)
Muslima Tojiddin qizi
Student of Andijan State Institute
of Foreign Languages (Uzbekistan)
muslimaiskandarxonova@gmail.com
Supervisor: Kurbanov Muzaffar Abdumutalibovich,
Professor of Andijan State Institute of Foreign Languages (Uzbekistan)
Abstract: The article investigates conversion as a means of forming new
words without adding any derivative element when the basic form of the original and
the basic derived words are homonymous having the same morphological structure,
but belonging to different parts of speech. It is said that In the course of historical
development grammatical forms in English were lost and there exists no inflexion to
distinguish the form of the verb from a noun and this is considered as widespread
word formation in English. Synchronically both types – a noun and a verb must be
treated together as cases of patterned homonymy, while studying diachronically, it is
essential to differentiate the cases of conversion and treat them separately. It is
emphasized that it is not easy to say definitely which of the members was derived, the
results of synchronic and diachronic analysis may not coincide. That means that what
is understood under conversion in Modern English does not fully and necessarily
coincide with earlier periods of the development of the language.
Keywords: linguistics, semantic meaning, conversion, grammatical forms,
syntactic functions, word formation, semantic relations, lexical.
ДИАХРОНИЧЕСКИЙ И СИНХРОНИЧЕСКИЙ ПОДХОДЫ
К ИЗУЧЕНИЮ СЛОВАРНОГО СОСТАВА
АНГЛИЙСКОГО ЯЗЫКА
MODERN EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Выпуск журнала №-20
Часть–4_ Февраль –2025
319
Аннотация: Статья исследует конверсию как способ образования
новых слов без добавления деривационных элементов, когда основная форма
исходного и производного слова являются омонимичными, имея одинаковую
морфологическую структуру, но относясь к разным частям речи.
Отмечается, что в ходе исторического развития грамматические формы в
английском языке были утрачены, и отсутствует флексия для различения
формы глагола от существительного, что рассматривается как широко
распространенный способ словообразования в английском языке. С
синхронической точки зрения оба типа – существительное и глагол – должны
рассматриваться вместе как случаи закономерной омонимии, в то время как
при диахроническом изучении важно различать случаи конверсии и
рассматривать их отдельно. Подчеркивается, что не всегда легко
определить, какой из членов был производным, результаты синхронического и
диахронического анализа могут не совпадать. Это означает, что то, что
понимается под конверсией в современном английском языке, не полностью и
не обязательно совпадает с более ранними периодами развития языка.
Ключевые слова: лингвистика, семантическое значение, конверсия,
грамматические формы, синтаксические функции, словообразование,
семантические отношения, лексический.
INTRODUCTION
Every language accepts certain classes of audio, visual or some other material
phenomena which are recognizable by speakers of the language as tokens of certain
expressions. Of course, an individual’s careless articulation of a certain word, or
someone’s clumsy scrawl, is beyond the boundary of entities which count as an
expression’s tokens. Realize thus that the notion of an expression’s token is a
language-relative one.
The same holds for an expression’s type. Further realize that to fully specify
(the class of) admissible tokens of types of some language expressions would be a
thankless task (of course, every decent language textbook contains at least some
elements of this specification). However, a lot of applications of language models are
MODERN EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Выпуск журнала №-20
Часть–4_ Февраль –2025
320
possible even when abstracting away from the multifarious peculiarities of
expressions and their tokens.
In logic, a routine technique enabling such abstraction is G¨odelization, i.e.
mapping of expressions to their unique numerical correlates. When expressions are
replaced by their G¨odel numbers, language in a synchronic sense is seen to be a
function from (at least natural) numbers to meanings. Such functions can be called
numerical codes.[2] Note that thanks to G¨odelization, we are not restricted to
studying particular functions as synchronic languages defined for over a particular
alphabet, say that of English or predicate logic; we may consider any given linguistic
system.
The temporal aspect captured by this model needs perhaps no explanation, as
it is clearly a correlate of the temporal variability involved in the reality of language.
Note that any change in a language, e.g. in the meanings of its expressions,
corresponds to the exchange of a value of the function (which is a model of the
language in a diachronic sense).
On the other hand, the modal aspect seems to be questionable. Its
suspiciousness probably stems from the fact that linguistic research is normally
focused on the actual, and not the counterfactual, state of language. Nevertheless,
alternative (counterfactual) forms of a language are not the exclusive speculative
domain of philosophers: in diachronic linguistics the researcher who asks whether an
investigated feature of a language might be different is also asking a counter-factual
question.
I am going to specify the model of language in a diachronic sense in one
particular detail. I will thus avoid the objection that the basis for language can vary
over time. Such a change in basis yields a deeper change in language than the mere
exchange of its synchronic slices L and L’, which was discussed in the preceding
subsection. The model of language in an enhanced diachronic sense is capable of
coping with such changes. The model presented at the beginning of Section 4 is only
suitable for investigating languages with a fixed basis.
MODERN EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Выпуск журнала №-20
Часть–4_ Февраль –2025
321
METHODS
Firstly, let us explain the consequences of changing a basis. Recall the fact
that each function is defined over a specific object basis. For instance, a property
explicated as an intention having classes of individuals as values is only defined over
a particular collection of individuals (and a collection of possible worlds and moments
of time, which will be ignored for the present moment). Let B={I 1, I 2, I 3}. No
extension of that property can involve, e.g., I 4 because I 4 is not in B. If this basis is
changed, the property is changed as well. Since properties are denotata of some
expressions, changes in B give rise to semantic changes in L in question. The
properties and other objects denoted by the expressions of L are produced by
procedures which are defined by this production, thus meanings communicated by
that language change as well. If synchronic languages L and L’ are defined over
distinct bases B and B’, their meanings differ significantly.
They thus cannot be possible values of one and the same language in a
diachronic sense. Such a language in a diachronic sense is defined over a particular
basis, say B; let us call this diachronic language DLB. In other words, synchronic
languages of one particular diachronic language are all defined over one particular
basis. To capture the changes a language undergoes when its basis changes, we have
two possibilities. One possibility is to take into consideration DLB, DLB0, etc., which
leads to the fragmentation of answers concerning semantic or other features of that
one intuitive language. It is thus more promising to deal with one entity comprising
the changed languages.
This entity is the given language in an enhanced diachronic sense: a diachronic
language with the basis BU, which is the union of all bases of DLB, DLB0, etc., i.e.
BU={B, B’, . . . }. The language DLBU seems to have one undesirable property.
Imagine that B’ contains I 4, an individual which cannot be discussed in any
synchronic language of DLB because B does not contain it. The adoption of LB into
DLBU leads to the consequence that (for example) a property denoted in the original
LB is now (re)constructed over B’. It means that any extension of that property also
has to be defined over B’. Then, to mimic the same extension (and property) from the
MODERN EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Выпуск журнала №-20
Часть–4_ Февраль –2025
322
original LB, the truth value assigned to I 4 in this extension,19 as well as the anti-
extension, in the modified LB has to be a partial gap, i.e. a non-existent value..[2]
Such a reform of the original language LB to its modification, which is a
value of DLBU, thus inevitably causes particular semantic changes. This is an
undesirable result at first sight, but it must be realized that this feature of the model
appropriately corresponds to the fact that, for instance, a certain value of DL, i.e. LB,
is limited in the sense that it cannot ascribe anything to individuals such as I 4 because
this language has a blind spot there.
Conversion is a means of forming new words without adding any derivative
element so that the basic form of the original and the basic derived words are
homonymous having the same morphological structure, but belonging to different
parts of speech.
In the course of the historical development grammatical forms in English were
lost and another way of forming new words came into being. Due to the loss of
inflexion words in Modern English have in most cases no special form to indicate to
what part of speech they belong. When inflexions are lost, there is nothing to
distinguish the form of the verb from a noun.
The terminology used for this process has not been completely established
yet. The most usual terms are “conversion”, because a word is converted (shifted) to
a different part of speech; and “zero-derivation”, because the process is like deriving
(transferring) a word into another morphological category with a zero-affix creating
a semantic dependence of one word upon another. Out of derivational interpretations,
the one claiming that during conversion the converting base takes on a zero-suffix is
the most widely accepted and, perhaps not accidentally, the most widely criticized.
Other less frequently used terms are “functional shift”, “functional change” or “zero-
marked derivative”.
The essence of the phenomenon may be illustrated by the following example:
His voice silenced everyone else. The word silence exists in the English language as
a noun and a verb may be formed from the same stem without adding any suffix or
prefix or without changing the stem in any other way, so that both basic forms are
MODERN EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Выпуск журнала №-20
Часть–4_ Февраль –2025
323
homonymous. Their distribution on the other hand is quite different. In our example,
silence not only takes the functional verbal suffix –ed but also occupies the position
of a verbal predicate “having voice” as a subject and everyone else as its object. Its
lexico-grammatical meaning is also a verb. The difference between “silence” as a
noun and as a verb is morphological, syntactical, and semantic; the original and the
resulting words are grammatically different; a new paradigm is acquired and the
syntactic functions and ties are those of a verb.
The term “conversion” is in a way misleading, as nothing is converted; the
original word continues its existence alongside the new one. As to zero “derivation”.
It does not permit us to distinguish this type from side interchange food (n) – feed (v),
where no derivative morpheme is added either.[8]
The term “root formation” is not always suitable as the process can involve
not only root words, but also words containing affixes and compounds. The terms
“functional change” or transposition “implies that the process in question concerns
usage, not word – formation. This immediately brings us into an extremely
controversial field. Some scholars assert that conversion will become even more
active in the future because it is a very easy way to create new words in English. [6]
There is no way to know the number of conversions appearing every day in the spoken
language, although we know this number must be high.
RESULTS
As a type of word formation, conversion exists in many languages. The main
reason for the wide-spread development of conversion in present-day English is no
doubt the absence of morphological elements serving as classifying signals, or in
other words, of formal signs marking the part of speech to which the word belongs. It
is wide spread word formation in English. The causes that made conversion so widely
spread are to be approached diachronically. Nouns and verbs have become identical
in form firstly as a result of the loss of endings.
Conversion is a type of word-building – not a pattern of structural relationship.
Synchronically both types of sleep (n) – sleep (v) and pencil (n) – pencil (v) must be
treated together as cases of patterned homonymy. [8] However, it is essential to
MODERN EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Выпуск журнала №-20
Часть–4_ Февраль –2025
324
differentiate the cases of conversion and treat them separately when the study is
diachronic.
Established examples of noun > verb conversion are: to badger, to bottle, to
mail, to mushroom, to skin, etc. [6]
Almost any noun or adjective can at once become a verb if employed as such,
and almost any verb may be used to express the idea of its action and result. E.g. eye–
to–eye, water–to–water, empty – to empty, clean – to clean, etc.
Frontier between parts of speech may also be illustrated by the adjectival use
of adverbs.
Very (adv.) = the very man (adj.); seldom (adv.) = a seldom pleasure (adj.)
Nouns: In, out, etc. For example: He knows all the ins and outs of the town.
Adverbs are converted into verbs: Down (adv.) = to down (verb)
Even some interjections are converted into verbs: Boo (inter.) – to boo (v).
The converted word acquires a); above (adv.) = the above remark (adj.), etc.
The adverbs are converted into all the grammatical characteristics of the part
of speech into which it has been converted.
This way of forming new words is productive. It should be mentioned that
especially nouns are often converted into verbs. Such verbs are called “denominative”
verbs. [2]
Conversion began to develop strongly in the 15th century when the English
language acquired an analytical character. Now in English, almost any part of speech
can be converted into some other part of speech.
Conversion can be described as a morphological way of forming words. It
has been the subject of many linguistics discussions since 1891 when H. Sweet first
used the term in his “New English Grammar”. [6] Various opinions have been
expressed on the nature and character of conversion in the English language and
different conceptions of conversion have been put forward. The treatment of
conversion as a morphological way of forming words was suggested by S.I.
Smirnitsky in his works on the English language. This idea is also accepted by R.S.
Ginsburg and others.
MODERN EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Выпуск журнала №-20
Часть–4_ Февраль –2025
325
Other linguists do not agree with this conception of conversion as a
morphological way of forming words. As one of the words within a conversion pair
is semantically derived from the other, it is of great.
DISCUSSION
Theoretical and practical importance to determine the semantic relations
between the words related through conversion. We can show the following typical
semantic relations.
1. Verbs converted from nouns (denominal verbs). This is the largest group of
words related through conversion, the semantic relations between the nouns and verbs
vary greatly. If the noun refers to some object of (both animate and inanimate), the
converted verb may denote: .[2]
a) action characterizing the object: ape (n) = to ape (v) (imitate in a foolish
way); butcher (n) = to butcher (v) (to kill animals for food, cut up a killed animal);
dream (n) = to dream (v) For ex: He awoke every morning from rosy scenes
of dream to an atmosphere that was vibrant with the jar and jungle of tormented life
(J. London). [6]
To conclude, a language such as English can be understood as a normative
system (i.e. a social phenomenon) which enables us to communicate. In every
moment of time (and possible world) it is possible to isolate a list of expressions and
meanings associated with them, i.e. a function from expressions to meanings. This is
a model of language in a synchronic sense; languages in a synchronic sense can be
viewed as entities warranted or produced by language as a normative system. (I have
exposed several reasons why numerical codes provide the best model of language in
a synchronic sense.) A model of language in a diachronic sense is an ‘extrapolation’
of the modelled language in a synchronic sense on a time scale and in modal space.
Languages in a synchronic sense are thus functional values assigned to worlds and
times. .[2] A model of language in both a synchronic and a diachronic sense is thus
an abstraction and also an idealization of the phenomenon of language. As such, the
model is still useful because it enables us to sufficiently model especially semantic
phenomena.
MODERN EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Выпуск журнала №-20
Часть–4_ Февраль –2025
326
REFERENCES:
1. Cmorej, Pavel 2005: Semi-expressions and expressions (in Slovak). In: P.
Soused´ık (ed.), Jazyk-logika-vˇeda, Praha: Filosofia, 63–88.
2. Duˇz´ı, Marie, Jespersen, Bj¨orn, Materna, Pavel (2010): Procedural Semantics for
Hyperintensional Logic: Foundations and Applications of Transparent Intensional
Logic. Springer Verlag.
3. Kuchyˇnka, Petr 2012. Rules, Languages and Logic (in Czech). Dissertation, Brno:
Masarykovauniverzita.
4. Lewis, David 1983. Languages and Language. In: Philosophical Papers Volume I,
Oxford University Press, 163-188.
5. Marcus, Ruth Barcan 1962. Modalities and Intensional Languages. Synth`ese
13(4), 303–322.
6. Quine, Willard van Orman 1962. Reply to Professor Marcus. Synth`ese 13(4), 323–
330.
7. Raclavsk´y, Jiˇr´ı 2005. Character of Logical Analysis of Natural Language (in
Czech). Filosofick´y ˇcasopis 53(6), 927–937.
8. Raclavsk´y, Jiˇr´ı 2006. Natural Language from the Viewpoint of Transparent
Intensional Logic (in Czech). In: M. Zouhar (ed.), Jazyk z pohladus´emantiky,
pragmatiky a filozofievedy, Bratislava: Veda, 78–98.
9. Raclavsk´y, Jiˇr´ı 2007. Language as a Code and Logical Analysis (in Czech).
Filosofick´y ˇcasopis 55(6), 95–105
10. Raclavsk´y, Jiˇr´ı 2009. Names and Descriptions: Logico-Semantical
Investigations (in Czech). Olomouc, Nakladatelstv´ı Olomouc
11. Raclavsk´y, Jiˇr´ı 2012. Contextualism vs. Minimalism and Methodological
Principles (in Czech). Organon F 19(4), 227–238.
12. Raclavsk´y, Jiˇr´ı 2012a. Semantic Paradoxes and Transparent Intensional Logic.
In: M. Peliˇs, V. Punˇcoch´aˇr (eds.), The Logica Yearbook 2011, London: College
Publications, 239–252.
13. Saussure, Ferdinand de [1916] 1959. Course in General Linguistics. New York:
The Philosophical Library.
MODERN EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Выпуск журнала №-20
Часть–4_ Февраль –2025
327
14. Munosib, I., & Madina, A. (2023). Linguacultural Features of Command and
Interrogative Constructions in Uzbek and English.
Texas Journal of Philology,
Culture and History
,
19
, 25-27.
15. Saidakhmadovna, I. M. (2021). MORPHOLOGICAL RESEARCH OF MACON
IFODALOVCHI DEIKTIK UNITS. In
Archive of Conferences
(pp. 106-107).
16. Ichanjanova, M. (2020). PARAMÈTRES DES LOCALISATEURS D'ESPACE
EN FRANÇAIS ET EN OUZBEK.
Philology Matters
,
2020
(1), 146-153.
