安徽大学

硕士学位论文

题目 A Contrastive Study on English and Chinese Lexical Nominalization

专业英语语言文学

研究方向对比语言学

姓名朱玉彬届别 2003

导师姓名、职称朱跃教授

2003年5月10日

A Contrastive Study on English and Chinese Lexical Nominalization

Dissertation

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of Master of Arts

By Zhu Yubin

Supervisor: Professor Zhu Yue

School of Foreign Studies

Anhui University

2003

“The true, significant elements of language are … either words, significant parts of words, or word groupings.”

Edward Sapir, 1921, 25p

“The reader … may not be a word-lover … , however, even if he is not afflicted with this “disease”, he will not be able to escape the fundamental insight that the lexicon, lexis, or vocabulary of a language is its most basic level and its most important instrument of communication.”

Leonhard Lipka, 1990, ⅸ

Abstract（English Version）…………………………………………………………ⅰ

Abstract（Chinese Version） ………………………………………………………ⅱ

Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………ⅲ

1 Introduction: A Historical Survey ……………………………………………1

1.1 A Survey on the Study of English Nominalization …………………………1

1.2 A Survey on the Study of Chinese Nominalization ……………………… 10

1.3 The Purpose of the Dissertation …………………………………………16

2 Contrastive Basis for English and Chinese Lexical Nominalization …………………………………………………………………17

2.1 The Problem of “Morphology” in Chinese ……………………………… 17

2.2 English and Chinese Affixes ………………………………………………18

2.3 Nominalizing Affixes in English and Chinese …………………………… 20

3 A Diachronic Study on Morphological Markers in English and Chinese Lexical Nominalizations ………………………………………………………21

3.1 The Origin and Evolution of English Nominalizing Affixes………………21

3.2 The Origin and Evolution of Chinese Nominalizing Affixes………………22

3.3 Counter-examples to the Unidirectionality of Grammaticalization ……… 24

4 Classification and Characteristics of Lexical Nominalization ………………25

4.1 Classification of English and Chinese Nominalizations at the Lexical Level ………………………………………………………………………25

4.1.1 Deverbal Nominalization ……………………………………………25

4.1.2 De-adjectival Nominalization ……………………………………… 27

4.2 Features of English and Chinese Lexical Nominalizations after Comparison ……………………………………………………………… 28

5 Cognitive Schematic Interpretation of Lexical Nominalization …………… 30

5.1 Theoretical Foundation ……………………………………………………30

5.2 The MOTION-REST Schema and Application to Lexical Nominalization …

…………………………………………………………………………… 31

6 Stylistic Function of English and Chinese Nominalizing Affixes ……………34

6.1 Meaning and Classification of Styles………………………………………34

6.2 Stylistic Function of English Nominalizing Affixes ………………………35

6.3 Stylistic Function of Some Chinese Nominalizing Affixes ……………… 41

7 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………41

Appendix: A List of Frequently Used Nominalizing Affixes in English and Chinese ……………………………………………………………… 43

Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………… 47

Abstract

This dissertation attempts to revise and supplement the theory of nominalization itself instead of challenging those scholars opposed to nominalization. The study of nominalization in English is well developed: almost all the linguistic schools concern themselves more or less with this topic. However, they seem to differ in the scope of nominalization, i.e. whether it includes conversion, though this disagreement does not cause any controversy. In the Chinese linguistic circle, the heated discussions over nominalization are from the 1950s to the early 1990s. Zhu Dexi is opposed to “nominalization”, while other scholars support nominalization. The focus of their fierce discussions is on the word class of the verbs and adjectives present at the place of subject or object in a Chinese sentence.

My major contributions in this dissertation include: (1) Nominalization must have some morphological marker; thus, conversion could be put aside to avoid unnecessary confusion; (2) A new definition of nominalization for both English and Chinese is proposed ― nominalization is the process of change from the non-nominal linguistic structure to the nominal linguistic structure by adding a certain morphological marker to the former; (3) An image schema, the MOTION-REST Schema, is proposed to explicate the nature of lexical nominalization from the perspective of cognitive linguistics.

This dissertation is divided into seven parts: the first part offers a survey on the study of English and Chinese nominalization respectively, and points out their theoretical advantages and disadvantages whenever possible, thus showing the purpose of my own dissertation; the second part concerns the contrastive basis for English and Chinese lexical nominalization, resolving the problems of morphology and affixes in Chinese; the third part makes a diachronic study on the evolution of the morphological markers in English and Chinese lexical nominalization, indicating their respective origins; the fourth part shows their universal classification and points out their similarities and differences; the fifth part proposes an image schema, by which the nature of nominalization could be explained from the perspective of cognitive linguistics; the sixth part is about the stylistic function of the English and Chinese nominalizing affixes, involving some statistics on English nominalization provided by Longman-Lancaster Corpus and London-Lund Corpus; the seventh part is the conclusion, suggesting the theoretical and practical value of nominalization in English and Chinese. An appendix at the end of this dissertation lists some frequently used nominalizing affixes in English and Chinese gathered during the process of composition.

摘要

本文与其说是对否定名物化论者的挑战，不如说是对名物化理论本身的修正和补充。名物化研究在英语中相当发达，主要语言学流派对这一问题都有所论述。而关于名物化的范围，即是否包含“转类”（Conversion）似乎意见不一，但是这一问题并未引起争议。在汉语界，关于名物化这一说法的争论从时间上来说，主要集中在五十年代至九十年代之前。朱德熙先生就坚决反对名物化这一说法，而也有一些语法学家支持这一说法。他们争论的焦点问题就是动词或形容词作主、宾语时的词性问题。

笔者在论文中指出“名物化”总是带有一定的形态标志，这样便可以把英语中的“转类”排除在外，避免一些不必要的混乱。同时这一特性也有利于在汉语中重新引入名物化这一概念。笔者在此基础上提出了一个既适用于英语又适用于汉语的名物化概念，即通过添加一定的形态标志使非名词性语言结构转变为名词性的语言结构；之后，又提出了一个“动静图式（The MOTION-REST Schema）”，希望从认知语言学的视角对词汇层面名物化现象的本质进行解释。

论文共分成七个部分：第一部分是文献概述，论述了英语界和汉语界学人对名物化的研究，并在必要时对某一种观点作一简要评述，而后在此基础上提出了本文的写作目的；第二部分阐述了英汉语词汇层面名物化的对比基础，主要想界定汉语的形态以及字缀这两个颇具争议的问题；第三部分就英汉词汇层面名物化标志的来源作了历时性的论述，比较二者之间的异同；第四部分指明了英汉词汇层面名物化的分类及特点；第五部分提出了一个意象图式，希望从认知语言学的视角对名物化现象的本质作出阐释；第六部分指出了英汉词汇层面名物化的文体标志功能，其中引用了英国的朗曼—兰开斯特语料库 (Longman-Lancaster Corpus)以及伦敦—郎德语料库 (London-Lund Corpus) 的一些有关英语词汇层面名物化的数据；第七部分是结束语，指明了本文研究的理论与实践意义。文末附录列出了笔者在写作论文过程中搜集到的一些常用的英汉语名物化词缀。由于笔者才疏学浅，文中不免有疏漏与错误，敬请诸位先生斧正。

Acknowledgements

There are a number of people to whom this dissertation owes a great deal.

Faculty at School of Foreign Studies, Anhui University taught me many things. Professor Cheng Zhengfa taught me practical translation course, and Professor Zhou Fangzhu taught me how to study a subject diachronically, etc.

Professor Tian Debei (Anhui University), Professor Li Yashu (editor-in-chief of Chinese Sci-Tech Translators Journal), Professor Gong Li ( University of Science and Technology, China), and Professor Niu Baoyi (Henan University) encouraged me a lot during my discussions with them.

Professor Wang Kefei at Beijing Foreign Studies University suggested that I should study nominalization from the perspective of cognitive linguistics.

Professor Ronald W. Langacker, author of the books Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. Ⅰ,Ⅱ) at the University of California, San Diego was generous enough to send me a copy of the related chapter in his book from the United States, when I had trouble in getting access to his book and just e-mailed him for help.

Mr. Zhang Li, PhD candidate of Professor Yuan Hui at Anhui University majoring in Chinese rhetoric, as my bosom friend, provided me with innumerable academic insightful ideas concerning Chinese.

My former teacher and friend, Ms. Mei Xiaojuan at Anhui Normal University, read carefully part of my dissertation and provided me with a lot of valuable suggestions.

My supervisor Professor Zhu Yue led me into the road of academics. He not only taught me linguistics, but also assigned me to teach linguistics to self-study students. He supervised this dissertation and gave me constant help, detailed advice, and the benefit of his knowledge and understanding of English and Chinese while I was writing. At the same time, he was always ready to give me his warm-hearted encouragement and support.

Lastly, I am always indebted to School of Foreign Studies, Anhui University for her acceptance of my recommendation as a postgraduate student to further my studies there.

This dissertation cannot escape mistakes, for which I should be responsible.

1 Introduction: A Historical Survey

1.1 A Survey on the Study of English Nominalization

Different linguistic schools in English study nominalization from their own perspectives.

The study of nominalization by the traditional grammarians can be found in Jespersen’s The Philosophy of Grammar（1924）.[1] He regards the nouns that have the meaning of action and properties as Nexus Substantives, which consist of two subcategories ― Verbal Nexus-words, such as arrival, movement and change, and Predicative Nexus-words, such as cleverness, rapidity and accuracy. He points out that the structures constituted by these nouns are equal in meaning with the sentences constituted by their corresponding finite verbs. For instance,

（1）I saw the doctor’s arrival.

= I saw that the doctor arrived.

（2）I doubt the doctor’s cleverness.

= I doubt that the doctor is clever.

There is another type of words called Agent-nouns, such as believer, conqueror and owner. Although they are nouns, they have the meaning of action. The object of the action appears in the form of the possessive case, e.g. Ann’s lover（= the person who loves Ann）, or, in more cases, follows the preposition “of”, e.g. the owner of the house（= the person who owns the house）. （郭茂生、吴爱珍，2000：412-413）

Jespersen also notices the function of the nominal style. He points out:

It seems possible to express ideas with greater precision and adequacy by means of nouns than by means of the more pictorial verbs. … When we express by means of nouns what is generally expressed by finite verbs, our language becomes not only more abstract, but more abstruse, owing among other things to the fact that in the verbal substantive some of the life-giving elements of the verb（time, mood, person）disappear. While the nominal style may therefore serve the purposes of philosophy, where, however, it now and then does nothing but disguise simple thoughts in the garb of profound wisdom, it does not lend itself so well to the purposes of everyday life. （Jespersen, 1951: 139）

Jespersen’s contributions towards the study of nominalization lie in his proposing “Nexus”, or in present-day terms, the various syntactic structures with words expressing action and properties as their center. He explicates these nouns from a syntactic point of view.

Quirk et al first use various and complete materials scientifically collected to compile an authoritative grammar book — A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language(1985). They are heavily indebted to all the preceding grammarians. Their approach is not confined to one particular school, but makes full use of various viewpoints prevailing in every linguistic school. Bolinger（1993：758-759）considers their joint efforts as belonging to the contemporary traditional grammar. Quirk’s contribution towards nominalization is his notice of the gradience of the relations between a nominalization and its corresponding clause structure.

（3）The reviewers criticized his play in a hostile manner.

（3a）the reviewers’ hostile criticizing of his play

（3b）the reviewers’ hostile criticism of his play

（3c）the reviewers’ criticism of his play

（3d）the reviewers’ criticism

（3e）their criticism

（3f）the criticism （Quirk, 1985:1289）

These noun phrases are ordered from the most explicit（3a）to the least explicit（3f）, and each of them could be used as a prepositional complement in the following sentence, functioning as a nominal:

Lanzarotti was disappointed by … [2]

Thus, Quirk argues that the relation between a nominalization and its corresponding clause structure is more or less explicit, depending on how far the nominalization specifies, through modifiers and determinatives, the nominal or adverbial elements of the corresponding clause. The extreme of the inexplicitness is reached when the abstract or agential noun[3] stands on its own as a noun phrase:

（3g）Criticism is always helpful. [4]

Thus, Quirk et al, to a certain extent, have furthered Jespersen’s study on nominalization with regard to the relation between a nominalization and its corresponding clause structure. [5]

Structural linguists study nominalization on the basis of large amounts of linguistic data. They argue that many nouns are formed by the addition of nominal marking derivative affixes to words belonging to other parts of speech. Thus, the part of speech of these new derivatives could be ascertained according to these affixes. For example, words constituted by verb + -er, -or, -ment, and adjective + -ness all belong to the noun. This school pays most of its attention to the form instead of meaning, but the linguistic terms used by the structuralists are of great value to the linguistic studies ever since.

Generative grammar develops along two paths since Chomsky established the Standard Theory in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax（1965）. One path is called transformationalism -- stressing the importance of transformations and using this formal device to express as many relationships between linguistic forms as possible, which leads to the advent of Generative Semantics. Robert Lees（1960）has derived compounds transformationally from underlying sentences. The other path is lexicalism -- transformations should only be permitted to operate on syntactic constituents and to insert or delete named items instead of being used to delete, permute or substitute parts of words, which is also the main content of the Extended Lexicalist Hypothesis proposed by Jackendoff in 1972.

Chomsky himself supports the lexicalist position. In 1970, he published “Remarks on Nominalization” as his reply to Generative Semantics. In this paper, he argues that derived nominalizations, such as amusement and criticism, are listed in the lexicon, while only the gerundives[6], such as amusing and criticizing, can be obtained transformationally. In other words, these two types of nominalizations differ drastically from each other in their respective origins. His evidence lies in the following three aspects:（Source: Spencer, 1991: 70-71）

● Syntactic differences: gerundive nominalizations inherit the subcategorization properties of the verb, while this is not generally true of the derived nominalizations.

（4）Tom amused the children with his stories.

（4a）Tom’s amusing the children with his stories…

（4b）*Tom’s amusement of the children with his stories…[7]

In （4b）, amusement can not have a direct object, unlike the gerundive amusing in （4a）. Furthermore, gerundives can be modified by adverbials, like verbs, while derived nominalizations can be modified by adjectives, like nouns:

（5）Jack severely criticized this book.

（5a）Jack’s severely criticizing this book

*severe

（5b）Jack’s *severely criticism of this book

severe

● Semantic differences: the meaning of the gerundive nominalization is always derivable compositionally from that of the underlying verb, while derived nominalizations always seem to add some component of meaning. In other words, a gerundive is simply a nominal form of the verb, used to name the action, state or whatever with perhaps slight difference. In the following examples,（6a） and （7a）, the meanings of the amusement are something like “the state of being amused” and “something that causes one’s time, money, etc. to pass in an enjoyable way” respectively. It should be noted that neither of the amusement is a “pure” nominalization of the verb.

（6a）Tom’s stories provided endless amusement.

（7a）The children spent all their spare time on the amusements.

In contrast, it is impermissible to change amusement in the above two sentences into their corresponding gerundives:

（6b）*Tom’s stories provided endless amusing.

（7b）*The children spent all their spare time on the amusing(s).

● Morphological differences: a gerundive can be formed by adding –ing to any verb, while derived nominalizations are formed in various ways, often involving dramatic allomorphy[8] or （partial）suppletion[9]. Moreover, not all verbs have derived nominalizations.

Although Chomsky points out the difference between the gerundive nominalization and the derived nominalization, the lexicalist solution for the derived nominalization cannot be considered fully satisfactory unless it can be extended in an appropriate way to the derivatives such as de-verbal adjectives（attractive）and de-adjectival nouns（attractiveness）. Chomsky claims this extension is possible; however, he does not discuss the implication for his view that lexical entries may be neutral between categories. Under this view, the lexical entries for two category-neutral items, such as destroy_V,N and easy_A,N, acquire a nominal or verbal（adjectival）shape when they surface as nouns or verbs（adjectives）. Nevertheless, as for the lexical entry attract_V,N,A （attract, attraction, attractive）, it is certainly unsatisfactory to regard attraction and attractiveness as distinct rival nominal manifestations of the same lexical item （attract_V,N,A）in the lexicon.

Functional linguists study nominalization with regard to the grammatical metaphor. Halliday thinks:

Nominalizing is the single most powerful resource for creating grammatical metaphor. By this device, processes（congruently worded as verbs）and properties（congruently worded as adjectives）are reworded metaphorically as nouns; instead of functioning in the clause, as Process or Attribute, they function as Thing in the nominal group. （1994：352）

Grammatical metaphor is, in essence, the transference of the semantic-grammatical relation, or to be more specific, meaning construed in a different way by means of a different grammatical construction, while a congruent form is the “literal” as opposed to the metaphorical realization of meaning, which is the typical way that people construe experience. Halliday classifies semantic meaning into three ranks: sequence （of figures）realized by clause complex, figure realized by clause and element（of figure）realized by group/phrase. According to his theory, “rank shift” is permitted ― a known unit in a rank could shift to a lower rank, not vice versa.

（8a）The driver drove the bus too fast down the hill, so the brakes failed.

（8b）The driver’s overrapid downhill driving of the bus caused brake failure.

（Adopted from Bai Ruixue, 2002）

Example（8a）is a congruent form, while Example（8b）is a clause formed by means of grammatical metaphor, in which two clauses are rank-shifting into two nominal groups.

Halliday argues that this nominalizing metaphor probably evolves first in scientific and technical registers, and then makes its way into other adult discourses, tending to be a mark of prestige and power. Therefore, this highly metaphorical discourse can distinguish experts and laymen of a field. He also argues that nominalization is a distinguishing mark to tell the spoken and written forms of language. In the spoken form, meaning is always expressed by one clause after another, but in the written form, by nominalizing the clause in the former into nominal groups, the number of clauses decreases, thus increasing the lexical density[10] correspondingly.

Cognitive linguists also study nominalization from their unique perspective. Langacker（1991）, on the basis of function, distinguishes at least three sorts of nominalization:

● Action Nominalization nominalizes only a verb with no accompanying arguments（actants）, creating a new lexical item which designates a generic type of action or event, such as “tauting”;

● Factive Nominalization nominalizes a verb along with all of its actants except an explicit subject and a predication of tense or modality, which are sometimes called “participles” or “gerunds”. This creates an instance of an event not uniquely identified or “located in conceptual space”; such as “cruelly taunting the bear”;

● Sentential Nominalization nominalizes a verb along with all of its actants including the subject; to be more specific, it is the finite clause. This creates an instance of an event distinguished from all others located for the listener in conceptual space, such as “That Harvey taunted the bear is unfortunate”.

Langacker points out that the nature of nominalization is the reification of an event, for nouns are defined as profiling objects while verbs profiling process in his grammatical system. The continuity between action nominalization and sentential nominalization is, in fact, the continuity between a type of event and a grounded (concrete) instantiation of the type of event. He argues that prototypically, nominalization serves to reify an event, thereby “suspending sequential scanning, delimiting a region of conceptual space, and construing a process atemporally as an object or thing”（1991: 24）.

Langacker (1991: 13ff.) resorts to his billiard-ball model to explicate different nominalizations. He thinks that “our world is populated by discrete physical objects”, which are “capable of moving about through space and making contact with one another”(Ibid). He uses many figures to explain different nominalizations. The following is his explanation of the nominalization ended with -ee, such as inductee, employee and addressee. N

tr tr

lm lm

V NR

Figure 1 A Schematic Characterization of the Action Nominalization

The verb stem (V) and the nominalizer (NR) are the component elements that are integrated to constitute the composite structure (N). The verb stem (V) in this figure profiles (makes salient) a process. It follows through time (indicated by an arrow) the evolution of a relationship between two nominal participants (shown as circles), its trajector (tr: its internal subject) and its landmark (lm: its internal object). The dotted line indicates that the specific process profiled by V is placed in correspondence with the schematic process of NR. The heavy-line box identifies NR as the profile determinant, which means that it prevails over V at the composite structure level. Thus, since the composite structure (N) inherits the content of V but the profiling of NR, the derived noun profiles the landmark of the process designated by the verb stem. This is typical of employee(N) = employ(V) + -ee(NR). As for the nominalizer –er, the profiling of the NR is its trajector not its landmark.

The impact of the –ing in the nominalizations can as well be diagrammed as follows:

(a) Verb (b) Present Participle

Scope of predication Scope of predication

Immediate scope

Scope of predication

Immediate scope

Figure 2 A Schematic Characterization of the –ing nominalization

The facts that such derived nouns as walking, complaining and sleeping, (derived by -ing) also appear in the progressive constructions provide a hint to their semantic analysis. Figure 2(a) represents a perfective verb, which scans sequentially through a series of temporally distributed states, each of which profiles a state. Inherent in every verb is an abstract region (a set of interconnected entities) comprising its component states. This region is only latent within the verb itself, as represented by the broken-line circle in Figure 2(b). The profiled states implicitly define an abstract region. Nominalizations such as complaining represent a higher level of conceptual organization obtained by shifting the profile to this region shown in Figure 2(c). It is to be noted that expressions like walking and complaining conform to the mass-noun status: the profiled region lacks inherent bounding in the immediate scope, since the endpoints of the process are excluded from this scope (represented in the scope of predication).

He also schematically characterizes the finite clauses in the following figure:

Clause

Subject Nominal Verb Object Nominal

Figure 3 A Schematic Characterization of the Finite Clause [11]

When a verb functions as the head of the finite clause, it is generally accompanied by nominals that elaborate its trajector and landmark. These nominals are considered as the subjects or direct objects of the verb or of the finite clause. The arrows across the patches represent the elaborative relationships. Each dotted line connects the profile of the elaborating nominal and the verb participant. Thus, the trajector at the composite level (Clause) inherits the subject’s semantic specifications, while the landmark in the clause inherits the object’s semantic specifications. For instance, in That Jack signed the contract surprised everyone, sign(ed) is the head of this finite clause(the underlined part), and Jack is the trajector and contract the landmark at the composite level (in the clause).

Although Langacker is very creative in his explication of different nominalizations, it is strikingly difficult for a layman who is not familiar with his framework of cognitive grammar to understand his complicated schematic characterizations. Furthermore, his schematic characterizations of different nominalizations are incomplete, and do not correspond to his classification of nominalization on the basis of function. Because the subtypes of the action nominalization are various, it is regret that Langacker does not provide the schematic characterizations of other subtypes of the action nominalization, such as –tion, and -ment.

Koptjevskaja-Tamm（1993）studies nominalization from the perspective of typology. She analyses how nominalization types interact with other structural features with examples from seventy languages under the framework of Action Nominal Constuctions（ANCs）, which she defines as “nouns derived from verbs （verbal nouns）with the general meaning of an action or process, capable of declining or taking prepositions or postpositions in the same way as non-derived nouns, and showing‘reasonable’productivity.”（1993: 5）She takes some examples from Chinese, but they appear only in several places with no more than 100 words altogether, and with no comparison between English and Chinese nominalizations. Incomplete as her classification of nominalizations is, she at least proves that nominalization is a universal linguistic phenomenon in most languages all over the world.

1.2 A Survey on the Study of Chinese Nominalization

In contrast, the study of nominalization in Chinese is more perplexing and confusing. Chinese linguistic studies are heavily influenced by structuralism in western countries; however, there is no linguistic school, in a strict sense, in Chinese linguistics. We will examine the studies on Chinese nominalization by some key grammarians and in some important grammatical works.

Ma Jianzhong（马建忠）, on the basis of Latin grammar, writes the first grammar book for the Classic Chinese, Mashi Wentong（《马氏文通》, shortened as Wentong《文通》）. He is the first grammarian who systematically classifies Chinese words, thus establishing the class system for Chinese words. He uses Ming-Zi（名字）, Jing-Zi（静字） and Dong-Zi（动字）for the grammatical term Noun, Adjective and Verb respectively, while Qi-Ci（起词）, Zhi-Ci（止词） and Si-Ci（司词）in his book are approximately equal to Subject, Object and Object of a Preposition respectively. Dun（顿）is the pause between sense groups, while Dou（读）is roughly equal to clause instead of being the pause in the Classic Chinese, the traditional sense of Dou. Ma Jianzhong says in Wentong that:

要之，名无定式，凡一切单字、偶字，以至集字成顿成读，用为起词、止词、司词者，皆可以「名」名之。（《<马氏文通>读本》，2001：80）

It should be pointed out that nominals are not restricted to form. All the words, even sense groups or clauses, when put in the place of the Subject, Object or Object of a Preposition, can be defined as “Nominals”. (Guide to ‘Mashi Wentong’, 2001: 80)

In other words, any grammatical structure（from word to clause）that lies in the place of subject, object or object of a preposition can be called ‘Nominal’. See the following example:

（1）夫论至德者不和于俗，成大功者不谋于众。《史记·赵世家第十三》——「论至德者」与「成大功者」两读也，各为起词，视同名字。（Ibid）

Those who talk about great moral are not accustomed to old traditions; those who want to achieve great things will not discuss issues with ordinary people. ( Records of the Historian by Sima Qian: Duke Zhao The Thirteenth ) —— Those who talk about great moral and those who want to achieve great things as two clauses, both at the place of Subject, can be considered as nominals. (Ibid)

In other words, Ma Jianzhong thinks that “论至德者（Those who talk about great moral）” and “成大功者（Those who want to achieve great things）”, when used as the subject, are treated as nominals. This foreshadows the advent of the dispute over nominalization in Modern Chinese.

Li Jinxi（黎锦熙）（1924）thinks that any verb or adjective, whether having nominal attributive or not, is converted into nominals, so long as it is used as subject, object or the complement of Shi（Be）in a sentence. In other words, it is nominalized.

（2）坐、立都不是。

（3）种花是一件很快乐的事。

（4）太繁琐的礼节，实在是作伪。（《新著国语文法》，1992：65ff.）

He regards that “Planting flowers” in （3）is a nominal phrase，while “Being pretentious” is a compound. This view is due to his Ju-centered Grammar（“句本位”文法）[12]. One of its assumptions is that classifying words according to meaning and class of words should correspond to the elements of the sentence — nouns taking the place of subject or object, verbs taking the place of predicate, adjectives taking the place of attributive and adverbs taking the place of adverbial. This is sharply criticized by other Chinese grammarians afterwards. Now most of them agree that there is no simple one-to-one correspondence between the class of words and the elements of the sentence in Chinese. See the following figure:

Subject and Object Predicate Attributive Adverbial

Noun Verb Adjective Adverb

Figure 4 The Relations Between Word Classes and Elements of Sentence in Chinese （朱德熙，1985/2000：5）

（Note: The dotted line indicates that nouns can be used at the place of predicate on certain conditions.）

In the 1950s, The Temporary System of Chinese Teaching Grammar（《暂拟汉语教学语法系统》） was formed and provided influential guidance to the teaching of Chinese. This draft proposes the nominalization of verbs and adjectives. See the instances below:

（5）作品分析是文学教学的重要内容。

（6）这里的清静是闹中取静。（杨启光，1999：175）

It points out that these verbs and adjectives do not indicate the real action or properties, but are treated as things, due to the multiple functions of the Chinese words. This starts the dispute over nominalization. In the early 1980s, Chinese Languages and Writings（《中国语文》）, started a series of discussions to criticize The Temporary System of Chinese Teaching Grammar. In 1984, An Outline of the Middle School Teaching Grammar System（On-trial Version）（《中学教学语法系统提要（试用）》）was published. Under the influence of the Phrase-centered Grammar（“短语本位”语法）[13] advocated by Zhu Dexi（朱德熙）, it totally abandoned the nominalization of verbs and adjectives.

Wang Li（王力, 1956/1987: 13ff.）says that the overlapping between some word classes, such as Noun-Verb overlapping and Noun-Adjective overlapping, is due to the nominalization of the verb or adjective. Overlapping and bi-class[14] are like two sides of one coin. The former is discussed from the viewpoint of Word Class, while the latter from that of Each Word. Some verbs are completely converted into nouns by means of nominalization, e.g. 成就, which is not a bi-class word. Some verbs become bi-class words due to the function of nominalization, e.g. 批评（v.&n.）. Whether adjectives become bi-class words depends on the extent of nominalization. There is one way to determine it: adding quantifiers. For example, 秘密 can be a noun, for it can be modified by a quantifier 种（一种秘密）, while 热闹 can not be considered as a noun because of *一种热闹. However, 我喜欢热闹is only due to the function of nominalization.

Zhu Dexi（1961）is bitterly opposed to “nominalization”[15]. He argues that nominalization is self-contradictory in theory. If words were classified into two categories—Type A and Type B, it would be nonsense to say that all the words in Type A acquire the grammatical features of the words in Type B in certain conditions, or all the words in Type A are converted into the words belonging to Type B. In fact, this view denies the opposition between Type A and Type B, while presupposing the opposition between them. In teaching practice, it would be better to tell the students that verbs and adjectives can be placed at the place of subject or object than to say that they are converted into nouns or acquire the grammatical features of nouns after having informed them which words are verbs and which words are adjectives. Thus, he draws a conclusion that nominalization is of no theoretical or practical value to the Chinese language. As for those words, which have something in common with nouns while differing from verbs and adjectives in general in grammatical features, e.g. 希望, 困难, he designated them as Nominal-verbs（名动词）and Nominal-adjectives（名形词）, the subcategory of verbs and adjectives respectively.

Lü Shuxiang（吕叔湘，1979）considers the method of fixing word classes with sentential elements represented by Li Jinxi oversimplified. He does not use the term nominalization but Nominal Usage of Verb（动词名用）, for these verbs are not converted into nouns expressing action in the real sense. For example, in 挨批评, 批评is the nominal usage, while in 文艺批评, 批评is a noun.

Wang Weixian（王维贤，1987）uses the transformational-generative approach to study nominalization in Chinese. 疯子, 盖儿, 演员 and so on are nominals listed in the lexicon by nominalizing 疯, 盖, 演, and so on, which are like derived nominalizations defined by Chomsky. Since verbs and adjectives could occupy the place of subject and object in Modern Chinese, verbs and adjectives in 打人是不对的, 我喜欢清静 and so forth are not nominalized, thus not belonging to the category of nominalization. There are some nominalizations, due to the rules of nominalizing transformation. For instance,

（7a）我没有搬家

（7b）我（的）家的没有搬（王维贤，1987：164）

See the transformation from (7a) to (7b) in the tree diagram:

Subject Predicate

(My own analysis by the tree diagram)

Pron

Adv V N

我（的）的没有搬家

By the transformational rules — （1）the preposition of object home(家) before the verb, and （2）the insertion of De（的）, the clause (7a) is transformed into a nominal phrase (7b), just like gerundive nominalizations in Chomsky’s term. He indicates the complexity of the De-structure in Chinese, which needs further discussion.

Hu Yushu and Fan Xiao（胡裕树、范晓，1994）discuss nominalization of verbs and adjectives under their three-plane framework: grammar should be studied on the syntactic plane, the semantic plane and the pragmatic plane. They distinguish nominalization on two planes: nominalization on the semantic plane（名物化） and nominalization on the syntactic plane（名词化）. In English and Russian, nominalizations on the above two planes are congruent. If nominalization on the semantic plane happens, verbs and adjectives must have some morphological change, thus changing to nouns or gerundives — nominalization on the syntactic plane. Nevertheless, the nominalization on the semantic plane in Chinese is different from and related to the nominalization on the syntactic plane. If nominalization on the syntactic plane happens in Chinese, there must be the nominalization on the semantic plane, such as 有吃的，有穿的; 红的象火，白的象雪. To be more specific, 吃的，穿的, 红的and 白的 are nominals on both the syntactic plane and the semantic plane. If nominalization on the semantic plane takes place, there may be or may not be the nominalization on the syntactic plane: some of verbs and adjectives are converted into nouns, while some of them are not converted into nouns. For example,

Verbs and adjectives converted into nominal structures: 骄傲使人落后；打是疼，骂是爱（The dotted characters are nominalized on these two planes.）

Verbs and adjectives not been converted into nominal structures: 他的笑；态度的坦白（The whole phrases are nominalized on the two planes, but as for 笑 and 坦白, they are nominalized on the semantic plane while not on the syntactic plane.）（Adapted from 胡裕树、范晓，1994： 82）

They also argue that the major marker of the nominalization on the syntactic plane in Modern Chinese is De（的）. The dispute over syntactic nominalization is resolved under their three-plane grammar, but they seem to overlook the nominalization at the lexical level.

1.3 The Purpose of the Dissertation

From the above survey, there are still some unresolved problems in the study of nominalization. Most important of all, the concept and scope of nominalization are not well defined not only in English but also in Chinese. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics defines “Nominalization” as follows:

1. Broadly speaking, every derivation of nouns from another word class, e.g. from verbs（feeling vs feel）or adjectives（redness vs red）, but also from another noun（womanhood vs woman）.

2. Productive process of word formation through which words of all word classes can be used as nouns. [16] （Bussmann, 1996: 327）

These definitions seem to be a bit different from the study in English nominalization by different linguistic schools, so far as “noun” and “all word class” are concerned. Moreover, since “derivation” is concerned in the definition, how to deal with conversion? Some linguists argue that conversion is zero derivation, while others disagree, which causes confusion in English nominalization.

In contrast, Zhu Dexi（1961）declares that nominalization is of no value in Chinese. Hu Yushu and Fan Xiao（1994）notice the nominalization marker De. Some Chinese grammarians do not use this linguistic term in their articles or books in order to avoid trouble. This paper deems that Zhu Dexi is reasonable in his refuting the so-called “nominalization”, but his view that nominalization is a useless theory seems to be a hasty conclusion. The concept of nominalization can be used in Chinese to explain some linguistic phenomena, but its definition and scope should be re-defined.

This paper contends that nominalization must be realized by means of marking; otherwise, it cannot be termed as nominalization. In this way, conversion can be put aside to avoid unnecessary confusion. Based on this marking realization, nominalization can be defined as follows:

Nominalization is the process of change from the non-nominal linguistic structure to the nominal linguistic structure by means of morphological change, viz. adding certain morphological marker to the non-nominal linguistic structure in order to make it nominal.

According to this definition, nominalization can be found on two levels: lexical level and syntactic level. This dissertation is focusing on the nominalization on the lexical level, or lexical nominalization. The nominalization on the syntactic level, or syntactic nominalization, such as the -ing participle in English and some of the De-structures（“的”字结构）, Suo-structure（“所”字结构）and He-structure（“和”字结构）in Chinese, is beyond the concern of this dissertation.

From the perspectives of contrastive basis, the evolution of the morphological markers, classification, cognitive image schematic interpretation and stylistic function, a contrastive study on English and Chinese lexical nominalization will be made in order to find their similarities and differences, and prove the theoretical importance of nominalization to the understanding of the Chinese language.

2 Contrastive Basis for English and Chinese Lexical Nominalization

2.1 The Problem of “Morphology” in Chinese

The first thorny problem encountered in the process of comparing English and Chinese nominalization at the lexical level is the “Morphology ” in Chinese. In the 1950s, Chinese linguistic circle had a heated discussion on the parts of speech of Chinese words, which involved morphology in Chinese. Fang Xujun（2000: 114）points out that “people generally agree that Chinese words have morphology, though their understanding about morphology in Chinese is not unanimous.”[17] From the perspective of general linguistics, lexical morphology can be classified into two types: inflectional and derivational morphology. Inflectional morphology focuses on those changing forms added to word bases[18] when they enter certain syntactic structures, such as gender, number, case, tense and aspect. “Cat” is a singular form, and when “–s” is added to the end of the singular form, it becomes “cats”, the plural form of “cat”. This –s is an inflectional form. Inflectional forms do not produce NEW words. Derivational morphology focuses on those word-forming forms added to word bases so as to constitute new words. For instance, think plus –er becomes a new word thinker. Thus, Chinese does lack inflectional forms in a strict sense, but it is rich in derivational forms. In the 1950s, Fang Guangtao argued that Chinese has “broad morphology”[19], whose viewpoint is approved of by many Chinese grammarians inside and outside China.

2.2 English and Chinese Affixes

English affix can be easily defined as “an addition to the base form or stem of a word in order to modify its meaning or create a new word”(Pearsall, 2000: 29). Affixes can be classified according to their relative positions: prefixes precede the stems (un- + fold = unfold), suffixes follow the stems (kind + -ness = kindness), and infixes are inserted into the stems (handicap + -bloody- = handibloodycap).

The definition of affixes in Chinese[20] is a bit more difficult. Federico Masini (1997: 147), an Italian scholar, points out that affixes in Chinese are originally free morphemes, but later they gradually degrade, or are grammaticalized, as semantic markers of certain word classes after his research on the Chinese loan words in the 19^th century. Thus, since the grammaticalizing process is dynamic, the number of affixes in Chinese is ever increasing. Chinese affix could only be tentatively defined as an addition (free or bound in nature) to the base form in order to modify its meaning or function as a marker. Those added before the base forms are designated as prefixes, while those added after the base forms are designated as suffixes.

English affixes outnumber Chinese affixes. According to the appendix in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English（1987），there are 145 prefixes and 161 suffixes, and 306 in total. According to Cobuild Corpus in Britain（The Bank of English），there are 276 frequently used affixes in English, 146 prefixes and 130 suffixes. Of course, these statistics include the inflectional affixes in English. Therefore, it is estimated that English has about 260 frequently used derivational affixes.

However, Chinese does not have such a great number of affixes. According to Lü Shuxiang（1979：48），there are not so many affixes in Chinese: prefixes such as 阿，第，初，老（鼠、虎、师、表），小（鸡儿、孩儿、辫儿）, suffixes such as 子，儿，头，巴，者，们，然; and only two infixes, 得（看得出），不(看不出). There are many other morphemes that can be regarded as semi-prefixes or semi-suffixes. The reason why they should be given the name semi-affixes is that “if people consider them from the semantic perspective, their meaning does not totally disappear, and sometimes even function as roots”.[21] Mr. Lü lists the semi-affixes in Chinese as follows:

Semi-prefixes have 可，好，难，准，类，亚，次，超，半，单，多，不，无，非，反，自，前，代 etc. Semi-suffixes mainly include 员，家，人，民，界，物，品（商品、药品），具（用具、炊具、雨具），件（文件、邮件、信件），子（分子、原子、电子、转子），种（军种、兵种、工种、剧种），类，别（性别、级别、国别），度，率，法，学，体（磁体、导体、抗体、垂体），质，力，气（脾气，才气，勇气，运气），性，化. (Ibid)

If all the aforementioned Chinese affixes and semi-affixes are counted together, there are about 60 Chinese affixes. In addition, according to Tang Zhixiang（2001），some new semi-affixes have appeared in the past twenty years, such as ~户, 高~, ~风, ~热, ~车, ~卡, ~站. Although English affixes differ from Chinese affixes in number, they can be compared in a broad scope so that the similarities and differences between them may be indicated.

2.3 Nominalizing Affixes in English and Chinese

The existence of affixes in English and Chinese provides sufficient condition for the existence of lexical nominalization in English and Chinese, but their existence needs a necessary condition concerning the following two factors:

(1) whether the addition of an affix to the base form has shifted the class of the original word, abbreviated as [±SC] (±Shifting Class)

(2) whether the new derivative belongs to the category of the nominal, abbreviated as [±N] (±Nominal)

According to these two factors, any derivation in English and Chinese can be appropriately described. For example,

un- + natural (adj.) = unnatural (adj.) [-SC, -N]

en- + large (adj.) = enlarge (v.) [+SC, -N]

friend (n.) + -ship = friendship (n.) [-SC, +N]

govern (v.) + -ment = government (n.) [+SC, +N]

想（v.）+ ~来 = 想来（v.） [-SC, -N]

绿（adj.）+ ~化 = 绿化（v.） [+SC, -N]

雨（n.）+ ~具 = 雨具（n.） [-SC, +N]

胖（adj.）+ ~子 = 胖子（n.） [+SC, +N]

It can be figured out that any derivation with the [+SC,+N] feature can be considered as a nominalization at the lexical level. Since markers are indispensable to nominalization, the markers of the lexical nominalization may be defined as nominalizing affixes —— morphemes occurring in a relatively fixed place, when added to word bases not belonging to the category of the nominal, would change these bases into nominals.[22] They consist of nominalizing prefixes and nominalizing suffixes. Use a formula to represent this:

A_Nom [+SC, +N] = P_Nom + S_Nom

( “Nom” stands for nominalization; “A”, “P” and “S” stand for affix, prefix and suffix respectively. )

According to the above definition on nominalizing affix, frequently seen nominalizing affixes in English include:

-ability, -age, -aholic(-oholic), -al, -ance, -ant, -cy, -dom, -ee, -ence, -ent, -er, -ery, -head, -ian, -ibility, -ion(-ation, -ition, -sion, -tion), -ism, -ist, -ity, -ive, -man(Irishman), -ment, -ness, -or, -phone(freephone), -side, -ure, -ware(software), -y(expiry), etc.

Commonly seen nominalizing affixes in Chinese include:

阿~，初~，老~，小~，~子，~儿，~头，~者，~员，~家，~士，

~师，~生，~手，~夫，~星，~派，~鬼，~棍，~品，~性，~感，~坛，

~族，~盲，~户，高~，~风，~热，~难，~人，~车，~卡，~站, etc.

Both Chinese and English nominalizing affixes listed above have the grammatical function of labeling the part of speech of nouns. However, not all derivatives（派生词）involving these Chinese and English affixes belong to lexical nominalization. For instance, in Chinese, 烟（n.）+ ~鬼 = 烟鬼（n.） has the [-SC, +N] feature, not belonging to the lexical nominalization. In English, some of the derivatives have the [+SC, -N] or [-SC, +N] feature, e.g. nation（n.）+ -al = national（adj.）；glass（n.）+ -ware = glassware（n.）, neither of which is a lexical nominalization.

3 A Diachronic Study on Morphological Markers in English and Chinese Lexical Nominalizations

3.1 The Origin and Evolution of English Nominalizing Affixes

Quirk et al（1985：1520）think that “prefixation is the putting of a prefix in front of the base, sometimes with, but more usually without, a change of word class”, while “suffixation is the putting of a suffix after the base, sometimes without, but more usually with, a change of word class”. Thus, nominalizing affixes in English are those suffixes that change non-nominal words into nominal words. Lass（2002：391）thinks that “most of the suffixes, too, are of foreign origin, and many had already gained their productive force in late Middle English. Quite a few of them had in fact arisen in the context of loanword accommodation.” According to Lass(2002: 398ff.), for example, the nominalizing suffix, -ity, originated from French –ité, which came into being when French and Latin loan-words entered the English language in late Middle English. French words capacité, majorité, and so on, came into English in late Middle English. Then they were divided into a base and a grammatically meaningful suffix. Gradually, this decomposed suffix began to combine with other bases（native words or loan-words）and derived more new words. Such kind of nominalizing suffixes are the conspicuous morphological-markers identified on the basis of absorbing abundant foreign loan words. Nevertheless, English does inherit some nominalizing suffixes from Old English. The most obvious example is –ness, and derivatives, such as commonness, heartiness, and self-consciousness, are all constituted by a base plus -ness. According to Wermser’s statistics, at the beginning of the Early Modern English period, “the proportion of native affixes was some eighty per cent of all new derivations, but at the end, a mere thirty per cent”（Lass, 2002: 378）, which suggests that English, by absorbing foreign loan words, identifies those affixes of foreign origin and applies them to new derivations. However, the native nominlizing affixes differ from foreign nominalizing affixes in their collocational limitations. The former are more powerful in their collocational capacity, which can collocate not only with native words but also with foreign loan words, such as –er and -ness, while the latter, at first, collocate with the words of the same origin, and then, during the process of development, begin to collocate with native words or words of different origins.

3.2 The Origin and Evolution of Chinese Nominalizing Affixes

The emergence of Chinese nominalizing affixes is a typical process of grammaticalization. Hopper and Traugott（1993：7）propose a grammaticality “cline” from a lower degree to a higher degree:

content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix

Packard（2000：314-315），after a careful research on Chinese linguistic data, proposes a lexicality “cline”:

content word > bound root > word-forming affix > grammatical affix

Then he simplifies the above two clines as:

Grammaticality Cline: Content > Function

Lexicality Cline: Free > Bound

According to this theory, most of the nominalizing affixes in Chinese are grammaticalized from content words. For instance, 子 when first coming into Chinese lexical system, is a character adopted to represent 人（man）by means of Jiajie（假借）.[23] On the basis of the interpretation of 子 in Shuowen（《说文》）by Duan Yucai（段玉裁）in the Qing Dynasty and other materials available, 儿女（son and daughter）should be its first acquired meaning. In Classic Chinese, 妻子(wife and child(ren) )is a combination of two free content items, but nowadays 子 gradually becomes a suffix at the end of a great number of words, and its content meaning weakens, even disappears in some new derivatives, such as 妻子(wife)in Modern Chinese. This tendency of content meaning towards the void has become more conspicuous in Chinese in recent years. A lot of semi-affixes are also following this trend, though their content meanings are not totally lost, for instance, ~鬼（死鬼、小鬼），~手（新手、打手）. However, Modern Chinese does inherit a few affixes from Classic Chinese, for example, 阿（ā）[24]. As early as the Han Dynasty, it had already been used as a prefix. For instance, 上堂启阿母 in the poem A Peacock Flying Southeast（《孔雀东南飞》）. Cao Cao（曹操） was called 阿瞒 when he was young. There are also a few affixes, which perhaps arise from the translation of English nominal affixes, e.g. ~性（-ness）（柔性、硬性、弹性）.

3.3 Counter-examples to the Unidirectionality of Grammaticalization

Most linguists advocate the Hypothesis of Unidirectionality in the process of grammaticalization: the direction of grammaticalization is always from “content” to “function”, NOT vice versa. Unidirectionality is a typical feature of grammaticalization. There are some examples in English, such as –head. Sinclair（2000: 75） in his book Word Formation considers it as a suffix, which sometimes can change some adjectives into nouns, such as hot（adj.）+ -head = hothead（n. a short-tempered person）and fat（adj.）+ -head = fathead（n. <slang> a stupid person）. Although some people argue that they should be considered as compounds, Sinclair’s view, to a certain extent, suggests the grammaticalizing tendency of –head.

Linguists have also found some counter-examples to refute the unidirectionality of grammaticalization. There is such a counter-example among the English nominalizing affixes, –ism（such as extremism, modernism）. It originates from French –isme, and has begun to be used as a content word since the late seventeenth century. The following is its definition from The New Oxford Dictionary of English（1998 edition）:

ism noun informal, chiefly derogatory a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement

This authoritative dictionary definitely defines ism as a noun, the independent usage of an affix. It follows the direction from “bound” to “free” instead of from “free” to “bound”.

In summary, from the perspective of the origin of the nominalization markers in English and Chinese at the lexical level, or the origin of the nominalizing affixes, English nominalizing affixes mostly come from other languages: they are “loaned”, and then “internalized” as important parts of word formation, though English does inherit some nominalizing affixes from Old English and Middle English; in contrast, most Chinese nominalizing affixes are grammaticalized from content items in Classic Chinese to affixes in Modern Chinese, and those already functioning as affixes in Classic Chinese are relatively few. With the development of languages, affixation or some free content morphemes gradually obtaining “bound” status becomes a tendency for both Chinese and English; however, Chinese is much more conspicuous than English in this respect. This tendency also reflects the bi-syllabicalization（双音节化）in Chinese. The statistics of average word-length（according to syllables）, through a diachronic perspective, adopted from Xinhua Spelling Dictionary（《新华拼写词典》）（2002：172）are as follows:

Dynasty and Age	Pre-Qin	Han	Tang&Song	Ming&Qing	Modern Times	Contemporary age
Word-length	1.05	1.07	1.08	1.10	1.41	1.65

This diagram suggests that the average word-length of Chinese words is increasing slowly. It also reflects the bi-syllabicalization in Chinese, which is partly due to the fact that more and more content items in Classic Chinese are grammaticalized into derivational affixes in Modern Chinese.

4 Classification and Characteristics of Lexical Nominalization

4.1 Classification of English and Chinese Nominalizations at the Lexical Level

According to the bases from which nominals are derived, lexical nominalization can be classified into two categories: deverbal nominalization and de-adjectival nominalization.

4.1.1 Deverbal Nominalization

Nominals obtained through deverbal nominalization are associated in meaning to these bases in a series of ways:

4.1.1.1 The Process or State of the Verb, or an Instance of It

-AGE: assemblage, blockage, breakage, stoppage, storage, wastage, wreckage，etc.

-AL: bestowal, betrayal, burial, committal, dismissal, portrayal, renewal, withdrawal, etc.

-ANCE: acceptance, attendance, performance, dominance, observance, tolerance, etc.

-ATION (-TION, -ION): action, production, protection, reaction, realization, reduction, etc.

-ENCE: adherence, coherence, insistence, occurrence, persistence, transference, etc.

-MENT: discouragement, employment, retirement, etc.

~儿：吃儿，唱儿，跳儿，响儿……

~头：熬头，奔头，唱头，盼头，起头，认头（指人吃亏），说头，想头，赚头……

高~：高投入，高产出，高消费……

软~：软包装，软约束……

~风：出国风，修坟风，吃喝风，玩乐风，翻案风，打折风，挤兑风……

~热：考研热，求知热，反思热，绘画热，减肥热，收藏热，消费热，开发热……

~难：吃饭难，乘车难，入托难，入学难，卖房难，审批难，卖粮难……

4.1.1.2 The Agent of the Verb

-ANT: accountant, applicant, assailant, assistant, attendant, consultant, contestant etc.

-ER: baker, commander, driver, employer, leader, manager, observer, painter, wiper, etc.

-OR, -AR: actor, collaborator, spectator, speculator, supervisor, visitor, beggar, etc.

~子：贩子，拐子，骗子……

~者：记者，读者，作者，编者，学者，著者，监考者，旁观者，始作俑者……

~员：学员，教员，演员，随员，教导员，辅导员，保管员，招待员……

~家：作家，画家，管家，赢家，输家，演奏家，观察家，鉴赏家，探险家……

~士：学士，修士，隐士，骑士，卫士，传教士……

~师：教师，讲师，导师，理发师……

~生：学生，医生，考生，研究生，走读生，转校生，进修生……

4.1.1.3 The Patient of the Verb

-EE: addressee, amputee, appointee, deportee, detainee, employee, retiree, returnee, etc.

（受、被）~者：受难者，被雇佣者……

4.1.1.4 The Instrument of the Verb

-AGE: carriage, package, etc.

-ANT: defoliant, depressant, disinfectant, lubricant, pollutant, sealant, etc.

-ER: computer, cooker, mixer, printer, recorder, etc.

~子：，扳子，垫子，夹子，刷子，钳子，铲子，梳子，推子，剪子，刨子，钩子……

~儿：盖儿，滚儿，扣儿……

4.1.1.5 The Result of the Verb

-MENT: accomplishment, achievement, etc.

~品：产品，成品，制品，作品，纺织品……

小~：小说[25]

4.1.2 De-adjectival Nominalization

Nominals obtained through de-adjectival nominalization are also associated in meaning to their bases in a series of ways:

4.1.2.1 Abstract Concept Having Quality, Degree, etc. of the Adjective

-ABILITY (-IBILITY, -BILITY): ability, applicability, contemptibility, desirability, etc.

-NESS: attractiveness, rudeness, sadness, sickness, ugliness, weakness, youthfulness, etc.

-ISM: cynicism, extremism, internationalism, modernism, nationalism, etc.

-ITY: absurdity, brutality, creativity, curiosity, diversity, simplicity, superiority, etc.

~头：苦头，甜头，好头……

~儿：亮儿，空儿……

~性：耐性，野性，硬性，柔弱性，暧昧性，荒诞性，奇异性，浅薄性，紧迫性……

4.1.2.2 Person Having the Quality of the Adjective

-IST: extremist, internationalist, modernist, nationalist, etc.

阿~：阿飞，阿混

~子：呆子，疯子，傻子，瘦子，胖子，麻子，矮子，秃子，瞎子，聋子，跛子……

~者：强者，弱者，能者，长者，智者，仁者……

~头：大头，滑头，巨头……

~手：好手，能手，快手，新手，老手，强手，黑手……

~士：烈士，壮士，勇士，猛士……

~蛋：坏蛋，笨蛋，混蛋……

~鬼：饿鬼，恶鬼，懒鬼，厉鬼，小鬼，丑鬼，吝啬鬼。小气鬼……

~棍：恶棍，光棍，淫棍……

~虫：懒虫，糊涂虫，昏虫……

老~：老粗，老大……

小~：小丑……

4.1.2.3 Thing Having the Quality of the Adjective

-WARE: hardware, software, coarseware, etc.

~子：单子，底子，浅子，豁子，乱子……

~儿：黄儿，尖儿……

~品：次品，废品，赝品，珍品，毒品，残品……

~卡：绿卡，聪明卡……

4.2 Features of English and Chinese Lexical Nominalizations after Comparison

Based on the examples in 4.1, morphological and semantic features of the lexical nominalization in English and Chinese are elaborated below in detail:

(1) After the English nominalizing affixes are added to the bases, the original bases may have some minor changes in their spelling and pronunciation. For instance, in com＇bine + -ation = ¸combi＇nation, the letter e is omitted in the derivative, and the vowels and the distribution of stressed syllable are also changed. In contrast, during the process of nominalization, Chinese sometimes has the phenomena of light tone[26] and retroflexation[27], which happen to the affixes instead of the bases, such as 子弹（zǐdàn）and 呆子（dāizi）, 头盔（tóukuī）and 甜头（tiántou）, 儿歌（érgē）and 尖儿（jiānr）. In each pair, the former under-dotted Chinese character is not a nominalizing affix, but a content morpheme, while the latter is a nominalizing affix, either light-toned or retroflexed.

(2) Sometimes, a Chinese nominalizing affix can be added to a word group. For instance, in 旁观 + ~者 = 旁观者, 旁观 is an Adverbial+Verb structure, or a structure consisting of a modifier and the word it modifies（偏正结构）. When 者 is added to it, the new derivative is a nominal concept. Similarly, the bases of the English lexical nominalization can also be word groups, or phrases, at certain occasions, such as take care + -er = caretaker, proofread + -er = proofreader.

(3) English uses –er, -or and –ar to express the agent of the verb, while Chinese has more colorful expressions in this respect, such as ~者, ~师, ~家, ~生, and so on. These Chinese agentive nominalizing affixes sometimes carry extra meaning into the new derivatives, as they are not grammaticalized to the extent that only functional meaning instead of content meaning remains. For example, ~者sometimes carries extra meaning of respect concerning the new derivative. Thus, 学者(a scholar)is not only a person who studies（学）, but also a somewhat respectable expert in the field.

(4) Chinese affixes ~子, ~棍, ~虫, ~蛋, ~鬼 and 阿~ themselves have a certain extent of affective meaning[28]. If they are added to the bases, the new derivatives, in most cases, are derogatory, whether the original bases are derogatory or not, such as 胖子, 阿飞. In contrast, English nominalizing suffixes, such as –er, -or and -ar, in the process of nominalization, will not add extra affective meaning to the bases. The affective meaning of the new derivatives is determined by the affective meaning of the original bases, such as cheater, gambler.

(5) English derivatives ending in nominalizing affixes, such as –er and -ant, can express not only MAN (Agent), but also THING (Instrument), e.g. driver（a person who drives）and hanger（a frame with a hook and crosspiece which is put inside the shoulders of a dress, coat, etc., so that it can be hung up and will keep its shape）, participant（a person who takes part or has a share in an activity or event）and accelerant（something that speeds up a process）. In Chinese, the nominalizing suffix ~子also has such a characteristic to express both agent and instrument of the verbal base, for instance, 骗子（the agent of the action 骗 [ cheat ]）and 刷子（the instrument of the action 刷 [ brush ]）.

(6) English suffix –ee is capable of expressing a passive relation by adding to some word bases, making salient the patient of the verb. In contrast, the passive relation in Chinese is made clear by the adding of morphemes, such as 受~，被~. After the base itself is passified, the nominalizing affix ~者 is added. Therefore, the passive relation in English is directly made explicit by the nominalizing suffix –ee, while Chinese affix ~者itself can not passify the verb, and the passive relation should resort to other morphemes.

See the constituency analysis of two examples: addressee and 受难者.

(a) (b)

address -ee 受难者

(7) The most conspicuous difference in the number of nominalizing affixes exists in the de-adjectival nominalization associated in meaning to their bases in the way of the person that has the quality of the adjective base, which indicates that Chinese is more abundant in this subcategory of nominalization. English has –ist, so far as it can be found, while Chinese has many nominalizing affixes that can perform this kind of nominalization, for instance, ~阿，~子，老~，and so on.

5 Cognitive Schematic Interpretation of Lexical Nominalization

5.1 Theoretical Foundation

Lakoff and Johnson（1999）in their book entitled Philosophy in the Flesh—The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought propose a brand-new philosophical theory: Embodied Philosophy. Its three basic principles are：（1）The mind is inherently embodied;（2）Thought is mostly unconscious; and（3）Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical. The core of this philosophy is “embodiment”: human collective biological capacities and their physical and social experiences as beings function in their environment. They consider this as the philosophical basis for the cognitive linguistics. Xu Shen（许慎）in Chapter Fifteen of Shuowen（《说文》）says when people are creating their writing system, they use outside things as well as their own body as the source materials（“近取诸身，远取诸物”）. The function of body is special, for it is not only the object of cognition, but also the channel of cognition. Thus, all the human activities start from “Embodiment”.

Image Schema, as an important part of the study of cognitive linguistics, is a cognitive structure based on the cognition of the basic relations between things. According to Saeed, “because of our physical experience of being and acting in the world —of perceiving the environment, moving our bodies, exerting and experiencing force, etc. — we form basic conceptual structures which we then use to organize thought across a range of more abstract domains.”（2000：308） In other words, because of human embodiment, they form basic conceptual structures and through the metaphorical thought, these relationships can be projected onto other more abstract cognitive domains. Mark Johnson（1987）proposes a series of image schemata as a more primitive level of cognitive structure underlying metaphor, which provide a link between bodily experience and higher cognitive domains such as language. These image schemata include the CONTAINMENT Schema, the PART-WHOLE Schema, the LINK Schema, the CERTER-PERIPHERY Schema, the SOURCE-PATH-GOAL Schema, the FORCE Schema, the UP-DOWN Schema, the FRONT-BACK Schema, and so on.[29]

5.2 The MOTION-REST Schema and Application to Lexical Nominalization

On the basis of embodiment, this paper proposes a prototype of an image schema in order to explicate nominalization. Since human beings can experience the existing states of the outside objects — motion and rest, the MOTION-REST Schema is a rather primitive cognitive structure.

See the figure in the next page:

Figure 5 The MOTION-REST Schema.

The basic points of this MOTION-REST Schema are as follows:

(1) “Motion” makes salient the moving, situating and the process of change of the object, while “Rest” makes the object itself salient.

(2) The state of motion can change into that of rest and vice versa.

(3) There is no such thing as an object that neither moves nor rests in the world.

(4) From only one viewpoint, the existing state of an object must be either in motion or in rest; from different viewpoints, an object can be both in motion and in rest.

If this schema is projected onto a more abstract cognitive domain — the expressing states of language, the relations between two types of expressing states, statement（陈述） and reference（指称）, can be identified in correspondence with those relations between motion and rest. Statement emphasizes the moving, situating and the process of change; thus, it mainly consists of verbal expressions. In contrast, reference emphasizes the object, concrete or abstract; thus, it mainly consists of nominal expressions. Therefore, statement inherits the nature of “motion”, while reference inherits the nature of “rest”. From the lexical perspective, statement mainly consists of verbs, and reference mainly consists of nouns. Since the state of motion can change into that of the rest and vice versa (basic point (2) of the MOTION-REST Schema), the same is true of statement and reference. According to the schema and the definition of nominalization in this paper, the nature of nominalization can be defined as the referentialization(指称化) of statement with markers — the verbal expressions change to the nominal expressions by the addition of certain morphological markers. This model, indicating the conceptual import of human experience underlying linguistic structures, is very powerful in explicating English and Chinese nominalization.

The referentialization of statement has two paths: specific reference（有指） and nonspecific reference（无指）. The process and paths of lexical nominalization could be summarized in the following figure:

Verb + Nominalizing Affix Sepcific: 盖子，employer

Adjective Nonspecific:苦头，stoppage

Figure 6 Process and Paths of Lexical Nominalization

Specific reference refers to an entity in the outside world, of which human beings could form a prototypical image, while nonspecific reference is rather abstract, and it could not correspond to an entity with a prototypical image. Thus, the agent, patient and instrument of the action or properties belong to specific reference, because they are mainly the entities that have prototypical images produced in the human mind. In both English and Chinese, it is a common device to add affixes to the original verbal or adjectival bases — through addition of morphological markers, the agent, patient and instrument of the action or properties can be expressed. If human beings coin a new word, it will undoubtedly increase the number of the words in the lexis of human brain, thus violating the law of seeking economy and simplicity. If they still use the original form to express its agent, patient or instrument, it will cause a great deal of confusion. Theoretically speaking, this explains why conversion cannot be a preferred word-formation device firstly chosen to produce new words in both English and Chinese. Nevertheless, in practice, English is relatively rich in inflectional forms, such as –s and –ed, which leads to the fact that conversion (as most of conversions are the noun-verb shift) occupies a relatively large proportion in the English language, for some of these inflectional forms can obviously show the part of speech of the word when it enters a concrete sentence; on the contrary, there are not many inflectional forms in Chinese, and conversion in Chinese is comparatively rare. This may be a cause leading to the different usage frequency of conversion in the English and the Chinese language.

Human beings need to refer to the action or property itself, causing the emergence of nonspecific reference —— an abstract concept having no prototypical image. In English, by adding affixes, nonspecific reference can be achieved. However, it is not the case for Chinese. This addition of affixes to achieve nonspecific reference in Chinese is not salient, for Chinese could do it by the syntactic placement. For example, in 去是对的, the Chinese verb 去 is used as a non-specific reference, occupying the place of subject. This phenomenon does not belong to nominalization, because it does not involve any morphological change. It can only be called, in my opinion, referentialization.

6 Stylistic Function of English and Chinese Nominalizing Affixes

6.1 Meaning and Classification of Styles

Style is a term frequently used by various people. According to Liu Shisheng（1998：8），the word STYLE has the following three aspects of meaning:

1) the manner of expression in writing or speaking, which changes at all times according to the actual situational elements, e.g., the participants, time, place, topic, etc. of the communicative event, from very formal to very informal;

2) the register, which refers to the special variety of language used by a particular social group that may have a common profession, e.g., doctors, lawyers, teachers, or the same interests, e.g., stamp collector, football fans, etc.;

3) the set of linguistic features that seem to be characteristic of a text, e.g., the style of Keats’s “Ode to a Nightingale” or of Jane Austin’s Pride and Prejudice, or of an author, e.g., Shakespearean style or Miltonic style.

(Liu Shisheng, 1998: 8-9)

This paper holds that the style indicated by English and Chinese nominalizing affixes mainly concerns the first and the second aspect of meaning for style. On the basis of the first and the second aspect of meaning, styles can be classified as follows:

Colloquial Style

Style Literary Style

Writing Style Political Style

Practical Style Scientific Style

Business Style

Reporting Style

Figure 7 Classification of Styles （王德春、陈瑞瑞，2000：47）

It must be noted that the boundaries between different styles are not clear-cut. Sometimes, in a text, one kind of style is mingled with other style(s). As for formal or informal style, it is a relative concept. Generally speaking, the style from informality to formality can be shown as follows (the left one is more informal, while the right one is more formal):

Colloquial Style > Practical Style [30]

6.2 Stylistic Function of English Nominalizing Affixes

Quirk（1985: 23）, when discussing the complex grammar in technical and scientific English, mentions two characteristics: passive voice and nominalization. Thus, English nominalization is closely related to the writing style, for in spoken English, it is hard to pronounce such lengthy words derived through nominalization. Thus, the higher the frequency of nominalization in a text is, the more technically specializing the style of the text is. For Example,

（1a） You can rectify this fault if you insert a wedge…

（1b） Rectification of this fault is achieved by insertion of a wedge…

（Quirk, 1985: 23）[31]

In the above examples, nominalization can eliminate the subjective flavor of the colloquial style, and makes the language more objective. Additionally, nominalization can make a sentence hold more information in order to express more complicated ideas.

（2a）The doctor arrived extremely quickly and examined the patient uncommonly carefully. The result was that he recovered very speedily.

（2b）The doctor’s extremely quick arrival and uncommonly careful examination of the patient brought about his very speedy recovery.

（Adapted from 连淑能，1993：105）[32]

Example （2a） uses two sentences to express a cause-and-effect relation, while example （2b）, due to the usage of nominalization, uses only one sentence to express the same idea.

Thus, nominalization is closely related with the style of a text in English. In legal, technical and scientific style and in documents, the usage frequency of nominalization is comparatively high.

This paper randomly chooses some passages to show the relationship between nominalization and style.

Passage A Monologue:

Everybody agrees I’m just ordinary. My face is ordinary, my voice is ordinary, my clothes are ordinary. Everything about me is ordinary. “What’s Frank like?” they say. “Frank? Oh—you know. Ordinary,” they say. Now look at that man two rows in front. He’s not ordinary. In fact I can’t see anybody apart from me who is. Even this fellow next to me. Quite ordinary on the whole, I suppose. But there’s something a bit … something a bit odd about his mouth. Mustn’t catch his eye. Might start a conversation. Don’t want that. Interesting that he was just in front of me in the queue. They looked in his bag, they looked in his pockets—made him take his shoes off even. Mm—they’ve nearly finished with the food—though she didn’t take my glass when she collected my tray. Ah—she’s pressed her button again. Probably wants another gin and tonic. Had four already. Or is it five? Not bad, though. At least not in this light. Good—some of them are getting their blankets down now. I reckon that in about half an hour it’ll all be quiet. And then … Of course they looked in my briefcase too. Didn’t look here, though, did they? Oh, no. Hah! Though they think otherwise, I know very well who those two in the back row are. Noticed them when I went to the toilet. But they won’t shoot. Not as long as I have this in my hand, they won’t. And it’s so small. Marvellous what they can do these days. Just about now, if I were sitting in funny mouth’s seat and not by the aisle—just about now, I could probably look down and see the mountains gleaming in the moonlight. I like that. Mm. Well, now I must go over my speech again. Mustn’t forget what my demands are, must I? (315 words)

(Monologue by a possible hijacker, taken from Listen to This: 1 (Teacher’s Book) Tapescript, 1992: 328) (《英语初级听力（教师用书）》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社)

Passage B Chapter 1 from Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austin

IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.

However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.

``My dear Mr. Bennet,'' said his lady to him one day, ``have you heard that Netherfield Park is let at last?''

Mr. Bennet replied that he had not.

``But it is,'' returned she; ``for Mrs. Long has just been here, and she told me all about it.''

Mr. Bennet made no answer.

``Do not you want to know who has taken it?'' cried his wife impatiently.

``You want to tell me, and I have no objection to hearing it.''

This was invitation enough.

``Why, my dear, you must know, Mrs. Long says that Netherfield is taken by a young man of large fortune from the north of England; that he came down on Monday in a chaise and four to see the place, and was so much delighted with it that he agreed with Mr. Morris immediately; that he is to take possession before Michaelmas, and some of his servants are to be in the house by the end of next week.''

``What is his name?''

``Bingley.''

``Is he married or single?''

``Oh! single, my dear, to be sure! A single man of large fortune; four or five thousand a year. What a fine thing for our girls!''

``How so? how can it affect them?''

``My dear Mr. Bennet,'' replied his wife, ``how can you be so tiresome! You must know that I am thinking of his marrying one of them.''

``Is that his design in settling here?''

``Design! nonsense, how can you talk so! But it is very likely that he may fall in love with one of them, and therefore you must visit him as soon as he comes.''

``I see no occasion for that. You and the girls may go, or you may send them by themselves, which perhaps will be still better; for, as you are as handsome as any of them, Mr. Bingley might like you the best of the party.''

``My dear, you flatter me. I certainly have had my share of beauty, but I do not pretend to be any thing extraordinary now. When a woman has five grown up daughters, she ought to give over thinking of her own beauty.''

``In such cases, a woman has not often much beauty to think of.''

``But, my dear, you must indeed go and see Mr. Bingley when he comes into the neighbourhood.''

``It is more than I engage for, I assure you.''

``But consider your daughters. Only think what an establishment it would be for one of them. Sir William and Lady Lucas are determined to go, merely on that account, for in general, you know they visit no new comers. Indeed you must go, for it will be impossible for us to visit him, if you do not.''

``You are over-scrupulous, surely. I dare say Mr. Bingley will be very glad to see you; and I will send a few lines by you to assure him of my hearty consent to his marrying which ever he chuses of the girls; though I must throw in a good word for my little Lizzy.''

``I desire you will do no such thing. Lizzy is not a bit better than the others; and I am sure she is not half so handsome as Jane, nor half so good humoured as Lydia. But you are always giving her the preference.''

``They have none of them much to recommend them,'' replied he; ``they are all silly and ignorant like other girls; but Lizzy has something more of quickness than her sisters.''

``Mr. Bennet, how can you abuse your own children in such way? You take delight in vexing me. You have no compassion on my poor nerves.''

``You mistake me, my dear. I have a high respect for your nerves. They are my old friends. I have heard you mention them with consideration these twenty years at least.''

``Ah! you do not know what I suffer.''

``But I hope you will get over it, and live to see many young men of four thousand a year come into the neighbourhood.''

``It will be no use to us if twenty such should come, since you will not visit them.''

``Depend upon it, my dear, that when there are twenty I will visit them all.''

Mr. Bennet was so odd a mixture of quick parts, sarcastic humour, reserve, and caprice, that the experience of three and twenty years had been insufficient to make his wife understand his character. Her mind was less difficult to develope. She was a woman of mean understanding, little information, and uncertain temper. When she was discontented, she fancied herself nervous. The business of her life was to get her daughters married; its solace was visiting<

题 目 A Contrastive Study on English and Chinese Lexical Nominalization