Conversion

The process of coining of a new word in a different part of speech and with a different distribution characteristic but without adding any derivative element, so that the basic form of the original and the basic form of the derived lexeme are homonymous, is variously called conversion, zero derivation, root formation or functional change.

The essence of the phenomenon may be illustrated by the following example: His voice silenced everyone else. The lexeme silence exists in the English language as a noun, and a verb may be formed from the same stem without adding any affix or without changing the stem in any other way, so that both basic forms are homonymous. Their distribution on the other hand is quite different: the lexeme silence not only takes the functional verbal suffix –ed but occupies the position of a verbal predicate having voice as a subject and everyone else as its object. Its lexico-grammatical meaning is also that of a verb. The difference between silence (n) and silence (v) is morphological, syntactic and semantic: the original and the resulting lexeme are grammatically different; a new paradigm is acquired and the syntactic functions and ties are those of a verb.

The term basic form means the word form in which the notion denoted is expressed in the most abstract way. For nouns it is the Common case singular, for verbs, the Infinitive.

The appropriate term for the process is still argued about. Zero derivation does not permit to distinguish the process under consideration from sound interchange (food – feed, sing – song, blood – bleed, fill – full) where no derivative morpheme is added either. The term root formation is not always suitable as the process can involve not only root words, but also lexemes containing affixes and compounds (audition – to audition, featherbed – to featherbed). The term functional change implies that the process in question concerns usage, not word-formation. The admition of the term will denote the possibility of one and the same word to belong to several parts of speech simultaneously. The majority of the linguists are convinced of impossibility of a word belonging at the same time to several parts of speech, because this contradicts the basic definition of a word as a system of forms.

The term conversion is given preference as it indicates the derivational means in the pairs of words like hand – to hand, cut – to cut, crowd – to crowd, laugh – to laugh and the like. The derivational means is the paradigm which the lexeme changes acquiring new forms. Thus, the noun silence possesses the categories of Case, Number while the verb to silence acquires the categories of Person, Number, Voice, Tense, and Aspect which is characteristic of a verb.

As a type of word-formation, conversion exists in many languages. What is specific for the English vocabulary is its intense development. The main reason for the widespread development of conversion in present-day English is no doubt the absence of morphological elements serving as classifying signals of the part of speech to which the lexeme belongs. The sound pattern, the material structure of the lexeme does not always show to what part of speech the lexeme belongs, e.g. the lexeme back may belong to nouns (He turned his back to me showing that the conversation was ended), to verbs (She backed her results with a lot of figures), to adjectives (The back bench is always occupied by lazy pupils), to adverbs (He came back in no time) and so on.

Many affixes are homonymous and therefore the general sound pattern does not contain any information as to the possible part of speech, e.g. maid en (noun), whit en (verb), wood en (adjective), oft en (adverb); fing er (noun), ling er (verb), long er (adjective), long er (adverb). Compare also such homophones as Finnish (adjective) and finish (verb), principle (noun) and principal (noun and adjective).

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. When endings had disappeared phonetical development resulted in the merging of sound forms for both elements of the pairs. For example the Old English carian (v) and the Old English caru (n) have changed into the Modern English care (n, v). A similar homonymy resulted in the borrowing from French of numerous pairs of words of the same root but belonging in French to different parts of speech. These words lost their affixes and became phonetically identical in the process of assimilation. For example the Old French eschequier (v) and eschec (n) both sound check (n, v) in Modern English.

Synchronically such pairs of words are considered conversion, though there is an opinion that they are rather manifestations of the so-called patterned homonymy in the language.

Nowadays two major points of view on conversion predominate in Linguistics. The school of Prof. Smirnitsky claims that conversion is a morphological way of word-formation by means of the paradigm. Prof. Arnold states that it is morphological and syntactical way of word-building as the type of the paradigm of a definite word may be seen in the context only.

The point that seems undisputable is that the majority of cases of conversion are connected with morphologically simple words. In Modern English here belong verbs and nouns preferably. That is why the most recognized pattern of word-formation by conversion is turning verbs into nouns and nouns into verbs.

Conversion pairs are distinguished by the structural identity of the root and phonetic identity of the stem of each of the two lexemes. Synchronically we deal with pairs of words related through conversion that coexist in contemporary English. The two lexemes, e.g. to break and a break, being phonetically identical, the question arises whether they have the same or identical stems. It will be recalled that the stem carries quite a definite part-of speech meaning; for instance, within the word-cluster to dress – dress – dresser – dressing – dressy, the stem dresser- carries not only the lexical meaning of the root morpheme dress-, but also the meaning of substantivity, the stem dressy- the meaning of quality, etc. These two ingredients – the lexical meaning of the root-morpheme and the part-of-speech meaning of the stem – form part of the meaning of the whole lexeme. It is the stem that requires a definite paradigm; for instance, the lexeme dresser is a noun primarily because it has a noun-stem and not only because of the noun paradigm; likewise, the lexeme materialized is a verb, because first and foremost it has a verbal stem possessing the lexico-grammatical meaning of process or action and requiring a verb paradigm.

What is true of lexemes whose root and stem do not coincide is also true of words with roots and stems that coincide: for instance the lexeme atom is a noun because of the substantival character of the stem requiring the noun paradigm. The word sell is a verb because of the verbal character of its stem requiring the verb paradigm, etc. It logically follows that the stems of two lexemes making up a conversion pair cannot be regarded as being the same or identical: the noun stem hand- carries a substantival meaning together with the system of its meanings, such as: 1) the end of the arm beyond the wrist; 2) pointer on a watch or clock; 3) worker in a factory; 4) source of information; the verbal stem hand- has a different part-of-speech meaning and a different system of meanings: 1) give or help with the hand; 2) pass. Thus, the stems of word-pairs related through conversion have different part-of-speech and denotational meanings. Being phonetically identical they can be regarded as homonymous stems.

As one of the two lexemes within a conversion pair is semantically derived from the other, it is of great theoretical and practical importance to determine the semantic relations between words related through conversion.

Verbs make the largest group of words related through conversion. They are called denominal verbs. The semantic relations between the nouns and verbs vary greatly; nevertheless certain typical semantic relations are distinguished. The converted verbs may denote:

1. Action characteristic of the object, e.g. ape – to ape (imitate in a foolish way); butcher – to butcher (kill animals for food, cut up a killed animal);

2. Instrumental use of the object, e.g. screw – to screw (fasten with a screw); whip – to whip (strike with a whip);

3. Acquisition or addition of the object, e.g. fish – to fish (catch or try to catch fish); coat – to coat (put a coat of paint on);

4. Deprivation of the object, e.g. dust – to dust (remove dust from something); skin – to skin (strip off the skin from);

5. Action performed at the place denoted by the noun, e.g. garage – to garage (put or keep in a garage); park – to park (put or place a car or other vehicle in a particular place for time; leave or place something or someone in a particular position for a certain time, often in a way that causes annoyance);

6. Action performed at the time denoted by the noun, e.g. winter – to winter (spend the winter); weekend – to weekend (spend the weekend).

Verbs can be converted from adjectives, in such cases they denote the change of the state, e.g. to tame (become or make tame), to slim (become slim). Verbs can be also converted from other parts of speech, e.g. to down (adverb), to pooh-pooh (interjection).

Nouns converted from verbs are called deverbal nouns. Converted nouns may denote:

1. Instance of the action, e.g. to jump – jump (sudden spring from the ground); to move – move (a change of position);

2. Agent of the action, e.g. to help – help (a person who helps); to bore – bore (a person that bores);

3. Process or state, e.g. to sleep – sleep (the natural resting state of unconsciousness of the body, an act or period of sleeping);

4. Place of the action, e.g. to drive – drive (a path or road along which one drives), to walk – walk (a place for walking);

5. Object or result of the action, e.g. to peel – peel (the outer skin of fruit or potatoes taken off).

Sometimes nouns are formed from adverbs, e.g. ups and downs, and even from affixes, e.g. “ism” – a set of political or religious ideas or principles.

The flexibility of the English vocabulary system makes a word formed by conversion capable of further derivation, so that it enters into combinations not only with functional but also with derivational affixes, e.g. to view (watch television) gives viewable, viewer, viewing.

Conversion may be combined with other word-building processes, such as composition. Attributive phrases like black ball, black list, pin point, stone wall form the basis of such firmly established verbs as to blackball, to blacklist, to pinpoint, to stonewall. The same pattern is used in nonce-words as to my-dear, to my-love, to blue-pencil.

This type should be distinguished from cases when composition and conversion are not simultaneous, that is when a compound noun gives rise to a verb, e.g. corkscrew – to corkscrew, streamline – to streamline.

One more productive pattern results in a combined effect of composition and conversion forming nouns out of verb-adverb phrases. This type is different from conversion proper as the basic forms are not homonymous due to the difference in the stress pattern, although they consist of identical morphemes. Thanks to solid or hyphenated spelling and single stress the noun stem obtains phonetical integrity and indivisibility absent in the verb-groups, e.g. to `draw `back – a drawback, to `break `down – a breakdown.

A noun of the same type may be due to a more complicated process, i.e. composition, conversion and ellipsis, e.g. to drive in – a drive-in theatre – a drive-in. R.S. Rosenberg points out that semantically these nouns keep a certain connection with the prototype verbal phrase. They always reflect some verbal notion in their meaning and are clearly motivated.

There is a kind of double process when first a noun is formed by conversion from a verbal stem, and next this very noun is combined with such verbs as give, make, take and a few others to form a verbal phrase with a special aspect characteristic, e.g. to have a wash, a chat, a swim, a smoke, a look; to give a smile, a laugh, a cry, a whistle. A noun of this type can be also combined with verbs as to denote intermittent motion: to give a jerk, a jump, a stagger, a start; to take a ride, a walk, the lead; to make a move, a dive. This is actually known as partial conversion.

There are a great number of idiomatic prepositional phrases as well: to be in the know, in the long run, of English make, to get into a scrape. Sometimes the elements of these expressions have a fixed grammatical form, as for instance in the following, where the noun is always plural: it gives me the creeps (or the jumps); you can have it for keeps (for good).

Within conversion pairs one of the two words has a more complex semantic structure. That means that one of the words served as a derivational base for the production of the other. The direction of derivation can be established with the help of several criteria as there are no material markers such as prefixes or suffixes.

The first criterion makes use of the non-correspondence between the lexical meaning of the root morpheme and the part-of-speech meaning of the stem in one of the two lexemes making up a conversion pair. For example, in the conversion pair a hand – to hand the lexical meaning of the root morpheme is that of an object, but in the sentence like “ I handed the letter and went away” the word handed does not denote an object, it denotes a process, a process that can be carried out by the object “ hand ”. Thus, the lexical meaning of the root morpheme does not coincide with the part-of-speech meaning. It follows that the derivational base was built on the noun stem. In the conversion pair to fall – a fall the lexical meaning of the root morpheme is that of a process that involves the change in the height of some object. But in the sentence “ He knew rapid rises and disastrous falls” the lexeme falls does not denote any process. It rather stands for the result of the process. Thus, the lexical meaning of the root morpheme fall contradicts to the part-of-speech meaning of the lexeme a fall – falls. That means that the derivational base was formed from the verbal stem.

The second criterion involves a comparison of a conversion pair with the synonymic sets. For instance, the conversion pair to work – work may be compared with the synonymic sets like occupy – occupation, employ – employment in which the noun has a more complex derivational structure (V + suff). That means that in the conversion pair to work – work the derivational base was built on verbal stem.

The third criterion is based on derivational relations. The stems of words making up a word-cluster enter into derivational relations. Moreover prefixes and suffixes are usually divided into verbal, adjectival, adverbial, noun-forming and so on. Therefore according to the character of an affix it is possible to define the character of the stem on which the derivational base was built. For example, the lexeme float is able of coining such lexemes as floating, floatable, floatation, floater. The analysis of the suffixes -ing, -able, -ation, -er prompts that they are regularly combined with verbal stems. Thus, in the conversion pair to float – float the derivational base was built on verbal stem. The lexeme book is able of deriving such words as bookish, booklet the suffixes of which are regularly found with noun stems. Thus, in the conversion pair book – to book the derivational base was built on noun stem.

The criterion of semantic derivation is based on typical semantic relations within conversion pairs. For example, in the conversion pair crowd – to crowd typical semantic relations are of an object and the action characteristic of an object. Thus, the verb is a derived member of the pair. In the conversion pair to take – a take the noun is derived from the verb as the typical semantic relations are those of an action and the result of an action.

The criterion of semantic derivation is often accompanied by the criterion of frequency of occurrence. The study of various utterances gives the opportunity to observe what part of speech is used more often. A less often used part of speech is characterized by derivative nature. For instance, according to M. West’s “A General Service List of English Words” the verb to answer is observed in 63% of all the utterances studied. It shows that in the conversion pair to answer – an answer the noun is derived from the verb. The word joke is used as a noun in 82% of all the utterances studied. Thus, in the conversion pair a joke – to joke the verb is derived from the noun.

The transformational criterion is applied to a change of a predicative syntagma into a nominal syntagma. For example, he predicative syntagma “ Roy loves nature ” can be transformed into nominal syntagma “ Roy’s love for nature ”. The possibility of transformation shows the derived character of the noun. On the other hand, the verbal syntagma “I skinned the rabbit” cannot be transformed into a noun syntagma “ My skin of the rabbit ”. That shows the derived character of the verb.

In many cases of conversion pairs it is not easy to say definitely which of the members was derived. That is in practice more than one criterion of derivation must be applied in each concrete example. Moreover 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.