Lecture

 

           Conversion 

             Conversion is a characteristic feature of the English word-building system. The term conversion first appeared in the book by Henry Sweet English Grammar in 1891. Conversion is treated differently by different scientists, e.g. prof. A.I. Smirnitsky treats conversion as a morphological way of forming words when one part of speech is formed from another part of speech by changing its paradigm, e.g. to form the verb to dial from noun dial we change the paradigm of the noun (a dial, dials) for the paradigm of a regular verb (I dial, he dial, dialed, dialing). H. Marchand in his book The Categories and Types of Present-day English treats conversion as a morphological-syntactical way of word-building because we have not only the change of the paradigm, but also the change of the syntactic function, e.g. I need some good paper for my room. (The noun paper is an object in the sentence). I paper my room every year. (The verb paper is the predicate in the sentence).

            Conversion is the main way of forming verbs in Modern English. Verbs can be formed from nouns of different semantic groups because of that, e.g.:

a) verbs have instrumental meaning if they are formed from nouns denoting parts of a human body, e.g. to eye (разглядывать), to finger (трогать, прикасаться пальцами), to elbow (толкать локтем, проталкиваться), to shoulder (взваливать на плечи) etc. They have instrumental meaning if they are formed from nouns denoting tools, machines, instruments, weapons, e.g. to hammer, to machine-gun (вести огонь из пулемета), to rifle, to nail;

b) verbs can denote an action characteristic of living being denoted by the noun from which they have been converted, e.g. to crowd, to wolf (пожирать с жадностью), to ape (обезьяничать);

c) verbs can denote acquisition, addition or deprivation if they are formed from nouns denoting an object, e.g. to fish, to dust, to dust, to peel, to paper;

d) verbs can denote an action performed at the place denoted by the noun from which they have been converted, e.g. to park, to garage, to bottle, to corner, to pocket;

e) verbs can denote an action performed at the time denoted by the noun from which they have been converted, e.g. to winter, to week-end.

Verbs can be converted from adjectives, in such cases they denote the change of the state, e.g. to tame (приручать, укрощать), to clean, to slim (спускать вес, стараться похудеть) etc.

Verbs can be also converted from other parts of speech, e.g. to down (опускать, спускать) (adverb), to pooh-pooh (пренебрегать, относиться с презрением или насмешкой) (interjection).

Nouns can also be formed by means of conversion from verbs. Converted nouns can denote:

a) instant (мгновение) of an action, e.g. a jump, a move;

b) process or state, e.g. sleep, walk (ходьба);

c) agent of the action expressed by the verb from the noun has been converted, e.g. a help, a flirt (кокетка), a scold (сварливая женщина);

d) object or result of the action expressed by the verb from which the noun was formed by means of conversion, e.g. a find, a burn (ожег), a cut;

e) place of the action expressed by the verb from which the noun has been converted, e.g. a drive (дорога), a stop, a walk (место для прогулок).

Many nouns converted from verbs can be used only in the singular form and denote momentaneous action. In such cases we have partial conversion. Such deverbal nouns are often used with verbs: to have, to get, to take etc. to have a try, to give a push, to take a swim.

Sometimes nouns are formed from adverbs, e.g. up & downs (подъемы и спуски, ухабы, взлеты и падения; превратности судьбы; резкие изменения), & even from affixes, e.g. –ism – a set of political or religious ideas or principles. (Socialism, communism, & all other –ism of modern world). 

 

Criteria of semantic derivation

 

 In cases of conversion the problem of criteria of semantic derivation arises: which of the converted pair is primary & which is converted from it. The problem was first analyzed by prof. A.I. Sminitsky. Later on P.A. Soboleva developed his idea & worked out the following criteria:

1. If the lexical meaning of the root morpheme & the lexico-grammatical meaning of the stem coincide (совпадать) the word is primary, e.g. in cases pen – to pen, father – to father the nouns are names of an object & a living being. Therefore, in the nouns pen & father the lexical meaning of the root & lexico-grammatical meaning of the stem coincide. The verbs to pen & to father denote an action, a process; therefore, the lexico-grammatical meanings of the stems don’t coincide with the lexical meanings of the roots. The verbs have a complex semantic structure & they were converted from nouns.

2.  If we compare a converted pair with a synonymic word pair, which was formed by means of suffixation we can find out which of the pair is primary. This criterion can be applied only to nouns converted from verbs, e.g. chat n. & chat v. can be compared with conversation – converse.

3. The criterion based on derivational relations is of more universal character. In this case we must take a word-cluster of relative words to which the converted pair belongs. If the root stem of the word-cluster has suffixes added to a noun stem the noun is primary in the converted pair & vice versa, e.g. in the word-cluster: hand n., hand v., handy, handful the affixed words have suffixes added to a noun stem, that is why the noun is primary & the verb is converted from it. In the word-cluster: dance n., dance v., dancer, dancing we see that the primary word is a verb & the noun is converted from it.

 

                                      Substantivation of adjectives            

 

              Some scientists (O. Yespersen, E. Kruisinga & others) refer substantivation of adjectives to conversion. But most scientists disagree with them because in cases of substantivation of adjectives we have quite different changes in the language. Substantivation is the result of ellipsis (syntactical shortening) when a word combination with a semantically strong attribute loses its semantically weak noun (man, person etc.), e.g. a grown-up person is shortened to a grown-up. In cases of perfect substantivation the attribute takes the paradigm of countable noun, e.g. a criminal, criminals, a criminal’s (mistake), criminals’ (mistakes). Such words are used in a sentence with the same function as nouns, e.g. I am fond of musicals (musical comedies).

              There are also two types of partly substantivised adjectives:

a) those which have only the plural form & have the meaning of collective nouns, such as: sweets, news, empties (порожняя тара, порожняк), finals, greens;

b) those which have only the singular form & are used with the definite article. They also used with the definite article. They also have the meaning of collective nouns & denote a class, a nationality, a group of people, e.g. the rich, the English, the dead. We call these words partly substuntivised because they don’t get a new paradigm. Besides, they keep some properties of adjectives, they can be modified by adverbs, e.g. the very unfortunate, the extravagantly jealous, the enormously rich etc.

 

             “Stone Wall” Combinations (Nominative Binomials)

 

The problem whether adjectives can be formed by means of conversion from nouns is the subject of many discussions. In Modern English there are a lot of word combinations of the type, e.g. price rise, wage freeze, steel helmet, sand castle etc.

If the first component of such units is an adjective converted from a noun, combinations of this type are free word-groups typical of English (adjective + noun). O. Yespersen proves this point of view by the following facts:

1.            “Stone” denotes some quality of the noun “wall”.

2.            “Stone” stands before the word it modifies, as adjectives in the function of an attribute do in English.

3.            “Stone” is used in the singular though its meaning in most cases is plural, & adjectives in English have no plural form.

4.            There are some cases when the first component is used in the comparative or the superlative degree, & adjectives can have degrees of comparison, e.g. the bottomest end of the scale.

5.            The first component can have an adverb, which characterized it, & adjectives are characterized by adverbs, e.g. a purely family gathering.

6.            The first component can be used in the same syntactical function with a proper adjective to characterize the same noun, e.g. lonely bare stone houses.

7.            After the first component the pronoun one can be used instead of a noun, e.g. I shall not put on a silk dress, I shall put on a cotton one.

However, H. Sweet & some other scientists say that these criteria are not characteristic of the majority of such units.

They consider the first component of such units to be a noun in the function of an attribute because in Modern English almost all parts of speech & even word-groups & sentences can be used in the function of an attribute, e.g. the then president (an adverb), out-of-the-way villages (a word-group), a devil-may-care speed (a sentence) – отчаянная скорость.

There are different semantic relations between the components of “stone wall” combinations (nominative binomials). E.I. Chapnik classified them into the following groups:

1.            time relations, e.g. evening paper;

2.            space relations, e.g. top floor;

3.            relation between the object & the material of which it is made, e.g. steel helmet;

4.            cause relations, e.g. war orphan;

5.            relations between a part & the whole, e.g. a crew member;

6.            relations between the object & an action, e.g. arms production;

7.            relations between the agent & an action, e.g. government threat, price rise;

8.            relations between the object & its designation, e.g. reception hall, wine glass (винная рюмка);

9.            the first component denotes the head, organizer of the characterized object, e.g. Trump government, Forsyte family;

10.        the first component denotes the field of activity of the second  component, e.g. language teacher, psychiatry doctor;

11.        comparative relations, e.g. moon face;

12.        qualitative relations, e.g. winter apples (яблоки зимнего сорта).