3. Conversion

Besides affixation conversion is a highly productive type of word-formation in English. To conversion refer numerous cases of deriving new words like: a hand > to hand, a nurse > to nurse, water > to water, to cut > a cut, to knock > a knock, free > to free, brief > to brief. An interesting example of several cases of conversion is found in the following sentence: “Let me say in the beginning that even if I wanted to avoid Texas I could not for I am wived in Texas and mother-in-lawed and uncled and aunted and cousined within an inch of my life” (J.Steinbeck. Travels with Charley). In this sentence the words wife, mother-in-law, uncle, aunt, cousin function as verbs. Here we observe conversion of nouns into verbs.

Тhe term ‘conversion’ implies transposition of a lexeme from one part of speech to another without any noticeable changes in the outer form of the word. Conversion as a type of word-formation is found in many languages but it became widely spread in English to a great degree mainly because English in the course of its evolution lost almost all the morphological indications of parts of speech. The reduction and loss of Old English inflections of nouns, verbs and other parts of speech made it possible to easily transfer a lexeme from one part of speech to another. Сf. OE verb lufian and noun lufu, andswarian and andswaru with the modern English love – to love, answer – to answer.

There exists a variety of opinions concerning the nature and the essence of conversion. The term conversion was introduced by H.Sweet in 1891 in his book New English Grammar. Some foreign linguists (H.Маrchаnd, Е.Кriusinga) consider conversion to be a morphological type of word-formation: zero- derivation or non-affixal type of word-formation. The ground for comparison conversion with affixation is that in case of affixation also occurs transposition of a derived word into a different part of speech, cf. to read > a reader (affixation) and to cut > a cut (conversion). It’s true that conversion is a non-affixal type of word-formation but this treatment of conversion calls forth some criticism as it fails to bring out the specific means of word-formation which makes it possible to convert words into different parts of speech.

Some linguists adhere to the functional approach to the phenomenon of conversion (А.Кеnnеdy, R.Waddеll, К.Pоllоk). The advocates of this approach are prone to treat conversion not as a means of word-formation but as a kind of functional change, a shift from one part of speech to another. It follows that one word may function as two or more parts of speech, i.e. such lexical units as a knife and to knife, to make and a make and many others are the forms of one lexeme differing in their syntactic functions. This point of view cannot be accepted because if we come to the conclusion that one word belongs to different parts of speech, we shall have to arrive at the idea that there are no parts of speech in the English language, which is not true.

Treatment of conversion as a type of word-formation is supported by Russian linguists, who after A.I.Smirnitsky and V.N.Yartseva came to understanding of conversion as a way of forming new words by means of changing the paradigm of the word. In word pairs like water – to water, to find – a find the second word of the two is a derived word, as it belongs to a different part of speech from the first one and is understood through structural and semantic relations with it, i.e. it is motivated by it. Though the derived word is formed without any changes in its morphological structure as compared with its prototype, the prototype and the derived word differ in their paradigms. The words that are formed as a result of the act of word-formation by conversion are homonymous to their derivational bases (prototypes). A.I.Smirnitsky offered the following definition of conversion “conversion is the type of word formation by means of changing the word’s paradigm”. For example, the noun hand: “Give me your hand. She has small hands, etc.” has the paradigm of the noun: hand - hand’s - hands - hands’. The verb to hand formed from this noun: “Hand me that book. He handed me a letter, etc.” has the paradigm of the of the verb: hand – hands – handed – is handing – was handing – has handed, etc. It is also considered that word collocability plays an important part in case of conversion.

The next controversial point about conversion is what parts of speech can be related by conversion. There is a diversity of opinion on this issue. One of the opinions is that any parts of speech can be related by conversion [Мешков 1976: 126]. In М. Biese’s book “Origin and Development of Conversion in English” ten types of conversion are delineated [Biese 1941]. А.А.Ufimtseva claims that the relations of conversion can be found not only between two words but there are conversion chains between a greater number of words (from two to six). The еxample of a six word chain is: Adj - N - Adv - Prep - Vt - Vi: round Adj (круглый) - N (круг) - Adv (кругом) - Prep (вокруг) - Vt (округлять) - Vi (округляться). Тhere are 23 types of two member chains according to А.А.Ufimtseva [Уфимцева 1968: 122 -125]. However, the indisputable cases of conversion are considered to be the following ones:

1) formation of verbs from nouns (N > V): doctor n. > doctor v., nurse n. > nurse v., face n. > face v. , place n. > place v., park n. > park v., paper n. > paper v., breakfast n. > breakfast v., parrot n. > parrot v., etc.;

2) formation of nouns from verbs (V > N): find v. > find n., cut v. > cut n., fly v. > fly n., rush v. > rush n., jump v. > jump n., talk v. > talk n., bite v. > bite n., etc.;

3) formation of verbs from adjectives (Adj > V): blind a.> blind n., brief a. > brief v., yellow a. > yellow v., idle a. > idle v., wet a. > wet v. etc.;

The most productive conversion pattern is N > V.

Disputable are cases concerning the possibility of conversion between adjectives and nouns. There are words like a native, a relative, Canadians, the rich, valuables, etc., where nouns are formed from adjectives native, relative, etc. Traditionally such cases refer to substantivization. Opinions differ on the nature of the first components of complexes of the stone wall, cannon ball type. Some linguists consider them to be nouns in an attributive function, others – adjectives formed from the corresponding noun-stems by conversion, or still others consider such combinations compound words, the components of which are substantival stems. The first opinion that the elements like stone and cannon in such complexes are nouns in an attributive function is more popular.

There are non-traditional examples. An interesting case of conversion of the conjunctions if and an (an = if dialectal, obs.) is found in the proverb “If ifs and ans were pots and pans?” Here we deal with осcasional, i.e. created for a certain оccasion word-formations. As example of an осcasional verb formed by conversion from the noun sonata is found in the following sentence: “I didn’t buy the piano to be sonataed out of my own house” (Greenwood). Oсcasional words are coined according to patterns of word formation from the elements existing in the language. For example, the осcasional word a balconyful is a suffixal derivative coined by analogy with a mouthful, a spoonful: There was a balconyful of gentlemen...(R.Chesterton).