There is a widely held opinion among many linguists that conversion is one of the most productive ways of word formation in the modern English language. It should be mentioned that other languages, such as for instance French, German, or Russian, usually give preference to the derivational processes, such as affixation or compounding. However, the phenomenon of conversion can be observed not only in the English language. It is an intrinsic feature of any analytical language (Quirk, 1997).
Overall, conversion can be defined as the process of word formation, which does not necessitate any morphological or phonetic change in the original word. Very often, it is called “verbing”. To some extent, such an approach is quite understandable because, in the overwhelming majority of cases, conversion transforms a noun into a verb as for instance, “the head –to head” or “a nurse – to nurse. However, such definition does not take into account all the peculiarities of this process because conversion can also be observed in other parts of speech, for instance, the transformation of a noun into an adjective: stone (noun) –stone (adjective), gold (noun) – gold (adjective), or even the transition of a verb into a noun (Adams, 1976). The English language abounds in such examples. However, the semantics of the new words can evolve.
As it has been mentioned earlier, there are many patterns of conversion, but the most productive is the doer of the action and the action, itself, for example, “the head of the department” and to “head” the department or a chair (a person, who presides over the meeting) and to “chair” the meeting. Probably, it would be better to illustrate such use of conversion in the sentence, for instance, “The head of the department did not approve of his decision”(Morton Benson, 1999) or “He heads the department in a very efficient way”(Longman, 2004). Overall, it is quite possible to say that such a pattern is the most widespread form of conversion. Nevertheless, it also contains certain variations, especially it concerns the change in semantics. In this essay, we should analyze the use of this pattern and show which forms are the most productive (Bauer, 1983).
As a rule, conversion does not cause any significant change in the meaning of the word: a spy – to spy, doctor – to doctor, waiter – to waiter, or the above-mentioned example of the word to “head”(Oxford University Press, 2002). The only thing, which undergoes any significant change, is the paradigm of the word, in particular the part of speech, which means that this new word will act as a verb, and it will acquire the categories of tense, voice, mood, which are the intrinsic characteristics of the verb. However, its semantics remains unchanged.
However, there are cases when the word, created by means of conversion, acquires a new shade of meaning, which differs from the original word. In particular, such transformation refers to the reverse process, verb into a noun. The word “fly” is a bright example of such phenomenon: Collins Dictionary of the English language gives the following definition to this word “to move through the air in a controlled fashion using aerodynamic forces”(Collins Dictionary,1995 ). However, the noun derived from this word is usually defined as “a dipterous insect, characterized by active flight. We can see that that the new word undergoes certain changes.
Some scholars believe that it is a regular polysemy (Marchand, (1972). Certainly, the semantic relation between these two words is not as obvious as in the example “the head and to head”, though it still can be traced. However, it can also be ascribed to the shift in meaning, in particular, such process of word-formation as a metaphor (because it is not only a stylistic device). It is worth mentioning that such a form of conversion is not the most productive. Certainly, it is possible to draw some examples, scandal (censure or outrage, arising from any action or event) and the verb to scandal, which means to “disgrace”. Another example of such shift in meaning is the verb “to father,” which can mean to adopt, to give birth to, or to affiliate. However, this new-built word can also mean “to hold someone responsible for something”, for instance, “some people try to father this tragedy on me. If we analyze the semantics of the noun “father”, it will be impossible for us to find in the meaning of “a guilty person”. However, it should be taken into consideration that such examples are not numerous. As regards the regularity of such alterations, it is hardly possible to identify because such a pattern is not typical of the English language.
Thus, having analyzed such pattern of conversion as the transformation of a noun into a verb, we can arrive at the conclusion that such transformation does not cause any significant alteration in the meaning of the new-build word, except its functioning in the sentence. As regards the reverse process, it should be mentioned that a pattern usually makes the new word acquire a new shade of meaning. However, it is difficult to say whether it is a regular polysemy or not because such a form of conversion is not widespread.
Bibliography
Adams V.(1976) An introduction to modern English word-formation. Longman.
BAUER, L. (1983). English Word Formation,: Cambridge University Press.
Della Summers (2005). Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English: the living dictionary. Pearson Education Limited.
Jack C. Richards, John Platt. (1992). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Longman.
Klett, Ernst, Verlag GmbH (1995). Collins Dictionary of the English Language.
Longman (2004). Longman Dictionary of American English. Longman.
MARCHAND, H. (1972). Studies in Syntax and Word-Formation, München: Wilhem Fink.
Morton Benson, Evelyn Benson, Robert Ilson(1999). The Bbi Dictionary of English Word Combinations.
Oxford University Press (2002). Oxford English Dictionary.
QUIRK, R. et al. (1997). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language: Longman.