CHARACTERISTICS OF WORD CLASS CONVERSION
IN INFLECTIONAL LANGUAGES
DO
PHUONG LAM
PhD;
Hai Phong University
Email:
dolamdhhp@gmail.com;
Tel: 0376619619
Abstract: This article investigates the phenomenon of word class
conversion in inflectional languages, specifically English, French and Russian.
Unlike isolating languages such as Vietnamese, inflectional languages possess
rich grammatical morphology, which endows word class conversion with
distinctive formal and semantic characteristics. The article analyses three
core issues: (1) the morphological mechanisms of conversion in each language;
(2) semantic shifts that accompany transfer to a new word class; (3)
typological features that determine the scope and limits of conversion in each
language. The research demonstrates that in inflectional languages, conversion
is never a purely syntactic phenomenon but always entails certain morphological
changes, clearly distinguishing it from zero derivation as commonly observed in
Modern English.
Keywords: word class conversion; inflectional languages;
morphology; zero derivation; parts of speech; English; French; Russian.
1. Introduction
Word class conversion is one of the most universal
linguistic phenomena, occurring in virtually all natural languages with varying
degrees and mechanisms. However, depending on typological characteristics, each
language group manifests this phenomenon through specific processes. In
Vietnamese, an isolating language, conversion operates primarily through
syntactic context without any morphological change to the word form itself. In
inflectional languages such as English, French and Russian, by contrast, the
formation and conversion of word classes is considerably more complex.
In English, conversion - or zero derivation - is
regarded as a highly productive word-formation process, yet this is the result
of a historical loss of inflectional morphology. In French and Russian, the
richer inflectional systems impose strict morphological constraints on each
word class, so that conversion is typically linked to explicit derivation
through affixation.
Research on word class conversion in inflectional
languages carries both theoretical significance for the theory of word classes
and morphology, and practical comparative value for understanding the nature of
conversion in Vietnamese. From the perspective of linguistic typology,
contrasting conversion mechanisms across typologically distinct language groups
helps identify both language universals and typological features of this
phenomenon.
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. The concept of word class conversion and
related terminology
In contemporary linguistics, the concept of word class
conversion is approached from several theoretical perspectives. Marchand (1960)
defines conversion as "a word-formative process by which a word is made to
function as a different part of speech without the addition of any derivational
morpheme." This definition applies particularly well to English, where
zero derivation is widespread. Adams (2001) broadens the concept, treating
conversion as a form of derivation without overt morphology, emphasising that a
change in word class remains a derivational phenomenon even in the absence of
surface formal change.
Within Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz,
1993), word class conversion is explained through a recategorisation mechanism,
whereby the categorial features of a word are determined in the syntax rather
than in the lexicon. This approach accounts for why, in certain languages, the
same phonological string can function as different parts of speech without any
morphological modification.
Plag (2003) distinguishes two basic types of conversion:
(1) zero conversion, i.e., a change of word class without formal change; and
(2) category change with overt morphological marking. Plag notes that in
prototypically inflectional languages such as Russian or Latin, the first type
is virtually absent, while the second is the primary mechanism. This
observation has important methodological value for cross-typological
comparative research on conversion.
Lieber (2004) proposes a Lexical Semantic Framework in which
the semantic features of words are organised hierarchically. Under this
framework, when a word undergoes conversion it does not simply change its
syntactic category but also undergoes a process of semantic restructuring
governed by specific rules. Lieber (2004: 153) analyses examples such as to
bottle and to bicycle in English, showing that a noun converted to a verb
typically fills a slot in the event structure of the corresponding verbal
predicate.
2.2. Typological characteristics of inflectional
languages
Inflectional (or fusional) languages are characterised
by the fact that a single inflectional morpheme can simultaneously encode
several grammatical categories (fusion). In Russian, for instance, the genitive
singular ending - ogo on a masculine noun simultaneously encodes case
(genitive), number (singular) and gender (masculine).
This characteristic has an important consequence for
word class conversion: every word class in an inflectional language carries a
distinctive set of morphological paradigms. Nouns have declension systems,
verbs have conjugation systems, and adjectives agree with nouns in gender,
number and case. Accordingly, when a word moves from one class to another it
must simultaneously acquire an entirely new inflectional paradigm, making zero
conversion difficult or impossible.
Comrie (1989), in Language Universals and Linguistic
Typology, observes that the richness of an inflectional morphology is inversely
correlated with the productivity of zero conversion: the richer the inflectional
morphology, the rarer zero conversion; the poorer the inflectional morphology,
the more frequent zero conversion. English exemplifies the typological drift
from inflectional to analytic structure.
3. Word Class Conversion in English
3.1. The mechanism of zero derivation
English is the most analytically oriented of the three
Indo-European inflectional languages examined here. After centuries of
morphological erosion, Modern English retains very few inflectional endings for
nouns (the plural -s and the possessive -'s) and the verbal conjugation has
been substantially simplified. This is the structural basis for the flourishing
of zero derivation, whereby a word can shift to a different word class without
any phonological change.
Noun-to-verb conversion (N > V) is the most frequent
type in English and has been attested since Middle English. Typical examples
include: to bottle (from bottle N), to pocket (from pocket N), to carpet (to
rebuke, from carpet N), to elbow (from elbow N), to shoulder (from shoulder N),
to hand (from hand N), to head (from head N). Lieber (2004: 48) notes that
virtually all English body-part nouns can function as verbs through this
mechanism.
The reverse process, verb-to-noun conversion (V > N),
is equally productive. Clark & Clark (1979) analyse numerous instances such
as a cut (from to cut), a run (from to run), a swim (from to swim), a try (from
to try). Such nouns typically denote the event corresponding to the base verb's
action and are termed event nominals by Lieber (2004).
Adjective-to-verb conversion (Adj > V) is also
attested: to dirty (from dirty), to empty (from empty), to clean (from clean),
to calm (from calm). Adams (2001: 87) observes that verbs of this type carry a
causative meaning, denoting an action that brings about the property named by
the base adjective.
3.2. The phonological dimension of English
conversion
An interesting feature of English is the existence of
conversion pairs that differ in stress placement, reflecting residual traces of
a morphological marking process. Such pairs are not pure zero conversions in
the strict sense but rather phonologically marked conversions: the noun carries
primary stress on the first syllable, while the corresponding verb carries it
on the second. Typical pairs are: ˈrecord (N) vs. reˈcord (V); ˈprotest (N) vs.
proˈtest (V); ˈpresent (N/Adj) vs. preˈsent (V); ˈpermit (N) vs. perˈmit (V);
ˈinsult (N) vs. inˈsult (V).
Katamba (1993: 265) records approximately 130 such
noun/verb pairs in English and treats them as evidence that English has not
entirely abandoned all formal means of marking conversion. This phonological
device is, however, weak and unsystematic, in sharp contrast to the rigorous
morphological mechanisms of French or Russian.
3.3. Semantic constraints on conversion in English
Despite the high productivity of zero derivation in
English, the process is not arbitrary but is governed by semantic and pragmatic
constraints. Bauer (1983: 227) shows that not every noun can be converted to a
verb with an arbitrary meaning: the newly formed verb must denote an action
that is logically related to the meaning of the base noun. For instance, to
bicycle means to travel by bicycle (using the object denoted by the base noun),
to nurse means to care as a nurse does (performing the action characteristic of
the referent), and to table means to place on the table (for discussion).
Lieber (2004: 54), working within a Lexical Semantic
Framework, identifies seven common semantic patterns in English N > V
conversion: (1) locatum verbs: placing the named object somewhere (to shelve
books); (2) location verbs: creating a location for another object (to bottle
wine); (3) instrument verbs: using the named tool (to hammer a nail); (4) agent
verbs: performing the action characteristic of the named participant (to
doctor).
4. Word Class Conversion in French
4.1. French morphology and its effect on
conversion
French is a Romance language classified as
analytic-inflectional. Compared with Classical Latin or Modern Russian, the
French inflectional system has been substantially simplified: nouns no longer
decline for case but only distinguish gender and number. The verbal inflection,
however, remains highly complex, with numerous moods and tenses. This asymmetry
between nominal morphology (simplified) and verbal morphology (complex) creates
distinctive characteristics for conversion in French.
In French, the conversion of a noun or adjective to a
verb is almost never zero. Instead, explicit suffixal derivation is the
principal mechanism. Riegel, Pellat & Rioul (2009), in Grammaire méthodique
du français, list dozens of productive verb-forming suffixes, the most common
being -er, -ifier, -iser and -ir. For example, from the noun la force
(strength) French derives forcer (to force); from the adjective pur (pure),
purifier (to purify).
4.2. Deverbal nominalisation in French
The verb-to-noun direction (V > N) is more varied and
productive. Riegel et al. (2009: 548) classify deverbal nouns by suffix. The
suffix -age yields nouns denoting the process or result of an action: laver (to
wash) > le lavage (the washing); enregistrer (to record) >
l'enregistrement (the recording); sauver (to save) > le sauvetage (the
rescue). The suffix -tion/-sion/-ation yields abstract nouns denoting an action
or process: éduquer (to educate) > l'éducation; créer (to create) > la
création; former (to train) > la formation. The suffix -eur/-euse yields
agent nouns: enseigner (to teach) > l'enseignant(e) (teacher); diriger (to
manage) > le directeur / la directrice (director).
Particularly noteworthy is the use of the infinitive
form as a noun, what Grevisse & Goosse (2011: 794) in Le Bon Usage term
nominalisations déverbales by infinitive: le rire (laughter, from rire to
laugh), le sourire (smile, from sourire to smile), le déjeuner (lunch, from
déjeuner to have lunch), le dîner (dinner, from dîner to dine), le pouvoir
(power, from pouvoir can/to be able), le savoir (knowledge, from savoir to
know). These are the closest French equivalents to zero conversion, yet they
remain instances of a specific verbal form (the infinitive) being used
nominally, not an entirely unmarked conversion.
4.3. Adjectival conversion in French
French has a rich system of adjectival conversion.
Adjectives may become nouns (Adj > N) through a process termed substantivation.
Grevisse & Goosse (2011: 812) distinguish two subtypes: (1) substantivation
with the definite article: le rouge (red / lipstick), le bleu (blue), le vrai
(the true / truth), le beau (the beautiful), le bien (the good), le mal (evil);
and (2) substantivation with the indefinite article: un inconnu (a stranger,
from inconnu unknown), une inconnue (an unknown woman; an unknown quantity).
Riegel et al. (2009: 575) note that in French the
boundary between adjective and noun is sometimes blurred at the lexical level
but is always clearly marked syntactically through the article system and
position in the clause. This indicates that adjectival-to-nominal conversion in
French is often a pragmatic and reversible contextual process rather than a stable
lexicalised word-formation event.
5. Word Class Conversion in Russian
5.1. Russian morphology and derivational
mechanisms
Russian is a synthetic-inflectional language with one of
the richest morphological systems among contemporary Indo-European languages.
Nouns decline for six cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative,
instrumental and prepositional), belong to one of three genders (masculine,
feminine, neuter), and follow several distinct declension paradigms. Verbs
conjugate in two conjugation classes and systematically distinguish perfective
from imperfective aspect through the category of vid (verbal aspect).
Such morphological complexity renders zero conversion in
Russian virtually non-existent. Zemskaya (1992), in her seminal
Slovoobrazovanie kak deyatelnost (Word-Formation as Activity), states that
explicit affixal derivation is the primary and most productive word-formation
mechanism in Russian, accounting for over 90% of all derived words recorded in
the dictionary. This fundamentally distinguishes Russian from English with
respect to conversion.
5.2. Substantivation (substantivatsiya) in Russian
The most noteworthy conversion mechanism in Russian is
substantivatsiya, the process by which adjectives and participles come to
function as nouns. This is one of the few cases in Russian that might be called
relatively unmarked conversion, since the surface form does not change but the
word acquires the grammatical function and categorial meaning of a noun.
Vinogradov (1972), in Russkiy yazyk: Grammaticheskoe
uchenie o slove (Russian: A Grammatical Theory of the Word), analyses a series
of canonical examples: stolovaya, originally the adjective meaning 'of or for
the dining table', has become the noun 'canteen, dining room'; gostinaya ('of
or for guests') has become 'living room'; vannaya ('of or for the bath') has
become 'bathroom'; prikhozhnaya 'entrance hall'; masterskaya 'workshop,
atelier'.
Particularly important are converted participles:
uchashchiysya ('one who is studying', from uchitsya to study) now means
'student, pupil'; trudyashchiysya ('one who labours', from truditsya to labour)
means 'worker, labourer'; postradavshiy ('one who has suffered harm', from
postradaet) means 'victim'; zavodyushchiy ('one in charge', from zavedovat to
manage) means 'head of department'; komanduyushchiy ('one who commands', from
komandovat) means 'commander'.
Zemskaya (1992: 214) points out that in these
nominalisations the grammatical form of the word remains adjectival or
participial (it still declines for gender, number and case like an adjective),
yet it assumes all the syntactic and semantic functions of a noun. This
demonstrates that the boundaries between word classes in Russian, though
stricter than in English, are not absolute.
5.3. Deverbal and deadjectival verb derivation in
Russian
The conversion of nouns or adjectives to verbs (N/Adj
> V) in Russian always requires explicit suffixal derivation. Tikhonov
(2002), in Slovoobrazovatelnyi slovar russkogo yazyka (The Word-Formation
Dictionary of the Russian Language), records the most productive verbalising
suffixes: -ovat/-evat, -irovat, -nichat, -et, -it.
Examples with -ovat/-evat: telefon (telephone) >
telefonirovat (to telephone); telegraf > telegrafirovat (to telegraph);
reforma > reformirovat (to reform); analiz > analizirovat (to analyse);
organizatsiya > organizovat (to organise). The suffix -irovat in Russian
typically attaches to loanwords of German, French or Latin origin, while -ovat
is associated with native Slavic bases.
For adjective-to-verb derivation, Russian uses -et/-it
to create verbs with inchoative meaning (to become the property named) or
causative meaning (to make something acquire that property): belyy (white) >
belet (to become white, to whiten gradually) vs. belit (to whitewash, to make
white); krasnyy (red) > krasnet (to turn red, to blush); chornyy (black)
> cherneyet (to become darker/blacker); tikhiy (quiet) > tikhet (to grow
quiet). This systematic inchoative / causative opposition, encoded by the
-et/-it alternation, is a distinctive feature of Russian that has no systematic
equivalent in English or French.
5.4. Verbal aspect (vid) and its effect on
converted verbs
A unique feature of Russian is the category of vid
(verbal aspect), which distinguishes perfective from imperfective action. When
a word from another class is converted to a verb, its aspectual value must
simultaneously be established. Comrie & Stone (1978), in The Russian
Language Since the Revolution, observe that verbs borrowed from foreign
languages through the suffix -irovat are often biaspectual (dvuvidovye),
meaning they can function as either perfective or imperfective depending on
context: atakovat (to attack), arestovat (to arrest), organizovat (to
organise).
6. Contrastive Analysis and Typological Observations
6.1. Comparing conversion mechanisms across the
three languages
The analysis in the preceding sections reveals that the
three languages represent three distinct points along a continuum from
analytic-inflectional to synthetic-inflectional structure, and their positions
on this continuum directly correlate with their dominant conversion strategies.
|
Language |
Dominant conversion type |
Main mechanism |
|
English |
Zero derivation (most
productive) |
Direct word-class change
without formal marking; residual stress alternation in ~130 N/V pairs |
|
French |
Intermediate position |
Explicit suffixal
derivation (-er, -tion, -age, -eur, etc.); infinitive used as noun approaches
zero conversion |
|
Russian |
Zero derivation virtually
absent |
Explicit suffixal
derivation (-ovat, -irovat, -et, -it); adjective/participle substantivation
as partial exception |
Table 1. Conversion mechanisms in English, French and
Russian compared
These findings are entirely consistent with the
typological parameter proposed by Comrie (1989: 45): the richer the
inflectional morphology, the lower the productivity of zero conversion. This
may be treated as an implicational universal: if a language has a rich case
system, word class conversion in that language will be realised primarily through
explicit derivation.
6.2. Semantic shifts in conversion
A key commonality across all three languages is that
conversion involves predictable semantic relations between the source word and
the derived word. Murphy (2010), in Lexical Meaning, identifies the principle
of semantic inheritance: a converted word typically inherits a core portion of
the base word's meaning and reorganises it within the semantic framework of the
new word class.
The three languages nevertheless exhibit
language-specific semantic patterns. In English, Clark & Clark (1979)
demonstrate that N > V conversion generates verbs with highly diverse and
context-dependent meanings. In Russian, the rich suffix inventory provides each
derivational suffix with a relatively fixed semantic value, yielding greater
semantic transparency: -tel always creates agent nouns; -nie/-enie always
creates process or result nouns. French occupies an intermediate position: its
suffixes are fairly consistent in meaning but less fully predictable than their
Russian counterparts.
6.3. Conversion in inflectional languages:
implications for Vietnamese
The findings on conversion in inflectional languages
offer a valuable contrastive perspective for understanding the corresponding
phenomenon in Vietnamese. Nguyen Tai Can (1975), in Noun Word Classes in Modern
Vietnamese, observes that Vietnamese, as a non-inflecting isolating language,
realises conversion entirely through contextual mechanisms without any formal
change to the word itself. In principle this resembles zero derivation in
English, but is in fact more radical, since even English retains weak
morphological traces such as the stress alternation in noun/verb pairs.
Dinh Van Duc (2001), in Vietnamese Grammar: Word
Classes, notes that precisely because Vietnamese lacks inflectional morphology,
the boundaries between word classes are more fluid and conversion is more
flexible and less constrained than in inflectional languages. This is one of
the reasons why the classification of word classes in Vietnamese remains a
complex and much-debated question in Vietnamese linguistics.
7. Conclusion
Inflectional languages do not preclude word class
conversion; rather, they exhibit this phenomenon through mechanisms that are
specific to the morphological character of each language. The richness of
inflectional morphology is the most important typological factor governing both
the mode and the productivity of conversion, and this constitutes a typological
universal.
The three inflectional languages examined here-English,
French and Russian-represent three distinct points along a continuum from
analytic-inflectional to synthetic-inflectional structure. Their positions on
this continuum determine their dominant conversion strategies: zero derivation
(English); suffixal derivation combined with article-based nominalisation of
adjectives and infinitives (French); explicit suffixal derivation combined with
adjectival/participial substantivation (Russian).
Despite these differences in formal mechanism,
conversion in all three languages obeys consistent semantic principles:
semantic inheritance between base and derived word, predictable meaning
patterns organised by relational type (agent, process, result, property), and
dependence on event structure and frame semantics. These principles are
language-universal, cutting across typological boundaries.
Overall, research on conversion in inflectional
languages provides both a theoretical foundation and essential comparative data
for a deeper understanding of conversion in Vietnamese-a language whose
isolating, non-inflectional character raises its own theoretical questions
about the nature of word-class boundaries and the mechanisms of word-class
shift.
References
Vietnamese
Dinh
Van Duc (2001). Ngu phap tieng Viet: Tu loai [Vietnamese Grammar: Word
Classes]. Vietnam National University Press, Hanoi.
Do
Phuong Lam (2026). Tu chuyen loai trong tieng Viet [Word Class Conversion in
Vietnamese]. Monograph (manuscript).
Nguyen
Tai Can (1975). Tu loai danh tu trong tieng Viet hien dai [Noun Word Classes in
Modern Vietnamese]. Social Sciences Publishing House, Hanoi.
Nguyen
Van Tu (1978). Tu va von tu tieng Viet hien dai [Words and the Vocabulary of
Modern Vietnamese]. Hanoi: Pedagogical University Press.
Uy ban
Khoa hoc xa hoi [Social Sciences Committee] (1983, 2002). Ngu phap tieng
Viet [Vietnamese Grammar]. Hanoi: Social Sciences Publishing House.
Other Languages
Adams,
V. (2001). Complex Words in English. Longman, Harlow.
Bauer,
L. (1983). English Word-Formation. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Bauer,
L. & Valera, S. (Eds.) (2005). Approaches to Conversion/Zero-Derivation.
Waxmann, Münster.
Bloomfield,
L. (1933). Language. Henry Holt, New York.
Clark,
E. V. & Clark, H. H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language,
55(4), 767–811.
Comrie,
B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. 2nd ed.
Blackwell, Oxford.
Comrie,
B. & Stone, G. (1978). The Russian Language Since the Revolution.
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Grevisse,
M. & Goosse, A. (2011). Le Bon Usage. 15th ed. De Boeck, Brussels.
Halle,
M. & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of
inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20:
Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111–176). MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Katamba,
F. (1993). Morphology. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Lieber,
R. (2004). Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Marchand,
H. (1960). The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation.
Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.
Murphy,
M. L. (2010). Lexical Meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Plag,
I. (2003). Word-Formation in English. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Riegel,
M., Pellat, J.-C. & Rioul, R. (2009). Grammaire méthodique du français.
4th ed. PUF, Paris.
Tikhonov,
A. N. (2002). Slovoobrazovatelnyi slovar russkogo yazyka [Word-Formation
Dictionary of the Russian Language]. Drofa, Moscow.
Vinogradov,
V. V. (1972). Russkiy yazyk: Grammaticheskoe uchenie o slove [Russian: A
Grammatical Theory of the Word]. Vysshaya Shkola, Moscow.
Zemskaya,
E. A. (1992). Slovoobrazovanie kak deyatelnost [Word-Formation as Activity].
Nauka, Moscow.
