Zack Warmke
Ling 620
11/23/09
INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH AREA
Conversion in English is the phenomenon in which a speaker can use a word of
one part of speech as if it were another without any derivational affixation. Most often,
this process involves using nouns, verbs, or adjectives in place of one another. Many
researchers have examined this form of phrasal construction; however, one type of
conversion is less understood. This is conversion from a single word to a phrase as a
new part of speech.
AIM/JUSTIFICATION (5pts)
In this paper I will examine noun to phrasal verb conversion. This particular type of
conversion occurs when a speaker uses a noun plus a particle as a phrasal verb.
Common examples might include luck out or man up, although conversion allows for
extreme flexibility; countless other words could be used in this way given proper
context. Few if any previous researchers have looked at this construction. I aim to
investigate its use in modern American English and gain an understanding of how this
construction works.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Conversion in English is a well-researched phenomenon, though because it
encompasses many linguistic aspects, there remain many questions to ask, and many
effects to examine. This literature review will show previous studies’ observations of
the process of conversion, as well as where this study differs. First I will show how
broad theories have been made to account for conversion, but none specifically for
phrasal conversion. Next I will show previous works which examine specific semantic
features, but cannot account for others. I will also show precedence for the use of a
corpus study to investigate conversion.
Bauer (2005) looks at the notion of conversion and the notion of lexical category.
This study provides a deliberately broad definition of conversion: that it requires and is
defined by a shift in part of speech. The study examines conversion in depth,
discussing the phenomenon from syntactic, semantic, and historical perspectives. It
examines all possible lexical category combinations in conversion. Nouns, verbs, and
adjectives can be converted to one another, and this study examines the semantic
implications of each shift. This study provides an excellent summary of what is known
about conversion, yet Bauer suggests that there remains much to be studied. While it
encompasses much of conversion as a whole, it does not address phrasal conversion,
while the present study will.
Similarly, Baltiero (2007) defined conversion as a type of word-formation because
it increases the lexical resources of English. Baltiero combines theories of many
previous researchers on the topic and concludes that it should be considered an element
of word creation where many previous works argue otherwise. This article notes that
conversion has been a controversial topic among researchers in the past; be it due to
being loosely defined or because researchers could not agree that it should be studied
from a semantic, syntactic, or morphological perspective. The present study will use
the interpretation presented here; that conversion is a type of word-formation rather
than a shift of inflection or other linguistic aspect.
Davies (2004) also examined how conversion has been controversial to previous
researchers. This study goes on to discuss conversion as a whole, using a corpus to find
real-world uses of conversion. The author notes that previous works have not used
corpora very often, instead relying on their own examples and intuitions. This method,
argues Davies, in insufficient for such a neologistic process and that a single
occurrence of conversion in real discourse could have important implications to the
theory. The present study agrees with this sentiment and will also use a corpus to help
define the nature of conversion in modern discourse. Davies’ data leads to several
conclusions, but does not account for phrasal conversion.
Kiparsky (1997) examined the semantic features of several denominal verbs to
create a general theory about conversion. His work was largely based on previous
works which primarily focused on syntax. Kiparsky sought to stray into new territory.
Thus, Kiparsky accounts for the effects of semantics and syntax. His study states that
denominal verbs are endowed automatically, and often very subtly, with features that
grant meaning. He also claims that speakers have an intuitive knowledge of these
features, and therefore know when a given lexeme can or can not be converted. He
makes the distinction between them with such examples as the ability one has to
hammer something with their shoe but not shoe something with a hammer. He argues,
for example, that hammer as a verb means to strike with a heavy flat surface, and that a
hammer is the ideal tool for this purpose. Kiparsky’s study is very in-depth and
informative, but it does not touch on the topic of phrasal conversion.
Velasco (2009) examined the implications of conversion within the theory of
functional discourse grammar. Velasco, like Kiparsky, examined conversion in both
syntactic and semantic contexts. He creates a theory that shows how conversion fits
into the functional discourse grammar theory, and further concludes that conversion
may show that English is becoming a more flexible language altogether. Also like
Kiparsky, Velasco fails to account for phrasal conversion.
Another study by Baltiero (2007) looked at the directionality of conversion. That
is, from and to which semantic category conversion occurs. Using a corpus of over
seven-hundred lexemes, including over two-hundred noun-verb pairs, the study looked
at which directions most often occur, which least often occur, and sought to find if it
was always possible to determine the directionality. This study also determined
whether the conversion is bi-directional, unidirectional, or even multi-directional. In
order to determine these directionalities, many semantic features of each lexeme were
examined. Even such things as intonation and stress, it was found, can affect the
possibility of conversion in English. While this study provides great insight into the
function of conversion among modern native speakers, it does not touch on phrasal
conversion. Directionality may play an important role in phrasal conversion, so the
present study may have results closely related to Baltiero’s.
Gottfurcht (2008) studied the actual formation of denominal verbs. Consisting of a
mixed-method corpus-study as well as surveys, the particular focus of this study was a
phenomenon the researcher termed the Semantic Category Distribution Effect (SCDE).
This effect is a combination of several factors that together form a complete summary
of a word’s semantic elements. The SCDE, argues Gottfurcht, intuitively affects native
speakers and allows them to judge when to convert words, from which semantic
category, and to which category. This study provides insight into the mental processes
involved in creating denominal verbs, but does not account for phrasal conversion.
Similarly, Horobin (2009) also examined denominal verb formation, but his focus
was on historical linguistics. He examined the works of Chaucer and marked the
various ways the fourteenth Century author created new words in English. Chaucer’s
massive influence on the English language is indisputable, and Horobin argues that his
use of such methods as conversion not only enriched his own writing, but that of others
who would come far later as well. Horobin shows where Chaucer’s neologisms
expanded the lexicon of English and led to its acceptance as a grammatical structure.
While this is evidence of the importance of conversion to the language, it only relates
to modern day in a historical sense. Not only that, it too does not address phrasal
conversion.
While conversion is a controversial and highly-researched topic, none have yet
studied phrasal conversion. This remains an unexamined type of conversion, and this
study will attempt to build a theory as to how it functions.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS/HYPOTHESES
This study will attempt to account for phrasal conversion; that is, when a word
is used with a particle or preposition but no derivational affixation to act as a different
part of speech. Because no other study has examined this particular form of conversion,
I will be searching for broad trends and the most frequent constructions. This data
should allow me to make a conjecture as to how conversion works in this manner. My
goal is to answer how this construction works and how it can be accounted for by
previous studies on conversion.
METHODOLOGY
Subjects/Sources
For this study I intend to use COCA, the Corpus of Contemporary American
English. This database is created and maintained by Mark Davies for Brigham Young
University. It collects spoken and written samples from hundreds of sources, including
magazines, newspapers, news and talk broadcasts, and academic journals from the year
1990 to present. This selection covers a good deal of modern English usage, and should
provide me with plenty of useful data.
Materials/Instruments
COCA has an included search function, which also acts as a lightweight
concordancer. This function will allow me to search for converted phrases and should
be sufficient for my needs. The method by which only applicable data will be returned
is described below.
I will be searching for uses of conversion where a noun is used with
prepositions/particles to form a phrasal verb. One such common construction is
[noun]+[up]. Some authors argue what specifically constitutes conversion, and may
include [verb]+[particle], used as a verb, as conversion. I will follow the interpretation
of Bauer and Valera (2005) in that conversion requires a shift in part of speech.
I can use COCA’s finder to search the entire corpus (or individual parts) for
converted constructions. The program allows for “wildcard” words within guidelines
the user creates. It is possible to find a [noun]+[preposition] construction, and even
have it only return results that are being used as verbs. In the website’s search bar,
syntax shown below would return such results:
( [n*].[p*] ) returns any noun followed immediately by a preposition.
( [n*].[on] ) returns any noun followed immediately by on. Any word can fill
this slot.
( [[n*].[p*].v] ) returns any noun followed by a preposition which acts as a
phrasal verb.
COCA has other options which should make actually finding the data fairly
simple. It should be noted that it is not perfect. Incorrect results, such as noun use of a
noun, may come up when I specify only verb use. Of course, I will have to manually
verify all results returned by the program.
Type of Data
The corpus search will return instances of nouns+prepositions that operate as
phrasal verbs. This data will be single instances within more complete contexts. This
will hopefully show how, where, and when this construction takes place
ANALYSIS
I will count the frequency of any given phrase, along with its context. I will
note the transitivity of the phrase, and its actual meaning. Something I want to look for
is how the meaning of a phrase changes based on the particle. I will also attempt to
explain whether or not the phrase is readily understandable within context using my
own intuition. This means I will need to know the semantic properties of each phrase.
Because they vary wildly, phrases that occur a hundred times are just as important as
those that occur only once. I know this means that I may need to sift through thousands
of results, but I feel that in order to understand the nature of this rule, a very broad
selection of data is necessary.
ANTICIPATED PROBLEMS/LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Data collection appears to be a difficult process, even with data collection tools
at my disposal. There is always the possibility of a relatively high degree of errors
made on my part. Data collection might also return a small number of results overall,
though I could expand my data to other corpora if necessary. Independent of result size,
I may not have enough useful data to make any conclusive conjectures about the topic;
instead only having a jumbled mess of conflicting data. Finally, no other study has
looked specifically at this construction, so I may be overwhelmed as a novice
researcher, something that is not a great idea.
WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO FIND?
I expect that the data will reveal some broad trends that I will be able to define with
some certainty. I have a suspicion that the meaning of a phrasal verb derives much of its
meaning from the particle used, not just the noun, but until I test this I cannot be sure. I also
expect that Kiparsky’s semantic theory, which explains why you can hammer something with a
shoe but not shoe something with a hammer, can be expanded to account for phrasal
conversion.
CONCLUSION (10pts)
In spite of or perhaps because of the controversy among researchers about
conversion, it remains an elusive phenomenon. Contrasting opinions on what
constitutes conversion, whether or not it is a word-formation process, and whether it
denotes a derivational or inflectional shift are all topics that have been explored in
depth by previous scholars. However, phrasal conversion has not been studied in any
capacity at all. This study will investigate this construction and will attempt to create a
theory to account for it. Using corpus data of contemporary American English, I will
attempt to answer how this construction functions, how it is used, and in what contexts.
IRB Form attached.
REFERENCES
Balteiro, I. (2007). A contribution to the study of conversion in English. Waxmann
Miinster, New York
Baltiero, Isabel (2007). The Directionality of Conversion in English: A DiaSynchronic Study. Linguistic Insights - Studies in Language and
Communication, 59, 7-27
Bauer, L., Salvador, V. (2005). Approaches to Conversion/Zero Derivation. Waxman
Publishing, New York.
Davies, C. (2004). A Corpus-Based Investigation of Noun to Verb Conversion in
English. The University of Liverpool.
Gottfurcht, Carolyn A (2008). Denominal verb formation in English. Dissertation
Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 69, 03, 0957
Horobin, Simon (2009). Traditional English? Chaucerian Methods of Word-Formation.
Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 110, 2, 141-157
Kiparsky, P., 1997. Remarks on denominal verbs. Argument Structure. CSLI, Stanford,
pp. 473–499.
Velasco, D. (2009). Conversion in English and its implications for Functional
Discourse Grammar. Lingua, 119(8), 1164-1185.