The conversion of verbs into substantives is less productive than that of substantives
into verbs. Some formations of this type are confined to the familiar, vulgar and
idiolectic speech, or to specified verbal constructions, while they are rarely, if ever,
used in other syntactic functions, especially in that of the subject which represents,
from the semantic point of view, the most independent part of the sentence. Thus
constructions like have a smoke, take a dip, take a ride, give a dip, give a dig, give a try
are in common colloquial use, while the use of the substantives smoke (in the sense
of ‘smoking’), ride, dip, dig, try, etc. is still comparatively rare. It is also interesting
to note that some of them do not occur without being accompanied by an article or
a qualifying/or quantifying/adjective, i.e. their morphological function as substantives
is, or must be, corroborated by the contextual words. Most of deverbal substantives,
however, have penetrated into all morphological and syntactical functions which
other nouns are capable to perform, cf. bathe, chat, drink, build, count, find, laugh,
lead, make, rise, run, say, show, smell, smile, start, stay, wash, wait, win, yield, and
many others. As regards the chief motive of this conversion, we have every reason
The Business plan on Role and Function of Law
The law plays an important role in business and society. The law imposes rules and regulation that carry out the moral standards of business and society. The laws help maintain the policies and ethical conduct of individuals, groups, and corporations run smoothly. In business law can build goodwill between merchants and consumers. This should be considered in commercial transactions and business ...
to believe that it is due to the speakers’ need to impart the morphological oppositions
and syntagmatic relationships of substantives to the lexical meaning covered by
the verb in question. In this way new substantives with wider or else different
semantic boundaries than the old nouns come into existence. In such constructions
as take a ride, have a smoke, give another try the use of the verbal nouns makes their
sense more concrete and precise than the use of the simple verbs ride, smoke, and
try, which denote a continuum of actions devoid of any countability and plurality.
Many linguists are inclined to think that there are strong nominal tendencies in
English. Surely there are and have been, but it is equally true that there also have
been strong tendencies towards verbalization in the historical development of the
language. It is therefore more correct to say that both word-classes constitute
a morphological opposition the terms of which are in closer correlationship in English
than in other languages. There is, of course, a sort of bridge connecting nouns with
verbs in all Indo-European languages, namely the so-called nominal forms like
infinitives and participles, but even this bridge links both parts of speech more
effectively in English than in other languages. The development of gerundial constructions
in English is especially characteristic of the close cooperation displayed by
the two word-classes.
It might seem that conversion does not offer any great difficulties to the learners
who wish to speak correct English, but as a matter of fact it does. The difficulties
are of semantic nature. They spring from the fact that the converted verbs or nouns
are distinct lexical units and may develop varied shades of meaning under the cover
of the same form. The polysemy of words which results from it is further increased
by the phenomenon of re-conversion, termed oscillation by 0. Jespersen. To use
Jespersen’s example in his Modern English Grammar , cable ‘anchor, rope’ is
converted into a verb ‘to telegraph’, and then, by re-conversion, a new substantive
The Essay on English as a World Language
The global spread of English over the last 50 years is remarkable. It is unprecedented in several ways: by the increasing number of users of the language, by its depth of permeation [“pE:mI’eISn] into societies and its range of functions. There is a model consisting of 3 circles proposed by B.B. Kachru in 1982 in order to describe regional varieties of English. The 1st or inner circle ...
is formed from the verb with the sense ‘telegram’. In this way cable has acquired three
distinct meanings, and the same is true of brush, phone, sail, dart, ring and many other
words. If then we are aware that the excessive polysemy of words for which conversion
is partly responsible cannot be a special blessing for a language, the extensive use
of converted words cannot be reckoned one of the chief merits of the English language
(cf. Jespersen, o.c. 95).
In fact, some limitations must be imposed upon its
productivity. Many substantives, such as arm ‘upper limb of human body’, body,
hair, ear, neck, throat, tongue, soul, person, woman, child, son, sun, night, row’ ‘line of
objects’, and verbs like come, do, seek, appear, seem,, are not subject to conversion.
Moreover, Modern English has given preference to suffixed words like acclamation,
exclamation, difference, invitation, repetition, and relegated the converted nouns
acclaim, exclaim, differ, invite, repeat to obsolete or vulgar and special uses. Neither
are converted the words derived by means of productive suffixes from living kernels,
such as teacher, teaching, friendship, freedom, government, soften, colonize. It is
natural, of course, that the nouns denoting various kinds of animals, birds, reptiles,
flowers, fruits, vegetables and some other specified objects and abstract notions need
no corresponding verbs. In spite of all these restrictions, it can be stated that
conversion is one of the most characteristic features of English morphology and
we may even risk the statement that the conversion of substantives of foreign
origin into verbs is a reliable mark of their adoption into the colloquial use of
English.
