Cover not available
Part of
Paradigms in Word Formation: Theory and applications
Edited by Alba E. Ruz, Cristina Fernández-Alcaina and Cristina Lara-Clares
[Studies in Language Companion Series 225] 2022
► pp. 181–214

Chapter 8
Paradigms in English and Czech noun/verb conversion

A contrastive study of corresponding lexemes

| Charles University
| Charles University
The study deals with English noun/verb conversion pairs that have both formally and semantically close counterpart pairs in Czech. The study’s aim is to examine how these nouns and verbs, linked with similar semantic relations in English and Czech, are accommodated in the two languages with different morphological structures and conversion playing a different role. The noun/verb pairs, extracted from the British National Corpus and from the SYN2000 corpus, are analysed as two-cell paradigms and examined along with selected derivatives. The data suggest that in the Czech sample, nominals are preferred over verbs in expressing the particular meanings and most verbs appear as denominal formations, often differently from their English counterparts.
Keywords: noun/verb conversion, paradigm, Czech, English, contrastive study
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Noun/verb conversion and the paradigmatic approach to word formation
    • 2.1Conversion in English and Czech
    • 2.2Applying a paradigmatic approach to conversion
  • 3.Data compilation
    • 3.1Extraction of the parallel sample
    • 3.2Semantic classification
    • 3.3Extension of the paradigms; competing formations
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Paradigms based on conversion pairs of verbs and action nouns
    • 4.2Paradigms based on conversion pairs of verbs and agent nouns
    • 4.3Paradigms based on conversion pairs of verbs and nouns expressing state
    • 4.4Paradigms based on conversion pairs of verbs and result nouns
    • 4.5Paradigms based on conversion pairs of verbs and instrument nouns
    • 4.6Paradigms based on conversion pairs of verbs and nouns that refer to an object/quality_added
    • 4.7Paradigms based on conversion pairs of verbs and nouns that refer to object/quality_removed
    • 4.8Paradigms based on conversion pairs of verbs and place nouns
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Differences between the English and the Czech paradigms
    • 5.2Verbs in the Czech conversion pairs: The aspect changing strategy
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 September 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.225.08sev
References (89)
References
Aronoff, Mark & Fuhrhop, Nanna. 2002. Restricting suffix combinations in German and English: Closing suffixes and the monosuffix constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20: 451–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bagasheva, Alexandra. 2017. Comparative semantic concepts in affixation. In Competing Patterns in English Affixation, Juan Santana-Lario & Salvador Valera (eds), 33–65. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2002. What you can do with derivational morphology. In Morphology 2000: Selected Papers from the 9th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 24–28 February 2000 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 218], Sabrina Bendjaballah, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, Maria D. Voeikova (eds), 37–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Notions of paradigm and their value in word-formation. Word Structure 12(2): 153–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie & Valera, Salvador (eds). 2005. Approaches to Conversion/Zero-Derivation. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Beecher, Henry. 2004. Derivational paradigm in word formation. <[URL]> (22 April 2022).
Bergenholtz, Henning & Mugdan, Joachim. 1979. Ist Liebe primär? Über Ableitung und Wortarten. In Deutsche Gegenwartssprache. Entwicklungen, Entwürfe, Diskussionen, Peter Braun (ed.), 339–354. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Strnadová, Jana. 2019. Paradigm structure and predictability in derivational morphology. Morphology 29(2): 167–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bram, Barli. 2011. Major Total Conversion in English: The Question of Directionality. PhD dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington. <[URL]>
British National Corpus (BNC). <[URL]> (4 August 2020).
Campbell, Lyle. 1993. On proposed universals of grammatical borrowing. In Historical Linguistics 1989. Papers from the 9th International Conference on Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 106], Henk Aertsen & Robert Jeffers (eds), 91–109. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Čermák, František, Blatná, Renata, Hlaváčová, Jaroslava, Klímová, Jana, Kocek, Jan, Kopřivová, Marie, Křen, Michal, Petkevič, Vladimír, Schmiedtová, Věra & Šulc, Michal. 2000. SYN2000: A Genre-Balanced Corpus of Written Czech. Prague: Faculty of Arts. <[URL]> (4 August 2020).
Cetnarowska, Bożena. 1993. The Syntax, Semantics and Derivations of Bare Nominalisations in English. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego. <[URL]>
. 1996. Constraints on suffixless derivation in Polish and English: The case of action nouns. In A Festschrift for Edmund Gussmann from his Friends and Colleagues, Henryk Kardela & Bogdan Szymanek (eds), 15–28. Lublin: The University Press of the Catholic University of Lublin.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. & Clark, Herbert H. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55(4): 767–811. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daneš, František, Dokulil, Miloš & Kuchař, Jaroslav. 1967. Tvoření slov v češtině 2: Odvozování podstatných jmen. Praha: Nakladatelství ČSAV.Google Scholar
Dietz, Klaus. 2015. Foreign word-formation in English. In Word-Formation. An International Handbook of Languages of Europe, Vol. 3, Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds), 1637–1660. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dokulil, Miloš. 1962. Tvoření slov v češtině, 1: Teorie odvozování slov. Praha: Nakladatelství ČSAV.Google Scholar
. 1968a. Zur Frage der Konversion und verwandter Wortbildungsvorgänge und -beziehungen. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 3: 215–239.Google Scholar
. 1968b. Zur Frage der sog. Nullableitung. In Wortbildung, Syntax und Morphologie. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Hans Marchand am 1. Oktober 1967, Herbert E. Berkle & Leonhard Lipka (eds), 55–64. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1982. K otázce slovnědruhových převodů a přechodů, zvl. transpozice. Slovo a slovesnost 43: 257–271.Google Scholar
Dokulil, Miloš, Horálek, Karel, Hůrková, Jiřina, Knappová, Miloslava & Petr, Jan. 1986. Mluvnice češtiny, 1: Fonetika, fonologie, morfonologie a morfematika, tvoření slov. Praha: Academia.Google Scholar
Don, Jan. 1993. Morphological Conversion. Utrecht: LEd.Google Scholar
. 2005. On conversion, relisting and zero-derivation. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2(2): 2–16. <[URL]>
Don, Jan, Trommelen, Mieke & Zonneveld, Wim. 2000. Conversion and category indeterminacy. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. 1, Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan (eds), 943–952. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dušková, Libuše. [1988]2006. Mluvnice současné angličtiny na pozadí češtiny, 3rd edn. Praha: Academia.Google Scholar
Efthymiou, Angeliki. 2013. How many factors influence the meaning of denominal and deadjectival verbs? The case of Modern Greek verbs in -(ι)άζω. In The Semantics of Word Formation and Lexicalization, Pius ten Hacken & Claire Thomas (eds), 225–246. Edinburgh: EUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eins, Wieland. 2015. Types of foreign word-formation. In Word-Formation. An International Handbook of Languages of Europe, Vol. 3, Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds), 1531–1579. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Alcaina, Cristina. 2017. Availability and unavailability in English word-formation. In Competing Patterns in English Affixation, Juan Santana-Lario & Salvador Valera (eds), 163–206. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Alcaina, Cristina & Čermák, Jan. 2018. Derivational paradigms and competition in English: A diachronic study on competing causative verbs and their derivatives. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 15(3): 69–97. <[URL]>
Fernández-Domínguez, Jesús, Bagasheva, Alexandra & Lara-Clares, Cristina (eds). 2020. Paradigmatic Relations in Word Formation. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filipec, Josef, Daneš, František, Machač, Jaroslav & Mejstřík, Vladimír. 1998. Slovník spisovné češtiny pro školu a veřejnost, 2nd edn. Praha: Academia.Google Scholar
Fradin, Bernard. 2020. Characterizing derivational paradigms. In Paradigmatic Relations in Word Formation, Jesús Fernández-Domínguez, Alexandra Bagasheva & Cristina Lara-Clares (eds), 49–84. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Furdík, Juraj. 2004. Slovenská slovotvorba (teória, opis, cvičenia). Prešov: Náuka.Google Scholar
Gaeta, Livio. 2015. Restrictions in word-formation. In Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Vol. 2, Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, Franz Rainer (eds), 859–875. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Havránek, Bohuslav, Bělič, Jaromír, Helcl, Miloš & Jedlička, Alois. 1960–71. Slovník spisovného jazyka českého. Praha: Academia.Google Scholar
Horecký, Ján, Buzássyová, Klára & Bosák, Ján. 1989. Dynamika slovnej zásoby súčasnej slovenčiny. Bratislava: Veda.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1989. Typological changes in the history of English word formation. In Anglistentag 1988, Göttingen: Vorträge, Heinz-Joachim Müllenbrock & Renate Noll-Wiemann (eds), 281–293. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Körtvélyessy, Lívia, Bagasheva, Alexandra & Štekauer, Pavol (eds). 2020. Derivational Networks across Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kraus, Jiří, Buchtelová, Růžena, Confortiová, Helena, Červená, Vlasta, Holubová, Václava, Hovorková, Mariana, Churavý, Miloslav, Klímová, Jana, Kroupová, Libuše, Ludvíková, Marie, Machač, Jaroslav, Mejstřík, Vladimír, Petráčková, Věra, Poštolková, Běla, Roudný, Miroslav, Schmiedtová, Věra, Šroufková, Miloslava & Ungermann, Vladimír. 2005. Nový akademický slovník cizích slov. Praha: AcademiaGoogle Scholar
Křen, Michal, Cvrček, Václav, Čapka, Tomáš, Čermáková, Anna, Hnátková, Milena, Chlumská, Lucie, Jelínek, Tomáš, Kováříková, Dominika, Petkevič, Vladimír, Procházka, Pavel, Skoumalová, Hana, Škrabal, Michal, Truneček, Petr, Vondřička, Pavel & Zasina, Adrian Jan. 2019. SYNv8 Corpus (from 12. 12. 2019). Prague: Institute of Czech National Corpus, Faculty of Arts, Charles University. <[URL]> (4 August 2020).
Lara-Clares, Cristina. 2017. Competition in Present Day English nominalization by zero-affixation vs. -ation. In Competing Patterns in English Affixation, Juan Santana-Lario & Salvador Valera (eds), 207–244. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. The category of roots and the roots of categories: What we learn from selection in derivation. Morphology 16(2): 247–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malá, Markéta & Šaldová, Pavlína. 2012. Complex condensation – Vilém Mathesius, Josef Vachek, Jiří Nosek, and beyond. In A Centenary of English Studies at Charles University: From Mathesius to Present-Day Linguistics, Markéta Malá & Pavlína Šaldová (eds), 135–158. Prague: Filozofická fakulta UK.Google Scholar
Manova, Stela. 2011. Understanding Morphological Rules. With Special Emphasis on Conversion and Subtraction in Bulgarian, Russian and Serbo-Croatian. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manova, Stela & Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2005. The morphological technique of conversion in the inflecting-fusional type. In Approaches to Conversion/Zero-Derivation, Laurie Bauer & Salvador Valera (eds), 67–101. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1963. On a question of contrary analysis with derivationally connected but morphologically uncharacterized words. English Studies 44: 176–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1964. A set of criteria for the establishing of derivational relationship between words unmarked by derivational morphemes. Indogermanische Forschungen 69: 10–19.Google Scholar
. [1960] 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach, 2nd edn. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Martincová, Olga, Mejstřík, Vladimír, Rangelová, Albena, Holubová, Václava, Opavská, Zdeňka, Tichá, Zdeňka, Tintěrová, Ivona, Voborská, Milada & Schmiedtová, Věra. 1998. Nová slova v češtině. Slovník neologizmů 1. Praha: Academia.Google Scholar
Martincová, Olga, Mejstřík, Vladimír, Janovec, Ladislav, Mravinacová, Jitka, Opavská, Zdeňka, Rangelová, Albena, Světlá, Jindra, Šmídová, Pavla, Tichá, Zdeňka & Tintěrová, Ivona. 2004. Nová slova v češtině. Slovník neologizmů 2. Praha: Academia.Google Scholar
Mathesius, Vilém. 1936. Nebojte se angličtiny! Praha: Orbis.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2015. Denominal verbs. In Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Vol. 2, Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, & Franz Rainer (eds), 1406–1424. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melloni, Chiara & Dal Maso, Serena. 2022. For a topology of derivational paradigms. In Paradigms in Word Formation: Theory and Applications [Studies in Language Companion Series 225], Alba E. Ruz, Cristina Fernández-Alcaina & Cristina Lara-Clares (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Millet, Yves. 1958. Les Postverbaux en Tchèque. Paris: Institute d’études slaves.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith. 1975. Borrowed verbs. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 8: 3–30.Google Scholar
. 1978. Universals of language contact. In Universals of Human Language: Method and Theory, Vol. 1. Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds), 93–122. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2003. Borrowed Verbs. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Müller, Peter O., Ohnheiser, Ingeborg, Olsen, Susan & Rainer, Franz (eds). 2015. Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Vol. 2. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, Scott. 1984. Zero-derivation and inflection. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 7, Margaret Speas & Richard W. Sproat (eds), 53–69. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Namer, Fiammetta & Hathout, Nabil. 2020. ParaDis and Démonette – From theory to resources for derivational paradigms. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 114: 5–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary Online (OED). 2021. OUP. <[URL]> (4 August 2020).
Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radimský, Jan. 2020. A paradigmatic approach to compounding. In Paradigmatic Relations in Word Formation, Jesús Fernández-Domínguez, Alexandra Bagasheva & Cristina Lara-Clares (eds), 164–185. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rainer, Franz. 1988. Towards a theory of blocking: The case of Italian and German quality nouns. In Yearbook of Morphology 1988, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 155–185. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 2000. Produktivitätsbeschränkungen. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. 1, Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan (eds), 877–885. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, Alexandra Soares. 2022. Conversion in a paradigmatic framework of word formation. In Paradigms in Word Formation: Theory and Applications [Studies in Language Companion Series 225], Alba E. Ruz, Cristina Fernández-Alcaina & Cristina Lara-Clares (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santana-Lario, Juan & Valera, Salvador (eds). 2017. Competing Patterns in English Affixation. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2015. The scope of word-formation research. In Word Formation. An International Handbook of Languages of Europe, Vol. 1, Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds), 1–21. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ševčíková, Magda. 2021a. Action nouns vs. nouns as bases for denominal verbs in Czech: A case study on directionality in derivation. Word Structure 14: 97–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021b. Bezpříponová substantiva a vyjadřování vidového protikladu u příbuzných sloves. Slovo a slovesnost 82: 263–288.Google Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol. 1996. A Theory of Conversion in English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2014. Derivational paradigms. In The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 354–369. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol, Valera, Salvador & Körtvélyessy, Lívia. 2012. Word Formation in the World’s Languages. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Umbreit, Birgit. 2010. Does love come from to love or to love from love? Why lexical motivation has to be regarded as bidirectional. In Cognitive Perspectives on Word Formation, Alexander Onysko & Sascha Michel (eds), 301–333. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valera, Salvador. 2014. Conversion. In The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 154–168. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Conversion. In Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Vol. 1, Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds), 322–339. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Semantic patterns in noun-to-verb conversion in English. In Complex Words, Lívia Körtvélyessy & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 311–314. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valera, Salvador & Ruz, Alba E. 2021. Conversion in English: Homonymy, polysemy and paronymy. English Language and Linguistics 25(1): 181–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veselovská, Ludmila. 2001. K analýze českých deverbálních substantiv. In Čeština – univerzália a specifika 3, Zdeňka Hladká & Petr Karlík (eds), 11–27. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.Google Scholar
Villalva, Alina. 2022. Complex verbs: The interplay of suffixation, conversion, and parasynthesis in Portuguese and English. In Paradigms in Word Formation: Theory and Applications [Studies in Language Companion Series 225], Alba E. Ruz, Cristina Fernández-Alcaina & Cristina Lara-Clares (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warmbrunn, Jürgen. 1994. Englische Lexikalische Entlehnungen im Wortschatz der Tschechischen Gegenwartssprache. Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
Waszakowa, Krystina. 2015. Foreign word-formation in Polish. In Word Formation. An International Handbook of Languages of Europe, Vol. 3, Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds), 1679–1696. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, Søren & Wohlgemuth, Jan. 2008. Loan verbs in a typological perspective. In Aspects of Language Contact, Thomas Stolz, Dik Bakker & Rosa Salas Palomo (eds), 89–121. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wohlgemuth, Jan. 2009. A Typology of Verbal Borrowings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Hledíková, Hana & Magda Ševčíková
2024. Conversion in languages with different morphological structures: a semantic comparison of English and Czech. Morphology 34:1 ► pp. 73 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.