Cover not available

Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 22:1 (2024) ► pp.258–288

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

The competition between noun-verb conversion and -ize derivation

Contrastive analyses of two productive English verb-formation processes

 | Goethe-Universität Frankfurt
Published online: 30 May 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00155.bae
Abstract
The process of noun-verb conversion, which is highly productive in English, has been dealt with from a variety of theoretical perspectives. What is missing so far is a systematic analysis of conceptual-semantic factors which motivate this process and set it apart from another productive verb-formation process, namely -ize derivation. The present article is intended to fill this gap. While some conceptual-semantic patterns which are displayed by converted verbs but not by -ize verbs have already been identified in the literature, more fine-grained contrastive analyses show that converted verbs display even more patterns not attested for the overtly derived verbs. Even if the two verb-formation types share a conceptual-semantic pattern, they may be in complementary distribution at a lower level of abstraction. Moreover, non-derived denominal verbs allow for a wider range of metaphorical meanings. The difference in semantic diversity is ascribed here to the fact that -ize verbs denote more specialized activities, whereas converted verbs typically (though not necessarily) express activities reflecting speakers’ interaction with basic-level objects, which may be based on experience or imagination. Since the activities denoted by converted verbs are readily transferred to different domains of experience (e.g., to bottle up emotions), these verbs more frequently undergo metaphorical meaning extension. Formally, the higher degree of semantic versatility observed for converted verbs is reflected by the fact that conversion – unlike -ize derivation – is constrained neither by predetermined Lexical Conceptual Structures nor by selectional restrictions, but motivated by metonymy, which may be enriched by metaphorical extension.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Overt derivation and event-schema metonymy
  • 3.Semantic factors distinguishing noun-verb conversion from -ize derivation
    • 3.1Relations expressed by converted verbs but not by -ize verbs
    • 3.2Partial overlaps in the semantics of -ize derivatives and converted verbs
    • 3.3Metaphorical meaning extensions
      • 3.3.1Data collection for the description of metaphorical extension
      • 3.3.2Contrasts and similarities observed for the metaphorical use of -ize verbs and converted verbs
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Summary and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (57)
References
Baeskow, H. (2006). Reflections on noun-to-verb conversion in English. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 251, 205–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Denominal verbs in morphology. In R. Lieber & M. Aronoff (Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Noun-verb conversion as a metonymic metamorphosis. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 18(1), 2–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022a). Experiencing the conceptual wealth of non-derived denominal verbs: A multi-level, simulation-based approach. Studia Linguistica, 76(2), 591–625. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022b). Noun-verb conversion between the poles of predictability and idiosyncrasy: How do denominal verbs build their argument structures? Zeitschrift für Wortbildung / Journal of Word Formation, 6(2), 6–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(5/6), 513–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, biological sciences, 3641, 1281–1289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition. Journal of Cognition, 3(1), 311, 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation. Reprinted 1993. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2018). Conversion as metonymy. Word Structure, 11(2), 175–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, B. (2012). Louder than words. The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brdar, M. (2017). Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2014). Where does metonymy begin? Some comments on Janda (2011). Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), 313–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brekle, H. E. (1976). Delokutive Verben: Ein sprechakttheoretisch fundierter Wortbildungstypus [Delocutive verbs: a word-formation type grounded in speech act theory]. In K. Braunmüller & W. Kürschner (Eds.), Grammatik. Akten des 10. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Tübingen 1975 (pp. 69–76). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cetnarowska, B. (2011). Conversion as metonymy and the question of recursiveness. In B. Bierwiaczonek, B. Cetnarowska & A. Turula (Eds.), Syntax in Cognitive Grammar (pp. 13–26). Częstochowa: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Lingwistycznej.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, E., & Clark, H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 551, 767–811. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dirven, R. (1999). Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 275–287). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dokulil, M. (1968). Zur Frage der sog. Nullableitung [On the question of the so-called zero-derivation]. In H. Brekle & L. Lipka (Eds.), Wortbildung, Syntax und Morphologie. Festschrift für Hans Marchand [Word-formation, syntax, and morphology. Festschrift for Hans Marchand] (pp. 55–64). The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, D. R. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 671, 547–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3/4), 455–479. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Indurkhya, B. (2010). On the role of metaphor in creative cognition. In D. Ventura, A. Pease, R. Pérez y Pérez, G. Ritchie & T. Veale (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Creativity: ICCC-X (pp. 51–59). Coimbra: Department of Informatics Engineering University of Coimbra.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 411, 9–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1942). A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Part VI: Morphology. Reprinted 1974. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaliuščenko, V. D. (2000). Typologie denominaler Verben [Typology of denominal verbs]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karius, I. (1985). Die Ableitung der denominalen Verben mit Nullsuffigierung im Englischen [The derivation of denominal verbs by means of null-suffixation in English]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koch, P. (2001). Metonymy. Unity in diversity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 2(2), 201–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistics view. Cognitive Linguistics, 91, 37–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor. A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1981). On the organization of the lexicon. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club (IULC).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). Deconstructing morphology. Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). The suffix -ize in English: implications for morphology. In S. G. Lapointe, D. K. Brentari & P. M. Farrell (Eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax (pp. 12–34). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neef, M. (2005). On some alleged constraints on conversion. In L. Bauer & S. Valera (Eds.), Approaches to conversion/zero-derivation (pp. 103–130). New York [etc.]: Waxman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plag, I. (1998). The polysemy of -ize derivatives: On the role of semantics in word formation. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1997 (pp. 219–242). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Morphological productivity: Structural constraints on English derivation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plank, F. (2005). Delocutive verbs, crosslinguistically. Linguistic Typology, 91, 459–491. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Primus, B. (1999). Cases and thematic roles – ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Semantische Rollen [Semantic roles]. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rauh, G. (1988). Tiefenkasus, thematische Relationen, Thetarollen. Die Entwicklung einer Theorie von semantischen Relationen [Deep cases, thematic relations, theta-roles. The development of a theory of semantic relations]. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rimell, L. (2012). Nominal roots as event predicates in English denominal conversion verbs. Doctoral dissertation. New York: New York University.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 81, 382–439. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar. Motivation, constraints and interaction. Language & Communication, 211, 321–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Pérez-Hernández, L. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 261, 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, G. (1988). Zero derivation and the Overt Analogue Criterion. In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics (pp. 155–175). San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schneider, E. W. (1987). Beobachtungen zur Paradigmatik der verbbildenden Suffixe -en, -ify und -ize im Englischen [Observations on the paradigmatics of the verb-forming suffixes -en, -ify, and -ize in English]. Sprachwissenschaft, 121, 88–109.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schönefeld, D. (2005). Zero-derivation – functional change – metonymy. In L. Bauer & S. Valera (Eds.), Approaches to conversion / zero-derivation (pp. 131–159). Münster: Waxmann Verlag GmbH.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Štekauer, P. (1996). A theory of conversion in English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Valera, S. (2015). Conversion. In P.-O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe. Volume 1 (pp. 322–339). Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vogel, P. M. (1996). Wortarten und Wortartenwechsel. Zu Konversion und verwandten Erscheinungen im Deutschen und in anderen Sprachen [Word-classes and word-class change. On conversion and related phenomena in German and other languages]. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Electronic sources
Davies, M. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990–present. Available online at [URL]
2018–. The 14 Billion Word iWeb Corpus. Available online at [URL]
Oxford English Dictionary. [URL]
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Baeskow, Heike
2025. 11 Rules, patterns and schemata in word-formation. In Word-Formation – Special Patterns and Restrictions, ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue