How many conversions from verb to noun
are there in French ?
D. Tribout LLF and Paris Diderot University
In this paper I will discuss verb to noun conversion in French. After the properties of
the input verb and the output noun have been presented, I will use the SBCG formalism
to formally represent the conversion rule. I will then show that using such a formalism
based on constraints and multiple inheritance can question the denition of conversion.
1 Denitions
Conversion is a lexemes formation pattern characterized on the one hand by the phonological identity of the base lexeme and the derived lexeme, and on the other hand by
the fact that the two lexemes involved necessarily are from two dierent parts of speech,
as the examples in (1) show.
(1) engl. nail > (to) nail, (to) walk > (a)
fr. clou > clouer, marcher > marche
walk
In the lexeme-based theory of morphology adopted here ((Matthews, 1974), (Arono,
1994)), the unit of the morphology is the lexeme which is dened as a complex object
having at least a form, a meaning and a syntactic category.
Since the lexeme has properties of dierent kind, a feature structure based formalism
seems an appropriate mean to formally represent the lexemes and the lexemes formation
rules. I will use the Sign-Based Construction Grammar framework (henceforth SBCG,
(Sag, 2010)) to that purpose, since it is a constraints based declarative model. In this
model, the constructions are organized in a hierarchy of types, each sub-type inheriting
the properties of its super-type and having its specic ones. These properties are dened as
features structures associated to each type. The conversion construction (conv-cxt ), which
I am interested in, is thus a sub-type of derivational construction (deriv-cxt ), which itself
is a sub-type of lexical construction (lex-cxt ), as the gure in (2) shows. In this paper I
will focus on a sub-type of conversion, the verb to noun conversion (v2n-conv-cxt ).
(2)
construct
hVV
hhhh VVVVVVVV
h
h
h
h
VVV
hhhh
lex-cxt
V
hhhh VVVVVVVV
hhhh
VVVV
h
h
h
hh
deriv-cxt
in-cxt
conv-cxt
qMM
compd-cxt
hhhVVVVVVVV
hhhh
VVVV
h
h
h
V
hhh
afx-cxt
qqq
qqq
v2n-conv-cxt
MMM
MM
phr-cxt
pin-cxt
...
A derivational construction (deriv-cxt ) is characterized by the constraint in (3) which
stipulates that the derived lexeme (identied as mother mtr feature), has a non empty
list of lexemes as bases (identied as daughters dtrs feature)1 .
"
#
(3)
mtr lexeme
deriv-cxt :
dtrs nelist(lexeme)
Conversion (conv-cxt ) is dened by the constraint in (4). This constraint says
i) that on phonological level the two lexemes are identical (phon features),
ii) that the two lexemes have dierent categories (cat features), and
iii) that the derived lexeme's meaning includes that of the base lexeme (sem features).



(4)
phon <φ>
h
i






cat
Y
syn
mtr 


h
i




frames
L
sem
1 ⊕ ... 



conv-cxt : 




phon
<
φ
>


+
*
h
i








cat
X
syn
dtrs 




h
i



sem
frames L1
Having this denition of conversion, verb to noun conversion is thus only characterized
by the constraint in (5) which says that the derived lexeme is a noun and the base lexeme
is a verb.

h
i 
(5)
mtr syn | cat noun 
h
i 
v2n-conv-cxt : 


syn | cat verb
dtrs
2 Verb stem
In order to account for conversion involving a second conjugation verb, like the data
in (6), I added a new stem to the verbal stem space worked out by Bonami and Boyé
(2002). Indeed, with second conjugation verbs the form of the noun is never identical to
that of the verb, nor to any of the verbal stems, because the verb systematicaly presents
an ending /i/ or /is/ which is absent from the noun.
(6)
enchérir
meurtrir
sertir
surenchérir
/
aSeKi/
/m÷KtKi/
/sEKti/
/syK
aSeKi/
`(to)
`(to)
`(to)
`(to)
bid'
hurt'
set'
overbid'
>
>
>
>
enchère
meurtre
serte
surenchère
/
aSEK/
/m÷KtK/
/sEKt/
/syK
aSEK/
`(a) bid'
`(a) murder'
`seting'
`higher bid'
Bonami and Boyé (2003) have given evidence that there are no inectional classes in
French, so that the ending /i/-/is/ of the second conjugation verbs (e.g. (je) nis `(I)
nish', (nous) nissons `(we) nish') cannot be analyzed as part of the inectional marks
and must be considered as part of the stems. I thus propose to add a new stem only used
1 Sag
(2010) denes deriv-cxt as having a non-empty list of lex-sign as daughter, which means that a
word can be the base of a derived lexeme. Since in French only lexeme can be the bases and the results
of derivational rules I have modied the features structure associated to the deriv-cxt type in this way.
2
in derivation, stem 0, which is identical to stem 3 minus the nal /i/ for those verbs,
and identical to stem 3 for all other verbs. Postulating that the verb to noun conversion
always takes the stem 0 as input, the converted nouns are thus always identical to their
base verb, even the nouns derived from second conjugation verbs, as shown in table (7).
(7)
Verb
enchérir
meurtrir
sertir
surenchérir
stem 3
/
aSeKi/
/m÷KtKi/
/sEKti/
/syK
aSeKi/
stem 0
/aSeK/
/m÷KtK/
/sEKt/
/syK
aSeK/
enchère
Noun
meurtre
serte
surenchère
/
aSEK/
/m÷KtK/
/sEKt/
/syK
aSEK/
Moreover, besides conversion, this stem 0 is relevant for all derivational rules involving
a second conjugation verb, such as adjective to verb conversion (e.g. rouge `red' > rougir
`turn red') or deadjectival en- prexation (e.g. riche `rich' > enrichir `enrich').
The nouns in (8) are a particular type of conversion and have been identied as such
by (Kerleroux, 2005) and (Bonami et al., 2009). The authors analyzed them as converted
nouns based on stem 13 of the verb. This stem 13 is hidden to inection and is only
used by derivation. This stem allows the formation of -ion suxed nouns like conception
`conception', inltration `' or -if suxed adjectives like défensif `defensive', résultatif
`resultative'.
(8)
concevoir
défendre
infiltrer
résulter
`conceive'
`defend'
`inltrate'
`(to) result'
>
>
>
>
`concept'
`defence'
`'
`(a) result'
concept
défense
infiltrat
résultat
As for the data in (9) I consider them as verb to noun conversion too. Only, those
nouns are based on stem 12 of the verb (past participle stem). There are two main reasons
for considering them as conversion : rst, no ax is added so that they cannot be analyzed
as suxed nouns ; second, the noun is always identical to the past participle stem of the
verb, whatever its conjugation is.
(9)
arriver
découvrir
sortir
venir
`arrive'
`discover'
`go out'
`come'
>
>
>
>
`arrival'
`discovery'
`exit'
`coming'
arrivée
découverte
sortie
venue
In this particular case it might be dicult to tell whether the nouns are derived from
the past participle word-form or stem. But the meaning of those nouns is a good argument in favor of the stem base, since those nouns do not show any piece of the meaning of
the inected past participle word-form. Indeed, the meaning of arrivée is not `something
which has arrived' but it is `the action of arriving' or `the location where one arrives', nor
is the meaning of venue `something which has come' but it is `the action of coming'.
As we have seen, dierent stems of one verb can serve as the base of a converted
noun. In the main case the input stem is stem 0. But, as the examples (8) and (9) show,
stem 13 and stem 12 can be the input of conversion too. Thus, it seems that there are 3
sub-cases of verb to noun conversion, depending on which verbal stem is selected as input.
3
3 Noun meaning
On the output side, the converted nouns can have a wide range of meanings. They can
denote the same event as the base verb like those in (10a), the result of the process denoted
by the verb as in (10b), the patient of the process (10c), the agent of the process (10d), a
location related to the process (10c) or an instrument helping to realize the process (10f).
(10) a.
sauter
`(to) jump' > saut '(a) jump' ; marcher `(to) walk' > marche `(a) walk'
`arrive' > arrivée `arrival' ; défendre `defend' > défense `defence'
arriver
b.
`(to) heap up' > amas `heap' ; entailler `(to) cut' > entaille `(a) cut' ;
cracher `(to) spit' > crachat `(a) spit' ; relever `take in' > relevé `statement'
c.
afficher
d.
guider
e.
`(to) dump' > décharge `(a) dump' ; entrer `(to) enter' >
`entrance' ; débarrasser `to disencumber' > débarras `lumber room' ;
f.
réveiller
amasser
`put up' > affiche `poster' ; mettre `to put' >
`(to) postulate' > postulat `(a) postulate'
mise
`(to) guide' > guide `(a) guide' ; renier `renounce' >
marmotter `mumble' > marmotte `marmot'
`stake' ;
renégat
postuler
`renegade' ;
décharger
`wake up' >
`extension'
réveil
`alarm clock' ;
rallonger
`lengthen' >
entrée
rallonge
The dierent meanings a noun may have are independants of the verb stem it is derived from. Event nouns can be derived from the three possible input stem as shown in
(10a). Result nouns can be derived from stem 0 (amas, entaille) as well as from stem 12
(relevé) or stem 13 (crachat). Patient nouns can be derived from the three verbal stems
too (affiche from stem 0, mise from stem 12, postulat from stem 13), but these are much
less common than event and result nouns. Only location meaning is restricted to nouns
deriving from stem 0 (débarras, décharge) or stem 12 (entrée), while instrument nouns
are exclusively derived from stem 0, and agent nouns, which are very few, derive from
stem 0 (guide, marmotte) with an exceptional stem 13 derived noun (renégat).
4 Noun gender
As for the gender, the nouns can be either masculines or feminines whatever their
meaning is, as the examples in table (11) show.
(11)
masc.
fem.
event
result
patient
agent
location
instrument
saut
amas
postulat
guide
débarras
réveil
marche
entaille
affiche
marmotte
décharge
rallonge
5 Representing the verb to noun conversion rule
To account for all those properties of the base verb and the derived noun, the conversion rule must specify the verbal stem taken as input, the meaning of the derived noun
as well as its gender. In SBCG those three properties can be thinked of as three dierent
dimensions of classication. Each converted noun inherits a property of these three dimensions of classication by means of multiple inheritance. The gure in (12) represents all
4
the observed types of converted deverbal nouns. The inheritance of each of the 3 properties leads to 36 possible distinct cases. As the gure shows, only 23 distinct combinations
between a verb stem, a gender and a meaning are observed. This is still a wide range of
possibilities even if some combinations are less common than others so that the verb to
noun conversion seems unable to make any prediction about the output of the rule. I will
then close this paper by raising the question of the exact denition of the conversion rule,
leading to the question of the number of verb to noun conversions in French. Is there only
one verb to noun conversion rule identied by the top node of the tree in (12) and the
contraint in (5), and in that case is the output unpredictable ? Or are there 23 distinct
and hightly specic rules accounting for the dierent cases observed ? Or a number of
rules in-between, more or less specic about those three properties depending on what we
want to focus on (e.g. the base stem, or the derived meaning) ?
(12)
v2n-conv-cxt
cccccc[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
[[[[[[[[
c
c
c
c
c
[[[
cccccc
verb Mstem
qM
qqq MMMMM
q
q
q
noun gender
st-0Z[MDTRWXY2 MRTWXYZ[WXYZ[Z[st-12
6RPAM* MPR st-13
@JF'/
q
qqq
q
q
q
noun meaning
hMVYVY
hhhhqq MMVYMVYMVYVYVYVYVYVYYYYY
hhhhqqqq
MM
VVV YYYYY
h
h
h
h
q
evnt res agent pat
masc fem
loc instr
6MATW*
8@MTW/
2D2DMRTMRTWXYRTWXYZ[TWXYZ[WXYZ[*6WXAYZ[6AWXMPRYZ[MXPRYZ[PRYZ[RZ[['/@FJ[/@FJFJ
llzlz /8@MTW@MTWMTWlTWlzWlzW *6AMTWAMTWMTWTWWWgghghghqghqu~ghqu~ hhjhjhjuhju jjljljl
z}z}
qqz}qz}
22DDMDMRMRTMRT**RT6A6RTWATMWXAMTWPXYMPWRXYZMPRWX''YZPR/WXYZ/[@RWXYZ[@FJX@lYZ[FJXlYZ[JlYZ[lYZ[lZ[zlZ[zl[zlZ[l[l[/8/l/8@zl8@zM@gzMgTMgThMgThW**6gThW6A6TghWATgMhWAMTghWTMghWThqMhWThWquWThWjquWT~hqWju~ThWju~ThjWhjWhjWujWjuWjujuljljljljll qqqz}qz}z} z}z}z}
[
Z
X
F
Z
22 DDDM**MM6R6RAARTlRTMl'T' MlTP/MlTPRWPRW@P@RWFJRzlWFXJzRlWXJzYlWXYlgWXYgXYgX YgXhzYZzghzYZgh/YZ[gh8YZZ8[h@ZZ[h@ ZZ[hZZ[Mh*Z[*MhZ[Mh6jq6Z[hjqA[hujAqT[ujTu[jM~TM~TMjTWjWujWTujlWTujlWTlWTlWTWWWWWWWqqqzz}z} zz}z} 22 DD*l* lM6lM6lMAMARA''Rlg/R/lgMRTlgMzTlMgz@PTMgh@PTFghPTFRgJhPFRJhRJWhRz WhzWhWXhWXh/WX/hWXh8jY8XhjY@Xqj@YXqjYZXq*j*uYZqXuYMZu6MjYZZ6MjYZZ~AMjY~ZZAjAZZ[jlZuZ[ulZZM[TulMZZ[TlMZ[TMZ[TZ[TZ[[TW[ TW[TWq[TWqTqWqWWWz}Wz}W}WWWWz}z}} W
W
W
2 lllD*Dgg6glglMglMA' hzh/z/hRhRRM@M@hTzFPhTzFPhTJRhTJRjRjjj//qq8W8Wju@Wju@jW* jX~X~6XllXuMYlXuMAYYYYZYZMZMZTZZTZqZTqZTZZ[Z[TzZ[Tz}[T[TW[W[W[Wzz} WWW W
lllg2 ggggl* lDhDlhh66hzh'zMAAMh/hhhRzhzR@M@RMj jFPjPJTPJTRTqRqjR/juju8 @l~*@W~lWluW6uW6 W XMAXAMXXX YYMqYMq YYZYZTZTzZTz}Z}ZZZZZTZTz ZTz}Z[}WZ[WZ[W[W[W[[W[WWWW
lglglggg 2lhlhlhh** Dzhz6h6h''h AMA/M/Azjzjjj@RMq@RMqFMqjFMqjFMqPFjJPJujTJuPTJuPR/T/PRlRl8~R8l~8Ru*Ru*@u@ 66WWAWMAWMAqqXqXXXMXMz}zY}}YYTYTYTzZ}zZ}}ZZTZTZTZZZWZWZWZW[[[[W[W[W[W
**
66' /AA qq @@ uuMFFM J/J~P~uPuP8 *R* R@@R 66 AA }}
}
saut marche amas
décharge réveilrallonge
FM~uFM~uM/u/JJJP8P8*P @R@rabat
AA }} débarras
}}
RR66R affiche
'6' 6 q//qAqA guide
uu@@@ marmotte
** entaille
u
}
@
~
P
R
F
J
M
q
/
/
*
u
u
A
A
'
** qqq' 6q6 /u/uuAA uu~@~u@@ FF/MF/MMJM8J*8*J8PPP@P@@66RRR}}R }RAA }}} qq '' 6uu // Au~u~~ @@ /F/ FFMJ88JJJ P@P6@}} RRA}} '' / ~~ @@ / FF 88 JJ @@
J @ entrée
@@ // FF 8 mise
défilé arrivée
'' ~//~relevé
empreinte
F88 JJJ@J@
F
@
~
/
/
@@/ FF8 J@@ '' ~~ / JJ@ / @/
F8
~ ~
assassinat défense
renégat crachat postulat
References
Arono, M. (1994). Morphology by Itself. Cambridge : The MIT Press.
Bonami, O. and G. Boyé (2002). Suppletion and dependency in inectional morphology.
In F. Van Eynde, L. Hellan, and D. Beerman (Eds.), Proceedings of the HPSG'01
Conference, Stanford, pp. 5170. CSLI publications.
Bonami, O. and G. Boyé (2003). Supplétion et classes exionnelles dans la conjugaison
du français. Langages 152, 102126.
Bonami, O., G. Boyé, and F. Kerleroux (2009). L'allomorphie radicale et la relation
exion-construction. In B. Fradin, F. Kerleroux, and M. Plénat (Eds.), Aperçus de
morphologie du français, pp. 103125. Saint-Denis : Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
Kerleroux, F. (2005). On a subclass of non-axed deverbal nouns in french. In G. Booij,
B. Fradin, A. Ralli, and S. Scalise (Eds.), On-line Proceedings of the 5th MMM.
Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology. Cambridge : Cambrige University Press.
Sag, I. A. (2010). Sign-Based Construction Grammar : an informal synopsis. In H. Boas
and I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford : CSLI Publications.
5