JOURNAL OF
MULTIDISCIPLINARY
SCIENCES AND INNOVATIONS
ISSN NUMBER: 2751-4390
IMPACT FACTOR: 9,08
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
COMPANY: GERMAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS
47
THE ROLE OF CONVERSION (ZERO AFFIXATION) IN THE FORMATION OF
TWO-COMPONENT (WORD) SENTENCES
Tursunova Munisa Ravshan kizi
Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages
master's student
+998500557379
Abstract:
This article examines the role of conversion (zero affixation) in the formation of two-
component sentences in English and Uzbek. In English, conversion is highly productive,
allowing nouns and adjectives to function as verbs and form minimal subject–predicate
structures, for example She emailed or The room emptied. Uzbek, however, relies mainly on
affixation for predicate formation, with conversion appearing less frequently and usually in
colloquial or stylistically marked contexts, such as copula-less nominal sentences. Despite these
differences, both languages reflect the universal principle of predication as the core of
communication. The findings highlight how morphology and syntax interact in different
typological systems and provide useful insights for comparative linguistics and translation
studies.
Key words:
conversion, zero affixation, two-component sentence, English, Uzbek, predication
INTRODUCTION
The study of word-formation processes is central to linguistic research because it illuminates the
mechanisms through which languages expand their lexicon and construct new grammatical
patterns. Among the various processes, conversion, also known as zero affixation, is particularly
intriguing as it creates new words without visible morphological change. The absence of overt
affixes makes the process seem simple, yet it performs a complex function by altering the
grammatical category of a word and enabling it to serve different syntactic roles. This process
has a direct connection with sentence formation, especially with two-component sentences, since
the subject and predicate often involve words that have shifted their functional status.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The phenomenon of conversion has received considerable attention in English linguistics since
the early 20th century. Jespersen (1924) identified functional shift as a vital factor in the
dynamic nature of language, emphasizing that English often reuses existing forms to create new
grammatical functions. Marchand (1969) developed a detailed typology of conversion,
distinguishing between noun-to-verb, verb-to-noun, adjective-to-verb, and other patterns, and
showing its centrality in the English lexicon. Later, Quirk et al. (1985) reinforced the importance
of conversion in their Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, noting that it is one of
the most productive and economical means of word-formation in English. Within the framework
of generative grammar, Chomsky (1965) indirectly contributed to the study of conversion by
highlighting how syntactic derivations can accommodate flexible word-class assignments,
supporting the notion that category shifts are not peripheral but central to sentence derivation.
In Uzbek linguistics, research on conversion is relatively limited, reflecting the typological
differences between English and Uzbek. Uzbek is traditionally described as an agglutinative
language where affixation is the primary means of creating new words and marking grammatical
relations. Nevertheless, several scholars have pointed out the existence of functional
reclassification, especially in spoken and stylistically expressive forms. Rasulov (1979) and
G‘ulomov (1980) recognized that certain Uzbek words could temporarily shift from nominal to
JOURNAL OF
MULTIDISCIPLINARY
SCIENCES AND INNOVATIONS
ISSN NUMBER: 2751-4390
IMPACT FACTOR: 9,08
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
COMPANY: GERMAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS
48
predicative function without explicit affixation, though they considered these cases marginal.
Nurmonov (1999) extended this discussion by addressing pragmatic and contextual aspects of
sentence derivation, suggesting that the speaker’s intention sometimes allows words to function
beyond their traditional morphological class. More recent works, such as those by Karimov
(2010) and Tursunov (2018), explore the syntactic flexibility of Uzbek, noting that while
affixation remains dominant, certain patterns of ellipsis and reclassification point to processes
comparable to English conversion, albeit less systematically.
METHODOLOGY
This research is based on a comparative-structural analysis of conversion in English and Uzbek.
The material was drawn from the British National Corpus for English and the O‘zbek Milliy
Korpusi for Uzbek. The analysis combines morphological and syntactic perspectives to identify
examples where conversion directly contributes to the formation of subject–predicate structures.
The study is qualitative in nature, focusing on representative examples of noun-to-verb and
adjective-to-verb conversion in English, as well as lexical-semantic reclassification in Uzbek, in
order to reveal functional tendencies rather than statistical frequency.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the analysis demonstrate a clear asymmetry in the productivity of conversion
between English and Uzbek, especially in the formation of two-component sentences. In English,
conversion serves as a primary mechanism for generating new predicates without the need for
overt affixes. For instance, nouns like email, bottle, and chair have been converted into verbs,
allowing the construction of minimal predicative sentences such as She emailed, They bottled
the juice, or He chaired the meeting. Similarly, adjectives like clean and empty undergo
conversion and appear as verbs in sentences such as The boy cleaned or The room emptied
quickly. In these cases, the subject is retained in its usual nominal role, while the predicate
emerges through conversion, confirming the central role of zero affixation in creating new
sentence patterns. Furthermore, English conversion facilitates the derivation of elliptical two-
component sentences, where context supplies the missing elements. In colloquial use, a
converted form such as Coming? or Finished? represents a complete predicative structure, with
the subject understood from context. The flexibility of conversion thus enhances the efficiency
of English communication, particularly in informal contexts. This productivity also extends to
stylistic and metaphorical usage, where words shift class to produce expressive minimal
sentences, such as He masterminded the plan or She voiced her opinion.
In Uzbek, by contrast, conversion plays a limited and context-dependent role. Since predicates
are usually marked by rich verbal morphology, the language relies on affixation rather than zero
derivation for creating verbs. However, the analysis revealed several cases where nouns or
adjectives can serve as predicates without affixes, particularly in elliptical structures. For
example, in conversational Uzbek, an utterance like U o‘qituvchi (He/She is a teacher) omits the
copula verb, yet the sentence functions as a complete two-component structure. Here, predication
is achieved without overt verbal morphology, which resembles the effect of conversion in
English. Similarly, in stylistically marked speech, certain words can shift into predicative roles
through pragmatic interpretation, though these cases remain less systematic and less productive
than in English. Another significant finding is the typological contrast in word order. English,
due to its analytical structure, requires strict adherence to subject–predicate order in two-
component sentences, making conversion a primary means of expanding predicative possibilities
without disturbing syntactic rules. Uzbek, with its agglutinative nature, allows greater word order
variation but depends on affixes for predication, which reduces the necessity for conversion.
Nevertheless, both languages reveal the functional universality of predication: regardless of
JOURNAL OF
MULTIDISCIPLINARY
SCIENCES AND INNOVATIONS
ISSN NUMBER: 2751-4390
IMPACT FACTOR: 9,08
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
COMPANY: GERMAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS
49
morphological or syntactic differences, the subject–predicate relation remains the minimal
communicative unit
The discussion also highlights the stylistic implications of conversion. In English literature and
journalism, conversion often creates dynamic two-component sentences that are short, impactful,
and expressive, such as They bottled victory or She voiced concern. In Uzbek, stylistic
expressiveness is achieved more often through affixal derivation or word order variation, yet
occasional zero-derivation effects can also be identified, particularly in conversational and
rhetorical contexts. These findings suggest that conversion not only contributes structurally to
the formation of two-component sentences but also enriches their stylistic range.
CONCLUSION
The comparative analysis confirms that conversion, or zero affixation, plays an essential but
uneven role in the formation of two-component sentences in English and Uzbek. English, as an
analytical language, demonstrates high productivity of conversion, using it as a primary means of
deriving new predicates and enriching its inventory of minimal subject–predicate structures. This
process allows for both formal efficiency and stylistic variety, making conversion one of the
most significant drivers of English sentence derivation. Uzbek, by contrast, relies predominantly
on agglutinative affixation to form predicates, and while conversion is less productive, it is not
entirely absent. Contextual and stylistic factors in Uzbek permit occasional functional
reclassification, especially in copula-less nominal sentences and elliptical expressions.
REFERENCES:
1.
Abduazizov, A. (2007). Tilshunoslikka kirish. Tashkent: O‘zbekiston Milliy
Ensiklopediyasi.
2.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
Crystal, D. (2010). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (3rd ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
4.
G‘ulomov, A. (1980). O‘zbek tili grammatikasi masalalari. Tashkent: Fan.
5.
Jespersen, O. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.
6.
Karimov, B. (2010). O‘zbek tili sintaksisi: nazariy masalalar. Tashkent: Universitet
nashriyoti.
7.
Marchand, H. (1969). The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation
(2nd ed.). Munich: C. H. Beck.
8.
Nurmonov, A. (1999). O‘zbek tili sintaksisida pragmatik omillar. Tashkent: Fan.
9.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar
of the English Language. London: Longman.
10.
Rasulov, R. (1979). O‘zbek tilida so‘z yasashning o‘ziga xos xususiyatlari. Tashkent: Fan.
11.
Tursunov, M. (2018). O‘zbek tilida sintaktik vositalar tizimi. Tashkent: Universitet
nashriyoti.
