Word problems with conversions

Chapter 1: Algebra Review

Chapter 1: Algebra Review

Word Problems & Conversion pdf.

Prior to teaching this lesson, each student should have a paper copy of p. 7 of the SB file. I simply copied the page and made a classroom set from the PDF. For students who need the SB file to look at during instruction, I copied the whole file.  It keeps them on task and gives me something to point to on their desk to draw their attention back during whole class instruction.

 Using the SB, I opened the lesson with an example of a conversion word problem. I wanted students to read the problem silently first.  I led the discussion using a few questions from the second page about what strategies we would use to solve the problem.

As we worked through the word problems, students were able to ask questions about problem solving. I used explicit instruction showing them that it was important to form the situation equation. I told them to think about what was going on in the problem and create an equation using the units given. Then, move to creating the solution equation by converting to the units needed to solve the problem. I showed them how to convert, using a T chart. This satisfies the section of the standard that requires students to convert in a two column chart.

When we got to the 5th page of the SB file, students were reminded to use their strategies, create situation equations and solution equations as they solved the problems together. I asked  a student to come to the SB and show how she converted. She was confused about the use of the t chart and had the concept wrong. T chart conversion We worked together to get it corrected so others weren’t confused.T chart Misunderstanding Corrected. For some reason, she thought she had to convert both numbers. I think this is where the «how» gets in the way of the «why» with students. She was not thinking about why she was converting, she just knew she needed to. We solved the problem and finished it up. Students copied it step by step in their notebooks. I insisted on equations with variables and proper labels.

We worked on the problem on page 6 together. This one was challenging because we needed to convert kg to g. Students set up their KWS chart and a T chart in their notebooks. I roved the classroom checking progress and fluency.

Conversion
(zero derivation, root formation, functional change) is the process
of coining a new word in a different part of speech and with
different distribution characteristics but without adding any
derivative element, so that the basic form of the original and the
basic form of derived words are homonymous. This phenomenon can be
illustrated by the following cases: work – to work, love – to
love, water – to water.

If
we regard these words from the angle of their morphemic structure, we
see that they are root words. On the derivational level, however, one
of them should be referred to a derived word, as having the same root
morpheme they belong to different parts of speech. Consequently the
question arises here: “What serves as the word-building means in
such cases?” It would appear that the noun is formed from the verb
(or vice versa) without any morphological change, but if we probe
deeper into the matter, we inevitably come to the conclusion that the
two words differ only in the paradigm. Thus, it is the paradigm that
is used as a word-building means. Hence, we can define conversion as
the formation of a new word through changes in its paradigm.

The
change of the paradigm is the only word-building means of conversion.
As the paradigm is a morphological category, conversion can be
described as a morphological way of forming words.

As
a type of word-formation conversion exists in many languages. What is
specific for the English vocabulary is not its mere presence, but its
intense development.

The
main reason for the widespread development of conversion in
present-day English is no doubt the absence of morphological elements
serving as classifying signals, or, in other words, of formal signs
marking the part of speech to which the word belongs. The fact that
the sound pattern does not show to what part of speech the word
belongs may be illustrated by the word back. It may be a noun, a
verb, an adjective, an adverb.

Many
affixes are homonymous and therefore the general sound pattern does
not contain any information as to the possible part of speech.

e.g.:
maiden
(N), darken (V), woollen (A), often (Adv).

O.
Jesperson points out that the causes that made conversion so widely
spread are to be approached diachronically. The noun and verb have
become identical in form firstly as a result of the loss of endings.
More rarely it is the prefix that is lost (mind < gemynd). When
endings had disappeared phonetical development resulted in the
merging of sound forms for both elements of these pairs.

e.g.:
OE carian
(verb)
and caru
(noun)
merged into care
(verb,
noun); OE drinkan
(verb)
and drinca,
drinc
(noun)
merged into
drink
(verb, noun).

A
similar homonymy resulted in the borrowing from French of pairs of
words of the same root but belonging in French to different parts of
speech. These words lost their affixes and became phonetically
identical in the process of assimilation.

Prof.
A. Smirnitsky is of the opinion that on a synchronic level there is
no difference in correlation between such cases as listed above, i.e.
words originally differentiated by affixes and later becoming
homonymous after the loss of endings (sleep
–
noun :: sleep
– verb) and those formed by conversion (pencil
– noun :: pencil
–
verb).

Prof.
I. Arnold is of the opinion that prof. Smirnitsky is mistaken. His
mistake is in the wish to call both cases conversion, which is
illogical if he, or any of his followers, accepts the definition of
conversion as a word-building process which implies the diachronistic
approach. Prof. I. Arnold states that synchronically both types sleep
(noun) – sleep (verb) and pencil (noun) – pencil (verb) must be
treated together as cases of patterned homonymy. But it is essential
to differentiate the cases of conversion and treat them separately
when the study is diachronistic.

Conversion
has been the subject of a great many discussions since 1891 when

H.
Sweet first used the term in his New English Grammar. Various
opinions have been expressed on the nature and character of
conversion in the English language and different conceptions have
been put forward.

The
treatment of conversion as a morphological way of forming words was
suggested by A.I. Smirnitsky and accepted by R.Z. Ginzburg, S.S.
Khidekel,

G.Y.
Knyazeva, A.A. Sankin.

Other
linguists sharing, on the whole, the conception of conversion as a
morphological way of forming words disagree, however, as to what
serves here as a word-building means. Some of them define conversion
as a non-affixal way of forming words pointing out that its
characteristic feature is that a certain stem is used for the
formation of a categorically different word without a derivational
affix being added

(I.R.
Galperin, Y.B. Cherkasskaya).

Others
hold the view that conversion is the formation of new words with the
help of a zero-morpheme (H. Marchand).

There
is also a point of view on conversion as a morphological-syntactic
word-building means (Y.A. Zhluktenko), for it involves, as the
linguists sharing this conception maintain, both a change of the
paradigm and of the syntactic function of the word.

e.g.:
I
need some paper for my room : He is papering his room.

Besides,
there is also a purely syntactic approach commonly known as a
functional approach to conversion. In Great Britain and the United
States of America linguists are inclined to regard conversion as a
kind of functional change. They define conversion as a shift from one
part of speech to another contending that in modern English a word
may function as two different parts of speech at the same time.

The
two categories of parts of speech especially affected by conversion
are the noun and the verb. Verbs made from nouns are the most
numerous among the words produced by conversion.

e.g.:
to
hand, to face, to nose, to dog, to blackmail.

Nouns
are frequently made from verbs: catch,
cut, walk, move, go.

Verbs
can also be made from adjectives: to
pale, to yellow, to cool.

A
word made by conversion has a different meaning from that of the word
from which it was made though the two meanings can be associated.
There are certain regularities in these associations which can be
roughly classified. In the group of verbs made from nouns some
regular semantic associations are the following:

—
A noun is a name of a tool – a verb denotes an action performed by
the tool:
to
knife,
to brush.

—
A noun is a name of an animal – a verb denotes an action or aspect
of behaviour typical of the animal: monkey
– to monkey, snake – to snake.
Yet, to fish does not mean to behave like a fish but to try to catch
fish.

—
A noun denotes a part of a human body – a verb denotes an action
performed by it : hand
– to hand, shoulder – to shoulder.
However, to face does not imply doing something by or even with one’s
face but turning it in a certain direction.

—
A noun is a name of some profession or occupation – a verb denotes
an activity typical of it : a
butcher – to butcher, a father – to father.

—
A noun is a name of a place – a verb denotes the process of
occupying this place or putting something into it: a
bed – to bed, a corner – to corner.

—
A noun is the name of a container – a verb denotes an act of
putting something within the container: a
can – to can, a bottle – to bottle.

—
A noun is the name of a meal – a verb denotes the process of taking
it: supper
– to supper, lunch – to lunch.

The
suggested groups do not include all the great variety of verbs made
from nouns by conversion. They just represent the most obvious cases
and illustrate the great variety of semantic interrelations within
the so-called converted pairs and the complex nature of the logical
associations which underlie them.

In
actual fact, these associations are more complex and sometimes even
perplexing.

Types
of Conversion

Partial
conversion is a kind of a double process when first a noun is formed
by conversion from a verbal stem and next this noun is combined with
such verbs as to give, to make, to take to form a separate phrase: to
have a look, to take a swim, to give a whistle.

There
is a great number of idiomatic prepositional phrases as well: to be
in the know, in the long run, to get into a scrape. Sometimes the
elements of these expressions have a fixed grammatical form, as, for
example, where the noun is always plural: It
gives
me
the creeps (jumps).
In other cases the grammatical forms are free to change.

Reconversion
is the phenomenon when one of the meanings of the converted word is a
source for a new meaning of the same stem: cable
(металевий
провідник)
– to cable (телеграфувати)
– cable(телеграма);
help(допомога)
– to help (допомагати
пригощати)
– help (порція
їжі),
deal (кількість)
– to deal (роздавати)
– deal (роздача
карт).

Substantivation
can also be considered as a type of conversion. Complete
substantivation is a kind of substantivation when the whole paradigm
of a noun is acquired: a private — the private – privates – the
privates. Alongside with complete substantivation there exists
partial substantivation when a feature or several features of a
paradigm of a noun are acquired: the rich. Besides the substantivized
adjectives denoting human beings there is a considerable group of
abstract nouns: the Singular, the Present. It is thus evident that
substantivation has been the object of much controversy. Those who do
not accept substantivation of adjectives as a type of conversion
consider conversion as a process limited to the formation of verbs
from nouns and nouns from verbs. But this point of view is far from
being universally accepted.

Conversion
is not characteristic of the Ukrainian language. The only type of
conversion that can be found there is substantivation:
молодий,
хворий.

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #