Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-g5k2d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-14T17:56:42.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The right-headedness of morphology and the status and development of category-determining prefixes in English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2011

AKIKO NAGANO
AKIKO NAGANO*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1, Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8571, Japannagano.akiko.gt@u.tsukuba.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

So-called category-determining prefixes in English (befool, delouse, disbar, encage, out- jockey, unsaddle) have been treated as exceptions to the Righthand Head Rule (Williams 1981). This article argues that so-called category-determining prefixation is a V (Verb)-to-V prefixation which takes denominal and deadjectival converted verbs as inputs, and thus special treatment is unwarranted. The hypothesis that conversion underlies N (Noun)/A (Adjective)-to-V prefixation is examined from both diachronic and synchronic perspectives. Diachronically, it is shown that the prefixes in question all started as non-category-determining V-to-V prefixes, and their N/A-to-V usage was established only in Modern English. With the constant productivity of conversion in the history of English, N/A-to-V usage can emerge from V-to-V usage. Synchronically, denominal/deadjectival prefixed verbs are shown to exhibit input and output properties that prove the above hypothesis: they have a converted counterpart; they are subject to the same morphological constraints as converted verbs; and their semantics is equivalent to the semantics of converted verbs modified by the semantics of V-to-V prefixation. It is concluded that there is no derivational prefix that determines the output category in English.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 61 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad. 2004. Beyond morphology: Interface conditions on word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, Valerie. 2001. Complex words in English. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Allen, Margaret. 1978. Morphological investigations. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1980. Contextuals. Language 56, 744–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harold R. & Lieber, Rochelle. 1997. Word frequency distributions and lexical semantics. Computers and the Humanities 30, 281–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1990. Be-heading the word. Journal of Linguistics 26, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2002. What you can do with derivational morphology. In Bendjaballah, Sabrina, Dressler, Wolfgang U., Pfeiffer, Oskar & Voeikova, Maria (eds.), Morphology 2000, 37–48. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Lexical word-formation. In Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. , The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 1621–1721. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biese, Y. M. 1941. Origin and development of conversions in English. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, B XLV. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Blom, Corrien & Booij, Geert. 2003. The diachrony of complex predicates in Dutch: A case study in grammaticalization. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50, 61–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1992. Morphology, semantics and argument structure. In Roca, I. M. (ed.), Thematic structure: Its role in grammar, 47–63. Berlin: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2002. The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2005. The grammar of words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.). 2003. Yearbook of morphology 2003. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1998. Morphology and syntax. In Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 151–90. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buck, R. A. 1997. Words that are their opposites: Noun to verb conversion in English. Word 48, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnley, David. 1992. Lexis and semantics. In Blake, Norman (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 2, 409–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1992. Current morphology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. & Clark, Herbert H.. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55, 767–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de la Cruz, Juan M. 1975. Old English pure prefixes: Structure and function. Linguistics 145, 47–81.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria. 1997. Prefixed-verbs and adjunct identification. In Sciullo, Anna-Maria Di (ed.), Projections and interface conditions: Essays on modularity, 52–73. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria. 2005. Asymmetry in morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Patrick. 2001. Functional shift as category underspecification. English Language and Linguistics 5, 109–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). 1985. Historical semantics. Historical word-formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Thomas. 1985. Etymology and the lexical semantics of the Old English preverb be-. In Fisiak (ed.), 113–26.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 1993. On the absence of category-changing prefixes in English. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 562–7.Google Scholar
Hasebe, Ikuko. 2004. Over- + V in English and compound verbs in Japanese. English Linguistics 21, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding morphology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 2002. Uncovering the un-word: A study in lexical pragmatics. Sophia Linguistica 48, 1–64.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kageyama, Taro. 1993. Bunpoo-to gokeisei (Grammar and word-formation). Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.Google Scholar
Kageyama, Taro. 1997a. Denominal verbs and relative salience in lexical conceptual structure. In Kageyama (ed.), 45–96.Google Scholar
Kageyama, Taro (ed.). 1997b. Verb semantics and syntactic structure. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1985. Deverbal nouns in Old and Modern English: From stem-formation to word-formation. In Fisiak (ed.), 221–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1986. Problems in the morphological analysis of complex lexical items. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Tomus 36, 93–107.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1992. Semantics and vocabulary. In Hogg, Richard M. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 1, 290–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1996. Verbal derivation in English: A historical survey or much ado about nothing. In Britton, Derek (ed.), English historical linguistics 1994, 93–117. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 2002. The derivation of ornative, locative, ablative, privative and reversative verbs in English. In Fanego, Teresa, López-Couso, Maria José & Pérez-Guerra, Javier (eds.), English historical syntax and morphology: selected papers from 11 ICEHL, 99–109. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 2005. Hans Marchand and the Marchandeans. In Štekauer & Lieber (eds.), 99–124.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 2006. Vocabulary. In Hogg, Richard & Denison, David (eds.), A history of the English language, 199–270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van & Los, Bettelou. 2003. Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English. In Booij & van Marle (ed.), 79–117.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the organization of the lexicon. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2005. English word-formation processes: Observations, issues, and thoughts on future research. In Štekauer & Lieber (eds.), 375–427.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2006. The category of roots and the roots of categories: What we learn from selection in derivation. Morphology 16, 247–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle & Baayen, Harald. 1993. Verbal prefixes in Dutch: A study in lexical conceptual structure. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1993, 51–78. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2008. Particles as grammaticalized complex predicates. In Gotti, Maurizio, Dossena, Marina & Dury, Richard (eds.), English historical linguistics 2006: Syntax and morphology, 157–79. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach, 2nd edn.Munich: C. H. Beck'sche.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2003. Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles. In Booij & van Marle (eds.), 119–44.Google Scholar
Namiki, Takayasu. 1982. The notion of ‘head of a word’ and core and periphery word formation: Interaction between affixation and subcategorization. Studies in English Linguistics 10, 21–41.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Schipper, Joleen. 1993. Verbal prefixation in Dutch: Thematic evidence for conversion. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992, 57–92. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1999. Early Modern English lexis and semantics. In Lass, Roger (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 3, 332–458. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 1986. Wortbildung im Deutschen: Eine Einführung in die Theorie der Wortstruktur. Stuttgart: Kröner.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn, on CD-ROM version 3.1. 2004. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2004. Syntactic category information and the semantics of derivational morphological rules. Folia Linguistica 38, 193–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ralli, Angela. 2004. Stem-based versus word-based morphological configurations: The case of Modern Greek preverbs. Lingue e Linguaggio 3, 241–75.Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio. 1988. The notion of ‘head’ in morphology. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1988, 229–46. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi & Kageyama, Taro. 1988. Word-formation in a modular theory of grammar: Postsyntactic compounds in Japanese. Language 64, 451–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Zaretskaya, Marina. 1998. Verbal prefixation in Russian as lexical subordination. Linguistics 36, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol & Lieber, Rochelle. 2005. Handbook of word-formation. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara. 1998. Complex denominal verbs in German and the morphology-semantics interface. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1997, 265–302. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugioka, Yoko. 2003. Setugoka-ni okeru imi-to toogo-no jooken (Semantic and syntactic conditions in affixation), Journal of the KEIO Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies 35, 181–94. Keio University.Google Scholar
Trommelen, Mieke & Zonneveld, Wim. 1986. Dutch morphology: Evidence for the right-hand head rule. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 147–69.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of word’. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245–74.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1987. An investigation of lexical composition: The case of German be-verbs. Linguistics 25, 283–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yumoto, Yoko. 1997. Verbal prefixation on the level of semantic structure. In Kageyama (ed.), 177–204.Google Scholar
Zwanenburg, Wiecher. 1997. Dutch prefixes and prepositions in complex verbs. In Dressler, Wolfgang U., Prinzhorn, Martin & Rennison, John R. (eds.), Advances in morphology, 63–77. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar