Prefixation in English and Catalan - Departament de Filologia ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(11) ama bi tur [+fut] [+passive] Other early statements of feature percolation (see e.g. Selkirk (1982), Fabb (1984), Scalise (1984), Lieber (1989)) 10 all come down to that of Di Sciullo & Williams (1987) with small modifications. For instance, consider Selkirk’s (1982) formulation of percolation (p. 76) (u=unmarked): (12) a. If a head has a feature specification [α Fi], α ≠ u, its mother node must be specified [α Fi], and vice versa. b. If a nonhead has a feature specification [β Fj], and the head has the feature specification [u Fj], then the mother node must have the feature specification [β Fj]. Although Di Sciullo & Williams (1987) would call Selkirk’s nonhead head with respect to the feature it introduces and would specify that the nonhead that introduces a feature the head is not specified for should be the rightmost nonhead marked with that feature, the basic idea behind percolation remains the same. Concerning the information which has been claimed to percolate from the head to the entire complex word, there have been several proposals. Not only the syntactic category has been assumed to percolate, but also other information associated with the relativized head, such as the [+/-animate] feature (Scalise (1984)), theta-grids, theta-roles and case features (Fabb (1984)). Regarding inheritance, it refers to the relationship between the argument structure of a derived word and its input elements. A complex word inherits an argument from the base when the argument may be represented as an argument of the derived word either syntactically (sometimes referred to as external or syntactic inheritance) or internally to the complex word (sometimes called internal or morphological inheritance). To see the effects of inheritance, consider (13). (13) a. Manchester is industrial. b. The government industrialized Manchester. 10 For a modern version of a mechanism similar to percolation, see Neeleman & van de Koot (2002) who use upward copying of functions introduced by terminal nodes. 11
The fact that the suffix –ize forms agentive Vs from As can be explained under the assumption that –ize provides an Agent role. The immediate consequence will be that the A’s external Theme becomes the V’s internal Theme. Whereas it is generally agreed that inheritance accounts for the shared thematic structure between (13a) and (13b) (cf. e.g. Booij (1988), Levin & Rappaport (1988), Picallo (1991), Neeleman & Schipper (1992), Gràcia (1992, 1995), Gràcia et al. (2000), Williams (2004)), there are also some claims that point to another direction. In this respect, Hoekstra & van der Putten (1988), Bordelois [in Varela (1993)], among others, prefer to talk of a shared semantic structure, not of strict inheritance, between the two lexical items. If we consider (13) again, or many other derived forms, it is obvious that the argument structure of the derived word depends on the argument structure of the base. Thus, the two lexical items cannot have disjoint argument structures. The fact that they share the same Θ-roles cannot be considered a coincidence, but an argument to say that the two argument structures are related by inheritance. 2.4 On parasynthetic structures Given that most Vs of the present study have been traditionally referred to in the Romance linguistic literature as parasynthetic constructions, a section devoted to clarifying what parasynthesis really involves and whether it is generally applicable to Germanic languages is in order. First, a definition of parasynthesis is given. After that, this section analyses the constituents that form the so-called parasynthetic structures and then the main structures that have been proposed for them. 2.4.1 Definition Parasynthesis has frequently been described as a morphological process which adds to a base a prefix and a suffix simultaneously. Parasynthetic words would have the following structure: [prefix [base]x sufix], where [prefix [base]] is not a word of the language nor is [[base] sufix]. Consider the Catalan examples in (14). Although some of these complex words contain a suffix between the base and the thematic vowel, -er in 12
Page 1 and 2: Argument Structure and Morphology:
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 5 and 6: 2a) are typically category-changing
Page 7 and 8: (5) a. dobbelenV ‘to gamble’ Ag
Page 9 and 10: 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND This secti
Page 11 and 12: how the marking procedures work and
Page 13: As for the treatment of reflexives
Page 17 and 18: may be considered negative by some,
Page 19 and 20: First, the classification of suffix
Page 21 and 22: unknown to derivation. 16 This is w
Page 23 and 24: 3 RESEARCH METHODS Dictionaries hav
Page 25 and 26: To confirm the results from the dic
Page 27 and 28: ‘A boat crossed the Atlantic’ (
Page 29 and 30: form (endur-se
Page 31 and 32: (32) V {[+c]1, [-c-m]2} / \ en V {[
Page 33 and 34: . Ell encaputxà la Maria. He EN-ho
Page 35 and 36: (39) coixíN ‘cushion’ R encoix
Page 37 and 38: Although the dictionary lists the u
Page 39 and 40: (45) a. The people outside chanted
Page 41 and 42: a. The reporter enlarged the pictur
Page 43 and 44: syllables), and strengthenV/lengthe
Page 45 and 46: (58) a. caseN R b. encaseV [+c] [-c
Page 47 and 48: meaning (e.g. list, trench), which
Page 49 and 50: 4.3 Discussion This section is main
Page 51 and 52: the speaker intended on that occasi
Page 53 and 54: had no function to perform, i.e. th
Page 55 and 56: HK’s treatment of deadjectival Vs
Page 57 and 58: 5 CONCLUSIONS In this thesis, I con
Page 59 and 60: As for the remark made by several a
Page 61 and 62: a) V-to-enV Enact (act) 1 When a go
Page 63 and 64: Entreat 1 If you entreat someone to
Page 65 and 66:
Enrich (rich) 1 To enrich something
Page 67 and 68:
ORIGIN: not given. Cipher (n.) 1 A
Page 69 and 70:
Enfold (fold) 1 If something enfold
Page 71 and 72:
Lighten 2 (v.) 1 When something lig
Page 73 and 74:
ORIGIN C19: from Spanish, via L. fr
Page 75 and 76:
Derivative: entrapment. ORIGIN C16:
Page 77 and 78:
d) This section presents those Vs w
Page 79 and 80:
ORIGIN ME: from OFr. enduire, partl
Page 81 and 82:
Ensconce (sconce) (often ensconce o
Page 83 and 84:
Velop: non-existing. Environ formal
Page 85 and 86:
Intermediate Vs which have meanings
Page 87 and 88:
A → [en+A]V Transitive [+c] [-c-m
Page 89 and 90:
B) Trans [+c] (usually [+c+m]) [-c-
Page 91 and 92:
Tela → telar → entelar Verí
Page 93 and 94:
Appendix C This appendix includes t
Page 95 and 96:
Results: English questionnaire When
Page 97 and 98:
Results: Catalan questionnaire Of a
Page 99 and 100:
Di Sciullo, A. M. 1997. “Prefixed
Page 101 and 102:
Marantz, A. 1997. “No Escape from
Page 103:
Varela, S. (ed.). 1993. La formaci
show all

Prefixation in English and Catalan - Departament de Filologia ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?