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

prefix might look as the most obvious source, this analysis would run into problems
when considering Vs like those in (30) and (31): 18
(30) a. canutA ‘white-haired’ [-c-m]
b. encanudirV ‘to become white-haired’ [-c-m]
(31) a. crespA ‘curly’ [-c-m]
b. cresparV ‘to curl one’s hair’ ([+c]) [-c-m]
c. encrespar(-se)V ‘to curl one’s hair’ ‘to heighten the waves’ [+c] [-c-m]
Although we would be able to explain encanudir by saying that the [+c] role of the
prefix is reduced, and that it is not in the case of encrespar, Vs like crespar still cannot
be accounted for, since there is no source for the unexpected [+c] role if we assume that
such role originates in the prefix. Another source for the [+c] role needs to be found.
One could entertain the idea that the [+c] role originates in the inflectional suffix (e.g.
-ar in the case of encrespar), but that option is a dead end, since inflectional suffixes,
unlike derivational ones, do not contribute to Θ-grids. In addition, given that an
inflectional suffix is present in each and every simplex V, such view implies that all
unaccusative Vs are derived by a reduction operation, an option which needs to be
investigated further. A Ø-suffix then seems to be the only possible candidate left. On
the basis of examples like (30-31), I propose that the Ø-suffix always carries a [+c] role,
although this is not active all the time (i.e. it can be reduced). I also propose that the
same Ø-suffix is responsible for the conversion of As to Vs. The inflectional suffix and
the prefix en- cannot be responsible for the conversion. Inflectional suffixes do not
change category and the derived V crespar in (31) clearly illustrates that the prefix is
not needed, since this is absent and a deadjectival V can still be derived.
Given that my analysis presupposes a specific direction of derivation:
A→V→en+V (crespA → cresparV → encresparV), one might think that a weakness of
this analysis is that not always is it possible to derive existing intermediate Vs (marked
as ‘!’ in canutA → !canudirV → encanudirV), but the possibility of deriving possible but
non-existent words has been established in other work (for instance, see Stiebels (1998),
Ackema & Neeleman (2004) who argue for an overgenerating morphology).
To see how the analysis just proposed for deadjectival en-prefixations works,
the Θ-percolations and marking procedures for (27), endolcir(-se), will be presented.
18 Go to Appendix B, the section of deadjectival Vs, to view other unprefixed Vs which contain a [+c]
role, e.g. agrir(-se) ‘to sour’, corbar ‘to bend’.
27