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

[-c-m] features of the prefix will get index 2 once it is at the verbal node together with
the [+c] role from the Ø-suffix, which will receive index 1. The resulting picture is
illustrated in (62).
(62) V {[+c]1, [-c-m]2}
/ \
en [-c-m] V [+c]
/ \
N [R] V [+c]
| |
case/rage Ø
A single representation for location and locatum Vs may not look sufficient. How is one
going to distinguish the two if both have the same representation? I suggest that the
distinction between the two may not be linguistically relevant, given the existence of
some Vs which can be interpreted either as location or locatum Vs. For instance,
consider entangle which can mean ‘something (e.g. a whale) is caught in N’ or ‘to put N
over somebody (e.g. people)’. The same phenomenon was found in Catalan. In the
following section I will propose that the answer to the previous question has to do with
semantics and pragmatics. If that view is correct, we are left with two semantic patterns
with different Θ-percolations: one involving the creation of the N with the [-c-m]
features coming from the reinterpreted R-role (cf. 61) and another one involving a
change of location with the [-c-m] features coming from the prefix (cf. 62).
Now it remains to be seen whether the same analysis can explain other types of
denominal Vs in English. Like in deadjectival Vs, locative en+N Vs also have a stage
where the N has become a V but the prefix is still not present. Among the intermediate
forms, some have a meaning related to the prefixed version and others have the same
meaning, always according to the definitions given in the English dictionaries (CIDE,
CCED, and COD). After checking these definitions with the speakers’ judgements, the
result is that of the intermediate forms whose meaning is related to the prefixed V, we
get different patterns. First, one of the two forms may be non-existing, which can either
be the unprefixed V (e.g. crust, compass) or the prefixed V (e.g. entrain, engirdle), the
latter questioning my analysis, since there is no possible source for the [-c-m] features
(i.e. the prefix is absent). Second, the intermediate form does not have a locative
43