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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

some historical reanalysis might have taken place, i.e. the prefix might have been attached to these Vs originally, and then for some reason, it was dropped, although the meaning remained the same. I pursue this idea here, and I suggest that the prefix originally attached to the V had the [-c-m] features still present in the prefix of Vs like encase and enrage. Historical data (cf. Marchand (1969) confirm my suggestion. All the forms in (63-64) were initially prefixed forms: embox, enjail, enkennel, encrown, encurtain, and enchain. Now it needs to be explained how all the forms which lost the prefix still have a [-c-m] role. I propose that the loss of the prefix has been a gradual process in which speakers have disassociated the [-c-m] features from the prefix and have relinked them to the base N (cf. autosegmental phonology, see e.g. Kenstowicz (1994), Roca et al. (2000)). The prefix with no features of its own had no function in the word and was probably lost gradually. (Maybe phonological weakening helped to its loss). If that view is correct, one needs to explain how speakers can differentiate Vs of creation from locative Vs, because the [-c-m] features in both cases have the same source (the N), a question which will be discussed in the following section. Although the most productive type of denominal Vs in English seems to complicate the picture as for the source of the [-c-m] features, at the same time it provides some evidence to say that the Ø-suffix, apart from providing the [+c] role in Vs like (63-64), is the element responsible for the conversion of Ns to Vs. One could also entertain the idea that there is simply a change of category ([ ]N →[ ]V), but that option would leave the presence of the [+c] role unaccounted for. The conclusion from this section is that the analysis proposed for Catalan en+N Vs can be maintained, but only for a few denominal Vs in English, namely Vs of creation (e.g. enslave) and those prefixed Vs with a locative reading (e.g. encase, enrage). In both cases the [+c] role originates in the Ø-suffix, also responsible for the conversion (N→V). The [-c-m] features come from the reinterpreted R-role in Vs of creation and from the prefix in locative denominal Vs. However, another type of denominal Vs was found, viz. those that have no prefix but have a locative reading. For those, I proposed that the [-c-m] features are contained in the base N. Crucially, in all cases, the RHR is observed: the element containing a specific feature specification constitutes the rightmost element marked with those features. 45
4.3 Discussion This section is mainly devoted to explaining some points left unresolved from the previous sections. First, I will explain how speakers can distinguish locatum Vs from location Vs given that they have the same structure. Second, I will present how English speakers can derive the locative reading in unprefixed Vs like box. Third, I will discuss how my analysis can explain the fact that the prefix en- seems to potentiate the suffix – ment if the prefix is not a head. Finally, HK’s (1993, 1998, 2002) proposal will be briefly presented to see whether it can handle the data of my study satisfactorily. As seen in the two previous sections, the [-c-m] features of the Catalan denominal Vs of creation come from the reinterpreted R-role, whereas the [-c-m] features of locatum and location Vs originate in the prefix. For those Vs which can be interpreted both as a V of creation (e.g. encoixinar, engraellar ‘to make N (cushion/grill)’ and as a locative V (either a locatum V: encoixinar ‘to put N in a place (e.g. room)’ (cf. 39) or a location V: engraellar ‘to put something (e.g. meat) in N’), I suggested that the reading available will depend on the source of the [-c-m] features. If they come from the reinterpreted R-role, there will be a creation reading, but if they come from the prefix, there will be a locative reading. Finally, I noticed the existence of those Vs which can be interpreted as locatum and location, like envinagrar and entubar ‘toEN-tube’ with the paraphrases ‘to put N into something’ and ‘to put something into the N’. Although the division between the two readings may not be linguistically relevant, one has to explain the fact that speakers can differentiate the two and assign the appropriate meaning (either locatum or location) to any denominal Vs given a specific context. This requires some explanation and so does the same phenomenon in English (cf. entangle). According to Clark & Clark (1979), the characterization of denominal Vs into locatum and location depends on their predominant features. If the source N denotes things which are conventionally placed with respect to other objects (i.e. placeables in their terminology), then the locatum reading will be derived. If the source N denotes things which are used as places with respect to which other objects are placed, we will get the location interpretation. Clark & Clark note, though, that some Vs may have more than one predominant feature, thus giving rise to Vs like envinagrar and entangle. Kiparsky (1997) reaches a similar conclusion by a conceptually-knowledge based principle making use of the canonical use (instead of Clark & Clark’s 46
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 and 14: As for the treatment of reflexives
Page 15 and 16: The fact that the suffix -ize forms
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: meaning (e.g. list, trench), which
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?