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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1 INTRODUCTION 1 The present study deals with the derivation of words and the consequences that word formation processes have on the argument structure of the base. A current topic in generative grammar is whether word-structure is built by the laws of the syntax (cf. Baker (1988), Marantz (1997, 2001), Hale & Keyser (henceforth HK) (1993, 1998, 2002), Mateu (2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2005), among others) or by the laws of the morphological component (cf. Williams (1981a, 1981b), Selkirk (1982), Di Sciullo & Williams (1987), Di Sciullo (1997), Kiparsky (1997), Varela & Haouet (2001), Williams (2004), Lieber (2004), among others), partly reflecting the earlier debate between lexicalist and transformationalist derivations (cf. Chomsky (1970), Halle (1973), Aronoff (1976) vs. Lees (1970) (cited in Scalise (1984)), Lakoff (1970)). Here I will adopt a modular theory of grammar that brings together the two different views. I will assume that morphology constitutes a component on its own that interacts with the other components of grammar, i.e. syntax, semantics and phonology (cf. Jackendoff (1997), Ackema & Neeleman (2004)) and that there is some regularity behind the lexical items in any language, a belief that goes back to Gruber (1965), Chomsky (1970), Halle (1973), Jackendoff (1975), among the earliest references. Headedness in morphology is regular. For instance, affixation processes in English (e.g. Williams (1981a)) and Catalan (e.g. Mascaró (1986)) are typically rightheaded. Since these will be the languages under analysis, Williams’ (1981a) Righthand Head Rule (RHR) becomes relevant. The RHR 2 states that the head of a morphologically complex word is rightmost. The head will assign its category to the entire word by means of a mechanism referred to as percolation (see section 2.3 for discussion of such a mechanism). A direct result of the RHR is that suffixes are expected to determine the category of the word they are part of, since the head determines the properties of the whole. In contrast, prefixes are not expected to change the category of the words they attach to. The following examples show that suffixes (1a- 1 This thesis is a development of a publication (Padrosa (2005)) and an elaboration on a talk given at the 2005 BIDE Student Conference in Linguistics, in Bilbao (Spain). 2 Selkirk (1982) points out that the RHR is not universal and notes (citing from Lieber (1980)) that leftheaded types predominate in Vietnamese, for example. The RHR must therefore be stated as part of the grammar of Catalan and English, a parameter set for those languages with right-headed morphology. 1
2a) are typically category-changing and prefixes (1b-2b) category-neutral. (1) and (2) illustrate the point for English and Catalan respectively. (1) a. madA+nessN = madnessN characterN+izeV = characterizeV beautyN + fulA = beautifulA b. re+writeV = rewriteV im+politeA = impoliteA un+beliefN = unbeliefN (2) a. grocA ‘yellow’ + orN = grogorN ‘yellowness/having the quality of yellow’ industrialA ‘industrial’ + itzarV = industrialitzarV ‘industrialize’ brasilN ‘Brazil’ + erA = brasilerA ‘Brazilian’ b. a + dormirV ‘to sleep’ = adormirV ‘to make somebody fall asleep’ anti + higiènicA ‘hygienic’ = antihigiènicA ‘antihygienic’ post + guerraN ‘war’ = postguerraN ‘postwar’ Although the RHR seems to apply quite consistently, there are some exceptions to the claim that the head in morphological constructions is on the right and these need to be accounted for. For example, Williams (1981a) observes that the English prefix ensystematically converts N(ouns) and A(djectives) into V(erbs), thus displaying the behaviour of a head: (3) rageN > [en+rage]V caseN > [en+case]V dearA > [en+dear]V nobleA > [en+noble]V A similar scenario exists in Catalan. The prefix en- also seems to convert Ns and As into Vs in a productive way (see section 3 for other putative category-changing prefixes in English and Catalan): (4) amorN ‘love’ > [[en+amor]V+ar]V ‘to make someone fall in love’ caixaN ‘box’ > [[en+caixa]V +ar]V ‘to put (something) in boxes’ carA ‘expensive’ > [[en+car]V +ir]V ‘to raise the price (of something)’ cendrósA ‘ashy’ > [[en +cendrós]V +ar]V ‘to cover something with ashes’ 2
Page 1 and 2: Argument Structure and Morphology:
Page 3: TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS
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 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?