Download 2 Derivation and more Summaries Russian in PDF only on Docsity!
44 Robert Beard
2 Derivation
ROBERT BEARD
1 Derivation versus inflection
Unlike inflectional morphology, which specifies the grammatical functions of words in phrases without altering their meaning, derivational morphology or word formation is so named because it usually results in the derivation of a new word with new meaning. This traditional definition, however, has failed to secure a distinction between the two types of morphology, and the reasons for this failure have become matters of considerable discussion. Before proceeding to the question of what is derivational morphology, therefore, it makes sense to first attempt to locate the inflection–derivation interface.
2 The derivation–inflection interface
Chomsky (1970) proposed a sharp modular distinction between lexical and syntactic processes, known widely under the rubric of Lexicalism. 1 According to the Lexicalist position, words are derived in the lexicon and emerge with an internal structure to which syntax has no access ( Lexical Integrity Hypothesis , Postal 1969). Sentences like I speak Russiai n though I’ve never been therei are thereby ruled out, since the pronoun there is syntactically coindexed with a lexeme-internal morpheme, Russia , which has no independent status in the syntax. Sentences, on the other hand, are generated by the principles of syntax, to which lexical operations have no access. This rules out phrasally based lexical items such as over-the-counter in over-the-counter sales , widely held to be extragrammatically generated.^2 Lexicalism entails a set of diagnostics which distinguish derivation from inflection. First, if inflection is relevant only to syntax, the output of inflectional rules cannot be listed lexically. Derivation, on the other hand, is purely lexical, so the output of a derivation rule is a new word which is subject to lexical
Derivation 45
listing. Listing allows lexical but not inflectional derivates to semantically idio- matize or lexicalize. Even though went has been phonologically lexicalized for centuries, semantically it has remained no more than the past tense of go. Terrific , on the other hand, has lost all semantic contact with its derivational origins in terror and terrify , despite its residual phonological similarity. Second, if lexical operations precede syntactic ones, and if derivational opera- tions map isomorphically onto marking operations (see section 6 for alternat- ives), inflectional markers will always occur outside derivational markers, as in Russian lët-cik-a fly-agent-gen ‘the flyer’s (pilot’s)’, where the derivational agentive marker - (s)cik precedes the inflectional case marker - a. Third, since inflection is purely syntactic, it cannot change the lexical category of a word; derivation can. The agentive suffix in this example changes the verbal base to a noun, but the case ending does not affect that nominal status. Finally, since inflection specifies syntactic relations rather than names semantic categories, it should be fully productive. If an inflectional stem is susceptible to one function of a paradigm, it is susceptible to them all. No verb, for example, should conjugate in the singular but not the plural, or in the present but not the past tense. The productivity of derivation, however, is determined by semantic categories, and we would expect derivation to be constrained by less predictable lexical conditions. Unfortunately, each of the Lexicalist diagnostics is vexed by some aspect of the data. Derivation does change the meanings of words so as to allow the derivate to become a lexical entry in the lexicon. Case functions, however, also lexicalize. In Russian, for example, the Instrumental never marks punctual time with the odd exception of instances involving temporal nouns which form natural quadruplets – for example, utr-om ‘in the morning’, dn-em ‘in the after- noon’, vecer-om ‘in the evening’, and noc ’-ju ‘at night’. There is simply no way to derive punctuality from the major or minor functions of the Instrumental: that is, manner, means, vialic, essive. Punctuality is productively marked by v ‘in’ + ACC in Russian, e.g. v to vremya ‘at that time’. The instrumental time nouns apparently must be lexically marked, even though punctuality is a case function. Under most current grammatical theories, lexical selection occurs prior to agreement operations and the amalgamation of functional categories under INFL. If derivation is a lexical process, inflectional operations must apply subsequent to lexical ones. Assuming again an isomorphic relation between form and function, it follows that inflectional markers will emerge in sur- face structure outside all derivational markers. However, inflectional markers occur widely inside derivational markers. For example, the derivation of verbs by preverbs , prefixes which often share the form of an adverb or adposition, is considered derivational, since these derivates often lexicalize semantically. In English these derivations are marked with discontinuous morphemes : for example, bring (someone) around. In Sanskrit, however, similar derivations prefix the base: for example, pari = wayat , literally ‘around he.leads’, the present active for ‘he marries’. The imperfect is derived by inserting a marker between
Derivation 47
(1) /hgl 0 / Phonological representation
↑↓
+N^
– Animate^ Grammatical representation
– sg.,^ – pl.^
[HEALTH(X)] Semantic representation
There is general agreement on these three constituents of a lexical representa- tion, and that they mutually imply each other in the Saussurean sense; that is, no one such representation occurs without the other two, as indicated by the double-headed arrows in (1). Current disagreement centers on whether lexemes comprise only open open-class morphemes (N, A, V stems) or whether they include grammatical (functional) morphemes as well. We will return to this issue further on.
3.1 Derivation as lexical selection
Advocates of Word Syntax , including Selkirk (1982), Lieber (1981, 1992), Scalise (1984), and Sproat (1985), reduce derivation to the selection of an affix from the lexicon (see Toman, Word Syntax). This particular view of derivation is dependent upon the existence of word-internal hierarchical structure: that is, below the X 0 level. Lieber (1992) claims that this structure in no way differs from syntactic structure, so that words contain specifiers, heads, and comple- ments, just as do clauses. If words contain their own structure, and if affixes are regular lexical entries like stems, then derivation, compounding, and regu- lar lexical selection may all be accomplished by a single process: lexical selec- tion. (2) illustrates how compounds and derivations might share the same structure.
(2) (a) N (b) A (c) N
N A
bread winn er un health y draw bridge
+N +V (^) +++++ N +A +N (^) +++++ A +V (^) +++++ N
Derivational affixes are not distinguished from stems, but share the same classification, morpheme , defined as a classical linguistic sign. That is, derivational
48 Robert Beard
morphemes have the same mutually implied phonological, grammatical, and semantic representations as do lexemes. According to Lieber, the grammat- ical representation contains the category and subcategorization of the affix, plus any diacritics, such as its Level Order , the level at which an affix applies under Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky 1982b). The semantic representations of the stems and affixes in (2), for example, compose under the scope conditions provided by the structural hierarchy and the head-dominance principles. In (2), the rightmost lexical item dominates and assigns the grammatical and semantic categories to the derivate or compound, as indicated by the boldface branches. The simplicity of the Word Syntax theory of derivation is achieved by the assumption that affixes are regular lexical items, and as such may serve as heads of derivates. However, morphology involves far more types of mark- ing than simple affixation, and most of these types represent problems for Word Syntax.
3.2 Derivation as morphological operations
Anderson (1992), Aronoff (1976, 1994), and Beard (1981) have extended the notion of grammatical morphemes as operations developed in Matthews’s Word-and-Paradigm (see Stump, Inflection) theory to derivation. Process morphology addresses first and foremost those types of morphology other than external affixation. For example, both inflectional and derivational mor- phology are characterized by reduplication. Reduplication is a process which copies all or part of the phonological representation of a stem as an affix: for example, the Dakota de-adjectival verbalization: puza ‘dry’ : puspuza ‘be dry’, chepa ‘fat’ : chepchepa ‘be fat’. Notice that reduplication presupposes the prior existence of some lexeme, making it difficult to classify this process as a lexical item as Marantz (1982) proposes. Whatever reduplication is, it must take place subsequent to lexical selection, and hence cannot be accounted for by lexical selection itself, unless that process is enhanced in an ad hoc fashion. In addition to external affixation, languages also widely exhibit infixation. The inchoative de-adjectival verb in Tagalog infixes the base; for example, ganda ‘beautiful’ : gumanda ‘become beautiful’, gising ‘awake’ : gumising ‘awaken’. Pro- cessual morphology handles infixation with the same sort of rules employed in accounting for external affixation. Structures like (2) cannot adequately explain infixation without special phonological rules which determine the position of infixes but not prefixes and suffixes. The issue between Word Syntax and process morphology then reduces to the question of whether such special operations differ qualitatively from other phonological operations. Whether affixes are copied from stems to which they are attached, or whether they are written external or internal to the lexical base, are matters of indif- ference if affixation is a process, rather than the selection of a lexeme. This interpretation of derivation distinguishes operations on the grammatical rep- resentation of the lexical base from phonological modifications of the base
50 Robert Beard
Bybee argues for a connectionist theory of morphology, inflectional and derivational, based on the theory of parallel distributed processing by Rumelhart and McClelland (1986). In her view, lexical rules have no status “independ- ent of the lexical items to which they are applicable. Rather, rules are highly reinforced representational patterns or schemas.” Schemas are abstractions from memorized lexical items which share semantic or phonological propert- ies. One such schema results from the association of verb pairs like cling : clung, sling : slung, sting : stung. 4 A derivation rule on Bybee’s account is simply a relationship which is more strongly represented, where “strongly” refers to the number of representations a pattern has in long-term memory. In the instance just cited, the phonological relation /iN/ : /vN/ is more strongly represented than /kl/ : /sl/ or /sl/ : /st/. The more recurrent phonological relation is therefore more likely to be associated with the past tense than the less fre- quent ones. When speakers add the past tense innovatively, they simply search their memories for phonological relations associated with the past tense and choose one analogically. Following recent connectionist theories, the most highly re- inforced relation is most likely to be selected for the neologism. The relation /iN/ : /vN/, for instance, will not be as strongly represented in the semantic schema for past tense as ø : /d/. Speakers are therefore more likely to add /d/ to a neologism than to replace a stem vowel /i/ with /v/. If the neo- logism ends in /N/, however, the probability that this method will be selected increases. Bybee’s suggestion has the advantage of conflating derivation and deriva- tional acquisition. A derivational rule reduces to the arrangement of memor- ized items in mental storage. Without derivation rules, all morphology may be confined to the lexicon as in Word Syntax, and only one rule, lexical selection, is required to account for morphology in syntax. Moreover, morphological creativity reduces to the general cognitive process of analogy which is com- monly used in categorization. So far, however, many of the processes vital to Bybee’s model remain undefined, so it is not currently possible to determine this theory’s efficacy in accounting for the derivational data.
4 Derivational heads
If affixes are regular lexical items which may be selected for word structures as fully derived words are selected for phrase structures, they should be able to serve as heads, as do fully derived words. If affixes are the results of pro- cesses, however, they cannot be lexical heads, and the traditional assumption that stems represent morphological heads regains credibility. This issue has been a central concern of recent morphological research, so is next on the agenda.
Derivation 51
4.1 Affixes as heads
If derived words are structured, the question naturally arises as to whether word structure is the same as syntactic structure. Lieber and Sproat claim that not only are the two types of structure identical, but the principles for composing words are precisely those of X-bar syntax. It follows that mor- phology may be dispensed with altogether, resulting in yet another major theoretical economy under Word Syntax. A major contention of modern X-bar theory is that the head of a phrase ( X ) determines the category of the whole phrase ( XP ). A sound test of Word Syntax, therefore, is whether the head of a derived word determines the category of the whole word. Since the outer- most affix of a word is often associated with the category of the whole word, it might be possible to mount a case for affixes serving as the heads of derived words. E. Williams (1981b) advanced the simplest account of affixes as heads of words: the head of a word is its rightmost element. Thus the head of bread- winner in (2a) would be - er which, under the premise that affixes are lexical items, is a noun in the same sense that bridge in drawbridge (2c) is a noun. Both
- er and bridge are nouns which determine the category of bread-winner and drawbridge. The heads of redraw and unhealthy (2b), on the other hand, are the bases draw and healthy , since prefixes in IE languages tend not to change the category of the derivates to which they adhere. Some features, however, must be raised from nonheads. Diminutives, for example, usually bear the features of the base rather than the affix. In Russian, for example, both sobaka ‘dog’ and its diminutive, sobac-k-a , are feminine; jazyk ‘tongue’ and its diminutive, jazyc-ok , are both masculine. This contrasts with German diminutives, which are all consistently neuter: for example, der Brief : das Briefchen ‘letter’, die Lampe : das Lämpchen ‘lamp’. To redress this problem, Di Sciullo and Williams (1987) proposed that feature inheritance relativizes the head; that is, features of categories present in the stem but not in the affix determine the lexical categorization of the final derived word. This new vari- ation presumes that affixes, like Russian diminutive suffixes, are unmarked for certain features such as gender; this allows gender features from the next highest node to be inherited by the derivate. The German suffix - chen , on the other hand, does bear an inheritable gender valuation, neuter, and so passes this feature on to the derivate. Unfortunately, relativizing morphological heads renders them radically dif- ferent from phrasal heads, which are always absolute and never relative. Derived words differ greatly from derived phrases, where face is just as good a noun phrase as a strange face peering through the door. * Ist is not just as good a noun as violinist. Relativizing morphological heads then defeats the original purpose of postulating affixal heads. This difference between word and phrase heads nonetheless must be characterized in an adequate model of grammar, even though it impedes the reduction of morphology to syntax.
Derivation 53
with the failure of theories of affixal heads, endorses the traditional assump- tion that the morphological head of a word is its root or stem. Morpholexical and morphosyntactic feature operations seem to apply concatenatively to the base lexeme; the distribution of affixes, on the other hand, seems to be deter- mined by language-dependent rules of spellout.
5 Synthetic compounds and derivation
If affixes are not morphological heads, the question arises as to whether compounds and derivations are at all related as (2) implies. If they are, it is doubtful that their relation is structural. It is common to distinguish analytic from synthetic compounds by the presence of affixation. Drawbridge , redhead , houseboat are thereby analytic compounds, while truck-driv er , truck - driv ing , red - head ed are all synthetic. There is little evidence that most analytical compounds are related to derivation. Rather, other analytic compounding appears to be a simple process of combining lexemes. The head of those compounds composed of constituents belonging to different categories determines the category of the compound. The right constituent determines the category of English com- pounds, so that a houseboat is a boat while a boathouse is a house. However, this description excludes prepositions, since compounds with prepositional modifiers are often adjectives ( inland , between-class , outboard ), and those with prepositional heads may be anything but prepositions ( sit-in , hold-out , run- away ). Even most P + P compounds fail the head test: without does not imply out , and in and on would seem to be the heads of into and onto , respectively. The evidence from compounding hence suggests that adpositions are not lexemes in the sense that N, V, A stems are. The distinction between analytic and synthetic compounds is nevertheless imperfect at best. Synthetic compounds do resemble simple derivations in several respects. For example, they share the same derivational categories often marked by the same affixes: bearded : gray-bearded , driver : truck-driver , driving : truck-driving. Analytic Bahuvrihi compounds, like redhead , long-hair , hardhead , for instance, share their derivational function with possessional adject- ives like red-headed , long-haired , hardheaded. Indeed, the same possessional func- tion (“having N ”) emerges in simple derivations like headed and hairy. Parallels like these suggest that synthetic compounding is derivation which allows an optional modifier. Affixation, however, is not a reliable indicator of the distinc- tion between compounds and derivations, since the zero morphology, which is available to simple derivations, is also available to compounds. Indeed, Booij (1988) has shown that synthetic compounds, whose structure is presumed to be [ truck-driv ] ing , may be explained with equal cogency as analytic compounds with the structure [ truck ][ driving ], given a semantic level capable of resolving morphosemantic mismatches.
54 Robert Beard
Until research better clarifies the subject, it is best to assume that analytic compounds represent an independent lexical means of derivation; however, it is doubtful that those bearing adpositions are compounds (see also Fabb, Compounding). Analytic compounds in this sense should not be confused with zero-marked Bahuvrihi compounds. Like synthetic compounds, bahuvrihis may be interpreted as derivations with optional modifiers. This area of research is very fluid, however, and Booij has shown how all compounds may be reduced to analytic concatenation. Morphosemantic mismatches raise another important issue in morpho- logy: the fact that derivational meaning and the affixation marking it are not always isomorphic. Karcevskij (1929) called this phenomenon morphological asymmetry. It is an attribute of morphology whose importance is only now being appreciated.
6 Morphological asymmetry
Karcevskij noted that while several endings mark the genitive in Russian –
- i , - a , - u – each of these endings also has multiple functions. The ending - a , for example, also marks feminine nominative singular and neuter plural. The end- ing - i marks feminine and masculine nominative plural, as well as genitive, dative, and locative singular in declension III. In other words, it is common for grammatical morphemes to be cofunctional (- i , - a , - u above) and multifunctional (- i ), to use the terms of Szymanek (1989). In addition to cofunctionality and multifunctionality, Matthews (1972) identified extended and cumulative exponence as morphological asymmetries. In the Latin word rCxistD [ re:k-s-is-ti: ] ‘you (sg.) ruled’, for example, the suffix - ti: cumulatively (simultaneously) marks second person, singular, and perfective. The remaining markers, - s and - is are empty extensions of - ti , redundantly marking the perfective, too. The same phe- nomena characterize derivation. In the adjective dram-at-ic-al , - at and - al are empty extensions of - ic ; cf. theatr-ic. The German suffix - er in Lehr-er ‘teacher’ cumulatively marks [+subjective], [+masculine], and [declension I]. Finally, zero (null) morphology reflects morphological asymmetry. While most non- count modalic (instrumental) nominals require either the suffix - er ( conditioner , softener ) or - fnt ( stimulant , relaxant ), many require no suffix at all: for example, a rinse , a wash , a spray. Again, the relationship between the grammatical and phonological levels is nonisomorphic. Bazell (1949, 1952) argued that these phenomena collectively indicate a fault in structuralist morphology, which he dubbed the Correspondence Fallacy , the assumption that an analysis at one linguistic level will isomorphically map onto analyses at other levels. Bazell argued that the phonological analysis of a word need not correspond to its semantic analysis; however, it does not follow from this that no analysis is possible. It is quite conceivable that each level is defined in its own terms, and that mapping from one level to another involves
56 Robert Beard
(6) re-laser, out-laser, over-laser,...
Laser
laser-er^ →^ laser-er-s, laser-er-’s
laser-ing → laser-ing-s, laser-ing-’s
(un)laser-able^ →^ (un)laser-abil-ity
Some types of derivation do not fit into derivational paradigms like (6). It is well known that words may be misanalyzed when a phonological sequence identical with that of an affix is misperceived as that affix. The result is that a previously nonexistent underlying base is extracted and added to the perman- ent lexical store via a process known as back formation. Sculptor , for example, was borrowed as an integral base into English. However, because the final phoneme cluster / fr / is identical with an agentive marker in English, and since sculptor is an agentive noun, a verbal base, to sculpt , has been extracted and added to the stock of English verbs. Consequently, sculptor changes from a lexical base to a derivate. Several facts obstruct the conclusion that back formation is a derivational process. First, in order to use back-formed words, we must be familiar with them. While some potentially back-formed words are used, far more may not be. It is not possible, for instance, to say that a butcher * butches or that a barber
- barbs , even though these verbs are potential back derivates as legitimate as sculpt. There is no grammatically definable constraint preventing this; it simply is not acceptable to do so. Second, we do not find positions for back derivates in lexical paradigms like (6). Take the back derivate of laser itself: to lase , for example. It generates exactly the same paradigm as (6). Thus, in those dialects which use lase , one may say relase, outlase, overlase, laser, lasing, (un)lasable, (un)lasability – all with the same sense as the corresponding zero-derived verb in (6). In other words, rather than forming a derivational relationship with a lexical base, back-formed words create a new base, expanding the underived lexical stock in a way that regular derivations do not. This characterization partially fits several other types of word formation which need to be distin- guished from regular, grammatically determined derivation.
7.1 Lexical stock expansion
Clipping ( telephone : phone ), blends ( smoke + fog = smog ), acronymization ( aids ), and analogical formation ( workaholic ) all conform to the description of back forma- tion in significant ways. Back formation generates a base which the lexicon lacks. Clipping, on the other hand, produces a redundant base, but a new one all the same. With rare exceptions (e.g. caravan : van ), the input and output of clipping rules are semantically identical, and both remain active in the lexicon. Both telephone and phone have the same range of grammatical derivations, all with the same meaning: ( tele ) phoner, ( tele ) phoning , etc. Notice, too, the irregu- larity of clipping. It usually reduces a polysyllabic word to a monosyllabic one; however, this may be accomplished by removing the initial syllables ( phone ), the final syllables ( rep ), or the initial and final syllables ( flu ).
Derivation 57
Blending, acronymization, and analogical formation also tend to be con- scious operations, unlike grammatical derivation. Words like smog, motel , and tangelo are created intentionally by a logical rather than grammatical process: if the reference is part A and part B, then the word referring to it should com- prise parts of the words for A and B. Acronyms like laser, scuba, aids , have been converted from phrases to the initial letters of the words in those phrases, which are not part of grammar, then the initials have been phonologically interpreted. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome , for example, provides aids , which is rendered pronounceable by applying English spelling rules in reverse. The process hence requires considerable conscious activity outside the bounds of grammar. As in the case of clipping, the phrase and the acronym are syn- onymous, and both remain in the language. Analogical forms like workaholic, chocaholic and cheeseburger, fishburger, chicken- burger differ from regular derivations in that they require prosodic identity. Genuine suffixes like - ing may be added to stems of any length or prosodic structure. Pseudo-derivates like chocaholic , however, must additionally fit the prosodic template of their analog, in this case, alcoholic : the output must con- tain four syllables with penultimate accent. Thus chocolaholic , shoppingaholic , and handiworkaholic do not work as well as chocaholic , shopaholic , and workaholic. When we begin to find acceptable violations of this extragrammatical prin- ciple like chickenburger , we usually find that the remainder, in this case burger , has become an independent back-formed word capable of undergoing regular compounding. This does not exhaust the catalogue of lexical stock expansion processes. That catalogue also contains borrowing ( troika, detente, thug ) , commonization ( quisling, aspirin ) , semantic narrowing ( percolator, escalator ) , loan translation (German Einfluß ‘influence’, Mitleid ‘compassion’), folk etymology ( craw [ l ] fish from Old French crevise ), and perhaps others. The point is that these processes tend to be con- scious, extragrammatical, and hence grammatically irregular. Rather than filling a position in some lexical paradigm, they create new lexical bases which then generate their own paradigms. To better understand the difference, let us now examine the regular derivation types.
7.2 Lexical derivation
Four distinct types of regular grammatical derivation have been described in the literature; featural derivation , functional derivation , transposition , and express- ive derivation. While all the details of the properties of these types of derivation and their interrelations have not been refined, their basic nature and functions may be broadly described.
7.2.1 Featural derivation Featural derivation does not change the category
of the underlying base, but operates on the values of inherent features. An obvious candidate for such a rule is natural gender, as described by Jakobson
Derivation 59
in just the same sense that an employee is an object employed. It therefore seems more likely that this type of derivation is based on case functions: for example (nominative of) subject, (accusative of) object, (locative of) place ( bakery, fishery ), (genitive of) possession ( dirty, forested ) and material ( oaken, woolen ), (ablative of) origin ( American, Brazilian ), (dative of) purpose ( roofing, siding ), (instrumental of) means ( cutter, defoliant ). Languages with rich morphologies have dozens of such derivations, includ- ing those just mentioned. Even in Serbian and Polish all these derivations are still quite productive, and all their functions serve as pure case functions ex- pressed without adpositions in some language. Basque has a locative of locus, mendi-an = mountain-Loc ‘on the mountain’; Serbian exhibits the possessional (qualitative) genitive: covek plav-ih oci-ju ‘a man of (with) blue eyes’; Turkish marks origin and material with the ablative, Ankara-dan = Ankara-Abl ‘from Ankara’, ta/-tan bir ev = stone-Abl one house ‘a house of stone’; and Latin has a dative of purpose: castr-Ds locum = camp-DatSg place-AccSg ‘a place for a camp’. All languages express these functions with case endings, adpositions, or a combination of both. Few verbs and no nouns are subcategorized for these argument relations, yet they are widely available to functional lexical derivation in languages with rich morphological systems like Serbian, Inuit, and Chukchee.^6 If the ultimate constraint on functional derivations is the set of case func- tions, the question becomes why some functions seem to be missing and why subject and object relations are more productive and diachronically stable than others. Some omissions are obvious: the (ablative) absolute relation is missing because it is purely a syntactic relation, that of sentential adverbs; the same applies to the (ablative of) distinction, used to mark comparatives in many languages: for example, Turkish Halil’ - den tembel = Halil-Abl lazy ‘lazier than Halil’. The reason why we find more subjective and objective nominalizations than others is, no doubt, high pragmatic demand. This is an area which has received little attention historically, and thus no definitive answers to these questions are available.^7 However, it is clear that functional derivations involve far more functions than the argument functions found in the base, yet few if any productive derivational functions fall outside those found in the inflec- tional system.
7.2.3 Transposition Another type of derivation which reflects a simple
change of category without any functional change is transposition , illustrated in (9):
(9) (a) walk : walk-ing (V → N) (b) new : new-ness (A → N) (c) budget : budget-ary (N → A)
Kury 4 owicz called derivations like those of (9) “dérivation syntaxique,” but Marchand (1967) used the more distinctive term, “transposition.”
60 Robert Beard
Transposition introduces no argument structure, but simply shifts a stem from one category to another, sometimes marking the fact affixally, sometimes not. The definition of dryness must coincide with that of dry in all essential respects, since, unlike bake and baker , its reference is identical to that of its base. The same is true of all the relations represented in (9). Whether transpositions are marked by real or zero affixation is a separate issue, bound up with the general issue of the nature of zero morphology.
7.2.4 Expressive derivation Expressive derivation does not change the
referential scope of its input; however, expressive derivation also does not change the lexical category of the base. As mentioned in section 2, the refer- ence of the three grades of the Russian word for ‘rain’, dozd’, dozdik , and dozd- ic-ek , all refer to the same conceptual category. The formal variation reflects subjective perceptions of the speaker: whether he perceives the rain to be relatively light, beneficial, or pleasant. For this reason, expressive derivation may be recursive, applying to its own output as in the Russian example. In addition to diminutive and augmentative expressive derivation, pejorative and affectionate forms also occur: for example, Russian kniga : knizonka ‘damned book’ (cf. knizka ‘little book’) and papa ‘daddy’ : papocka. There is no obvious means of relegating expressive derivation to any of the other three types. The categories involved are not found elsewhere in gram- mar as are functional categories, nor are they inherent lexical categories like gender. Since expressive derivation does not involve a category change, it cannot be a form of transposition. It therefore remains mysterious in many respects.
8 Realization and productivity
The types of phonological realization (stem modification) which express deriva- tion are by and large the same as those which express inflection. The glaring exception seems to be that derivation is not expressed by free morphemes : those which are not modifications of stems, but which stand alone. This would follow from the assumption that only inflection is syntactic. Since free mor- phemes require a structural position, this type of realization would be ruled out for lexical derivation by the Lexicalist Hypothesis. Evidence indicates, however, that the bound phonological realization of derivational and inflectional morphology is provided by a single component (see also the discussion of the Split Morphology Hypothesis in Stump, Inflec- tion). The English suffix - ing , for example, may be attached to verb stems to generate inflectional forms like the progressive ( is painting ), the present parti- ciple ( painting machine ), as well as derivational forms like the objective nominal- ization ( a painting ). The same is true of - ed , which productively marks the past
62 Robert Beard
8.2 Other types of stem modification
8.2.1 Affixation Affixation (prefixation, suffixation, and infixation) is the
most productive means of marking derivation. Anderson (1992: ch. 8) points out that affixation may be defined in the same terms as cliticization, assuming that the peripheral element of a word is its initial or final segment or syllable and its head is the accented syllable. That is, affixes may attach only to the inside or outside of the initial or final phoneme or syllable, or to either side of the head, the accented syllable.^8 This purely morphological definition of affixation is far more accurate than structural descriptions, and does not require word structure or any sort of affix movement. Circumfixation , such as Indonesian ke... -an as besar ‘big’ : ke-besar-an ‘bigness, greatness’, is merely extended exponence involving a prefix and a suffix simultaneously.
8.2.2 Apophony (stem mutation, revoweling) This type of stem modifica-
tion is well attested in Semitic languages. Lexical items in those languages com- prise consonants only, and vowels are used to mark morphological functions. The (Algerian) Arabic stem for ‘write’ is * ktb -, and the derivate for ‘book’ is ktaab , while that for ‘writer’ is kaatfb. This type of morphological modification, like subtraction and metathesis, raises the question of the limits on modification of the phonological representation of the base: to what extent may the base be corrupted before it becomes unrecognizable? This is another open question in morphology.
8.2.3 Conversion Transposing a lexeme from one category to another
without affixation is sometimes called conversion. The evidence weighs against a separate operation of conversion, however, for we find precisely the same semantic relations between conversional pairs as between derivational pairs. Thus for every conversion to dry , to wet , to empty we find at least an equal number of affixed derivates with the same relation: to shorten, to normalize, to domesticate. Moreover, precisely those stems which affix are precluded from con- version ( to * short, * normal, * domestic ), and precisely those which convert are precluded from affixation: to * endry, * wetten, * emptify. 9 The simpler account of such forms is that those without affixation are null marked variants of the same derivation which is otherwise marked by a variety of affixes.
8.2.4 Paradigmatic derivation A common means of marking lexical deriva-
tion is shifting the base from one nominal declension class to another, with or without a derivational marker. Thus, in Swahili, diminutives are formed by shifting nouns to noun class 3: for example, m-lango ‘door’ (class 2) : ki-lango ‘little door’ (class 3), m-lima ‘mountain’ : ki-lima ‘hill’. Feminine agentives in Russian are usually derived from masculines of declension I (= noun class 1) by adding a declension II (= noun class 2) suffix: for example, ucitel’ ‘teacher’ : ucitel’-nic-a , where the final - a indicates declension II. However, the processes of adding the suffix and changing the declensional paradigm must be independent,
Derivation 63
since the latter may apply without the former: rab (masc., declension I) : rab-a (fem., declension II) ‘slave’, suprug (masc., declension I) : suprug-a (fem., declension II) ‘spouse’.
8.2.5 Prosodic modification A derivational function may be marked by
simply shifting the accent of a word or modifying the intonation, perhaps a variant of apophony. Thus, in English, it is common to indicate the objective (resultative) nominalization by shifting accent from the stem to the prefix: for example, survéy : súrvey, suspéct : súspect. The process is productive with verbs prefixed by re -: rewríte : réwrite , remáke : rémake. The morpheme here seems to be the process of shifting the accent from one syllable to another.
8.2.6 Reduplication In addition to attaching phonologically specified affixes
to a stem, derivation is often marked by the full or partial reduplication of a part of the stem attached to it. Indonesian forms adverbs from all categories by completely reduplicating them: kira ‘guess’ : kira-kira ‘approximately’, pagi ‘morning’ : pagi-pagi ‘in the morning’. Reduplication may be combined with vari- ous types of affixation as in Indonesian anak ‘child’ : ke-anak-anak-an ‘childish’.
8.3 Productivity and allomorphic variation
Proponents of Natural Morphology (NM) have long noted that not all the modes of stem modification surveyed in the previous section are equally productive (Dressler et al. 1987); some means of morphological marking are more pro- ductive than others. Aronoff (1976) first noted that affixes such as the English suffixes - ing and - ness (e.g. deriding, kindness ), which are transparent , in that they involve no allomorphy, tend to be more productive and more predictable than those which do induce allomorphy: for example, - ion and - ity (e.g. deride : derision , but ride : * rision ; curious : curiosity , but spurious : * spuriosity ). NM argues that the isomorphic linguistic sign is the linguistic ideal, and that the further a morpheme deviates from this ideal, the more difficult it is for languages to sustain it. If the subjective nominalization changes or adds semantic material to the underlying base, it should add phonological material to the stem iconically and transparently. English derivates like bak-er , resid-ent , escap-ee then are more natural, and thus more likely to be productive, than unmarkered derivates like ( a ) cook, guide, bore. Opaque affixes which cause or require phonological adjustments such as the Latinate suffixes mentioned above should be less productive inter- and intralinguistically. Zero and empty mor- phology should be rare, and subtractive morphology nonexistent for the same reasons. NM offers a means of uniting Word Syntax and processual morphology. Notice that while NM offers the isomorphic morpheme as the ideal, it impli- citly admits the sorts of asymmetrical variations that processual morphology is designed to explain. Processual morphology, however, holds that this ideal is restricted to lexemes in the lexicon. Moreover, it has no inherent account of
