The structural properties of other verb-deriving processes Summary

I have proposed a new structural analysis of the individual verb-deriving processes in English on the basis of a large number of 20th century neologisms. It was demonstrated that the semantically most versatile process is conversion, followed by -ize/-ify, and -ate, in this order. Interestingly, this ranking in terms of semantic versatility is very similar to the productivity ranking of these processes, which is unsurprising, because, other things being equal, the semantically most general process can be expected to give rise to the highest number of new formations. Another important finding is that, apart from -ify/-ize and contrary to statements found in the literature, the processes in question are semantically not identical.

Furthermore, it was argued that restrictions concerning the syntactic category of the base can be disposed of because they fall out from the semantic properties of the process in question. In addition, it became clear that there are important and complex restrictions at work concerning the phonology of possible derivatives. These restrictions are accounted for in a straightforward manner by output-oriented constraints, which do not only influence the productivity of a process but also determine stem allomorphy, i.e. the phonological shape of the derivatives, and the choice between -ize and -ify. Thus, for example, the strikingly diverse morphophonological alternations accompanying the formation of -ize derivatives can be elegantly explained by a uniform set of prosodic and segmental output constraints.

Having outlined in some detail the individual structural properties of the rival morphological processes we are now well-equipped for an expedition into the strange land of suffixal rivalry.

مواضيع ذات صلة

Mirror in nominal morphology

Appendix 2: Hapax legomena from the Cobuild corpus

Appendix 1: 20th century neologisms from the OED

Morphological Productivity Structural Constraints in English Derivation Conclusion

Verbal derivation and the separation hypothesis

The separation hypothesis

Theoretical implications: Against the separation of form and meaning in morphology

Rival morphological processes 4: Where have all the rivals gone? Summary

Conversion vs. -ize, -ify and -ate

Rival morphological processes -ize vs. -ate

Rival morphological processes -ize vs. -ify

Rival morphological processes 4: Where have all the rivals gone?