Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T02:47:44.686Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The (in)compatibility of morpheme orders and lexical categories and its historical implications1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2008

Thomas Berg
Thomas Berg
Affiliation:
University of Hamburg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

English testifies to a remarkable pattern of lexical gaps. In quite a few cases, particlestem nouns (e.g. the income) and adjectives (e.g. incoming) exist in the current language whereas their corresponding verbs (e.g. *to income) do not. Verbs with the opposite morpheme order (e.g. to come in) are, of course, attested. Since most relevant nouns and adjectives are derivatives of verbs, the word-class shift must either have entailed an inversion of the morphemes, or the verbs must have dropped out of the language. A diachronic analysis does indeed reveal that particle-stem verbs have a lower ‘life-expectancy’ than the corresponding nouns and adjectives. This difference is claimed to follow from differing degrees of compatibility between word classes and morpheme orders. The criterion of syntacticity shows particle-stem nouns and stem-particle verbs to be internally consistent but stem-particle nouns and particle-stem verbs to be inconsistent. This inconsistency gives rise to the observed historical instability of particle-stem verbs. While also disfavoured in this framework, the currency of stem-particle nouns (e.g. the handout) can be attributed to a conspiracy of several facilitatory effects which tend to override the arguments against this word type. The fact that linguistic units may fall into disuse necessitates certain revisions of the notion of optimality as the backbone of Optimality Theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , November 1998 , pp. 245 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, V. (1973). An introduction to modern English word-formation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Berg, T. (1989). Intersegmental cohesiveness. Folia Linguistica 23: 245–80.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1961). Ambiguities in pitch accent. Word 17: 309–17.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: a study in the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carstensen, B. (1964). Zur Struktur des englischen Wortverbands. Die Neueren Sprachen 21: 305–28.Google Scholar
Cowie, A. & Mackin, R. (1993). Oxford dictionary of phrasal verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. & Norris, D. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14: 113–21.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (1993). English historical syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. et al. (eds.) (1987). Leitmotifs in natural morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1974). The verb-particle combination in English. Tokyo: Taishukan Publishing.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1984). Syntax: a functional-typological introduction, Vol.1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hiltunen, R. (1983). The decline of the prefixes and the beginnings of the English phrasal verb. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. & Thompson, A. S. (1985). The iconicity of the universal categories ‘noun’ and ‘verb’. In Haiman, J. (ed.), Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 151–83.Google Scholar
Hunter, E. R. (1947). Verb + Adverb = Noun. American Speech 22: 115–19.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X̄ Syntax: a study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johannson, S. & Hofland, K. (1989). Frequency analysis of English vocabulary and grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kemenade, A. van (1994). Old and Middle English. In König, E. & Auwera, J. van der (eds.), The Germanic languages. London: Routledge. 110–41.Google Scholar
Kennedy, A. G. (1920). The Modern English verb-adverb combination. New York: AMS Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Koopman, W. F. (1985). Verb and particle combinations in Old and Middle English. In Eaton, R., Fischer, O., Koopman, W. F. & Leek, F. van der (eds.), Papers from the 4th international conference on English historical linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 109–21.Google Scholar
Lindelöf, U. (1935). English agent-nouns with a suffixed adverb. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 36: 257–82.Google Scholar
Lindelöf, U. (1938). English verb-adverb groups converted into nouns. Helsingfors: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar
Lindner, S. J. (1983). A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb-particle constructions. Trier: Linguistic Agency. University of Duisburg, Germany.Google Scholar
Lipka, L. (1972). Semantic structure and word-formation. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Lutz, A. (1997). Sound change, word formation and the lexicon: the history of the English prefix verbs. English Studies 78: 258–90.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1951). The syntactic change from inflectional to word order system and some effects of this change on the relation ‘verb-object’ in English. A diachronic-synchronic interpretation. Anglia 70: 70–89.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. 2nd edition. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Preuss, F. (1962). Substantivische Neologismen aus Verb und Adverb. Lebende Sprachen 7: 1–3.Google Scholar
Preuss, F. (1963). Konversion oder Zero-Derivation III. Lebende Sprachen 8: 33–5.Google Scholar
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. MS, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, E. (1987). A performance model for a natural theory of linguistic change. In Ramat, A. G., Carruba, O. & Bernini, G. (eds.), Papers from the 7th international conference on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 517–33.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1972). The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort. Papers from the regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 8: 316–28.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1995). Linguistic categorization: prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. (1959). Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck, 1965.Google Scholar