Geert Booij. 1979. Semantic Regularities in word formation

8/4/2019 Geert Booij. 1979. Semantic Regularities in word formation

1/10

lflfGUf$f0$s?e votume7-r 72z2s/221In this issueD.A, CRUSE

RevercvesRICHARDOATES

BulkrngtmorpholexcajctGEERT.BOOIJ

Semanticegularitiesn word ormatonR. M, W.DIXON

Corectionsndcommentsoncerning eath,sls Dyir6alrgative?,MA-RTHAANLyandWtLL|AME.COOPER

Sentence roductjonilosureersusnrtationfconstituentsEIRLYS.DAVIES

Some estrictionsn condttronalmperativesShort noteW. L.MAGNUSSON

Chronostructuralfientationn rool panernevelopment

ReviewarticleBERNARDOMRIE

The anguagesf NicronesaBookrevewsDESMOND.DERBYSHIRE

Caib-_speakngndans. Culturc,Society nd Lngudge, ditedbyE. B.BassoTH .R.VONSTOCKERT

Aphasie,by G.peuserSZABOZOLTAN

St stk, by B.SandigResearch project

'1003

1017

967

1039

'1055

1057

1093

1073

107

1076

l

Thesyntax,emntcsnd pragmaticsl th ecomparativeonstruction 10glPublicatonseceived

Authorindexto Lngusticsalumef7 (197g)

ISSN@24-39K)moutonpublshers the hague .pads .newyork

1085


2/10

ftirI

Semantic regularties in word formation

GEERT .BOOIJ

Abslracl

Thispaper discusseshe problem howto accountJbr regularitiesin theinterjritation of complexwords.It will beshownth(lt in somecases henteipretatonof a complex word is not completelydetetminedby itsmor)hologcalstructure,b is ;he resuh ofan nteracton etweennguisticstructureand non-ltnguisticnformation.The consequencesf this 'prog-matic'approachto t he semantics fwotdformatonprocessesfor he theory

of morphologywill be discussed.

l. Introduction

One of the salient features of natual languages is that they showstructuralparallelismsbetween orm andmeaningon two levels,he levelofthe word andthe levelofthc sentence. herefore,an adequategrammarofa languagemustspecifyhow and how far (i) the syntacticstructureof asentencedetermines the interpretation of that sentence,and (ii) themorphologicalstructureof a complexword determineshc interprtationof that complexwod. I will calla representationof the structuallydeterminedsemantic aspects of a linguisticexpression(a sentence,a

phraseor a word) the logicalorm of that expression.rThe structuresof complexwords are specifiedby Word Formation

Rutes WFRs, cf. Aronoff,1976) hat createcomplexwordsfromexistingor possiblewords (cfl Booij, 1977; Roeperand Siegel,1978)'zForxample, he followingtwo WFRscan be assumed or Dutch:

(1) [xh ' [be* [xh]v(2) [x]a--+ [x]"+iteitl'

where x stands or a sequence f phonological segmentsnd boundaries'These ulescreate e.g.bedjk'lo providewith adike' lromdijk'dike' andabsurdtet'absurdity'om aad'absurd'.

0024-3949/79l@17985 $2.00@ MoutonPublishrs,he Hague

Linguistics7 1979),85 1001.


3/10

ld,{,i).,

986 ceert E. Booij

WFRs are someimescalledoe77),b;;;J;;i,"ff;;","T?;:#?i";i:i,,%li*li,?lthat thisdoesn01necessarilv rrheu:sand;:::la;'Ji;ji1:Hl*,':*"T[','.?il:1:t;ne rrows.re arr f he rrucruresention.ao rr"igi,iiini)...*r.Tli:]ntt formularionftheWFRsembodieshewell_knownypothesis;'#t"i'EiJ'T::"1,1""fi:"1::.:'-'':l*.-*l;";;"',i;,*.a,."'',,r",*...-il;.,'J,:11""#ii;i.il,",iiij,i1iT,,L,Jl1[,,,.;issoclatedwitha boundarvsv tuouoau,v+';cr.oolj'f't;i;1:"*,J",?;i.::.lli,H#{",,,;'"::wo.typesf boundariesymeans fdata iomDutch.The structural arallelismrwords mplieshat th"

-.uninn.jll*

fom and.meaningof complexa compositionalun"tionor-til Tomplex

word s'-at east n principle,meaningontributi;;;"ilfffi*il: :::,:,i[,#:ffi*l;an-beclrcumscibedas ,to provrdewith, where is the meaningof.theaseword.Note har he claimnat W.nscontrir,"i"irr^#""""i.r,

"-r::1":::.0, correctlymplieshar the boundmorpheme _ as no

1:o:O^:1-o*,meaning:necannotsayanythingab.., ,f*

_."ni* ,f a"[1"'ifr'1,-l],iiiillfssr hewordtructurenwhicht o""i,,1"r,"l"";:ll#i"#:iX|l,t3iltt""emeaningorrerate.meFRssutnxes ror1, menrand , ru!,'"o

out by^ ackendoffor the Englishwrn, r'""""niy.;;;r##;:':i:1,].ntt:

650).Moreover,ome:it;'.':,T.1*s,i:l,J*."':'**:*"$i".#i::il,.#J.i:f,l:i:section3, I * l 1t""* r"a"@lng

corelateca', be accounted for' Inandhempricario-ns-;;;i:'";;;5::'i:,"i#rJl?,"j,nj,.i'sorrera,es.

2. The smanticcorreltof the agentivesuffix_er

3.*::":ilty" q*lmar it is oftenassumed ht the meaningof a sentencas the poduct of the intactior.;.nl. : , r,.,.un , i ;'""i,iJJ#'Jl:lTJ::fi:",[l:l?l'..:-t-nrt'4). hishyporhesissworked,*y r"rraniiai]r,h"i,#i:i,lji she ssumesharu".bu"h, ,1,l;;;, i"ii"*,(3) ht,v, t_ Npl Npl HrT Np,

Semantic egulaitiesin wordormation 987

'NPl HIT NPr' is thelexical functional structure of tohit.It specilies herelationbetwten syntacticand logical form.NPt indicates hegrammati-cal function of subject, andNPr indicates thegrammaticalfunction ofobject. The grammaticalfunction ofa constituent is definedconfigu-rationally,i.e. by itspositionin syntactic structure. Foinstance, he NPthat is dominateddiectly by thenode S has the function of subject,andthe NP that is dominated directly by theVP node, has the functionof

object.The syntactic context inwhich a verb can occur,is indicated by asubcategoYizationeature, in the caseof lril the feature[- NP] thatmeans hat the verb i1 can occur before asister-NP. Bresnan(19?8:21)remarks that 'the syntacticcontexts appear to be redundant-that is,predictable fom the functional structures'.However, she does notformulatesuch redundancyrules.

Furthermore,Bresnanproposes hat (optionally)transitiveverbs suchas to eat have two specificationsn the lexicon:

(4) ear, Y (D l- NPI NP, EAT NP,(ii) t-] (3Y)NP' EAT Y

That is, the Iogical objectvariable of ro eal canbe bound by an existentialquantifier.Consequently, he semanticrepresentation ofa sentencewithto eat wlll be well formed, although thereis no specified directobject,because here are no free variables.Variables always need to be in-terpreted n orderto get well-formed expressionsTarski, 1964:77). Thiscan be done by (i) assigning he value ofa constantto that variable, or(ii)binding thevariable by means of aquantifier,or (iii)binding thevariableby means of a sentential unction.

Th interpretation of a sentencesuch as Jolz hts Mary with thestructure[pohn]p[[hits]v [Maryhp]vplss now deived as ollows:first, weapply the configurationaldefinitions of thegrammaticalfunctionsto theNPs in this sentence: ohn: sublect,Mary: object, and assignndices othese NPs. Secondly, we substitutethese indices into the approprlateargumentpositionsin the lexical functional structureof the verb:

(5 ) a. NP, HIT NP,NP,: John iNPr; Mary: j

b. John i, Mary: jiHITJ

(5ii)is the interpretation of the sentence ohn hits Mary.a).

The lexical functionalstructure of the verb o hit car'6e seen as anabbreviation for:


4/10

988 GeertE. Booij

(6 ) x HI T y & x: NP r & y: Np,Thisreformulationof the lexicalfunctionalstuctreof lo lilis useful .orthe formulationof themeaningcorrelatesof word.structures.

2.I The togicatorm of deverbalugenrnouns

Let us now, giventhe theoreticalframeworkabove, urn to a specificypeofword constuction,the fomationof deverbalagentnouns in Dutch, rnorder to illustratehow we can account fo the structurallydeteminedsemantlc corrlate of a word construction. A representativelist ofdeverbalagent nouns is givenin (7):(7) lntransitivewrb:

zwem (toswim)fiets(to cycle)Transtiveye:koop (to buy)bewerk (toadapt)

vertel (rotell)eet (to eat)

zwemmer (swrmmer)fietser (cyclist)

koper (buyer)bewerker (adapter)

verteller (narrator)ete (eater)The noun must be assumed to have the morphological structure[[x]u1erlr. Themeaningcoelate of thisword strutture ian U, lir"u._scribedas'soneonewho Vs,.That is, the logicalform ofa deverbalagenrnoun ls:(8) x [sententialunction expressedby the verb]O-ncwe haveadded the ogicalcorrelateofa detemineto an expressionol thistype, such an expression s a well-fomedinterpretedurg"*"n,,srnce he free vaiablex is boundby asentential unction.The logiJalformo,fe.g.zwemmers 'x[xSWIM]'.The valueassignmentof the vaiiable

rnthe functionalstuctureof the yerb, 'x: Npri is not transferedlo rnecorrespondingagent noun, because is alreadybound by the sententialfunction.

The (optional)transitivityof verbss transfered to theircorrespondingagent nouns, fo istance:(9 ) a. Jan s de koper (vandi t hursl.

John is the buyer (of this house).b. Jan is de bewerke (vandit boek).

John s th e adaprer of rhisbook;.

Semantc egularilies n wordormation 989

That is, agent nouns suchas koper and bewerkerboth have twologicalforms:(10) toper,N, (i)x[x BUYy & y:NP,]

(ii)x[ ]y [x BUYy] lbewerker,N, (i )xlx ADAPTY& Y: NP.]

(ii)x[] y [x ADAPT y]l

Accordingto Jackendofrs cross-categorialdefinitions of'grammaticalobject'(: NPr) (Jackendoff,1971 '7l-72),(van)dit hus and(ran)dt boekin (9) will qualify as the grammaticalobjects of koper and bewerkerrespectively.Apparently, the logicalform (8) must be reformulatedasfollows:(8)' x [sententialunction expressed y the verb and value assignmentof

vlThe-syntacticransitivity of thesegent nouns can now bepredictedby aredundancyrule:(l l) [v: NPJ - l-

NP ]

a rule that is also valid for transitiveverbs.This analysisof agentnouns conectly expresseshe fact that thcreis na

automatic, completecorespondencebetweena verb and its agentnounwith respect to subcategorizationfeatues, as would beexpected rn atransformationalaccount of this word formationprocess: he transfer oftransitivity fromthe verb to thenoun is expressed xplicitly by(8)'.Note,for instance, that althoughLhe verb zwem(to swim) can occurwith adirectional PP, the correspondingagent noun cannot:

(12) a. Degenen ie zwemmennaar Giethoorn...Those who swim to Giethooru...

b. *De zwemmers naar Giethoorn.

The swimmers to Giethoorn.Of course, a transformationalist theoy ofword formationcould describethesedifferencesbetween verbs and agentnouns by addingconditions tothe relevanttransformation, but it doesnot givean explanation fothesedifferences.On the other hand, the lexicalisttheory implies thatnearlyeverycorrespondencemust be statedexplicitly, and so we donot expectthat, for instance,agent nouns can be followedby a directional PP. Onlythe intransitivity of agentnouns derived fom intransitiveverbs ispredicted,by rule (11): since there is no logical argument_t'present,rule (l l) cannot apply, and consequently the subcateorizationfeaturet-NPl is not assignedo these agent nouns.


5/10

$ll,!),

990 GeertE. Booij

. The propertiesofdeverbal :1""'"1''#iT;;i:d:',:,i{"f,"i'J":,g:';;i::TT,i:x'"Ji:3. Senanticndeteminacisin wordconstructions

llfill*i"T#T"i;l|Iil?.-lllassumed

hathenrerprerarionra+ln:n;*_,:x;"filT:ttiliF.tli:j#fii.il.jfflilff$:T,ii::[i:i:[*$m:i:d:l*.,",*:""1]!H'"ili,,ii:semanricerations;**;;il:',:dT# ;:^',*:^1"i.:;"ff:;:*;::"*:r:i,1,'"l;;x,rfi.*ltiilll.;!uLl*:j,.J*1,:t:entences. verysentence as a c;":";i,H*;J'.."::ffiH:llLiliT::'-":ff:il';""fi:Tii1l:

The same semanticindetermi

;*:H:[!a*i[il*i:t#,#"":::xi,"iJ'"i#,:iir;t]":,::properties,rhe;;;:;;';hJfJ;i'ii'::Ti',T:.$B:iiiffii:::Tungtl policemanis a policeman:t''(*,:!x:#J:{i:ir:{::j::::j{{'*iq;::,?fTiii:;:t:1,:"j;;ll:::;;:;i:::::;:;:::tr:"i::!;"Yi^"",z#:;rs;rruj,'*#i:,fi,fr,T,J,:^:;;;tr:^;'t::!:::'i;:#;n:?il#:{di:'"'1"""'?1l6:.""'J#:r:*;n:f*iT;:ffi**h#il,lfiiTT":t,Tll:$1T,[XH;P;;;"';,"ffifii.:,:J::'J;J:T.'"1,:.jff:'ifl,,,i;T"i".Hrulf1""#:!.Til3lT.f:!-iffi5;;3:,'.":l:;;#;enemy',groeniggreenish.fomgrogoenas'greesr,',.'"".,",':iftlillJ,ffi.1;15i;;:,lk;i,",'l.lLl"11l',i'l?lJ'i.,i.*T:.;iliifi:'',".#iT,.Trftl#_l*:

Semantic egul ities n wordormation 991

(13) a. a rural policeman : a policemanwho exets his function in arutal area

b. a chemical engineer: an engineerwho occupies himselfwithchemicalprocesses

c. a bad violinist : a violinist whoplays the violinbadl.,d. a good father : a father who takes care of hisduties as a

father

e. an eagerstudent:

a student who is eager o studyf. a historical linguist: a linguistwho studies the history oflanguages

The head nouns in these NPs express a function, and the adjectivesomehow modifies this function. Sothe following regularity can beobserved:(14) Given a nounphrase n which an adjective modifies the reference f

the head noun that expressesa function, the adjective must beinterprcted as modifying somehow thefunction expressedby thenoun.

Note, however, that this rule does not predict the exact semanticinterpretation ofthe NPs because the nature of lhe somehows notdetermined by rule. Miller(1978)calls such rules construal rules. Heproposes he following construal rulefo NPs with evaluative adjectivessuch as good,excellent, bad and av)ful:

Give a nounphrasen which apositivenegative)valuative djectivemodifresthenoun, hecombinations o beconstruedsmeaninghat heentitydenoted ythe noun has n greate lesser)hanaverage egreehosepropertiesequied orthe expectdctivity,useor appearance f suchobjects.Miller,1978: 04).

It will be clear now, t hat such construal rules do not specify structurallydetermined maning corrlates,but regularities n the interaction betweenlinguistic structure and non-linguistic knowledge, i.e.pragmaticregularities.

In the next subsections, t will be shown that the sameapplies o severalkinds of word constructions: the regularities in the interpretation ofcompounds, denominal adjectives and denominal verbs are alsoprag-maticones,whichhas mportant consequencesor morphologicaltheory.

3.1. Compound.s

The logical formof compounds, .e.of complex\ords with the structure[Y + XJx,, where X and Y arevariablesfor lexical categories,can becircumscribed as:


6/10

_".r, , .. EOOTJ

(15) Xrthathassome elati$";:t*.::ili.effij:"l::fiH::::::i;o,,pounderermi".,.,i,,,]-ll'j Tlt8"'v:f the econd kror .r5)craimsrhar,n.,n."",""i"..l".,"Ti.rr".Jro,Jlinr...,T[::li*:*,i?

;;: l:il::tr'fl',TJ;ll'i" Ia e om inedn, u"onr"i",

..JHiili":iTi*fi*:lllj5l,;:ri:JT,"l1?:ilJi{il:;

,t::,i,,:,."{.l;ffi*;:ttri#jilnr***;:itj"t,fT_T,il,1,i;:ffill';"i::l:iiiiltffil.'-t;"'tr'1,ffir,l',,'ru*;::;;:1,'fl'.l::.,rfi:lil,Xfii*f:iT.,.J,ilH:ft[J::i;":,,T'';"!,|;:r a ,s-om ,o ..; ;,,,;"j.1?;tL';' ; j"T:":t,T"Li;ifi8ff::JX?tl;,.t:i:^.i ;",.i,iil.j;;:,.a,ye,e,abre:Uill;i;:lily.tiliri"y.t'*,'":l',',1.m1t.,,"*tri.'i,'''.:*::J':i+ir.'';l?11iiffi:ill'i'-',ff'ill#:t**1;; ifJHffi"J'wo'.e,,","l;",';l;:;:;.ffilT:::ff::,ith:i;.,fr,".,,.* Leviadduces he followino,,,iglfLi:.["iir#..*il*:fffi"li..{"ilT":rff i":1}iijiJ:J:ilT[Ti: 'i.',n,',,,...,",'ll"i]i'',,,.,*,,m***"4rpit{,iii,,,,".+,l:;;,iffii,iffiilj:,;:l:tr1i,;:.,;f,f:: l::H;J::ilJll.;Jj.i:l11f.?neracr ith(in Levi.srLri'otnn

Semantic egulaties n wordormation 993

syntacticransformationscf Levi, l9?8:139) A secondargumentotLe \ 's s lhe following:

Moreover,theorywhichdeneshe existencef fundamentaleglaitiesn lheformationof lcompounds]ould notexplainhe fact thatspeakersreelyandfrequentlyreate novel [compounds]. withouthavingto provide explicitdenitioso these pontaneousinguisticreationsf therewerendeed s ittlesystematicityo the eiationshipsxpressedy[compounds]ssomeinguistsave

suggested,oth isteners nd readersn nomalcommunicativeituationswouldhai! no intenalesources ith whicho interpetsuchunfamilirorms (Levi'1978:53).

Thisis, however,no valid argumentfor the claimthat there is linguisticsystematicityn the meaningrelatonbetweenthe two parts of a com-pound. On ihe contrary, the productivityof compoundformationcan beixplainedby the greatsemanticversatilityofthis word formationprocess,sinceso many meaningrelationsbetween wo wordscan be expressed nthis way. Of course, a native speaker is normally very well able todetermi;ethe meaningrelationbetweenthe two parts ofa compound,butthat does not prove that thisabilityis due to /ig,,ricknowledge

Thirdly, Levi's theorypredicts that many, logicallypossible meaningdations between the two parts of a compound are linguisticallyim-possible or newlycreatedcompounds.However,such impossiblemean-ing relationsmay, accordingto Levi,be found in existingcomporrndsformedby meansof processes hat are no lorigerproductive:

For example,here s a smallset of [compounds] whichseem o havebeenformedon thepatternof 'N, whichreachesust to Nr'; thisset ncludesnee-pants, ip-boots,t:tislcoat,d breast-ail:'the upperpart of a balcony')Thatihispatterns nowunpoductivemaybeseen ythe mpossibilityn contemporaryEngiishof coiningnew ormssuchds *calfskirf, ceilig vy, or shoulderair foexpresshe same elationshipLevi 1978: 5).

This argumenthas been refutedby Downing(19'/'1:82'7-828),n replyto

somepre.nious ublications ofLevi's.Downingconvincinglyshows hat,altho;gh the meaning relations expressedby Levi's RDPs ae rathefrequeit in compounds,they do not exhaustthe list of possible meaningrelations,For example,a toe web s tnterpretedby somenativespeakersas'web betweentoes' a cowtreeas a 'tree that cowslike torub up against'adan eggbrdas a'bird that stealsother birds'eggs' DowningthereforeconcludJ that the only constraints on compound formation are that,preferably, the meaningrelation must be interpretablegiven a certainiontext or common knowledge of speaker and addressee, hat theinformationprovided by thefirst part of the compound should not becompltelyredundant (as is the case n e g. wind-flag),and that for a


7/10

tt+ ceerf E. Boo

Hi'i:,:I.'[f,riff'e,i,{:i,"lT,:5Jff'"'.:^i::;;::;ffl;:il:';l#"T3::i''3:fH::li.r, .,.,.".n.i.'iunrl'i,',,,u,,on,lhar l *iljU. *""ir.l]iil"-ay leltctouslye used. nrl-rr,",kelihoodHHa*ii"?i;,:#ri,'l"di''it''?;;:;:fl:*::l'l

r"r.y,+rlnni+*ffff1ffirxl#;bxli:xlllilili'ffb,lio".etricauypposedn",o*",.,'."i".,noi,,li,jun,n"t'"," f.'il1'Jn:'li,;ili,,i:l5l'ritvtoncreaserr' ::,''';,: ;lrji:ii:{{lii,fifl"''

Apart fromthe specificobiectior.un.ro,",nrtionulLt;;;;;:;:::'-19iinst, Levi'sheorvaised bove.nyf,Jilil;,.j1',1',.^1'.?Tiji:l*:T:f1"":.!,:ff:',-:'T;j:i"1:1,.'.::d:-:o**il,i-."",';i:ilffiii"Tii:,T[-J:il.:.J;*tur'it#fi'J',:ffif':l'fi1:**f*f:r:l,of,;""'".''..d il::i#:.illi.il,:l;::lfiff"1'JiT:i:",# oT3tl,i^Tr"?illl$,1"'"'o"derersoonnrmsheouowing;i:ili:1f,*Tff:';11il*:."iTil:ninearirenvorveshenreacrionrCarol an d Tanenhaus 1975:5

:i,'j::::..:"'0.yl.-J:;,.i:,iil'..il,",l.o::il:".:]i:ji,:il,1:;::".T.'tilJ,iltffiil#j':;l**iti;;t+iidJitH",,"3.2. Denominaladjectives

l$lll1'.tj.iil-* :'*':i-.ldenc;ll.inrernreraronber een pswh#;j::l;J:::"ffiH::3i1'J,.,';.:,J;i,1".#r*il."n:.;;m:

Semantic egularities n wordormation 995

meaning ofits basenoun to the meaningof thehead noun of the NP. Forinstance, the phrase gemeenteljkeverorcleningmunicipal byJaw' issemanticallyequivalent to the compoundgemeenteverorderlng'municipalbylaw' with the morphological structufelfgemeentelN lverordennglyl.Some other example ae:(17) a. [[bestuur]ijkel functie'executiveunction' (bestuur: boad)

b. [[professor]"alelo verstrooidheid 'professorial absent-mindedness'

c. l[politihonele]Aactie'police action'

The semanticequivalenceofcompounds and theseNPs was alsoobservedby Levi(1978)who uses his observationto defendthe hypothesis thatNPs such as those in (17) and the corresponding compounds havecommon underlying syntactic structures. However, in theprecedingsection we concluded that compounds should not be deived froms/rxtdcficstructurs.Therefore, we must assume hat reference-modifyingadjectivessucbas bestuurlijk,professoraaland politoneelare derived bymeans of Word Formation Rules. The structure of such complexadjectivesdetermines he interyretation of NPs in the following way:

(18) In a structure(Det)[[Nr]suffrxlANrlp, ifA is nterpreted reference-modifyingly, the NP must be interpreted as 'N2 that beas somerelationR to N1'.

So neither the interpretation ofthese typesofcomplex adjectives,nor thatof the NPs in whichthey occur, is completelystructurally determined.Their interpretation is, ike t hat ofcompounds, the result ofan interactionbetwen linguistic structure and nonlinguistic knowledge, since non-linguisticknowledgedetermines he nature of relation R.

3.3. Denominal verbs

Both Dutch and English have a veryproductiveword formationprocessfor the derivationof vebs fom nouns withoutadding phonologicalmaterial, i.e. by means of so-called mplicit transposition. ThefollowingDutch examples llustrate thisprocess:

(19) a. Ntafel'table'zout'salt'klei 'clay'water water,urine'

tafel 'to haYea meal'zout 'to salt'klei 'toplay with clay'water 'to urinate'

I


8/10

996 GeertE. Booj

LT"T?:::H","r?,11iolll1:l:,:gfonsranceheolowingordsoinedecenryhar re o .;";;;'iliil;::1"r",,#;XT;(le) b. Ndieet 'diet 'bankier'baqker'lift lift'carnaval'carnival,cche'ceche,lek 'leak'sloelbak'shovel-board'

dieet 'to be on a diet,bankier tohandiebankingaffairs,rrr|go by Iift.carnlval'to celebratecarnival,creche to take care of a creche,le K to provjdesecrenformation.sJoetbak to play with a shovel-ooadcaravan .caravan,

servtce service' caravan'to stay in a caravan'

X:lI :f*l*, :r:ewEnglishords^dejH|l,;", * :::"*," tark ( 978)and Clarkan d Clark(1979J.,{galn. the question turns completelyderermineoby ttreml

whethe the meaning of the verb isconrrburionfrheword..r"iXTi*Jf

tntbase oun nd hemeaniog

'"lx:"1;'::3]:i""':""'::1;'n'J:'l'to his

robremre ossibre'compounds.loomn",o",orn"^l-ll,^ojevious

sectionwith respect odenominar,".b".;;;;;;;;ltrJ::T,,j?,lJjffi"::iJ:T:f:r::*In othergoupshesemanticelatiolderive.a reaimanyv;;;;;;;::1i: "t srammaticallvenable. hus,wezero-element,ur e ";;;;;;;;;hl"t^ il,means

of vrjous hanges,ncluding:;;:r;x:;i:l",li:iii,in:i;iili!:'xr,;,,.:ffiil;tfi,r;tr3:":*^::!:l hand. Rose (1973)craims ha t rhere s a restricted et ofossr tesemanticei a ionsbetweithisclaimh. ,dd,;;;';;; ,;;;;::.::* "" d

base oun'and n supportor

cspecro compounds:'gumentthat

Levi(1978)men;;s withOn eobviousxplanationor th egeneaitenariveseseveiil;i,;;: il;Tl ':':,:pretabilitv.of

novatiorss thattheways.rse!enways. ;..";j.;bi;'; 'r'.:-igrve

n dere d ormationmiSht e wonoL e nnnirer);;,*;;i"* i ;;;"j;:,:",' "*

ootrous:ut rsurely us r

3:j l:::'::-0,*"rion of th egeneratn erpreraitiryof new orma ion\ sllll-1jlr, ",dl:lnd t isevenbsudourrurn"tutu,". "iri,0""undredwaysambiguous. he gencanimpry.,,,ui,"-ft':ril':H:y:l,iil."ifft::ff'"ii

Semantic egularitiesn wordJarmaton 997

assumc om eplausiblcclationbetweenhe verband ts basenoun that sin accordancewith his generaland situation-boundknowledgeand thecontextin whichthe verb isused.

Rose claims that withrespect to denominalvebs four rgularbasicrelationshipso their base nouns must be distinguished:(i )CAUSEN GO TO object e.g.waterthe lawn)(i DCAUSEN COME FROMobject e.g.peelan orange)(iii)CAUSEobject BE+ LOC N(e.g.cratebooks)(iv)BE (LIKE) N TO object(e.9.mother a child)These semantic relations are very vaguely formulated, however, andthereforeextralinguisticknowledgehas o playa role anyway.Moreover,many denominal verbsare not adequatelycharacteizedby one of thesefour relationships,e.g. to hammer, obke, to buon,to campaignefc. cf.Marchand,1969: 68-371or manyother examples).he sameholds orDutch denominalverbs,witness he vebsdie,carnaval,cftche, sjoelbakand servce isted in (19b).Apparently, the only regularitythat can beobserved is that the verb expressesan activity in which the entitymentioned y thenounplaysa role.But theexactnatureof this ole sno Ldeterminedby linguistic principles.The interpretationof such denominalverbs dependson (i) our systemsof knowledgeand belief,and (ii)on thecontext n whichhe verb sused.De Vries 1975:163),or instance,ointsout with respecto (i) that the differencebetwcenrs,to livein a housea'].d, eikl'to chisel', derivedfrom i 'house'an d eiel .chisel,respectively,s causedby the factthat housesare not usedas nstruments,rn contrast to chisels,and withrespect o (ii)that the verb puntin Ik punteen otlood'I sharpena pencil'differsin meaning rompant in Ikpuntmijnhaar'I remoyedead ends lrom my hair'. The data reported in Clark(1979),Clark and Clark (1979)and Karius (1977)also show that theinterpretationof denominalverbs depends on geDeral,cultural know-ledge,situation-boundknowledgeand/or the context.

Miller(1978:104)suggests hat certain regularitieswith respect o thmeaningsofthesedenominalverbs or, as he puts it, 'nounsusedas verbs')do exist: Whennounsof typeM are usedas verbs, he meaningof ,r M.r).,is tobe construedas r;covers h surfaceof withM'. TypeM nounsare,accordingto Miller(a subcategoryofl) themass nouns. For instance,giventhe mass rroun painf,the yerb to pqint mans to cover withpaint,.Miller admits, howver, that 'Without an independent critedon rodetermine whichnouns ae of typeM, the rule isrelativelyweak' (Miller,1978:104-105).However,t appears hat thedennitionof typeM nounsinvolves knowledgeof the conventionaluse of nouns: .It is difficulrLocharacterizemost type M nounswithoutdescribingheir use or covering


9/10

eeE Gee E. Booii4

fh ,flr;rii"

thinBSMiler.97g:1051. ha t is. hee s no pure/yinguistrcehnrrron1 ypM nouns.Moreove,no lin aciordance t, h Mt;;;;i.:-l::v Tuttnoun usedas a veb'isused

(20) a. * 'trualrule'witnesshe examplesn (20b):

verf.paint,olie,oil,

verf'to Paint'leer.ta,

olie'to oi |yernis.varnish, teer 'to ta'

b k";;:";;*,.,;:::':,;'.:1.J:fl",",klei.'clay, H"i.t"pr"y,iii1i""u,melk milk, mett ,t mi .,-'-'-'*,koek_.cake, koek to coagulate,modder mud, modder to fr""""ro*Ul",Althoughthe nouns n (20b)areused.to cove*,n"ririlrl",rr". -ass nouns'and could n princinlebemeaning'tocoverwithi'b;;;rr:T:jponding verbsao not have thebv the noun, i''.,-;r;i ;;::.::,*":

thatthemateiaereredoconstrualuie s' that ;il;;ir;t]::'-19

4' third-problemfor Miller'sperrormedi,h;.;;;;;;;:;';'r:Il'^'-'.'.l9 bv a denominarerbcan beFornslance.

n. aun r".'rn-.".i,lnt ",ntttY.tntionedby ts base oun.

wilhmud' t" rrtt*rt",'" .""*'J'l^?11'it;b' l alsooi lwithsyrup'paintformurated,;;";;i; ;r';::1:i.1"'"for denominare'bsshtuidbe

(21) Whennounsare used as

ff"',TJ;i";;;''$ffi[:";",'l;,ff;"ilf.i'i{";:.i",1;This construalrule covesthe came rnterpretationof denominar :::J:t::1,1t

(20a),but aiso accountsfo(22) N

uerbs ervedro m non-mass ouns:

knikte ,mable, knikke ,to plly marbles,

;::1,y.'^j:::f.,,voerbarropr.y""ii"iikoelie lo oil.staal 'slave' e. . .or..";;'.;;,;;"ur,ur. 2 ;r:;i,''ooir'activityssociared;,hi;'#:'l:.Tlies' if there.isomeharacterisricnou^n-sisred" tzool.lr.".ri,*"iill: ,tl"ttthiss not he aseor hein(20b).Moreover.;;;J;il: lil',i::'-"?' applv.tohe erbsisredknowledge, u to..,n.'JJni.],.i;.1:"9' no tpplv.fsi t a ion-bound

denominil""b ri;;i;' ';;''r';:':l::'1"*

rhe nrerpretationor thethenterpretaion;;pr.il;f; .tT:: :JI*:t prasmaticesularitiesnformationprocesses. r---' -vrus. out theydo not constraintheseword

Semantc esulartesn wtrdfcrmalion 999

4. Conclusions

In thispaper I discussed he problem what kind of regularitiescan beobserved in the interpretation ofcomplex words. Focedain types ofcomplexwords,e.g.deverbal agentive nouns,a specificsemanticcorrlateof the morphologicalstructurecan be fomulated.But the interpretatlonof compounds,reference-modifyingdenominal adjectivesand dcnominal

verbs s onlypartlydeterminedby morphological structure:t is the resultof an interaction between linguistic structureand nonJinguisticknow-ledge- Such an 'interactionist' approachto wod formationprocessesmaks t possibleo formulatea restrictive heory ofword formation.Theenonous productivityof compounds, reference-modifyingdenominaladjectives and deuominalverbs is explainedby the semanticvrsatilitythey possess ue to the absenceof specificsemantic aorrelates.

Relating these conclusions to the theoretical famework of theExtendedStandad Theory as outlinedin Chomsky andLasnik(1977),weclaim thatthe smantic nterpretation ofcomplexwords is derived n twosteps: rules such as (15) and (18) derive SemanticInterpretation-I(thelogicalform), and rules suchas (21) derive SemanticInterpetation-Il

from SemanticInteDretation-I.

Receved 2 October 1979Revsedversion eceved28 January 1980

Insttuut voor N eer andsiekUniversiteitvan AmsterdamHerengracht330-336l016 CE AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Notes

l. This is n accordancewith the use ofthisterm ir the Extended StandardTheory:'t usedthe expressior ogicdl/m to designatea level oflinguistic representationncorporalingall smanticpropertiesthat are strictlydetemined by linguistic rules'(Chomsky,1979:145).

2. This does notnecessarilymean that the element to the right of the arrow is aword. lnlanguages uch as Latinwe willpcrhapshave o assume tmsas word forming elements.Nevertheless, uch stems will aiso be assigneda syntactic category symbol.

3. There is an alternativeto the hypothesis of labelled bracketing.One could assumeWFRS of the following type:

( )' [x]N- [be+x]v(2)' [x]a+ [x+ tten]N

These rules do not produce internal labelled brackets. Therefore, it remainsto beinvestigated whether suchinternal labelled brackets arereally necessary-Dell anci


10/10

lr i ,llitl'i .

tuUU Geerf E. Booi

Set( irkt97xrugge,rba r he .q

Frenchhas o .;; ;;; l; :::::,ijardescriplonof rheLeamedBcrngRure or:l:".T":h.i,,h;;pr:.;,i;,;:trJ::l;T-:lrn::j"JJJ:,1.::;1:"""".1".::.i::;"3:rTlii:,:.:,,;,J:,',:.T'"1*n":1;l,':i:i"""T.J:i_ rnrer,re rr h he problemofh4 nmypinn.,,,..,;.;i#il]T:Tl#H:::::,,j+iji,*;:ili.;T:'fli"iff..;y;,,rr*:;l*l*:;:i,[:j;r*ili::{:"{in:#.r.",'ffJr*ixpressedyaddinsu *"0,,,. ,.1.1_l',lll:i.::l.:l'd /." hese unrionsoutd e

* m li1:ij.]l,i.l,j::l.jli"ffHt,!li,1tH:jll;";l#,{i,:.i:LlReferences

Aronoff.M I I07).word Fo,,na on tn ca"".-,,-- r.u,::;lJ"o ^'d;:";",,31';i'';:;,;,::,:;:f,,:::,:,i:;:":ii;::,"il:H:::Sillli[?,,-'j,i]i1',:".1,:::','nraxa, ., 4-

Dordrechr:.l",ri.iiff"'"t' Astu4 ot u od FonatiannGenerul,e rammar."Tll tl;J,.I'iltl,#p run'Itnnr rhc etircnn rnn,rorno,iona!.eea,urrvc

(,,omma,.Bresnan,J.W. 9781A reaistjcransflf,,;'j::.''."''";';;: ':;:;:';I:i:;i'f:iliT;)I,l;{'i;:;:l:-",drrotJ, . M an d Tanenhaus,M. K. I,;;;;1;^;lji;":#"i;T,Li,iili,"l,,ifff:1,".i":::].fi.j,,T,,il;:i:homsky, N tt9:,9l Laneuas an R.,I11 l:- ".,t, """ti""i sJi,

^esponsibiti|Based n convercaonsithMi$ou;ffi:;l

"l,i;i,i""-.i;[,i,]ii,il:::,""dconctLinsui,!icnquirv.42s.

.,1.':-;.tn*1r:,"**,*,1"',.1"i1,',^".,::;r';;':;; ;;:"1,];"iii;tll,";.',il;i.'"ili.il1,Li llll;i5:,:::..^:,I,e::: erbrsuase516j ,,french fn s. J. Keysered.r,

n",",, ijlii'"lli'.i"''arr)8o'"erned owerternaron

n^^'.-fi

c1nu,ior.. v""., t,i p....' ' ' "a:latmatoaatstu.ti?ru Europeanansua,et,":i;lt" {re77).on rfiecreatron nd use of Enstisb omprndouns. ansuase 53,Iodor.J. D. gttt. Senanu,Jhco,,,-Haryesrer

ressLtd.-"4 'kurtcsd Meaninsn Generciye ;.arr,_Hassocks:

'"fiiffi t ',n, t. senantrcn erprctutonnGeneratiyerummat.cambridseMass.

l"!ll?$11t ,'ttr). Morphorosicatand semanticesulariesn t he.lexiconaneuase

lfLlt' "s (1s77) i.'I'ntax A stud! of phrasesrrurrure. ambridgevo.r., ru,..

Semantic cgularitiesn wordJbrmation l00l

Jespersen, O. (1942). A Modern English Grammat onHisrorical Ptitlcples Coper'aqenlEjnar Munksgaard.

Karius. I.(1977). nstrumentalilatund denominale nullsuffigierteVerben ds Englischenln:H- E. Breckle ud D. Kastovsky(eds),Perspektiw der lVo bildungsfarschuns,04 115.Bonn: Bouvier VelagHermann Grundmann.

Lees. R. (1960).The Gramar olEngtish Nominalizations.Bloorringronr IndianaUnivrist)Press.

Levi, J. N.(19?8).The Sytax antl Semanticsof Complex Nomhab.New York: Academic

Marchand, H. (1969).The Categoriesand'Dpes oJ Prcsent'Da)JEnglishWot FornolikMnchen: verlag C. H. Beck.

Mcys, W. J. (1975). Compouui Adjctivcs in English andthe tdeal SpeakerJistenetAmsterdamrNoth Holland.

Millr,6- A.(1978).Semantic rclations amongwords. In M. Halle,J. Bresnan and G. A.Miller(eds),t"8adt. feary an.l PsythologicalReall], 60-lI8. Cambridge, Mass-:MITPress.

Reichling, A.(1967). it Woortl Ee studieo trent de degrondslag'an aaL n taalgebtuik.Zwoller TjeenkWitlink.

Roeper, Th. and Siegel,M. E. (1978).A lexicaltransformation forverbal compoundsLins istic Inqut 9(2\, t99-26O.

Rose,J. H. (1973).Pricipledimiiations onproductivityin denominal\/erbs.FoutlkttonsJLansuase \0(4), 509526.

Siegel,D. (197?).The adjacency conditionand the theory of morphology.(Unpubiished

paper, Denver, Coiorado).Taski, A- (1964). Inleiding tot delo+a (Dutch versio of I ro.luction to LoCi()

Amsterdam:Nood-Hollandsche UitgeversMaalschapp.Vries, J. W. de(1975).1- icalemorfologie van hetvetkwooftl in Modetn Nedrrlrn^.Leide':':

UniversitairePers Leiden.Wasow, T- (1977).Transformations andthe lcxicot. InP. w. Culicovef, T.wasow and A

Akmajian(eds), rrndl SJntax,321-360. NewYork: Aadcmic Press.

Geert Booij. 1979. Semantic Regularities in word formation

Documents

Transcript of Geert Booij. 1979. Semantic Regularities in word formation