Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T01:51:20.757Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simultaneous dual derivation in word formation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Robert Beard
Robert Beard*
Affiliation:
Bucknell University
*
Department of Modern Languages, Literature, and Linguistics, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores the nature of morphological categories by examining two of the most ubiquitous denominal adjective types, the possessionat (bearded) and similitudinal (friendly) adjectives. Sometimes these adjectives are morphologically distinct, sometimes not; compare icy road and icy hand. This suggests that they are related yet not related. Language provides two means of generating these adjectives: TRANSPOSITION, which alters the lexical category of the base but not its grammatical features, and FUNCTIONAL DERIVATION, which alters the latter but not the former. This article shows how both adjectives may be derived simultaneously by both means. In order to understand fully the semantic effect of transposition on the base, it is necessary to clarify the distinction between the morphological and semantic categories involved and to demonstrate the impossibility of reducing either set of categories to the other.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 69 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 716 - 741
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

An earlier version of this paper was read at the V. International Morphology Meeting in Krems, Austria, August 8–10, 1992. I am grateful for all the comments and discussion from those who attended. I would also like to express my deep appreciation to Brooke Bitner, Wayles Browne, and William Schmalstieg for assistance on particular problems. Mark Aronoff and Richard Sproat deserve especial note for their careful reading and thought-provoking comments, which materially strengthened the final product.

References

Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. (Linguistic Inquiry monographs, 1.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1992. Stems in Latin verbal morphology. Morphology now, ed. by Aronoff, Mark, 5–32. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1981. The Indo-European lexicon: A full synchronic theory. (North-Holland linguistics series, 44.) Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1988. The separation of derivation and affixation: Toward a lexeme/morpheme-based morphology. Quaderni di semantica 9. 3–59. [Also distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club since 1986.]Google Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1990. The nature and origins of derivational polysemy. Lingua 81. 101–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1991a. Decompositional composition: The illusion of bracketing paradox and opacity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9. 195–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1991b. Lexeme-morpheme base morphology: a general theory of inflection and word formation. Lewisburg, PA: Program in Linguistics, ms.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1991c. Review of Carstairs 1987. Linguistics 29. 301–13.Google Scholar
Beller, Richard, and Beller, Patricia. 1979. Huasteca: Modern Aztec grammatical sketches. Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar, vol. 2, ed. by Langacker, Ronald, 199–306. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1986. Form and meaning in morphology: The case of the Dutch agent nouns. Linguistics 24. 503–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1990. V + ing: It walks like an adjective, it talks like an adjective. Linguistic Inquiry. 21. 95–103.Google Scholar
Botha, Rudole. 1981. A base rule theory of Afrikaans synthetic compounding. The scope of lexical rules, ed. by Moortgat, Michael, van, Harry Huist, der, and Hoekstra, Teun, 1–77. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Brekke, M. 1988. The experiencer constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 169–80.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 3–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carrier, Jill, and Randall, Janet. 1992. The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 173–234.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in inflexion. (Croom Helm linguistics series.) London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1992. Current morphology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1992. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. (MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 1.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. (Linguistic Inquiry monographs, 14.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1985. A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 1985. Categorial morphology. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. (Current studies in linguistics, 8.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. (Current studies in linguistics, 18.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Juldashev, A. A. (ed.) 1981. Grammatika sovremennogo bashkirskogo jazyka. (USSR Academy of Sciences.) Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 1983. Finnish grammar. Helsinki: Werner Söderström Osakeyhtiö.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. by Yang, I. S., 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1936. Dérivation lexicale et dérivation syntaxique: Contribution à la théorie des parties du discours. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 37. 79–92. [Reprinted in Readings in linguistics, vol. 2, ed. by Eric Hamp, Fred Householder, and Robert Austerlitz, 42–50. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.]Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Rappaport, Malka. 1986. The formation of adjectival passives. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 623–62.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1967. Expansion, transposition, and derivation. La Linguistique 1. 13–26.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1972. Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1988. Singl-ing. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 611–34.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David (ed.) 1983. Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David (ed.) 1984. Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17.409– 41.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James, and Bergler, Sabine (eds.) 1992. Lexical semantics and knowledge representation. (Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, 627.) Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1982. The syntax of words. (Linguistic Inquiry monographs, 7.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Siegel, Dorothy. 1973. Nonsources of unpassives. Syntax and Semantics 2. 301–17.Google Scholar
Sproat, Richard. 1985. On deriving the lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Sussex, Ronald. 1974. The deep structure of adjectives in noun phrases. Journal of Linguistics 10. 111–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szymanek, Bogdan. 1988. Categories and categorization in morphology. Lublin: Catholic University Press.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger, and Zubizarreta, Maria. 1992. The definite determiner and inalienable constructions in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 595–652.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Transformations and the lexicon. Formal syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 327–60. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. Linguistic Review 1.81– 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1990. Inflectional morphology as a (sub)component of grammar. Contemporary morphology, ed. by Dressler, Wolfgang, Luschütsky, Hans, Pfeiffer, Oskar, and Rennison, John, 217–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar