Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen
linguistlist.org>
Dear colleagues, those interested in the productivity, semantics and phonology of derived verbs in English may be interested in reading the second part of my forthcoming book (due January 1999) 'Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation' (Mouton de Gruyter), which is an indepth study of hundreds of 20th century neologisms, all of them derived verbs of various categories (IZE, IFY, ATE, EN-, -EN, ZERO etc.). The data come from the OED on CD-ROM and from the cobuild corpus. Perhaps the most surprising finding is that the putatively rival affixes are more or less in complementary distribution, governed by phonological, morphological and semantic constraints. Where the constraints allow more than one kind of derived verb, more than one type of derived verb is often attested. In other words, we can indeed make rather precise predictions about possible and impossible derived verbs. Best, Ingo Plag (Marburg, Germany) PD Dr. Ingo PlagMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
In his original posting, Mike Maxwell <Mike_MaxwellMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuesil.org> gives the following context for his question: > I ran into the following > (in an Internet discussion of using the Microsoft Word program): >> In documents Newed from this template... >> [I] then tried a) attaching that template to existing documents, >> b) Newing a document from that template... > (The context is that in Word, if you create a document template with > certain properties, you can then create new documents having these > properties by clicking on a menu choice labeled "New".) As I suspected when I first read the sentences, the process does not refer so much to the English adjective "new" as it does to the Word menu choice "New" (note capital). On that same menu, or 'paradigm', as a linguist might call it, are the following mutually exclusive transitive verbs whose unspecified object is the current file: New Open Close ----- Save Print Send In particular, the first three above are the first three on the menu, and form a special group of commands, separated from the rest. Thus, one may unproblematically "Open" a file or "Close" it, and, by fairly obvious analogy, one may now also "New" it, in the context of this software, at least, with special connotations, as Mike suggests. So this really isn't a good example of a regular linguistic zero- derivation of Adj --> Verb, but rather one strongly mediated by its visual and softwary contexts. That said, I should point out that this also does not provide any answer for the far more interesting question of why such Adj --> Verb zero-derivation is so uncommon in English, in contrast with Noun --> Verb. - John Lawler U Michigan http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/
Je suis avec beaucoup d'interet la discussion actuelle sur les adjectifs et leur capacite a generer des verbes. La categorie grammaticale de l'adjectif peut en effet porter en elle des caracteristiques du nom et du verbe comme l'a precise Noam Chomsky. Portant des caracteristiques du verbe, l'adjectif est donc en mesure de generer d'autres categories grammaticales dans certaines langues comme l'anglais. Dans les langues Bantu en general, les radicaux adjectivaux et les radicaux nominaux avec lesquels ils constituent la categorie des nominaux sont monovalents par essence et ne sauraient generer des mots d'une categorie autre que la leur. Un nominal ne saurait generer un verbe ou un adjectif et un radical adjectival ne saurait generer un verbe ou un nom. Les radicaux verbaux par contre, sont au moins bivalents dans la plupart des langues Bantu. En basaa, langue Bantu parlee au Cameroun dont j'ai profondement examine le systeme verbal en 1990, les radicaux verbaux sont generalement bivalents, c'est-a-dire qu'ils permettent de generer aussi bien des bases verbales que des themes nominaux : Exemples : "top" chanter permet d'obtenir " n-tub-a" chanson "kok" ecraser permet d'obtenir "ngok" la pierre Certains radicaux verbaux sont trivalents, c'est-a-dire qu'ils generent autant une base verbale, un theme nominal et un theme adjectival. "pop" etre blanc (verbe) permet d'obtenir "pub-a" le blanc (nom) et "pub-i" blanc (adjectif) Au niveau de l'analyse morphologique, une representation arborescente de ces 3 derniers mots montrerait que "pop" du radical verbal est la forme sous-jacente des derives "puba" et "pubi" qui contiennent une voyelle plus fermee, marque de certaines formes derivees en basaa. Il est donc clair ici que le radical verbal est a la base des themes nominaux et adjectivaux et non l'inverse. Le basaa ne presente nulle part un adjectif qui genere un verbe ou un nom. Les caracteristiques morphologiques pouvant varier d'une langue a l'autre ou d'une famille de langues a une autre, il est possible qu'en anglais particulierement, certains radicaux adjectivaux puissent generer des verbes comme l'adjectif NEW genere deja l'adverbe NEWLY et d'autres formes signalees par nos collegues ayant contribue dans cette discussion. On pourrait ainsi penser a une categorisation des langues par leur type morphologique, ce qui a ete largement etudie par plusieurs recherches sur les universaux du langage et la linguistique comparee.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
10.97: Adjectives to verbs "Any word can be verbed" is a statement I have seen in print before it was quoted here. This is probably the reason why at least one wellknown British lexicographer says she has no use for the concept of homonymy. - "To white sth. out" (Cambridge Int. Dict. of English, 1995); here on The list I have seen "to dumb it down" (popularize, simplify). Though English is not my mother tongue I have the feeling that you could extend the saying above into "...and any verb can be nouned": to make a go of things, have a try, go in for the kill, etc. It is an exaggeration of course; there are restrictions, historical, semantic, pragmatic, etc. - Best wishes for your further search, Dag Gundersen U. of OsloMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue