On the Syntax of Word Derivation in English
P. G. Chapin, 1967
An important hypothesis of generative grammatical theory in recent years has been that grammatical transformations are meaning-preserving. This thesis is an attempt to show that if certain other common theoretical assumptions are held constant, that hypothesis is untenable. Rules of word-derivation – suffixation, prefixation, compounding – frequently yield results whose meaning is not predictable from their component parts. It is argued that some of these must be in the transformational component of the grammar of English.
Some derivational patterns of English are analyzed in detail. Arguments are given that the derivation of adjectives in –able must be transformational. Nominalizations in –ity are shown to be semantically erratic. It is then argues that the formation of these must be subsequent in the grammar to the formation of –able derivatives. On the assumption that the components of the grammar are homogenous, it follows that –ity formation must be in the transformational component.
If rules of derivation are in the transformational component, they must participate in its ordering. Some facts of derivation are examined in the light of this consequence. Ordering of derivational rules is shown to offer a simple explanation of some otherwise puzzling phenomena. It is then demonstrated that derivational rules cannot be linearly ordered. An hypothesis is proposed as to their ordering.
Thesis Supervisor: Noam A. Chomsky
Title: Ward Professor of Modern Languages and Linguistics
Table of Contents
Section I: Of Levels and Components 8
Section II: Of Derivations and Transformations 16
A. Introductory 16
B. Self-ing adjectives 20
1. Facts 20
2. Problems 24
3. The notion generic 29
4. Generic in adjective derivation 37
5. Analysis of self-ing adjectives 39
6. Limitations of the analysis 42
C. Other adjectives in self- 48
1. Facts 48
2. Derivation by lexical characterization 49
3. Derivation from self-ing adjectives 51
4. Irregularities in adjectives in –atory, -ent, -ive 53
5. A combined lexical-transformational approach 56
D. Adjectives in –able 61
1. Methodological remarks 61
2. Facts 63
3. Passives and reflexives 66
4. A base structure for –able derivation 68
5. A problem 71
6. Amnesties by making transformations obligatory 74
7. Amnesties by derived structure 82
a. Discussion 82
b. IT-SUB 83
c. FLIP 87
8. Another problem 95
9. Derivation of –able forms 97
10. Generic constraints on –able derivation 102
11. The exclusion of self- from –able derivatives 106
E. Nominalized adjectives in –ity 111
1. Discussion 111
2. Limitations on productivity 112
3. Irregularities 114
F. Nominalization in –ability 119
1. Discussion 119
2. Difficulty for the lexicalist hypothesis 120
3. The lexicalist alternative 120
4. Derivation by nominalization of –able forms 125
5. Difference between the analyses 128
6. Evidence for a choice 129
Section III: Of the Ordering of Derivations 132
A. Introductory 132
B. Evidence for ordering of derivational rules 134
1. Adjectives in –ful 134
2. –ment, -tion, -less 139
3. Adjectives in –able 143
4. The prefixes un- 144
C. Derivations and the transformational cycle 146
D. Impossiblity of linear ordering of derivations 148
1. –tion, -al, -ize 148
2. –ist, -ic, -al 149
3. Recursive derivation 151
E. The epicycle hypothesis 153
Footnotes:
Section I 156
Section II 158
Section III 164
Appendix I: Self-ing adjectives 166
Appendix II: Adjectives in –able 178