Output Conditions in Word Formation? [Reprint 2020 ed.] 9783112330241, 9783112330234

Citation preview

H. S C H U L T I N K

Output Conditions in Word Formation?

LISSE/NETHERLANDS

THE PETER DE RIDDER PRESS 1975

© Copyright reserved No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the author.

The text of this article is reprinted from UT VIDEAM: CONTRIBUTIONS TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF LINGUISTICS For Pieter Verburg on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday pp. 263-72

Printed in Belgium by NICI, Ghent

In 1. it is explained that in a transformational-generative model of language, word derivation can take place only via transformational rules or in the lexicon. 2. Shows that in a transformationalist approach, the ordering of the relevant transformations presents problems. Chapin's (1967, 1970) 'epicycle hypothesis' does not, as it turns out, solve these problems. In 3. Leitner's (1972) solution is found to be unacceptable too. Output conditions a la Perlmutter (1970, 1971) seem to offer better perspectives.

1. It is not easy to say how derivational formatives are introduced in strings in a transformational-generative model of language. Following in the steps of Chapin (1967:13), Chomsky (1970) distinguishes between a so-called transformationalist and a so-called lexicalist approach to this introduction. The transformationalist standpoint means that derivational formatives are introduced by means of transformations. According to the lexicalists, word formation should be dealt with largely, or even entirely, in the lexicon. Both Lakoff (unpublished) and McCawley (1973) protest against the dichotomy between lexicalist and transformationalist. Thus McCawley points out that /»oji-lexical and /^re-lexical transformations are lumped together under the heading 'transformationalist'. By prelexical transformations are understood those which precede lexical insertion; postlexical transformations follow lexical insertion. Postlexical nominalization transformations are found in Lees 1960 and Lakoff 1970; Chapin (1967, 1970) also derives words with the aid of postlexical transformations. Prelexical transformations are used by generative semanticists like Gruber (1965) and McCawley (1968). Chomsky utterly rejects the idea of prelexical transformation. This rejection is one of the corner-stones of the lexicalism for which he definitively opts in 1970. A large part of word derivation should, according to him, be handled in the lexicon. Exactly how large a part is specified by Bresnan (1971:269-70). Jackendoff's (1972:13) 'extended lexical hypothesis' extends this to all word derivation. In the meantime, Gruber (1967) had also, in addition to this,

4

H. SCHULTINK

dealt with a considerable part of inflection within what he calls his 'translational lexicon'. Finally, Halle (1973:6) does not see any argument at all for describing inflectional phenomena in a different way from derivational phenomena. Accordingly, he accounts for both, without separating them out, in his morphological components. Apart from transformationally or in the lexicon, in principle, it also seems to be possible to introduce derivational elements with the help of phonological or syntactic rewrite rules. Dik (1967:366), Wurzel (1970:17), and Kiefer (1970:18-20) give as their main objection to the introduction via phonological rules that it fundamentally alters the character of the phonological component. More convincing than their protest is that of Halle. With reason, he wants to restrict the 'more powerful devices' which he needs for word formation to the relevant component and thus not build them into the phonological component. "It is obvious that, in general, one would not wish to replace less powerful by more powerful devices especially when it is known that the less powerful devices are capable of handling a very large part of the task at hand. Under such circumstances, it would be essential to attempt to limit as much as possible the domain in which the more powerful devices may be invoked" (Halle 1973:15). Finally, we face the possibility that derivational formatives be introduced directly via syntactic rewrite rules. In the discussion about transformationalism versus lexicalism, what have been mainly though not exclusively referred to until now are word-derivational relations of a transpositional nature i.e. derivational relations which involve a difference in lexical category. The reader is reminded of nominalizations like eagerness and refusal, nouns which correspond to the adjective eager and the verb (to) refuse respectively. An adjective like readable corresponds to the verb (to) read in a similar transpositional manner. In addition, we find derivations which do not go together with a change in lexical category. Wurzel (1970:83-84), who devotes a good deal of attention to these non-transpositional derivations, mentions German nouns such as Fuchs-Füchsin, Fuchs-Füchslein, Berg-Gebirge and adjectives such as blau-bläulich, gram-grämlich, süß-süßlich. He tries to make it plausible that non-transpositional derivation of nouns and adjectives like this should be dealt with in the base-component, with the aid of rewrite rules. To derive similar formations transformationally from underlying deep structures "wäre eine sehr künstliche und rein technische Lösung" (84). Nevertheless, Wurzel considers it inevitable that the verb fällen should be derived transformationally from the verb

OUTPUT CONDITIONS IN WORD FORMATION ?

5

fallen, just as he derives all transpositional formations by means of transformations. If we take into account Dutch words like baron 'baron'-barones 'baroness' and (te) dansen '(to) da.r\ce'-danser 'dancer'-danseres 'lady dancer' in our investigation, then we ascertain the following. The derivation of danseres from danser, within a non-lexicalist model, presupposes an earlier transformation of the verb dansen to the noun danser.1 As the application of rewrite rules precedes the application of transformations, danseres too should be derived from danser transformationally. As, moreover, a grammar which derives danseres from danser in a different way than barones from baron clearly misses a significant generalization, barones also has to be derived from baron transformationally. On the ground of similar arguments the transformational derivation of German words like Füchsin, Füchslein, Gebirge, bläulich, grämlich, and süßlich is to be preferred to derivation via rewrite rules. In addition, there is the fact that, by already introducing some derived words via rewrite rules, Wurzel gives a markedly idiosyncratic character to these rewrite rules. In any case, in this way, any assumption "that much of the structure of the base is common to all languages" (Chomsky 1965: 117) is undermined. 2. Anyone who wants to account for derivational elements via transformations has to take into account that transformational rules have to satisfy the demands of asymmetry, transitivity and irreflexiveness within one cycle.2 Asymmetry means that - given rule X and rule Y - Y can not both follow and precede X. Transitivity means that when given three rules X, Y, and Z - X precedes Y and Y precedes Z, X also precedes Z. Irreflexiveness requires that no rule precede itself. In the meantime, Chomsky (1970:212) states: "As is well-known, processes of derivational morphology are applicable in sequence - they may even be recursive." Bierwisch (1967:262) gives examples of this such as analyticity and realizational. Considering the above, we should not be surprised that Wurzel (1970:90-91) implicitly provides an A-B-A proof that his morphological 'Wortbildungsregeln' are cyclically ordered. For, Häßlichkeit and ganzheitlich are cases where two suffixes appear now in the order A-B and then in the order B-A. In view of this cyclic applicability, we could have expected formations like Einheitlichkeit and Freiheitlichkeit reported by Wurzel, in which one and the same derivational affix is added to a root twice with another affix between the two additions. Even if Wurzel does not say this in so many words,

6

H. SCHULTINK

it follows from the above that the syntactic transformations that lie at the root of the sequences lich-keit, heit-lich and heit-lich-keit, in his descriptive model, are also cyclically ordered. Chapin (1970:60-62) has already shown earlier, in the light of English and German material (organize, organization, organizational, organizationalize, organizationalization; physical, physicalist, physicalistic, physicalistical, physicalisticalist; Schade, schädlich, Schädlichkeit, schädlichkeitlich, Schädlichkeitlichkeit), that in both these languages some words need to be derived via cyclically ordered transformations. At the same time, it is not the case that all word derivation rules in English and German are cyclically ordered. Thus, to mention only one, the rule which derives English words in -less can not be applied cyclically. Chapin formulates his 'epicycle hypothesis' on the basis of the available material, of which he himself admits there is not much. This 'epicycle hypothesis' is to the effect "that it may be possible to order the rules in such a way that rules which must be cyclically ordered can always be ordered adjacent to each other; that is, that no rule which does not participate in a given cycle need be ordered (...) between any two rules which do" (Chapin 1970:61). Chapin supports this with a diagram A

B

C

D

E

F

G.

"Assume that A, B, etc. are derivational rules and the " ——are ordering relations, ... Then the proposal under discussion is that cyclical ordering is possible only among groups of alphabetically adjacent rules. Possible cyclical groups would be B-C, F-G, C-D-E, A-B-C-D, and so on; C-D-F, A-E, and so on would not be possible cyclical groups. Thus ... the hypothesis holds that the rules for attachment of -tion, -al, and -ize may be ordered immediately adjacent to each other, with no necessity for the interposition between two of them of some other rules, say the rule of -less attachment, which does not enter into the cyclic pattern" (Chapin 1970:61). If the 'epicycle hypothesis' is not falsified, it leads to a theory which is, of course, more powerful than a theory in which arbitrary sets of derivation rules can be applied cyclically. The 'epicycle hypothesis' can, however, be refuted on two counts. In the first place, the general theory must allow for the possibility of describing derived words with a double suffix. It is undoubtedly a fact that, so far, there are more languages known in which there is no double suffixation than languages in which there is double suffixation (cf. Uhlenbeck 1962:428, Kiefer 1970:23, and Matthews 1972:98 fn. 1). Nevertheless, in a language like Afrikaans, derivations with double

OUTPUT CONDITIONS IN WORD FORMATION ?

7

diminutive suffixes are to be found such as stukk-ie-tjie 'small piece', pot-jie-tjie 'small pot', stomp-ie-tjie 'small stump', rekenink-ie-tjie 'small account', kramp-ie-tjie 'slight cramp', stoel-tjie-tjie 'small chair', blaar-tjie-tjie 'small leaf, stof-ie-tjie 'small stove', vink-ie-tjie 'small weaver-bird' (cf. Odendal 1963:221-22). Within a transformational framework, these diminutives should be described via a cyclically applicable transformation. A cyclically applicable transformation like this does not, however, have to be one of a group of rules, which is different from what Chapin's 'epicycle hypothesis' suggests ("cyclical ordering is possible only among groups of alphabetically adjacent rules", Chapin 1970: 61; italics are mine, H. S.). As appears from Kempen's (1969:591) brief survey of suffix combinations in Afrikaans, the diminutive in that language can be followed by, apart from itself, only the plural -s. This -s, in its turn, can not precede a diminutive suffix. In Chapin's 'epicycle hypothesis' therefore, provision would at least have to be made for cyclically applicable derivation rules which act independently. A second, graver objection has, however, been raised against the 'epicycle hypothesis'. Chapin (1970:59-62) argues that the suffixes -Hon, -al, -ize and the suffixes -ist, -ic, -al, in English, form cyclical groups. Leitner (1972:240-42), however, shows that this does not explain the grammaticality of words like organizationalist and fictionalistic. Moreover, he demonstrates that Chapin is forced to order suffixation with -ory in English both before and after his cyclical groups (Leitner 1972: 242). Nor is this ordering-paradox solved by the 'epicycle hypothesis'. In short, we are obliged to endorse Leitner's (1972:242) view that Chapin's theory is untenable. 3. We are now still faced by the following problem. "The derivational rules of English as a whole cannot be cyclically ordered. Some subgroups of them, however, must be cyclically ordered. Therefore the derivational rules cannot be linearly ordered as a whole, in spite of the considerable evidence that many individual rules are extrinsically ordered with respect to each other. How are these contrary bodies of evidence to be mutually accomodated?" (Chapin 1970:61). Leitner (1972:244-50) makes an interesting proposal to break this impasse. He orders his suffixes according to the position which they can occupy in words. Thus, in English, he distinguishes sets of (1) terminal suffixes (-ly and Gen.), (2) preterminal suffixes (Num.), (3) prepreterminal suffixes (-ness, -ity, -ship, ...), (4) postcyclic suffixes {-able, -esque, -er, ...), (5) cyclic suffixes (-ic. -al, -ize, -ion, -ist, -ism), (6)

8

H. SCHULTINK

precyclic suffixes {-an, -ern, -ify, -ate, -ory, ...), and (7) suffixes which can never follow another suffix (-oid, -th, -dom, ...), respectively. This ordering of suffixes can be represented schematically. In his table, Leitner spreads the elements from set (7) over the other six sets according to the number of suffixes by which they can be followed. For, his general criterion for ordering is the maximum distance, in terms of suffixes, by which the suffix in question is separated from the end of the word. (7) oid th dom

(6) an ern ify

ate ory oid

(5) ic al ize ion ist ism

(4) able esque er th

(3) ness ity ship dom

(2) Num.

(1) ly

Gen.

Only elements from set (5), the cyclic suffixes, can be combined with one another in one and the same word. No mutual combination of elements occurs in any of the other sets. What does occur is a combination of every set Si and every set Sj, where j > i , and in such a way that Si follows S j. For the elements from these sets this means, at least theoretically,3 that every element j from Sj can be combined with every element i from Si and this in such a way that j precedes i. Under the same conditions, sequences of more than two sets and elements are possible in words. Affixes are now being handled on two levels. The syntactic component generates their syntactico-semantic structure. They do not get their morphological characteristics until in a morphological component which is situated between the transformational component and the phonological component. In this morphological component rules which are combined into sets, operate. Rules of this kind have little else in common than that every rule from one particular set produces an affix which can occur in only one particular position in a derived word. Which affix is chosen in this particular position does not depend solely on the syntactico-semantic structure mentioned above. The morphological structure and other properties of the stem which is to be affixed also have a part to play in this. Thus, in Dutch, in addition to goed-heid 'goodness' and schilder-achtig-heid 'picturesqueness', we find abstract nouns derived from adjectives such as sterk-te 'strength', duister-nis 'darkness', rijkdom 'richness', and zwanger-schap 'pregnancy'. There are no derivatives like this, or hardly any, ending in -te, -nis, -dom, and -schap from adjective stems which are themselves derived. All of this can even result in identical

OUTPUT CONDITIONS IN WORD FORMATION?

9

information from the syntactic component leading to the introduction of affixes which are from different sets. Thus, the English verbal suffixes -ate (as in activ-ate) and -ize (as in central-ize) are from sets (6) and (5) respectively. There are also objections to be raised against Leitner's proposal, which is only extremely briefly reproduced here. One of the things he himself points out is that the non-cyclical suffixes -ive and -ate are nevertheless combined in two kinds of sequence in words like migr-at-ive and act-iv-ate (Leitner 1972:247). Moreover, his sets of rules considerably extend the formal universals in the general theory, an extension for which there seems to be no independent evidence. Perlmutter (1970) makes it plausible that the combinatory restrictions to which affixes are subject in words, should be of the same nature as output conditions on clitic pronouns. These output conditions on clitics are given in terms of a filter which characterizes the grammatical sentences, while every sentence which contains a sequence of clitic pronouns which does not satisfy these conditions will be filtered out, will be discarded as ungrammatical. Thus Perlmutter's (1970:226) surface structure constraint on French clitics is as follows Nom

me ne te III

III

Acc

Dat

y

en,

nous vous se in which Nom stands for je, tu, il, elle, nous, vous, Us, elles, on; III Acc for le, la, les, and III Dat for lui, leur. For a French sentence to be grammatical it is, of course, not necessary for all seven slots indicated to be filled. The slots which are filled do have to be in the order indicated, while, moreover, every slot may be filled by only one member of the set assigned to this slot. Perlmutter (1970:250-52) is right when he points out that the notation developed by him reminds us of the 'morpheme order charts' and the 'decade notation' with which we are familiar from the late forties and the fifties. For that matter, also Leitner's (1972:245) table reminds us of this. Therefore, Perlmutter's notation may be appropriate for stating constraints on word formation too. Provision can be made for double affixation as in Afrikaans (cf. Odendal 1963:222) by repetition of the relevant slot, e.g. -Dim Dim-(cf. Perlmutter 1970:216). Perlmutter's

10

H. SCHULTINK

proposed universal, however, purposely does not provide for cyclic derivation. A priori, it does not seem to be at all out of the question to formulate output constraints in such a way that justice is done to the grammaticality of cyclically derived words. Should this prove to be feasible, then the next question is whether this form of description provides an argument in favour of the transformationalist standpoint and detrimental to the lexicalist standpoint. Perlmutter (1970:253) states that the constraint on the occurrence of Spanish clitics "applies to the final output of the syntactic component". He later adds: "The question of whether there are well-formedness conditions which apply at other stages of derivations must be considered open" (Perlmutter 1971:134). Was Halle - within the framework of his own theory - attempting to answer Perlmutter's open question too when he wrote: "In fact, it may well be useful to speak not of 'rules of word formation' but rather, as has been suggested by Lakoff and others, of 'derivational constraints that hold in word formation'" (Halle 1973:15)? Utrecht, June 1974

NOTES 1 The latter transformation is self-evident even within a lexicalist descriptive model á la Chomsky. For, the type of formation is a productive one; there is a fixed semantic relationship between the verb and the derived agent noun; the syntactic environments in which the two types of word figure are very different. Compare Chomsky 1970:187 for these criteria. 2 We refer the reader to Lehmann 1972 and the literature listed there for other views. 3 The actual combinatory possibilities of separate elements from two combinable sets must be explicitly indicated.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bierwisch, M. 1967 "General Problems of So-Called Pronominal Inflection in German", To Honor Roman Jakobson : Essays on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, 11 October 1966, I (= Janua Linguarum, series maior, 31), 239-70. The Hague-Paris, Mouton. Bresnan, J. W. 1971 "Sentence Stress and Syntactic Transformations", Language, 47, 257-81.

10

H. SCHULTINK

proposed universal, however, purposely does not provide for cyclic derivation. A priori, it does not seem to be at all out of the question to formulate output constraints in such a way that justice is done to the grammaticality of cyclically derived words. Should this prove to be feasible, then the next question is whether this form of description provides an argument in favour of the transformationalist standpoint and detrimental to the lexicalist standpoint. Perlmutter (1970:253) states that the constraint on the occurrence of Spanish clitics "applies to the final output of the syntactic component". He later adds: "The question of whether there are well-formedness conditions which apply at other stages of derivations must be considered open" (Perlmutter 1971:134). Was Halle - within the framework of his own theory - attempting to answer Perlmutter's open question too when he wrote: "In fact, it may well be useful to speak not of 'rules of word formation' but rather, as has been suggested by Lakoff and others, of 'derivational constraints that hold in word formation'" (Halle 1973:15)? Utrecht, June 1974

NOTES 1 The latter transformation is self-evident even within a lexicalist descriptive model á la Chomsky. For, the type of formation is a productive one; there is a fixed semantic relationship between the verb and the derived agent noun; the syntactic environments in which the two types of word figure are very different. Compare Chomsky 1970:187 for these criteria. 2 We refer the reader to Lehmann 1972 and the literature listed there for other views. 3 The actual combinatory possibilities of separate elements from two combinable sets must be explicitly indicated.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bierwisch, M. 1967 "General Problems of So-Called Pronominal Inflection in German", To Honor Roman Jakobson : Essays on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, 11 October 1966, I (= Janua Linguarum, series maior, 31), 239-70. The Hague-Paris, Mouton. Bresnan, J. W. 1971 "Sentence Stress and Syntactic Transformations", Language, 47, 257-81.

10

H. SCHULTINK

proposed universal, however, purposely does not provide for cyclic derivation. A priori, it does not seem to be at all out of the question to formulate output constraints in such a way that justice is done to the grammaticality of cyclically derived words. Should this prove to be feasible, then the next question is whether this form of description provides an argument in favour of the transformationalist standpoint and detrimental to the lexicalist standpoint. Perlmutter (1970:253) states that the constraint on the occurrence of Spanish clitics "applies to the final output of the syntactic component". He later adds: "The question of whether there are well-formedness conditions which apply at other stages of derivations must be considered open" (Perlmutter 1971:134). Was Halle - within the framework of his own theory - attempting to answer Perlmutter's open question too when he wrote: "In fact, it may well be useful to speak not of 'rules of word formation' but rather, as has been suggested by Lakoff and others, of 'derivational constraints that hold in word formation'" (Halle 1973:15)? Utrecht, June 1974

NOTES 1 The latter transformation is self-evident even within a lexicalist descriptive model á la Chomsky. For, the type of formation is a productive one; there is a fixed semantic relationship between the verb and the derived agent noun; the syntactic environments in which the two types of word figure are very different. Compare Chomsky 1970:187 for these criteria. 2 We refer the reader to Lehmann 1972 and the literature listed there for other views. 3 The actual combinatory possibilities of separate elements from two combinable sets must be explicitly indicated.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bierwisch, M. 1967 "General Problems of So-Called Pronominal Inflection in German", To Honor Roman Jakobson : Essays on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, 11 October 1966, I (= Janua Linguarum, series maior, 31), 239-70. The Hague-Paris, Mouton. Bresnan, J. W. 1971 "Sentence Stress and Syntactic Transformations", Language, 47, 257-81.

OUTPUT CONDITIONS IN WORD FORMATION?

11

Chapin, P. G. 1967 On the Syntax of Word-Derivation in English. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Dissertation. 1970 "On Affixation in English", Progress in Linguistics : A Collection of Papers, ed. by M. Bierwisch and K. E. Heidolph ( = Janua Linguarum, series maior, 43), 51-63. The Hague-Paris, Mouton. Chomsky, N. 1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. 1970 "Remarks on Nominalization", Readings in English Transformational Grammar, ed. by R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum, 184-221. Waltham, Mass., Toronto, London, Ginn. Dik, S. C. 1967 "Some Critical Remarks on the Treatment of Morphological Structure in Transformational Generative Grammar", Lingua, 18, 352-83. Gruber, J. S. 1965 Studies in Lexical Relations. MIT Dissertation (IULC 1970). 1967 The Function of the Lexicon in Formal Descriptive Grammars. Santa Monica, Calif., SDC. Halle, M. 1973 "Prolegomena to a Theory of Word Formation", Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 3-16. Jackendoff, R. S. 1972 Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar (= Studies in Linguistics Series, 3). Cambridge, Mass., and London, MIT Press. Kempen, W. 1969 Samestelling, afleiding en woordsoortelike meerfunksionaliteit in Afrikaans. Kaapstad, etc., Nasou. Kiefer, F. 1970 Swedish Morphology. Stockholm, Skriptor. Lakoff, G. 1970 Irregularity in Syntax (= Transatlantic Series in Linguistics). New York, etc., Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. unpublished Generative Semantics. Lees, R. B. 1960 The Grammar of English Nominalizations (= Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, 12). Bloomington, Indiana. Lehmann, T. 1972 "Some Arguments against Ordered Rules", Language, 48, 541-50. Leitner, G. 1972 "Argumente für eine morphologische Ebene in einem TG-Modell", Linguistik 1971 : Referate des 6. Linguistischen Kolloquiums 11.-14. August 1971 in Kopenhagen, ed. by K. Hyldgaard-Jensen ( = Athenäum-Skripten Linguistik, 1), 236-51. Frankfurt/M., Athenäum. Matthews, P. H. 1972 Inflectional Morphology: A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation (= Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 6). Cambridge, University Press. McCawley, J. D. 1968 "Lexical Insertion in a Transformational Grammar without Deep Structure", Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. by B. J. Darden, Ch.-J. N. Bailey, and A. Davison, 71-80. Chicago. 1973 Review of Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar by N. Chomsky (IULC).

12

H. SCHULTINK

Odendal, F. F. 1963 "Limitations of Morphological Processes: A Note", Lingua, 12, 220-5. Perlmutter, D. M. 1970 "Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax", Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 187-255. 1971 Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax (= Transatlantic Series in Linguistics). New York, etc., Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Uhlenbeck, E. M. 1962 "Limitations of Morphological Processes: Some Preliminary Remarks", Lingua, 11, 426-32. Wurzel, W. U. 1970 Studien zur deutschen Lautstruktur (= Studio Grammatica, VIII). Berlin, Akademie-Verlag.