Grammar
Tenses
Present
Present Simple
Present Continuous
Present Perfect
Present Perfect Continuous
Past
Past Continuous
Past Perfect
Past Perfect Continuous
Past Simple
Future
Future Simple
Future Continuous
Future Perfect
Future Perfect Continuous
Passive and Active
Parts Of Speech
Nouns
Countable and uncountable nouns
Verbal nouns
Singular and Plural nouns
Proper nouns
Nouns gender
Nouns definition
Concrete nouns
Abstract nouns
Common nouns
Collective nouns
Definition Of Nouns
Verbs
Stative and dynamic verbs
Finite and nonfinite verbs
To be verbs
Transitive and intransitive verbs
Auxiliary verbs
Modal verbs
Regular and irregular verbs
Action verbs
Adverbs
Relative adverbs
Interrogative adverbs
Adverbs of time
Adverbs of place
Adverbs of reason
Adverbs of quantity
Adverbs of manner
Adverbs of frequency
Adverbs of affirmation
Adjectives
Quantitative adjective
Proper adjective
Possessive adjective
Numeral adjective
Interrogative adjective
Distributive adjective
Descriptive adjective
Demonstrative adjective
Pronouns
Subject pronoun
Relative pronoun
Reflexive pronoun
Reciprocal pronoun
Possessive pronoun
Personal pronoun
Interrogative pronoun
Indefinite pronoun
Emphatic pronoun
Distributive pronoun
Demonstrative pronoun
Pre Position
Preposition by function
Time preposition
Reason preposition
Possession preposition
Place preposition
Phrases preposition
Origin preposition
Measure preposition
Direction preposition
Contrast preposition
Agent preposition
Preposition by construction
Simple preposition
Phrase preposition
Double preposition
Compound preposition
Conjunctions
Subordinating conjunction
Correlative conjunction
Coordinating conjunction
Conjunctive adverbs
Interjections
Express calling interjection
Grammar Rules
Preference
Requests and offers
wishes
Be used to
Some and any
Could have done
Describing people
Giving advices
Possession
Comparative and superlative
Giving Reason
Making Suggestions
Apologizing
Forming questions
Since and for
Directions
Obligation
Adverbials
invitation
Articles
Imaginary condition
Zero conditional
First conditional
Second conditional
Third conditional
Reported speech
Linguistics
Phonetics
Phonology
Semantics
Pragmatics
Linguistics fields
Syntax
Morphology
Semantics
pragmatics
History
Writing
Grammar
Phonetics and Phonology
Semiotics
Reading Comprehension
Elementary
Intermediate
Advanced
Teaching Methods
Teaching Strategies
The problem
المؤلف:
Ingo Plag
المصدر:
Morphological Productivity
الجزء والصفحة:
P122-C6
2025-01-29
433
The problem
It has often been noted that derivatives involving the suffix -ize in English are extremely heterogeneous in terms of their semantics, syntax and the types of bases the suffix attaches to. Thus adjectives and nouns may be verbalized by -ize, the resulting derivatives are transitive or intransitive, and they may have a whole range of different meanings, often paraphrased as 'render X, make X, convert into X, put into the form of X, give the character or shape of X, subject to the action, treatment or process of X, subject to a process connected with X, impregnate, treat, combine with X, act in a way characterized by X, imitate the manner of X' (cf., e.g., Jespersen (1942:319), Marchand (1969:320); X stands for the concept of the base word). Although this particular affix is generally regarded as the most productive overt verb-forming suffix in English, there is only one more detailed study of the semantic heterogeneity of -ize to date. In this study, Lieber (1996) proposes four different semantic structures for -ize, which are partly considered polysemous, and partly homophonous.
I will argue that all of the meanings suggested in previous studies are derived from one single semantic representation, which is claimed to be the underspecified Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS) of possible -ize derivatives. It is shown that this LCS can not only account for almost every single -ize formation in the neologism corpus, but that it can also explain their relatedness in meaning in an explicit and straightforward manner. Furthermore, the polysemies of existing and possible derivatives can be predicted, which makes the claims easily testable against further data.
The case of -ize derivatives has implications for morphological theory, in particular the status of affixes and word formation rules in the lexicon, and the role of semantic and pragmatic information in word formation. The results of this study can be interpreted as evidence for an output-oriented model of the formation of -ize derivatives, in which the meaning of the derivative results from the interaction of the meaning of the stem with the semantic structure of possible -ize derivatives. An important consequence of the present analysis is that the syntactic category of the base is underspecified. This finding challenges the standard practice (generative and non-generative alike) of treating the information about the syntactic category of the base word as crucial for derivational processes.
Before turning to the analysis of the neologisms let us consider some of the earlier approaches. As mentioned above, standard sources like Jespersen (1942) and Marchand (1969) give a whole range of meanings for -ize derivatives, but do not try to explain the semantic relation between these meanings. The paraphrases they give often appear to be imprecise, or different paraphrases seem to encode rather identical concepts. Thus the two categories 'render, make X' (Marchand's example: legalize), and 'convert into, put into the form of, give the character or shape of X' (itemize) could easily be unified as change-of-states. Similarly, it is left unclear, what exactly the difference is between the paraphrase 'subject to the action, treatment or process of X' (propagandize), the paraphrase 'subject to a special (technical) process connected with X' (winterize), and the paraphrase 'impregnate, treat, combine with X' (alcoholize). A third group of paraphrases seem to be derivatives whose meaning is given as 'do as, act in a way characterized by X' (astronomize), or 'imitate the manner or style of X' (Petrarchize).
In a recent attempt to clarify this picture, Lieber (1996) proposes four different LCSs, which are given in (1):
(1)
These structures show that "all -ize verbs are action verbs of some sort" (p. 8), i.e. they all share the first semantic function ACT, which Lieber borrows from Pinker (1989). In addition to this rather distant semantic relationship between all four types of derivatives, Lieber claims that at least the first three categories constitute a case of polysemy, because they have causative meanings. The exact nature of this polysemy is not further discussed. On the basis of the four LCSs, Lieber argues that the LCS of -ize derivatives is only partially determinate.
Lieber's account suffers from a number of weaknesses. First of all, it is unclear on which data she bases her claims. She mentions only 15 different derivatives altogether, of which very few are discussed in some detail. Furthermore, the status of these examples as productive derivatives is not discussed. Thus, it is difficult to assess the empirical adequacy of her claims. Second, the problem of polysemy is not solved by simply stating that different types of -ize derivatives share certain functions. How are these functions related? And why do -ize derivatives share just these functions and not others? Third, it is not clear why certain forms are cited as examples of certain LCSs. For example, why is unionize a case of (1a) and not of (1c), why is summarize a case of (1c) and not of (1a)? It seems that both analyses are possible, but if so, why should this be the case? And why is one structure, (1a), possible with verbal and nominal bases, whereas others are reserved for nominal bases? In addition, it is not obvious how some of her examples can be subsumed under the LCSs they are supposed to illustrate. For example, according to Lieber's 'Manner' structure (1d), economize would paraphrase roughly as something like 'act like (the) economy', which seems rather strange. Finally, it is unclear how a verb having a LCS as in (1d) can be used as a transitive verb, since there is no possible way to introduce a Theme argument into the LCS. Crucially, however, verbs of this kind are often, if not regularly used transitively, so that there should be an argument slot available for the object in the LCS.
In sum, the previous accounts of -ize are unsatisfactory in many respects. The following topic presents an attempt to develop an empirically and theoretically more adequate solution to the problems of -ize verbs.