EN

الرئيسية

الأخبار

صور

فيديو

صوت

أقلام

مفتاح

رشفات

مشكاة

منشور

اضاءات

قصص


المرجع الالكتروني للمعلوماتية

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

English Language : Linguistics : Morphology :

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.

EN