Languages & Linguistics
Zero-Derivation
Zero-derivation, also known as conversion, is a process in linguistics where a word changes its grammatical category without any overt morphological changes. This means that a word can shift from being a noun to a verb, or vice versa, without adding any affixes. It is a common phenomenon in English and other languages, and it contributes to the flexibility and richness of vocabulary.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
5 Key excerpts on "Zero-Derivation"
eBook - PDFA Grammar of Mavea
An Oceanic Language of Vanuatu
- Valérie Guérin(Author)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- University of Hawaii Press(Publisher)
Chapter 4 Derivational morphology 4.1 Zero derivation In this book, the term zero derivation (also known as “conversion” or “functional shift”) is used to refer to lexical items which can serve several grammatical func-tions without any overt morphological derivation. Zero derivation is common in Oceanic languages (Lynch et al. 2002:38), and is found in Saliba (Margetts 1999:24), South Efate (Thieberger 2006:74), Tamambo (Jauncey 1997:185), and in Lolovoli (Hyslop 2001:91). According to Matthews (1991:65), it is often clear in English which lexeme is derived from the other. For example, the verb fish is said to be derived from the noun fish . Brinton (2000:91–93) lists a few tests to determine which lexeme is the root in English. Whether the noun or the verb is the root in Ma˝ vea remains to be established. Zero derivation is a productive process in Ma˝ vea. Twelve zero-derived noun-verb pairs were presented in § 3.10. More pairs are reported in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Zero derived noun-verb pairs Noun Predicate lulu ‘flame’ ‘burn, blaze’ malo ‘reef’ ‘be low tide’ puru ‘Kastom grade’ ‘take a Kastom grade’ sao ‘sickness’ ‘be sick’ tara ‘fishing basket’ ‘go basket-fishing’ tautau ‘heap’ ‘stack up’ te˝ vi ‘broom’ ‘sweep’ ti˝ vti˝ vi ‘loincloth’ ‘wear a loincloth’ tovu ‘sprout’ ‘germinate’ Other zero-derived pairs include the noun modifier-predicate pairs. As shown in Chapter 3, U-stative verbs can be used predicatively or as noun modifiers. An example follows. (297) Otoli-n egg-CONS avua turtle ra-damolmol . 3 PL -round ‘Turtle eggs are round.’ 95 4 Derivational morphology (298) Otol egg damolmol round mo-˝ ma-polo. 3 SG -DETR -broken ‘The round egg is broken.’ Less frequent is the zero derivation of an adverb into a predicate. Only one example of such a pair is found in the data. (299) amma (adverb) ‘before, in front’ (verb) ‘come first, in front’ 4.2 Verbal morphology Table 4.2 summarizes the forms and functions of morphemes affixed to verbs.
eBook - PDFMorphology
From Data to Theories
- Antonio Fábregas, Sergio Scalise(Authors)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Edinburgh University Press(Publisher)
86 5 DERIVATIONAL PROCESSES 5.1 PROPERTIES OF DERIVATION Inflectional processes do not alter the properties with which an item is listed in the lexicon, but rather result in the different grammatical forms that this item adopts in different syntactic contexts. A derivational process alters one or several of the proper-ties associated with an item listed in the lexicon, making it necessary in many cases for the new form to also be listed. Therefore, it is said that derivation (and compound-ing, see §6) is a process that creates new words; it is a word-formation process. Derivational processes are those that alter one or several of the following properties: a) the grammatical category of the input form. The assumption is that units are listed in the lexicon with their grammatical categories, so when a morphological process changes this information, it produces a new word. Consider, for instance, whiteness , a noun created from the adjective white . b) the conceptual semantics associated with the input form. For example, the word underworld has a different meaning from the word world , from which it is formed. c) the number of arguments of a base (‘subcategorization’ of an item) and the selectional restrictions that a unit imposes on these arguments. The idea is that in the lexicon there must also be information stating that a particular word, such as read , requires two syntactic arguments: one acting as the subject and interpreted as the agent of the action, and one as the object, corresponding to the undergoer of the action ( John reads a book ). Any process that changes the number or the distribution of these arguments changes the subcategorization of the base. For instance, the verb wail takes a subject, whatever or whoever makes the sound, but the verb never takes adirect object expressing the cause of the pain (* John wailed the dead ). The verb be-wail , in contrast, requires a direct object expressing precisely this notion ( John bewailed the dead ).
eBook - PDF- Susan Olsen(Author)
- 2016(Publication Date)
- Helmut Buske Verlag(Publisher)
On the other hand, the derivational mechanisms they propose are either vague or simply inadequate. Thus, Marantz (1997, 2001) and Embick & Marantz (2008) indicate that derivational processes involve some sort of world knowledge without making an attempt to define this key word. Borer’s (2003) exo-skeletal model includes constructions which are strongly reminiscent of, but entirely incompa-tible with subcategorization frames first introduced by Lieber (1981). The com-patibility of affixes with bases (or at least their obvious preferences for particular bases) remains a linguistic and theory-independent fact, but since deviations from the ‘norm’ are possible, which is due to the fact that language is a flexible system, it is proposed in this article that derivation centres around a prototype which is morpho-syntactically determined in the first place and inter-acts with the most prominent meaning component of a derivational pattern. Modifications of or deviations from the prototype yield less central forms, which are related to the prototype by family resemblance. In the case of -er discussed here, the prototype is the deverbal derivative with an agentive default reading, which may be modified in various ways: If the suffix realizes an argu-21 Halle (1973) separated actual words from potential words by means of a Filter. Potential words were assigned the feature [–Lexical Insertion] by the Filter in order to prevent them from en-tering the Dictionary. Allen (1978) differentiates between a Conditional Lexicon, which includes the infinite set of potential words, and a Permanent Lexicon – a list of exceptions. Derivation in Generative Grammar and Neo-Construction Grammar 55 ment other than the external one or no argument of the verbal base, a non-agent-ive reading is achieved (e.g. eater “a fruit that eats well”; laugher “movie or game that causes the participant to perform the action denoted by the verb”).
eBook - PDFTypological Changes in the Lexicon
Analytic Tendencies in English Noun Formation
- Alexander Haselow(Author)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Typical derivational processes are nominalizations, the formation of verbs and adjectives, or the indication of lexical categories like Diminutiv-ity. (1) and (2) are probably the most important criteria for the definition of a distinction between inflection and derivation: the marking of inflectional categories is obligatory, whereas marking derivational categories is a choice made by speakers for purely semantic reasons. Inflectional mor-phemes apply regularly to all members of a given syntactic category and obligatorily appear every time a stem is used in a particular morpho-syntactic context that requires morphological expression (Bybee 1985: 27). The obligatoriness of inflection is related to the obligatoriness of the cate-gory they indicate, which forces certain choices upon the speaker: in a lan- 242 Derivation and inflection: A typological perspective guage with morphological case, each NP must be marked for case. Since the use of derivational morphemes is not obligatory, each derivative could theoretically be replaced by a simple morpheme without producing a change of the grammatical construction. Such a substitution process is not possible with word-forms containing an inflectional ending. Furthermore, derivational morphemes are much more often subjected to restrictions of their applicability than inflectional morphemes. In spite of the apparently clear-cut distinction between these two mor-phological domains in a language, none of the properties in Table 66 is defining by itself. Exceptions can easily be found for each of the criteria, and often individual affixes may be found to serve in both domains. Inflec-tional paradigms are, for instance, often defective. Many nouns lack plural forms ( singuralis tantum ), others lack singular forms ( pluralis tantum ). In some languages the marking of Person with verbs is defective, as in Rus-sian, where about 100 verbs lack a first person singular (Halle 1973).
eBook - PDF- M. Moortgat, H. v. d. Hulst, T. Hoekstra, M. Moortgat, H. v. d. Hulst, T. Hoekstra(Authors)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
The multiple 0s in question share subcategorization frames (i.e., 1 ] ,, or ] ] ) and, moreover, often have identical semantic N V V N effects upon their bases. The semantics of conversion will be discussed briefly below (§4.). Suffice it to say here that verbs derived from nouns usually have 180 LIEBER some interpretation in which the base noun serves as an argument in the semantic representation of the verb (e.g., paint 'cover with paint', orbit 'be in orbit', frühstücken (from Frühstück 'breakfast') 'to have breakfast'). This is true regard-less of which 0 is involved, i.e., which argument structure the derived verb ends up with. Similarly, most nouns derived from verbs have the interpretation 'an instance of V-ing' — e.g., der Fund 'find' (an instance of finding), der Band 'binding' (an instance of binding), Again, this is true regardless of which 0 affix is involved: der Fund and der Band must actually be derived with different 0s, since they differ with respect to their plural allomorphy. The second reason for suspecting that the proliferation of 0s demanded within this framework is not merely benign homophony, is that overt homophonous affixes do not seem to require the extra subcategorization features on stems that our 0s did. Remember that the concomitant of adding three noun-forming 0s to our grammar of German was that verb stems had to be marked for the particular 0 they took. No marking of stems results from having two homophonous un-'s in English, however. Presumably any adjective can take un- (NEG) and any verb un-(REVERSE). Having entirely distinct subcategorization frames, the homophonous affixes simply operate in separate domains. It seems clear, then, that the phonologically null affixes we would need in order to maintain the traditional zero affixation analysis of conversion are not in fact like overt affixes, not even homophonous overt affixes.
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
