An analysis on the English prefix un- from a scalar semantics point of view
Pamela Hsiaowen Peng, the University of Tokyo

This presentation discusses how by involving the concept of scalarity can theEnglish prefix un-, which not only attaches to adjectives (e.g. unhappy, untrue) but also
to verbs (e.g. unfold, unfasten), be given a unified semantic analysis and the empiricaladvantages of such an approach.
Most studies on English prefixes associate un- that attaches to roots of different
syntactic categories with different word formation rules. Dixon (1991), for example,analyzes un- as a prefix that “indicates an opposite quality with an adjective, but areverse action with a verb (p6.).” However, it is arguable whether these two senses areindeed rooted in the prefix.
Yumoto (1997) provides an alternative analysis and proposes that un- is an affix
that negates the state predicate (i.e. [AT(x)]) in the Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS)
of its root; that is, un- conveys a unified meaning: negation. When it attaches to anadjectival root, it triggers the antithesis sense (e.g. (1a)), and when it attaches to a verbal
root, it gives rise to a reversal sense (e.g. (1b)).
(1) a. [BE Ident ([John], [Place NOT AT ([Property KIND]) ]) (Yumoto 1997, p180)
b. [CAUSE ( [ ]i, [ INCH ( [BE ([ ]i, [NOT AT (FOLDED)])])])] (ibid, p178)
We agree with Yumoto (1997) in giving a unified analysis to the prefix, for it ismore preferable in terms of the economy principle. But differently, we propose that thefunction of un- is to reverse the polarity of the scale denoted by the root it attaches to;hence, contrary to Yumoto, we consider the basic meaning of un- to be the “reversal”
sense. When it prefixes an adjective, it triggers the antithesis sense by altering thepolarity of the scale denoted by the adjectival root. For instance, the un- prefixation
changes the denotation of happy in (2a) from a positive degree to a negative one (2b).
(2) a. [[ happy]] = λx.
b. [[unhappy]]= λx.
Graph1-3-2-1

x is
x is
0d-happy.
- d-happy.
123-1-2-3

happiness

Likewise, when un- prefixes a verb, it changes the polarity of the scale the verbal rootdenotes. Thus, if as illustrated in (3a), kennel denotes a movement into a kennel, thenas shown in (3b), unkennel denotes a movement out from a kennel, and in thisprefixation process, the only thing that is altered is the ordering relation that defines themovement path, which Rappaport (2008), among others, suggests can be considered akind of a scale.
(3) kennel
un-kennel
dimension: location
dimension: location
Degrees: outside of RO, inside of RO
Degrees: outside of RO, inside of RO
Reference Object: the kennel
Reference Object: the kennel
Ordering: towards RO
Ordering: away from RO
Reference Path: two-valued bounded
Reference Path: two-valued bounded
Motion Path: equal to reference path
Motion Path: equal to reference path

Our scalar approach is implemented to account for some empirical facts that areotherwise problematic or unpredictable. Firstly and most importantly, it captures thedistribution of the types of verbs un- can be a prefix of. In Yumoto (1997), un- isprovided with a unified meaning, but it is not clear why it cannot prefix a stative verb,
which also includes an [AT(x)] function in its LCS; therefore, she has to establish two
lexical rules for un- after all. Contrastively, our analysis correctly predicts such adistribution. Since the function of un- is to reverse the polarity of a scale, the verbs it
can attach to have to include a scale in its denotation. Table 1 shows this prediction istrue. Rappaport (2008) and RH&L (2010) divide verbs into scalar and non-scalar ones,
and the dichotomy lines up clearly with whether a predicate can be prefixed by un-.
Table 1[AT [x]]Scalarun-prefix

adjectives✓✓✓stative✓××

Activity×××

accomplishment achievements✓✓✓✓✓✓

Also, our approach makes degree modification predictable. If, as we claim, the basic
function of un- is to change scalar polarity, then as also mentioned in K&M (2005), it
follows naturally why a maximum-endpoint adjective (e.g. (4a)) becomes incompatible
with a maximum-endpoint modifying adverb (e.g. completely) after being prefixed by
un- while a minimum-endpoint adjective (e.g. (4b), (4c)) becomes compatible with suchadverbs after the prefixation.
(4)a. It is completely {dead / ??un-dead}.
b. It is completely {unbent / ??bent }.
c. It is a completely { un-talked / ??talked} about program.

In sum, this presentation proposes an analysis in which the cross-categoricalbehaviors of the un- prefixation can be subsumed to a unified lexical process thatevokes a manipulation on the scale structure of its root morpheme, and through this
proposal, we hope to shed light on the debate of whether it is necessary to adopt theontological concept of scalarity in verbal semantics.
References
Dixon, R.M. W. (1991). A semantic approach to English grammar. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kennedy, C., and McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure and the semantic typology ofgradable predicates. Language 81: pp.345–381.
Rappaport Hovav, M. (2008). Lexicalized meaning and the internal structure of events.
In Rothstein S. (Ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to thesemantics of aspect. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rappaport Hovav, M. and Levin, Beth (2011). Reﬂections on manner/result
complementarity. In Doron, Rappaport Hovav, M., and Sichel I. (Eds.) Syntax,
lexical semantics, and event structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yumoto, Yoko. (1997). Verb prefixation on the level of semantic structure. In
Kageyama, T. (Ed.) Verb semantics and syntactic structure (pp.177-204).
Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.