101



Adjectival Roots and the Single Engine Hypothesis
Miyoko Yasui
Dokkyo University
1. Is the Adjectival Environment Definable?
The tenet of distributive morphology (DM) is the single engine hypothesis: (i) the same operations and principles govern morphological and syntactic computation. Another assumption commonly held in DM is that (ii)roots are acategorial, acquiring specific categories via their first merger withcategory-determining heads. For instance, Embick (2010:31,103) assumes
that roots have phonological and semantic information but lack categorial
features, while category-determining heads, which include overt derivational suffixes, have categorial and other grammatical features but no phonological representation. (i) and (ii) are theoretically independent, and (ii) israther stipulative in that the set of features to be assembled into a terminal
node in the sense of Chomsky (1995) and subsequent work should in principle be available to all kinds of terminal nodes. The absence of any feature in
one type of syntactic input calls for a principled reason.
Moreover, (ii) is empirically problematic in that there is no clearly obligatory context in which a root becomes adjectival. As for the nominal andverbal environments in English, Marantz (1997) gives (1a,b) but no context
for As.
(1) a.

John destroyed the cityvv
√DESTROY√DESTROY
the cityb.

the destruction of the city
DD
√DESTROY√DESTROY the city

In DM, a root becomes verbal in the environment of a light V, which is required by higher clausal heads. The definite article is required in (1b), andsingular countable Ns generally need to be preceded by some article. It is
not a new idea to identify the syntactic categories of words in relation to thefunctional categories they need to occur with. Fries (1952:76), for instance,says that determiners “serve as markers of Class I,” which corresponds tothe nominal category. Interestingly, he lists only not and degree modifiers

Adjectival Roots and the Single Engine Hypothesis

like very as function words that precede As, but they are not obligatory forthem, unlike auxiliaries for Vs and determiners for Ns.1 As for obligatory
inflection, countable Ns, when not preceded by an article, have to be affixedwith the plural morpheme, and Vs in general require tense or aspectual
markers, while the comparative inflections, which are affixed only on As,
are not required by them. Thus, no mention of the adjectival environment inMarantz (1997) is not accidental, reflecting no or insufficient basis for thecontextual definition of the adjectival category.
In this paper, I will argue that nominal and verbal roots are inherently
categorized in terms of two privative features [n(ominal)] and [v(erbal)] in
Chomsky (1995), and uphold the acategorial analysis only of As: adjectival
roots are minimal substantive elements without a categorial feature. I also
assume that both roots and suffixes have underlying phonologicalforms. The minimalist literature makes almost no reference to the feature[adjective], and As were defined rather contradictorily via two binary features as [+N, +V] in the X-bar theory. Back in the pre-GB period, Ross
(1972) argued that Ns and Vs are the opposite ends of category differentiation. In this way, it is well motivated to posit in UG just two privative categorial features (or one binary feature, say [+/-N]) for elements withencyclopedic contents. Then, the acategorial status of adjectival roots follows from this language design. I will argue that the charicterization of As
as category-less can account for a number of peculiar properties observedon them by Myers (1984) and others.
In the rest of this paper, I will first review morphological and phonological evidence against the acategorial treatment of nominal and verbal roots:
Fabb’s (1988) selection-based theory of suffixation in English and Don’s(2004, 2005a,b) studies on Dutch Ns and Vs. In Section 3, I will discuss
several differences between As and Ns/Vs mainly based on Myers (1984).
In particular, there is no zero derivation into As, though zero-derived Ns andVs are abundant. The opposite asymmetry is observed on morphologicallycomplex words as input: morphologically complex As can undergo zero
derivation but Ns and Vs resist it. The categorial fuzziness of A is also discussed. Section 4 presents an analysis of the asymmetries between A and
N/V under the assumption that only two categorial features [n] and [v] areavailable in UG and zero derivation is the merger of a stem with one categorial feature and nothing else. In Section 5, I will take up Kiparsky (1982,
1997) and Arad (2003, 2005), and argue that the evidence they present tosupport the category-neutral assumption on nominal and verbal roots is notconvincing. Remaining issues will be discussed in Section 6.
 1.

Actually, not can be followed by most other categories: Vs, Ps, Ns, and clauses.

Miyoko Yasui






2. Evidence for the Inherent Nominal and Verbal Features
2.1 Morphological Evidence
DM assumes that derivational suffixes like –ive are allomorphic realizations of category-deciding heads. This simply says that each suffix derives aword of a particular category but fails to express another important fact:
each suffix takes only a stem of a particular category. As has been fully
demonstrated by Fabb (1988), many of the English suffixes attach only toroots and they select for a particular category. For example, -ive is affixed
only to simple Vs:(2) a. *classif(y)-ive

b. *moderniz(e)-ivec. restrict-ive

As Embick and Marantz (2008:8, note 2) admit, it is not the case thatevery root can appear with every possible category-deciding head. The categorial selection by root-selecting suffixes poses a challenge to the acategorial root hypothesis.
In addition, homophonous V-N pairs related by zero derivation call forclarification of category-deciding heads assumed in DM. Embick and Marantz analyze phonologically distinct words with the same category from acommon root such as (3a,b)(3) a.

n√COVERb.
[n, ø]n 
COVER [n,age]

The N cover has the zero-derived verbal counterpart, of which they have notpresented an analysis. According to Myers’ (1984) generalization in (4), theV cover cannot simply be analyzed on a par with (3a) as in (5).
(4) No derivational suffix can be added to a zero-derived word.
(5)

v
 
√COVER[v, ø]

It is because the N cover can be affixed with a root-selecting suffix like–age as in (3b), while the V cover cannot: *cover-ive, *cover-al, *cover-ant.
More generally, most homophonous N-V pairs have either N or V as basic,
the other being zero-derived from the former and resisting further suffixation.



Adjectival Roots and the Single Engine Hypothesis

One way to analyze the verbal cover as more complex than the nominal
one would be (6).
(6)

v

n


[v, ø]

 √COVER [n, ø]Support is an example of the opposite case: the verbal support can be suffixed with –ive, but the nominal support does not allow any root-selecting
suffix: *supportage, *supportal, *supportous, *supportist. The N-V pairof support would be analyzed as (7a, b) on a par with (3a) and (6).
(7) a.

v
 √SUPPORT [v, ø]

b.

n
 
v
[n, ø] √SUPPORT [v, ø]Given Myers’ generalization, the outer null heads in (6) and (7b), which areresponsible for zero-derivation, cannot be identified with the inner null headin (3a), (6), and (7a,b) since only the former block further suffixation. The
necessary distinction is easily made without two kinds of empty heads if theinner heads are all removed, which amounts to denying the acatgorial root
hypothesis on Ns and Vs. I will assume below that nominal and verbal roots
are categorized inherently rather than by external category-deciding head.
2.2 Phonological Evidence
Don (2004, 2005a, b) argues for the necessity to distinguish simple anddenominal Vs in Dutch based on their phonological asymmetries. In Dutch,
Ns can have more complex word-final rhymes than Vs: a long vowel (VV)with three consonants as in (8), a short vowel (V) followed by three consonants as in (9) or a long vowel (VV) followed by two consonants as in (10),where the last one or two consonants are restricted to coronals as specified
below:

Miyoko Yasui






(8) VVC1C2C3 (C2 C3=coronal)
a. koorts [ko:rts]‘fever’ 
b. oogst[o:xst]
‘harvest’(9) VC1C2C3 (C3 =coronal)
a. hengst [hɛŋst]‘stallion’b. inkt[iŋkt]‘ink’(10) VVC1C2 (C2 =coronal)
a. kood[ko:d]‘rope’
b. hoofd [ho:ft]‘head’On the other hand, most Vs have far simpler syllable structures without
any of the complex rhymes possible in Ns: e.g. win, kom, and vang. In fact,some Vs have a complex rhyme like (8)-(10) but all of them have a homophonous nominal counterpart. To maintain the phonological distinction
between Ns and Vs with respect to their syllabic structures, it is necessary toassume Vs with a complex syllable to be zero-derived from Ns: [V oogst]
from (8b) and [V hengst] from (9a).2 Don (2004, 2005) also argues for the
distinction between simple and deverbal Ns, into which I do not go here.
Hammonds (1999: 251) makes a similar observation on English Ns and
Vs. Disyllabic Ns with penultimate stress can have a consonant cluster
word-finally, where the last consonant is restricted to a coronal roughly on apar with the patterns of Dutch Ns in (8)-(10).
(11) a. tumult
d. balanceg. lummox

b. legende. honest
h. fault3

c. silence
f. harvest

Hammonds (1999:251-2) observes that “all verbs that exhibit penultimate
stress and end in more than one consonant are simultaneously nouns” as in(12a-o) and concludes “that final clusters are impossible for verbs and thatthese words are examples of true nouns.”(12) a.
d.
g.
j.

balancedistance
garment
interest

b. ballast
e. foresth. harvest
k. pigmentc. challenge
f. garlandi. husband
l. silence 2.
3.

Multisyllabic words are not discussed here to make the argument simpler.
(11a-g) are from Hammonds (1999:251), to which I add fault.

Adjectival Roots and the Single Engine Hypothesis

m. tempest

n. warrant

o.

fault

In other words, (12a-o) are not simple Vs but should be analyzed as zeroderived from the corresponding Ns.
The conclusion is supported by morphological data. In particular, attaching the Root-selecting denominal suffixes –ous and -y to tempest andfault is allowed, yielding [A tempestuous], and [A faulty], respectively,4
whereas root-selecting deverbal suffixes like -ant and –ive may not be affixed on them: e.g. *[A tempestive], *[A faultant]. These deverbal suffixes cannot be attached to other words like forest and silence, while the rootselecting denominal suffix –ed is possible: e.g. forested and silenced. This isconsistent with the assumption that forest and silence are basically Ns.
Bearing on Don (2004, 2005a, b) and Hammonds (1999), I have argued
that simple Vs need to be distinguished from denominal ones. If denominal
Vs have a phonetically empty head, that head cannot be identified with acategory-deciding head generally assumed in DM. Moreover, simple Vs
cannot be regarded as acategorial since they are categorially selected byroot-selecting suffixes like –ive. Thus, I claim that verbal as well as nominal
Roots are inherently categorized via the features [verbal] and [nominal], respectively. Like roots, suffixes can have a categorial feature. If suffixes
happen to have no phonetic or semantic content, they zero-derive Ns and Vs.
In other words, what counts as zero derivation into N or V is simply themerger of a stem with the feature [n] or [v].
3. Peculiarities of Adjectives
3.1 Myers (1984)
As has been discussed in the previous section, the acategorial root hypothesis faces difficulties in accounting for the categorial selection by rootselecting suffixes and zero-derived pairs of Ns and Vs. In contrast, As exhibit a number of properties that arguably support the category-neutral
treatment of them.
Myers (1984:57) explicitly claims that English zero derivation frommonomorphemic categories into Ns and Vs is productive but that into As is
not.5 4.

5.

Fabb (1988:532-533) does not include the denominal –al in his list of rootselecting suffixes, but Myers (1984:62) does. Hammonds (1999:251) includes
triumph as a denominal V with two word-final consonants, and it cannot be affixed with –al: *[A triumphal].
Quirk et al. (1973:1011-1013) list zero derivation from V/A to N and from N/AMiyoko Yasui






(13) a. I’d like two [N [A purple]]-s.
b. The [V [A Green]]-ing of America(14) a. *They are much too [V hurry] for their own good.
b. *He’s a truly [N saint] man.6
I have claimed that zero derivation into N and V such as (13a,b) is due tothe merger of a stem with the feature [n] or [v]. If the categorial feature for
As is non-existent, there should be no zero derivation into A, which is supported by (14a, b).
Another interesting observation by Myers (1984:57) is that many adjectival suffixes appear to simultaneously derive Ns (and sometimes Vs) as exemplified in (15), while V/N-forming suffixes show no such categorial
flexibility as in (16).7(15) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

[A, V X-y]
[A, N X-ive ][A, N, V X-ive][N, A X-al][A, N X-an][A, N X-ish][A, N X-ary](e.g. bloody, dirty)(e.g. conservative)(e.g. negative)(e.g. national, universal)(e.g. American)(e.g. Danish)(e.g. revolutionary)(16) a.
c.
e.

[V, *A X-ize][N, *A X-er][N, *A X-ity]b. [V, *A X-ify]
d. [N, *A X-ment]
f. [N, *A X-ness]

Lee (2008) objects to the claim that derived words cannot be input tozero derivation by listing Vs like (17a-f).
(17) a. postured. barrierg. closureb. miniature
e. auditionh. bandage

c. vacationf. engineer  

6.
7.

to V but no instance of zero derivation into A. Pesetsky (1995:86) basicallyagrees on this, but cites U.S. in (i) as an instance of zero-derived A. To me, U.S.
as a zero-derived A in (i) is not convincing.
(i) the U.S./American economy
Myers (1984:56-58) convincingly argues that multi-categorial words likecalm and red are basically As, from which Ns and Vs are derived.
(15a-d) are from Myers (1984:57), to which I add (15e-g).

Adjectival Roots and the Single Engine Hypothesis

It is not clear whether the Vs in (17a-f) really involve derived words.
There are no conceivable stems for (17a,b), and (17c-f) are only weakly related to the respective stems, though (17g, h) are arguably derived from [Vclose ] and [N band ], respectively. If (17a-f) are independently listed in thelexicon, it can be largely maintained that most derived Ns and Vs cannot be
input to zero derivation but derived As can.8
Going back to (15), -less and -ful derive only As unlike the suffixes in(15), but they have word-sized counterparts: less and full.9 It can be said
that A-forming suffixes allow categorial indeterminacy or are identical toexisting full As, which I assume to lack a categorial feature, while V/Nforming suffixes function exclusively to form Vs/Ns and should be analyzed
as having the relevant categorial feature just like full-fledged Vs and Ns.
3.2 Adjectives in Other Languages
Categorial indeterminacy or flexibility of As appears to be attested inother languages. Hale and Keyser (2002:13-14) and their work cited thereindeal with zero derivation by positing four argument structure types: monadic, basic dyadic, composite dyadic, and atomic. Each structure tends to beheaded by a particular category, but the composite dyadic structure, which
is typically associated with As in English, is headed by Vs in Navajo and Ns
in Warlpiri. This observed difference is eliminable if the composite dyadic
structure is headed by any category as long as it is substantive.
This conclusion is supported by the following data from English.
(18) a. The screen is [A clear].
b. The screen cleared.
c. I cleared the screen.
(19) a. The machine [V broke].
b. I broke the machine.

 8.

9.

Lee (2008) also takes up prefixed Vs as input to zero derivation, but they are irrelevant to the discussion here. Other cases in his list fall under (15a-g). Lee attempts to explain the absence of zero-derived Ns from [X-ize] and [X-ify]
based on Plag’s (1999) observation of affix-affinity. His analysis cannot be extended to the absence of zero-derived As in (16a,b) since the N-forming suffixes -ation and –cation would not compete with the zero adjectival suffix.
The N-forming –ful as in spoonful is set aside here. -Able, which has the wordsize counterpart, could be added to this list.

Miyoko Yasui






(20) a. The car was a total [N wreck].
b. I wrecked the car.
(21) a. The price is [P up].
b. They upped the prices.
As typically head the composite dyadic structure because they are acategorial, but other categories may appear as heads.
Second, Japanese has two kinds of As ending in –i and –na. Many of
the stems of na-adjectives, which are referred to as adjectival nouns, are also used as Ns.
(22) a.

totemo kenkoo-na hito(*totemo kenkoo-no hito)
very healthy
person‘very healthy person’
b. kazoku-no kenkoo-wo kangaeru
family-GEN health-ACC think‘think of (my) family’s health’

The degree modifier totemo and the na-ending show that kenkoo in (22a) is
a na-adjectival stem, while the genitive and accusative markers in (22b) indicate that kenkoo is a simple N.
Third, Indonesian is somewhat similar to Navajo and Warlpiri in that it
has adjectival roots but no clear candidates for A-forming overt affixes,
though N/V-forming affixes are abundant (Sneddon 1996:48-53).
4. An Analysis
4.1. Zero Derivation from Monomorphemic Lexical Items
I have proposed to analyze zero derivation as merging a stem with oneof the two categorial features to its right: [n] or [v]. I assume that merger atthis level is linear to the extent that the Right-Hand Head Rule of Williams(1981) is correct. Verbal and nominal stems contain the relevant categorial
feature, while those without a categorial feature are what count as adjectival.
Zero derivation from a morphologically simple N, V and A goes as (23)(25), respectively, where √X stands for the stem’s inherent sound/meaning.
(23)[n]V --> N:                        support (cf. (7b)), try[√X, v][n]Adjectival Roots and the Single Engine Hypothesis

(24)
[v]
N --> V:                        cover (cf. (6))tempest in (12m),[√X, n][v]
pattern(25)[n] / [v]    A --> N: purple in (13a)                                         A --> V: green in (13b)[√X ][n] / [v]Zero derivation or conversion is by definition category-changing; so themerged categorial feature is always distinct form that of the stem.
As has been discussed in Section 3.1, As cannot be zero-derived: *too
[V hurry] and *truly [N saint] in (14a, b).This is straightforwardly attributed
to the absence of a categorial feature like [a] in UG. Myers’ generalization
also follows with the help of Fabb’s (1982) theory of suffixation: rootselecting suffixes cannot attach to (23)-(25) since they are no longer monomorphemic roots as in (26b).10(26) a.
[-IVE]b. *[-AL]                                              [√SUPPORT, v] [-IVE]
[n]
[-AL]
                                           [√SUPPORT, v][n]
As Pesetsky argues, root-selecting suffixes like –ive and -al can have accessto the root in their local, adjacent position as in (26a) but cannot if a zerohead intervenes as in (26b), which is a categorial feature in my analysis.
4.2 Overt Derivation from Monomorphemic Lexical Items
Derivation with overt N/V-forming suffixes can be analyzed essentiallythe same way as zero derivation. One difference is that the suffix contains
phonological and semantic information besides the categorial feature, whichis represented as SUF below:(27)[SUF, n]V --> N:                              trial, annoyance, defendant       [√X, v][SUF, n] 10

See also Aronoff and Fuhrhop (2002).

Miyoko Yasui






(28)

[SUF, v] / [SUF, n][√X, n][SUF, v] / [SUF, n]

N --> V: classify, symbolize
N --> N: coverage, violinist, librarian(29)[SUF, v] / [SUF, n]
[√X][SUF, v] / [SUF, n]

A --> V: modernize, widen,
intensify
A --> N: ?

Examples of each pattern are cited from Fabb’s list of root-selecting suffixes. The suffix in (28) can contain [n] since morphologically complex Ns derived from simple Ns are attested. (29) is a scheme for A-based overt
suffixation.
What is expected but lacking in (29) is the overt derivation of Ns from
As by root-selecting suffixes. None of the root-selecting suffixes in Fabb’s(1988) list yields Ns from As. This might be an accidental gap. One possible
candidate might be –ity; it attaches to bound roots, As ending with -ous, derived As with –able and –al as in (30a-d), respectively (cf. Embick and Marantz 2008:15).
(30) a.
b.
c.
d.

atrocity
curiousity
readability
nationality

According to Aronoff’s (1976:44) generalization, the pattern exemplified by(30b) is blocked if the portion without -ous is an independent N: gloryglorious-*gloriousity versus *cury-curious-curiosity. Suppose that –ity isalmost root-selecting. Given that cury is not a phonological word but glory
is, it is reasonable to claim that glorious is derived (from glory) but curious
is not. Then, we can maintain that –ity in (30b) is root-selecting just as in(30a). As for complex As like (30c), their acceptability might be contingent on the N ability; it is a kind of bracketing paradox. Then, the remaining
productive suffix with –ity is –al in (30d), and –ity is on a par with those“suffixes which attach outside one other suffix” listed in Fabb (1988:534). I
will leave this issue open.
Going back to the main discussion, consider cases where the suffix is
adjectival, lacking a categorial feature in my theory. If the categorial featureof the stem percolates up in the absence of a categorial feature in the suffix
as in (31a), the resultant word should be nominal or verbal, which is clearlywrong. I will thus assume that projection is rigidly headed by the righthand member as in (31b), and relevant examples are given in (32a,b).

Adjectival Roots and the Single Engine Hypothesis(31) a.

[SUF, v/n]
[√X, v/n]
[SUF]

b.

[SUF]


[√X, v/n][SUF](32) a. V --> A: defiant, restrictive, advisory
b. N --> A: reptilian, moneyed, boyish, hearty
4.3 Polymorphemic Lexical Items as Input
Overt suffixation of already suffixed words like classification and nationality is to be analyzed as in (33a,b).
(33) a.
[-CATION, n]b.
[-ITY, n]                                                     [-IFY, v] [-CATION, n][-AL] [-ITY, n]                                              [√CLASS, n] [-IFY, v][√NATION, n] [-AL]
The outer head decides the category of the whole structure regardless ofwhether or not the suffix of the base has a categorial feature.
As for zero derivation, the discussion in Section 3.1 has led to the generalization that derived As can be input but derived Ns/Vs cannot. Let us
first assume that the two cases have structure in (34a,b).
(34) a.
[n]
b. *
[n]
                                           
[-AL]
[n]
[-IFY, v] [n]                                       [√NATION, n] [-AL][√CLASS, n] [-IFY, v]
The obvious difference is that the overt suffix in (34b) has a categorail feature but that in (34a) does not. Note, however, that overriding of the lower
suffix’s category by the selecting head should generally be allowed as in(33a). (34b) differs from (33a) in that the overriding nominal head has nophonetic and probably no semantic contents. Intuitively, the verbal suffix–ify in (33a) can be easily distinguished from the complex nominal suffix–ification at the interfaces, whereas the verbal –ify is non-distinct from theputative nominal –ify in (34b).11 I claim that this partly accounts for the im 11. Fabb (1988:534-535) treats –ificatory and -istic derivationally as complex suf-

Miyoko Yasui






possible zero derivation in (34b).
Of course, zero derivation is generally possible as long as the base is a
substantive category as in (35a,b).
(35) a.

[n]b.
[n]                         [√SUPPORT, v] [n][√PURPLE][n]

Possible and impossible triads produced by zero derivation into N can be
schematized as in (36a-c).
(36) a.
[n]
b.
[n]
c. *
[n]
                                             [√X, ...] [n]
[SUF]
[n]
[SUF, v][n]                                             [√X, ...] [SUF][√X, ...] [SUF, v]
Setting aside (36b) for a moment, it is plausible to argue that the substantive
base in (36a) can have its category ignored by the selecting suffix since itretains much semantic content, whereas the suffix in (36c) cannot, which
has far less semantic content. In other words, the defining property of a
suffix is its category information (i.e. whether it is N-, V-, or A-forming),
and that of a substantive is its meaning. It is natural that the essential partof each head and non-head should be respected throughout syntactic computation.
Going back to (36b) with an A-forming suffix, the absence of a categorial feature seems to be crucial. Myers (1984:57) observes that some complex A like negative can function not only as N but also as V:(37) [A, N, V X-ive](e.g. negative)(=(15c))Each input to syntactic computation is a bundle of features available in UG.
Let us suppose that A-forming suffixes, which have been analyzed as lacking a categorial feature, may bear a categorial feature as a marked option
when their feature bundles are formed as in (38b,c).
(38) a.
(39) a.

[-IVE][-IFY, v]

b. [-IVE, n]b. *[-IFY, v, n]c. [-IVE, v]

  
fixes.

Plag’s (1999) theory of affix affinity also appears to be relevant here.



Adjectival Roots and the Single Engine Hypothesis

Adding [n] to the suffix –ify as in (39b) is clearly contradictory. As has been
discussed in Section 3.1, suffixed words generally resist zero derivation.
Accordingly, I assume (36b,c) to be both impossible. Instead of (36b), I
take (38b,c) as marked options available only for acategorial suffixes like(38a) when their feature bundles are formed.
As for the absence of A-forming overt suffixes in Indonesian discussed
in Section 3.2, I simply assume that every overt suffix must have a categorial feature in Indonesian; since there is no categorial feature for A in UG, Indonesian does not have A-forming overt suffixes.
5. Apparent Evidence on the Categorial-neutrality of Ns and Vs
5.1 Kiparsky (1982, 1997)
I have retained the acategorial root hypothesis for As but rejected it for
Ns and Vs. My theory would be disconfirmed if it is necessary to distinguish root-derived and word-derived Ns and Vs. In fact, Kiparsky (1982,
1997) argues for that necessity on the basis of examples like (40a,b).
(40) a. He hammered the desk with his shoe.
b. *She tapes the picture to the wall with pushpin.
According to Kiparsky, the V hammer is not derived from the N hammer
but from the shared root; thus, it can be used with an instrument other than ahammer as in (40a). (40b) is unacceptable since the V tape is zero-derived
from the N and necessarily implies the use of a tape in the action it expresses. Instead of the root-word distinction, I will claim that hammer and tapeare both zero-derived from N and adopt Harley’s (2005) idea that hammer isincorporated into a light V as its manner component. Presumably, tape in(40b) is incorporated from PP as an instrument. The light V at stake contains [v] as well as some properties relevant to accusative Case checking
and external argument.
Second, some V-N pairs share the verbal stress, while others exhibit
distinct stress patterns.
(41) a. [V/N debáte][V/N exháust]b. [V permít]-[N pérmìt][V prodúce ]-[N pródùce ][V/N refórm][V transfér ]-[N tránsfèr ]Kiparsky (1982) observes that the Ns in (41a), which show the verbal stressMiyoko Yasui






pattern, tend to have a close semantic relation with the Vs, and concludes
that they are derived from the Vs. On the other hand, he argues that the Ns
and Vs in (41b) are derived from the shared roots since they show typicalnominal and verbal stress patterns, respectively. The latter conclusion is not
tenable if the Ns in (41b) have secondary stress as indicated above. It
seems to reflect the verbal stress since simple disyllabic Ns do not usually
have secondary stress. There seem to be variation and empirical difficulties in recognizing secondary stress. Kiparsky (1997:16) himself modifies his judgment, putting no stress on the last syllable of the Ns permit andprotest. For Myers (1984), zero derivation does not affect stress, observing
that newly coined words fall under the pattern in (41a) and stress-shiftingcases like (41b) are not productive. I thus deduce no conclusion from (41a,b)
as to the acategorial root hypothesis.
Note that the distinct stress patterns in (41b) are similar to those of P-Vcompounds like (42).
(42)[V ùpgŕade]-[N úpgràde][V òutflów]-[N óutflòw][V ùplíft]-[N úplìft][V òverlóok]-[N óverlòok]Each compound has primary stress on V if it is verbal and on P if nominal.
Stress-shifting V-N pairs like (41b) can be analyzed as consisting of abound Latinate root, which is verbal, and a preposition like those in (42).
Thus, the stress-shifting in (41b) might be due to the morphological makeup.
5.2 Arad (2003, 2005)
Arad (2003, 2005) advocates the category-neutral treatment of nominal
and verbal roots based on various data from Hebrew, but I find some ofthem irrelevant to the question of whether verbal and nominal roots are inherently acategorial. First, verbal alternation among causative, inchoative,
transitive, and passive can all be regarded as involving verbal roots. Second, consider the following sets of examples cited from Arad (2003:743).
(43) √šxna. CeCeC (n)b. CuCaC (n)c. CaCeC (a)

šemen
šuman
šamen

‘oil, grease’
‘fat’
‘fat’



Adjectival Roots and the Single Engine Hypothesis(44) √xšb
a. CiCCeC (v)b. maCCeC (n)xišev
maxšev‘calculate’‘a computer/calculator’(43a-b) do not involve Vs, and the adjectival realization of the consonantalroot √šxn in (43c) supports the acategorial nature of As only. (44a,b) involve the derivational process from V to V-er in English as the translations
show.12 If so, (44a,b) are both V-based, and constitute no evidence on the
category-neutral status of √xšb. I suspect many of Arad’s examples involve
category-changing derivation of this kind rather than derivation from acategorial roots. Hebrew looks quite different from English mainly becauseroots consist only of consonants and thus are unpronounceable, unlike mostEnglish roots. Apart from this difference in phonological make-up, thepatterns in (43) and (44) are not particularly illuminating in testing the acategorial root hypothesis.
An interesting phenomenon in Hebrew is what Arad (2003:242) calls
multiple contextualized meaning (MCM) exemplified in (45) and (46).
(45) √bxn a.
b.
(46) √btx a.
b.
c.

CaCaC
hiCCiC
CaCaC
CiCCeC
hiCCiCboxan
hivxinbatax
biteaxhivtiax‘examine’‘discern’‘trust’‘insure’‘promise’As I maintain the category-neutral treatment for As, adjectival roots are expected to show MCM if Arad’s theory is correct. The shared meaning in(46a-c) appears to be something like ‘sure’ or ‘true,’ which is adjectival innature. Stems of na-adjectives (or adjectival Ns) in Japanese exhibit the paradigm quite similar to (46a-c).
(47) √tasika

a. -dab. -meru
c. -ni suru

tasikadatasikameru
tasikanisuru‘is certain’‘make sure, ascertain’‘ensure, confirm’Each Chinese character used in Japanese has a Chinese reading and a Japa 12. The same account applies to baxan (‘test’) / mavxena (‘a test-tube/tester’) andqalat (‘absorb, receive’) / maqlet (‘a receiver’) in Arad (2003:743-4).

Miyoko Yasui






nese reading. Tasika is Japanese, and its Chinese counterpart is kaku.
Kaku enters into many Vs other than (47b,c). If MCM all involves adjectival roots, Arad’s theory supports my claim that As lack a categorial feature.
6. Remaining Issues
My arguments against Kiparsky (1982, 1997) and Arad (2003, 2005) inthe previous section are far from conclusive. Another interesting fact about
As that I have not taken up so far is their phonological properties. What Aronoff (1974) calls truncation typically involves an A as one member: [A curious ] and [N curiosity] but not [N cury]. As for the N-forming suffix -ity,
Embick and Marantz (2008:15) claim the nominal head to be realized as –ityin the context (48).
(48) n <--> -ity/X_
X = Roots (√ATROC, √CURIOUS, ...); [A, -able], [A, -al]n <--> -ness
They argue that curiosity is derivable but gloriousity is not simply because√GLORY is not included in the list X in (48). Besides bound roots, twoA-forming suffixes are listed: -able and –al. In their theory, √CURIOUS
is category-neutral and monomorphemic. Then, it should be accidental
that it surfaces as a full A and ends with –ous, which is affixed on independent Ns and forms As such as courageous just like –able and –al. The
ending –ous, though it might be part of a bound root, tells us that the wholeword is adjectival. In brief, the A curious is in some sense polymorphemic.
In this connection, Hammond (1999:252) observes that word-final consonant clusters of disyllabic As (with trochaic stress) are extremely limited:
only the coronal clusters [nt], [nd] and [st] are allowed as in (49).
(49) a. vacantd. fluent
g. honestb. dividend
e. plianth. gallant

c. absent
f. modest

Verbal roots can be assumed for (49a,b) as in (50a,b) but cannot for the rest.
(50) a.

vacateb.

divideInstead, they have morphologically more complex Ns. (49c) is related to theAdjectival Roots and the Single Engine Hypothesis

N in (51a). (49d-g) can be nominalized by the suffix -y as in (51b-e).13 (49g)
has a related nominal with the suffix –ry as in (51f).
(51) a. absence
d. modesty

b. fluency
e. honestyc. pliancy14
f. gallantry

Thus, at least (49c-h) are monomorphemic in its usual sense, but their endings show that they are As, as –ous in curious does. For this reason, Hammonds (1999:252) proposes to decompose (49) into bound roots and thephonologically shared endings.
It might be reasonable to postulate external category-deciding heads forpairs like atrocity and atrocious since they are categorially distinct and neither is more complex than the other. On the other hand, there is no strong
motivation to assume an external category-deciding head in (49c-h) since
there are no morphologically related words of the same complexity. I willthus assume that the putative bound roots in (49c-e) as well as atroc and cury are adjectival, which means that they lack a categorial feature. I wonder
if there is any connection between the lack of category and boundedness in
As. I leave this issue for further research.
Linguists tend to regard As on a par with Ns and Vs, advancing a claimon the latter with detailed discussion and taking it for granted that it applies
to the former. My theory owes a lot to Myers (1984), who has been much
more careful in uncovering peculiar properties of As in contrast to Ns and
Vs. I have argued that many of them can be explained under the single engine hypothesis with one aspect of language design: cagegorial features for
substantives are restricted to [n] and [v].
References
Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of Roots: the case of
Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21, 737778.
Arad, Maya. 2005. Roots and patterns: Hebrew morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Springer.
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.

 13. Spirantization applies to the final [t] in (49c, d, e).
14. Pliant is particularly interesting in that there is another morphologically related
adjective pliable and its nominal form is pliability.

Miyoko Yasui






Aronoff, Mark and Nanna Fuhrhop. 2002. Restricting suffix combinations in German and English: closing suffixes and the monosuffix constraints. Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 20, 451–490.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Don, Jan. 2004. Categories in the lexicon. Linguistics 42:5, 931–956.
Don, Jan. 2005a. On conversion, relisting and zero-derivation: a comment on Rochelle Lieber: English word-formation processes. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2:2, 2-16.
Don, Jan. 2005b. Roots, Deverbal Nouns and Denominal Verbs. In G. Booij, E.
Guevara, A. Ralli, S. Sgroi and S. Scalise, eds., Morphology and Linguistic
Typology, On-line Proceedings of the Fourth Mediterranean Morphology
Meeting (MMM4). Catania 21-23 September 2003, University of Bologna.
(http://morbo.lingue.unibo.it/mmm/).
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Embick, Dabid and Alec Marantz. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39:1, 1-53.
Fabb, Nigel. 1988. English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6:4, 527-539.
Fries, Charles C. 1952. The Structure of English: An Introduction to the Construction of English Sentences. New York: Harcourt Brace & World.
Hale, Ken and Keyser, Jay. 1993. On the argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In K. Hale and J. Keyser, eds., The View from
Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, pp. 53–
109. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Hammonds, Michael. 1999. The Phonology of English: A Prosodic Optimalitythoretic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harley, Heidi. 2005. How do verbs get their names? denominal verbs, manner incorporation and the ontology of verb Roots in English. In Nomi Erteschik-Shirand Tova Rapoport, eds., The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic andAspectual Interpretation, pp. 42-65.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Word-formation and the lexicon. In Fred Ingeman, ed., Proceedings of the Mid-American Linguistics Conference. University of Kansas,
pp. 3-29.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1997. Remarks on denominal verbs. In Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan
and Peter Sells eds., Argument Structure, pp. 473–499. Stanford: CSLI.
Lee, Yongsung. 2008. Conversion as zero derivation: evidence from affix concatenation. Handout of NKAELL Fall Conference, Pusan University of Foreign
Studeis, October 11, 2008.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: don’t try morphological analysis in theprivacy of your own lexicon. In Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa
Surek-Clark, and Alexander Williams, eds., UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium,
pp. 201–225. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Penn Linguistics
Club.



Adjectival Roots and the Single Engine Hypothesis

Myers, Scott. 1984. Zero-derivation and inflection.” In Margaret Speas and Richard
Sproat, eds., MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 7, pp.53-69.
Pesetsky, D. (1995) Zero Syntax:Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English
Derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A
Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
Ross, John R. 1972. The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort,” Papers from theEighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 316-339.
Sneddon, James N. 1996. Indonesian: A Comprehensive Grammar. London and
New York: Routledge.
Williams, Edwin. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review
1, 81-114.