11/08/13	

Adjectival Roots andthe Single EngineHypothesis
Miyoko Yasui
myasui@dokkyo.ac.jp
Dokkyo University(1) Distributive Morphology(i) Single Engine: the same operations
and principles govern morphologicaland syntactic computation.
(ii) Acategorial Root: roots areacategorial, acquiring specificcategories via their first merger withcategory-determining heads.

1	

11/08/13	

(2) Marantz (1997)
a. the destruction of the city
D／	 	 	 ＼	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 D√DESTROY／	 	 	 ＼	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 √DESTROY the cityè √DESTROY is categorized as N in theenvironment of D

(2) Marantz (1997)
b. (John) destroy(ed) the city／	 ＼	 Tv／	 	 	 ＼	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 v 	 	  √DESTROY／	 	 	 ＼	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 √DESTROY the cityè √DESTROY is categorized as V in the environment of v.

2	11/08/13	

(3) The Contextual Determination ofSyntactic Category by Functional Heads• Fries (1952:76)• says determiners “serve as markers ofClass I” (=Ns)• defines Vs in terms of auxiliary verbs
preceding them.
• but lists only not and degree modifiers likevery as function words that precede As.

(4) Is the Adjectival
Environment Definable?
• By ‘functional category’ in its narrow sense

as in Abney (1987) and Chomsky (1995)è The answer is NO.
Very and not are not obligatory functional
heads.

3	11/08/13	

(4) Is the Adjectival
Environment Definable?
By Derivational Suffixes as Category-Deciding Functional
Heads: Embick and Marantz (2008) and Embick (2010)),è Yes. There are many A-forming suffixes like –ous, so‘acategorial roots’ can be categorized by such suffixesa.

nb.
n／	 ＼	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 ／	 	 	 ＼v[n er]
a [n, ness]	 	 	 	  ／	 	 	 ＼	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 ／	 	 	 ＼	 √STEAL [v,∅ø]√GLORY [a,ous]

Outline of Talk
1. Is the Adjectival Environment Definable?
2. Evidence for the Inherent Nominal andVerbal Features
3. Peculiarities of Adjectives
4. An Analysis
5. Apparent Evidence on the CategoryNeutrality of Ns and Vs
6. Remaining Issues

4	

11/08/13	

Section 2
Evidence for the Inherent
Nominal and Verbal Features
2.1 Morphological Evidence(8) Fabb (1988):
Root-selecting Suffixes• Many English suffixes attach only to roots

and select for a particular category.
• -IVE attaches only to simple Vs.
a. [v restrict]-ive*[n class]-ive*[a formal]-ive
b. *[v [n class]-ify]-ive*[v [a formal ]-ize]-ive]5	11/08/13	

(9) Myers’ (1984) Generalization
No (root-selecting) derivational suffix can be
added to a zero-derived word.
a. [n cover]==> cover-age
b. [v [n cover] ø]==> *cover-ive, *cover-al, *cover-ant(10) Embick and Marantz (2008)a.

n／	 	 	 ＼	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 √COVER [n, ø]b.
n／	 	 	 ＼	 √COVER [n, age]è (10a,b) are derivationally the same.

6	11/08/13	

(11) Embick and Marantz (2008)• Would analyze the verb cover as (11a) or (11b):a.

v／	 	 ＼	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 √COVER [v, ø]b.

v／	 	 ＼	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 n[v, ø]／	 	 ＼	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 √COVER [n, ø]è (11a) is derivationally the same as (10a)Two kinds of empty head need to be
assumed in (11b).

(12) Embick and Marantz• Apart from truncation cases, the category of theinnermost emtpy head is the root’s category.
n, an／	 	 ＼	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 ／	 	 ＼	 √GLORY [n, ø]/[a, ous] √CAT[n, ø]• Each root has inherent phonetic content. It
merges with a phonetically empty head of aparticular category: √GLORY and √CAT arerealized as the nouns glory and cat.
• √GLORY and √CAT have the feature [n].

7	11/08/13	

2.2 Phonological Evidence(13) Dutch Ns can have complex
rhymes (Don, 2004, 2005a, b)
a. a. long vowel with three consonants:
VVC1C2C3 (C2 C3=coronal)
koorts [korts] ‘fever’ oogst [oxst]	 ʻharvest’
b. a short vowel followed by three consonants:
VC1C2C3 (C3 =coronal)
hengst [hɛŋst] ‘stallion’ inkt [iŋkt] ‘ink’
c. a long vowel followed by two consonants:
VVC1C2 (C2 =coronal)
beest [best] ‘animal’
hoofd [hoft] ‘head’8	11/08/13	

(14) Syllable Structure of Dutch Vs
are more restricteda. Vs without a nominal counterpart may not allow
complex rhymes:
e.g. win, kom, vangb. All verbs with a complex syllable structure havea nominal counterpart:e.g. [V oogst] from (13a)[V hengst] from (13b)è [V oogst] and [V hengst] are not roots
but derived from Ns.

(15) English Ns can end withcomplex rhymes• Hammonds 1999
• English Disyllabic Ns with penultimate

stress can have a complex final rhyme.
• VC+Coronal
tumult legend silence balancehonest harvest lummox fault

9	

11/08/13	

(16) All Verbs with Final Complex
Rhymes ==> Derived from Nsbalanceballastchallenge

distance

forestgarlandgarment

harvesthusbandinterest

pigment

silencetempestwarrant

fault(17) With Root-selecting Suffixes
a. Root-selecting denominal suffixes:[n tempest]-uous[n fault]-yb. Root-selecting deverbal suffixes:*[v [n tempest]]-ive*[v [n fault]]-ant
cf. (8a) [v restrict]-ive, [v defi]-ant

10	11/08/13	

(18) Summary of Section 2
1. Many suffixes in English may attach only to roots
2.
3.

4.
5.

or monomorphemic items of specific categories.
Simple Ns/Vs need to be distinguished from theirzero-derived verbal/nominal counterparts.
These facts force us to conclude that nominal andverbal roots are inherently categorized via thefeatures [n] and [v].
I will analyze zero derivation into Ns or Vs simply
as the merger of a stem with the feature [n] or [v].
What about As? Are they inheretently categorized
or not?

Section 3
Peculiarities of Adjectives:
Myers (1984)11	11/08/13	

(19) Zero Derivation intoN/V versus A• English zero derivation from monomorphemiccategories into Ns and Vs is productive but that into
As is not:a. I’d like two [N [A purple]]-s.
b. The [V [A Green]]-ing of America
c. *They are much too [V hurry] for their own good.
d. *He’s a truly [N saint] man.
• If UG has [n] and [v] but no categorial feature forAs, there should be no zero derivation into As.

(20) A-forming Suffixes• Many adjectival suffixes appear to simul-

taneously derive Ns (and sometimes Vs):a. [a, v X-y]b. [a, n X-ive ]c. [a, n, v X-ive]
d. [n, a X-al]e. [a, n X-an]
f. [a, n X-ish]g. [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)12	11/08/13	

(21) V/N-forming suffixes• No categorial flexibility between N/Vand A:
a. [v, *a X-ize]
b. [v, *a X-ify]c. [n, *a X-er]
d. [n, *a X-ment]e. [n, *a X-ity]
f. [n, *a X-ness](22) Lee’s (2008) objection• Examples of Zero Derivation from Complex

Words?
a. postureminiature è no base?
b. vacation (<--[V vacate])barrier(<--[N/V bar])
audition (<--[V audit])engineer (<--[N engine] )c. closure(<--[A/V close])bandage (<--[N band])13	11/08/13	

(22) Lee’s (2008) objection
1. prefixed VàN: review, previewèprefixes do not decide a category.
2. complex AàV: bloody, negative
3. complex Aà N: valuable, Spanish,negative
4. No case of complex V as input
2, 3, 4 = (20)(21) Myers (1984)(23) Morpholoigically complex
inputs to zero derivation• Morphologically complex As like (20) only.
a. [a, v X-y](e.g. bloody, dirty)
b. [a, n X-ive ](e.g. conservative)c. [a, n, v X-ive]
d. [n, a X-al]e. [a, n X-an]
f. [a, n X-ish]g. [a, n X-ary](e.g. negative)(e.g. national, universal)(e.g. American)(e.g. Danish)(e.g. revolutionary)14	11/08/13	

Section 3.2 (24)-(27)	
• Skip 	

Section 4An Analysis

15	11/08/13	(28) Assumptions• i. UG has just two categorial features forsubstantives [n] and [v], and no categorialfeature for As.
• ii. Zero derivation is the merger of a stemwith [n] or [v].

(29) Zero Derivation: simple V --> Na. √X stands for the phonetic/semantic (&syntactic) features of a substantive root.
b. V/N inherently have a categorial feature.

[n]／	 	 	 	 ＼	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	  	 	 [√X, v][n] e.g. support, try16	

11/08/13	(30) Zero Derivation: Simple N --> V[v]／	 	 ＼	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 [√X, n] [v]e.g. cover (cf. (11))
tempest in (16)pattern(31) Zero Derivation: Simple A --> N/V• A substantive w/o a categorial feature = A[n] / [v]／	 	 ＼	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 [√X ] [n] / [v]e.g. the green-ing of America
two purple-s17	11/08/13	(32) No Zero Derivation into As	• (28i) UG has just two categorial features for

substantives [n] and [v], and no categorial
feature for As.
• (28ii) Zero derivation is the merger of astem with [n] or [v].
• Given (28i, ii), it follows that zero derivation
into As is impossible:• *[AP too [V hurry]] *AP truly [N saint]] in (19c,d)	

(33) Myers’ generalization	
a.

[-IVE]／ ＼[√SUPPORT, v] [-IVE]

b. *[-AL] / [-AGE, n]／ ＼	[n] [-AL] / [-AGE, n]／ ＼	[√SUPPORT, v] [n]cf. natural, coverage18	11/08/13	

(34) Overt Derivation: Simple V N 	
• Like a substantive root, a suffix can beareither [n] or [v][SUF, n]／ ＼[√X, v] [SUF, n]	

V à N trial, annoyance, defendantV à V ?
(No V-V root-selecting suffix in Fabb 1988)	

(35) Overt Derivation: Simple N  V/N	

[SUF, v] / [SUF, n]／＼	 	[√X, n][SUF, v] / [SUF, n]e.g. N à V: class à classifysymbol à symbolizeN à N: cover à coverage, violin à violinist
library à librarian 	19	

11/08/13	(36) Overt Derivation: Simple A  V/N	
[SUF, v] / [SUF, n]／＼[√X][SUF, v] / [SUF, n]e.g. A à V: modernize, widen, intensify

A àN ?
(-ism, -ist, -ity are not root-selecting)	

(36) Overt Suffixation: Simple V/N  A 	
• A-forming suffixes lack a categorial feature.

a. Relativized Head

[SUF, v/n]
／ ＼[√X, v/n] [SUF]b. Strictly Right-Headed[SUF]	
／ ＼ 	[√X, v/n] [SUF]

e.g. V--> A: defiant, restrictive, advisory
N--> A: reptilian, moneyed, boyish, hearty	

20	

11/08/13	

Polymorphemic Lexical Items as Input:(38) Overt Suffixationa.

[-CATION, n]b. [-ITY, n]／ ＼／ ＼	[-IFY, v] [-CATION, n][-AL] [-ITY, n]／ ＼／ ＼	[√CLASS, n] [-IFY, v] [√NATION, n] [-AL]• Overriding of the lower suffix’s category bythe selecting head should generally beallowed as in (38a).

Polymorphemic Lexical Items as Input:(39) Zero Suffixation(23) Morphologically complex inputs to ZD arerestricted to As. Why?

a.

[n]／ ＼[-AL] [n]／ ＼	[√NATION, n] [-AL]b. *	[n]／ ＼	[-IFY, v] [n]／ ＼	[√CLASS, n] [-IFY, v]• The overt suffix in (39b) has a categorial feature

but that in (39a) does not.

21	

11/08/13	(40) Why is (38a) OK but (39b) is not?
• A derived V is subject to overt suffixation but notto zero derivation. Why?
(38a)[-CATION, n](39b) *[n]	
／ ＼／ ＼	[-IFY, v] [-CATION, n][-IFY, v] [n]	／ ＼／ ＼	[√CLASS, n] [-IFY, v][√CLASS, n] [-IFY, v]• [N classification]*[N classify]	

(40) Why is (38a) OK but (39b) is not?
• The overriding nominal head in (39b) has nophonetic and probably no semantic contents.
• That in (38a) has phonetic and some semanticcontents.
• Intuitively, the verbal suffix –ify in (38a) can beeasily distinguished from the complex nominal
suffix –ification at the PF(/LF) interfaces.
• The verbal –ify is non-distinct from the putative
nominal –ify in (39b). 	

22	

11/08/13	

(39) Morphologically complex inputs toZD are restricted to As. Why?
a.

[n]
／ ＼
[-AL] [n]／ ＼	[√NATION, n] [-AL]b. *	[n]／ ＼	[-IFY, v] [n]／ ＼	[√CLASS, n] [-IFY, v](41) Possible and Impossible
Zero Derivation	
a.

[n]／ ＼[√X, ...] [n]b.

[n]c. * [n]／ ＼	 ／ ＼ 	[SUF] [n][SUF, v] [n]／ ＼／ ＼ 	[√X, ...] [SUF][√X, ...] [SUF, v]• Let’s assume that zero derivation from a complex
word is not possible regardless of its category.
• Merging a categorial feature with a root is OK but
with a suffix in the syntactic computation is not.

23	

11/08/13	(42) Root versus Suffix	
• DM assumes that Roots lack a category but

suffixes have a category.
• The defining properties of substantives are theirsemantic contents: [√COVER, n] [√SUPPORT, v]• Those of suffixes are their categorial features (i.e.
whether they are N- or V-forming), which cannot
be overridden by zero morphemes as in (41c).
• Instead of (41b), [n] can be bundled into [SUF],forming [SUF,n].
• [n] cannot be bundled into [SUF, v] because theresultant lexical item [SUF, v, n] is contradictory.	

(43) Categorial Indeterminacy of Aforming Suffixes	
(20c)
1. [a negative] è [√NEGATE, v]-[ive]2. [n negative] è [√NEGATE, v]-[ive, n]
3. [v negative] è [√NEGATE, v]-[ive, v]• 2,3 are presumably marked options
available when lexical items are formed.	
• Inputs to zero derivation are mostly simplewords.		

24	

11/08/13	(44) V/N-Forming Suffixes	
• Bundling [n] or [v] is allowed as part ofcategory-neutral (=A) suffixes when termina
l nodes are assembled rather than the mer
ger in (41b)	
• a. [-IVE]è [-IVE, n] [-IVE, v]	
• b. [-IFY, v] è *[-IFY, v, n]		Section 5
Apparent Evidence on
the Category-neutrality ofNs and Vs

25	11/08/13	

5.1 Kiparsky (1982, 1997)(46)(47)	
• a. He hammered the desk with his shoe.	
• b. *She tapes the picture to the wall withpushpins.
• Harley (2005)• manner incorporation versus instrumentalincorporation	

5.1 Kiparsky (1982, 1997)(48)-(50)	
a. Not Stress-shifting[v/n debáte][v/n refórm] [V/N exháust]b. Stress-shifting[v permít] - [N pérmìt][v transfér ] - [N tránsfèr ][V prodúce ] - [N pródùce ]Myers (1984) (48b) are limited in number.
P-V compound?	

26	

11/08/13	

5.2 Arad (2003, 2005) (51)
Locality constraint on the interpretation ofroots (Arad 2003: 747):• (Acategorial) Roots are assigned aninterpretation in the environment of thefirst category-assigning head with which
they are merged.
• Once this interpretation is assigned, it iscarried along throughout the derivation.	

Prediction under Arad (2003, 2005)
In my theory:• Ns and Vs are categorized via [n] and [v].
• It follows that Ns/Vs do not allow multiple
interpretaions contrary to Arad’s claim.
• As are acategorial, lacking a categorial
feature due to language design.
• It follows that only As allow mulptiple
interpretations.

27	11/08/13	

Verbal Alternation in Hebrew
root

patternverb

ʢmd 1. CaCaC
ʢamad ‘be standing’ʢmd 2. niCCaC
neʢemad ‘stand up’
qpl
3. CiCCaC
qipel‘fold’-transitiveqpl
4. CuCCaC qupal‘passive of 3’
ʢmd 5. hiCCiC
heʢemid ‘make stand up’ʢmd 6. huCCaC
huʢamad ‘passive of 5’
qpl
7. hitCaCCeC hitqapel ‘fold-intransitive’àThey are all verbal roots. No evidence for theacategorial status of V roots.	

Other “ Root-level“ Variation inHebrew (52a)a. √šmn
CeCeC (n) šemeCuCaC (n) šumanCaCeC (a) šamenhiCCiC (v) hišmin‘oil, grease’
‘fat’
‘fat’
‘grow fat/fatten’è A àN/V?

28	

11/08/13	

Other Alternations (52b-d)b. √xšb
CiCCeC (v) xišev ‘calculate’maCCeC (n) maxšev ‘a computer/calculator’è V-based Derivation
V – V-er e.g. make - maker• Many of Arad’s root derivation might involve
ordinary derivation from categorized roots.

(53) Multiple Contextualized
Meaning (MCM)	
a. √bxn 	
CaCaC boxan‘examine’	
hiCCiC hivxin‘discern’	b. √btx	
CaCaC batax‘trust’	
CiCCeC biteax‘insure’	
hiCCiC hivtiax‘promise’è The shared meaning is adjectival.	

29	

11/08/13	

(54) Multiple Contextualized
Meaning (MCM) in Japanese	a. √tasika-dab. √tasika-meruc. √tasika-ni suru

‘is certain’‘make sure, ascertain’‘ensure, confirm’

The Chinese reading of tasika is kaku.
Kaku is involved in nemerous Vs (kakuyakusuru) and na-adjectives (kakujitu-da)	Section 6
Remaining Issues

30	11/08/13	(55) Truncation in Embick andMarantz (2008)	
n ↔ -ity / X___
X = Roots (√ATROC, √CURIOUS, ...);[a, -able], [a, -al]n ↔ -nessè -ity attaches to (i) A-forming suffixes like–able/–al and also to (ii) BOUND ROOTSlike √ATROC, √CURIOUS.
Is this a coincidence or a necessity?

(4) Is the Adjectival
Environment Definable?
By Derivational Suffixes as Category-Deciding Functional
Heads: Embick and Marantz (2008) and Embick (2010)),è Yes. There are many A-forming suffixes like –ous, so‘acategorial roots’ can be categorized by such suffixesa.

nb.
n／	 ＼	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 ／	 	 	 ＼v[n er]
a [n, ness]	 	 	 	  ／	 	 	 ＼	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 ／	 	 	 ＼	 √STEAL [v,∅ø]√GLORY [a,ous]31	11/08/13	(56) –Ous as a PF Marker of A	
a. glory glorious*gloriousity
gloriousness	
b. *cury curious
curiosity
curiousness	
c. *atroc atrocious
atrocity
atrociousness	
d. courage courageous *courageousity
courageousness	(57) Other PF Markers of A:[əәnt], [əәnd], [əәst]	
a. vacant (<-vacate)c. pliantg. honestb. dividend (<-divide)
f. modesth. gallant

è Hammonds (1999:252) proposes to decompose
monomorphemic words in (57) into bound roots
and the phonologically shared endings.

32	

11/08/13	

(57c) pliant versus pliable	
• plaint – pliancy• pliable – pliability• feasible -- feasibility

Bound Roots as As?
(28i) Assumption
UG has just two categorial features for
substantives [n] and [v], and no categorial featurefor As.
• As have semantic/phonetic contents but nocategorial feature.
• Bound roots like √ATROC and √PLI havesemantic/phonetic contents but nocategorial feature.

33	

11/08/13	

Final Remarks	
• UG has categorial features [n] and [v] butnot [a].
• This can account for asymmetries between
N/V and A observed in the past literature.
• Especially, Myers (1984) is careful in
uncovering peculiarities of As.
• It is expected that the acategorial analysis
of As will bring about a breakthrough on
issues like truncation.	

34