Locality Constraints on the Interpretation of Roots: The Case of Hebrew Denominal VERBS

This paper argues for a distinction between word formation fromroots and word formation from existing words. Focusing on Hebrew, it is shown that roots – and only roots – may be assigned multiple interpretations in different environments. When the basisfor the derivation is a word, this word forces its semantic and phonological properties on any element derived from it. To account for this difference, a locality constraint on the interpretation of roots is postulated: the first nominal or verbal head that merges with the root serves as the immediate environment for determining its interpretation. This head forms a closed domain:any further derivation takes as its input not the root itself, but an element whose semantic and phonological properties have been cashed out. Word-derived words thus have access only to the words they are derived from, not to the root. While the ability of Hebrew roots to acquiremultiple interpretations is language specific, the distinction between word formation from roots and word formation from words is shown to be universal. This is illustrated here with Englishzero-related pairs, which are shown to exhibit the same contrasts as Hebrew between word formation from roots and from words. Showing the effect of roots in word formation in both Hebrew and English further motivates the root hypothesis, namely, that in all languages the lexical kernel,or the root, is distinct from `words' – complex entities – even if this distinction is not always morphologically manifested.

[1]  Mark Aronoff,et al.  Word Formation in Generative Grammar , 1979 .

[2]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  When Nouns Surface as Verbs , 1979 .

[3]  B. Hayes A metrical theory of stress rules , 1980 .

[4]  John J. McCarthy,et al.  A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology , 1981 .

[5]  Paul Kiparsky,et al.  Word-formation and the lexicon , 1982 .

[6]  Shmuel Bolozky,et al.  Modern Hebrew structure , 1982 .

[7]  Barbara B. Levin,et al.  English verb classes and alternations , 1993 .

[8]  R. Raffelsiefen Relating words. A model of base recognition. I , 1993 .

[9]  Morris Halle,et al.  Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection , 1993 .

[10]  Outi Bat-El,et al.  Stem modification and cluster transfer in Modern Hebrew , 1994 .

[11]  Alec Marantz,et al.  No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon , 1997 .

[12]  Ken Hale,et al.  THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF ARGUMENT STRUCTURE , 1998 .

[13]  Heidi Harley Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect , 1998 .

[14]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Minimalist inquiries : the framework , 1998 .

[15]  Beth Levin,et al.  Objecthood: An event structure perspective , 1999 .

[16]  Noam Chomsky Derivation by phase , 1999 .

[17]  Adam Ussishkin The inadequacy of the consonantal root: Modern Hebrew denominal verbs and output–output correspondence , 1999, Phonology.

[18]  A. Idrissi,et al.  The Mental Representation of Semitic Words , 2000, Linguistic Inquiry.

[19]  Jeffrey Lidz,et al.  Denominal Verbs and Aktionsart , 2000 .

[20]  Miriam Engelhardt,et al.  The Projection of Argument-Taking Nomials , 2000 .

[21]  Maya Arad Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morpho-syntax , 2005 .