Categories in the lexicon

Abstract

This article argues against the hypothesis that roots are stored in the lexicon without categorial specification, such as noun and verb, as proposed in Marantz (1997Marantz ( , 2001. On the basis of evidence from Dutch, we show that certain generalizations and rules cannot be expressed without having roots that are lexically specified for their category. Furthermore, we show that the arguments put forward by Barner and Bale (2002) for categorial underspecification are not valid with respect to the data from Dutch. Finally, following Kiparsky (1997), we show that analyses of denominal verbs in English that embrace the categorial underspecification hypothesis run into serious problems. We conclude that roots are stored in the lexicon with a categorial specification.

Cut(n) andcut(v) are not homophones: Lemma frequency affects the duration of noun–verb conversion pairs

“…For example, building on Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar , Farrell (2001) argues that pairs such as cut ( n ) and cut ( v ) are ‘neither nouns nor verbs’ in the lexicon, but share a semantically underspecified entry. Word class is only provided through morphosyntactic context, which triggers a ‘contextually imposed profiling scenario’ (Farrell 2001: 128) and leads to either a ‘thing’ or a ‘process’ interpretation for the noun and the verb use, respectively (see Velasco 2009 for essentially the same argument implemented in the framework of Functional Discourse Grammar ; see Don 2004 for a critique of underspecification).…”

Conversion in English and its implications for Functional Discourse Grammar

“…This view is defended by Marchand (1969), Kiparsky (1997) and, with technical differences, Don (2004Don ( , 2005.…”

“…As Don (2004) notes, Marantz's proposal is confronted with the Kiparsky data discussed above. According to Don, there's no way for Marantz to distinguish the two classes of instrumental verbs, since precisely the difference lies in the assumed derived nature of one class as opposed to the other.…”

Lexical integrity and suspended affixation in two types of denominal predicates in Korean

“…Another issue that challenges the thesis of a-categorial Roots is conversion. Under the DM system, we don't expect to see directionality effects in conversion, but rather a direct categorization of a Root as V or N. As a reviewer points out, directionality effects are attested in conversion (Don 2004), challenging this view. 17 A reviewer remarks that the distinctive properties of Roots and nouns listed here may be attributed to the absence/presence of nominal functional structure above a Root.…”