nominal and verbal derivation in old english

Nominal and Verbal Derivation in Old English*

: The Case of Ge-words

1)

Yoo-kang Kim(Hankuk University of Foreign Studies)

Yoo-kang Kim. 2007. Nominal and Verbal Derivation in Old English: The Case of

Ge-words. Language and Linguistics 40, 21-45. This paper is concerned with

morphological derivation in Old English, specifically nominal and verbal

derivation without affixation. Non-affixational derivation, which is

traditionally called conversion, has been controversial in Old English

word-formation. Morphologists' claims differ in the issues of the

directionality of derivation and the postulation of a zero-morpheme.

For example, Kastovsky (1968, 1992, 1996) argues for zero-derivation,

postulating a zero-morpheme in Old English morphology while Dalton-

Puffer (1992, 1993), Ritt (1993) and Lass (1993) give evidence against

the assumption of zero-derivation in favor of affixless derivation (cf.

Plag 2003). Concerning the directionality of affixless derivation, any

principles or criteria for determining the directionality has not been

offered in Old English morphology. Aiming to give alternative solutions

to these two morphological problems, this article provides a morphological

analysis of Old English ge-words. It is shown that the derivation of

various derivative forms is accounted for by the interplay of Word-

Class Marking and the Zero-Constraint without having the directionality

problem. Furthermore, the non-occurrence of some derivatives is explained

straightforwardly.

Keywords: Old English, Prefix, Word-formation, Conversion, Zero-morpheme, Derivation

* This work was supported by the 2006 Research Grant from Hankuk University

of Foreign Studies.

22 언어와 언어학 제40집

1. IntroductionOld English (OE) word-formation has been examined by a number

of articles and monographs (Marchand 1969, Fisiak 1980, Kastovsky

1968, 1985, 1992, 1996, 2002, Colman 1985, Anderson 1998, among

others).1) In particular, Kastovsky has published many papers on a

variety of OE　 morphological phenomena (inflection, derivation and

compounding). Based on Marchand's (1969) extensive empirical study

of Present-day English (PE) word-formation and his morphological

theory, Kastovsky postulates a zero-morpheme (ø) in order to account

for non-affixational word-formation (traditionally-called, conversion):

V > [V+ø]N: [gief+an]V 'to give' vs. [gief+ø+a]N 'someone who gives'.

The postulation of a zero-morpheme has been controversial in

morphological theory. For example, Plag (2003) argues against the

assumption of zero-derivation in favor of non-affixational conversion.

Dalton-Puffer (1992, 1993), Ritt (2003) and Lass (1993) also provide

evidence against the postulation of a zero-morpheme in OE derivation,

arguing for zero-less derivation.

Another controversial issue involved in derivation without overt

marking is the directionality of derivation. Since there is no overt

nominal or verbal affixes attached with a base, there is no apparent

way of determining which one is the base of the other between two

derivatives: a noun from a verb or a verb from a noun. Kastovsky has

not suggested any principles or criteria for the determination of base.

He just stipulates that morphological base can be chosen based on

the historical or the semantic relationship between derivatives.

Addressing these two derivational issues (the postulation of a zero-

morpheme and the directionality of derivation), this paper aims to provide

a morphological analysis of ge-nouns and their related derivative forms.

1) The following abbreviations are used throughout the paper: Indo-European

(IE), Old English (OE), Middle English (ME), Present-day English (PE).

Nominal and Verbal Derivation in Old English▪Yoo-kang Kim 23

I argue that the directionality problem can be avoided by assuming

that a base is marked for word-category by Word-Class Marking. In

addition, it is shown that the presence or the absence of derivatives

related with ge-nouns can be predicted and explained by the Zero-

Constraint which requires a base to be affixed either by a zero- morpheme

or by an overt affix in order to appear as a word at the surface.

The organization of this paper is as follows. Section 2 provides a

historical survey of typological change in OE word-formation and discusses

main controversial issues. In section 3, I present 6 types of ge-nouns

and pose main questions concerning their derivation. The following

section gives main morphological algorithm and attempts to offer a

morphological analysis of the data. Section 5 concludes this paper.

2. Typological Change in OE Word-formation and Controversial IssuesIn this section, I discuss some important issues in OE word-formation

with special attention to morphological derivation of words. The first

half of the section begins with a brief historical survey of typological

change in word-formation from IE to OE because the structure of OE

derivational morphology cannot be understood without some knowledge

of its IE and Germanic antecedents. Then, I turn to the main issues

of this paper, namely, the directionality of derivation and the postulation

of a zero-morpheme in OE, reviewing how these issues have been

handled by the previous literature.

2.1 Typological Change in Word-formation from IE to OE

According to the morphological status of the input to the morphological

processes, namely, the status of the base form, derivational morphology is


typologically subdivided into three types: word-based, stem-based,

or root-based morphology (Kastovsky 2006: 157, cf. Kastovsky 1996,

1992).2) In word-based morphology the inputs to the morphological

processes are free lexical items, which have at least one word-form

that can appear without any inflectional endings in an utterance (e.g.,

boy vs. boys). This is typically the case in PE. Stem-based morphology is

characterized by the fact that the input to the morphological processes

is always bound so it cannot occur as a word in an utterance unless it is

accompanied by an inflectional ending (OE ner- in nerjan 'to save', ox-

in oxa 'ox, singular, nominative'). This is true of OE verb morphology,

and partly also of OE noun morphology. Finally, root-based morphology

begins from an abstract lexical element which may or may not be word-

class-specific, and which had to first undergo certain stem-formative

processes in order to be combined with the inflectional system proper.3)

IE morphology is root-based: the root usually being represented as

a consonantal skeleton and the vowel being supplied by ablaut

alternations (e.g., *Vd- 'eat' (cf. OE etan), *mVd- 'measure' (cf. OE

metan), *trV- 'tremble' (cf. OE þrēat)) (Kuryłowicz 1968: 200ff,

Szemerényi 1996: 102ff).4) The actual paradigms are derived by first

2) "A word in this sense is basically a free form, and can occur in an

utterance without additional material such as inflectional or derivational

morpheme" (e.g., cat in cats); "a stem is a bound, word-class-specific

lexeme representation stripped of any inflectional endings, but potentially

containing derivational affixes or stem-formatives, which determine the

inflectional category of the lexeme in question" (e.g., scient- in scientist);"a root is the element that is left over when all derivational, stem-forming,

and inflectional elements are stripped away." (e.g., IE *Vd-, OE etan 'toeat') (Kastovsky 2006: 157)

3) Bauer (1983: 16) defines a stem formative as a "distributional segment

of a word-form independent of whether or not it is also a morph." This term

sometimes called as theme is used to denote an element which, whenadded to a root, forms a stem to which inflections may be added. Thus,

Germanic *luf-ōj-an 'love' consists of root + stem formative (theme) +

inflectional ending. See Colman (1985) for the discussion of some morphological

formatives in OE.


adding stem-formatives and then inflectional endings: Root + Stem-

formative + Inflectional endings. Since word-class-specific properties

are added to the roots by the various morphological processes which

derived word-class-specific stems, many of IE roots are word-class-

neutral (Kastovsky 1996: 110). The addition of stem formatives and

of the appropriate endings (case, number, aspect, person) produces

primary nouns or primary verbs. This means that at this stage there

is no direct derivational connection between a verb and its derived

noun or a noun and its derived verb; both are only related via their

common root (Kastovsky 2006: 162). Put differently, the stem-formatives

are added to roots, producing verb-stems or noun-stems, to which

finally the appropriate inflectional endings are added.

The evolution of the Germanic language family is characterized by

a transformation of its phonological and morphological system. In

Germanic, stress came to be fixed on the first syllable and the stress

shift eventually led to a weakening and ultimate loss of medial and final

unstressed syllable, which in turn resulted in a growing loss of stem-

formatives and inflectional endings. This development brings about a

gradual shift from root-based to stem-based morphology in OE (Kastovsky

2006: 163). This typological change is exemplified below in (1).

(1) The basic structure of weak verbs in Germanic and OE (Hogg

1992: 157, Kastovsky 1996: 104, Kastovsky 2006: 164)

Germanic OE

Infinitive *trum + j + an-az trymm + ø + an

Present *trum + j + is trym + ø + is

Preterite *trum + i + d + a trym + ed + e

As shown in (1), the Germanic root *trum- is followed by a stem-

formative *-j-/*-i- by which the root is derived into a causative verb

4) V indicates the ablaut vowel. Ablaut is a variation in the root vowel

according to tense and number. The symbol "*" indicates an unattested form.


and then inflectional endings occur. However, in OE the stem formative is

no longer segmentable because they have either fused with the inflectional

endings, or they syncopated leaving the i-umlaut trace in the stem

(*trumj- > *trümj- (i-umlaut) > *trüm (syncopation of *-j-)> OE trym-).5)

With nouns, the development is similar. In Germanic the original

stem-formatives have begun to merge with the case/number exponents,

losing their class-marking function: e.g., a-stem: *dag+a+z > OE

dag+as (plural nominative), *dag+a+ns > OE dag+as (plural accusative). The

stem-formative *-a- became a thing of the past, and the form (root (*dag)

+ stem-formative (*-a-) + inflectional ending (*-z)) came to be reanalyzed

as stem (dag-) + case/number endings (-as) in OE morphology.

Clearly this implies a shift from root-based to stem-based inflection.

The next stage of typological change is the loss of some inflectional

endings in OE. For example, the nominative/accusative singular ending

*-as of a-stem nouns is lost, resulting in uninflected forms (*dagas >

OE dag). Consequently, OE noun morphology comes to allow some

uninflected forms in morphological paradigms and the uninflected forms

(words) can be interpreted as unmarked base forms. This is the case

where we speak of word-based morphology. Namely, the OE endingless

nominatives/accusatives like cyning, stān, function as unmarked base-

forms with word-status. Here, inflection and derivation become word-

based, and it is this type that will eventually prevail in ME. Since

there are also many weak nouns and strong feminines like gum+a

and tung+e which are still stem-based, it can be stated that OE is

"in a stage of transition from stem-based to word-based inflection

and derivation" (Kastovsky 1992: 397).

5) In Germanic, there are four different stem-formatives for the formation

of weak verbs: Class 1: -j-/-i- (Gothic satjan, OE settan), Class 2:-ōi-/-ō- (Gothic salbôn, OE sealfian), Class 3: -ē(j)- (Gothic haban, OEhabban), Class 4: -nō- (Gothic fullnan, OE beorhtnian) (Kastovsky 1996:

102). With the exception of Class 3, these are still recognizable in Gothic

but for OE only the first two classes are relevant.


2.2 Controversial Issues in OE Word-formation

In the previous section 2.1, I have provided a brief historical survey

of typological change in word-formation from IE to OE. The typological

change results in a shift of morphological patterns in OE synchronic

morphology, which, in turn, causes a morphological problem. The

following section discusses the relevant problems.

2.2.1 The Directionality of Morphological Derivation

As described above, OE morphology became stem-based due to the

loss of stem-formatives or the fusion of stem-formatives with the

following inflectional endings. The loss of stem-formatives which produced

word-specific stems (e.g., noun-stems, verb-stems) in the previous

periods results in the indeterminacy of directionality of morphological

derivation. The relevant examples are given below in (2).

(2) The derivational relationship between nouns and strong verbs in

OE (Kastovsky 1992: 392)

nouns verbs

cum+a (-an, -ena, -um) 'guest' cum+an (-e, -est-, -eþ) 'to come'

gief+end 'someone who gives' gief+an 'to give'

brec+ung 'act of breaking' brec+an 'to break'

As shown in (2), there is no overt stem-formative between a root

and the following inflectional ending so the base is unmarked for word-

class. For example, the base stems cum-, gief-, brec- are class-

neutral because they do not have any word-class markers. Their word-

categories are overtly determined only after the following inflection

endings occur.

Historically, the stems cum-, gief-, brec- of the strong verbs in (2)

are verbal so the nouns (cuma, giefend, brecung) may be viewed as


derived nouns (verb → noun). Kastovsky (1968: 84-89) claims that strong

verbs are always basic, and nouns related to them with or without

ablaut alternations must be regarded as deverbal derivatives. However,

in a synchronic analysis of OE morphology this can no longer be

maintained as a general principle because from a purely synchronic

point of view, there is no overt marker for word-class in the input

(stems in OE) to morphological operations.

Plag (2003: 108-111) presents four possible ways of determining the

directionality of conversion. The first is to look at the history of the

language and see which word was first. However, simply looking at

earliest attestations does not solve the directionality problem. As

described above, according to Kastovsky (1996: 99, cf. Kastovsky 1968),

strong verbs are always basic and the nouns related to strong verbs

are typically deverbal. However, these deverbal nouns, in turn, often

served as the basis for secondary verbal derivatives (e.g., faran 'to

go' (strong verb) > fōr 'going, journey' (derived noun) > fēran 'go, come,

depart') (weak verb). Consequently, from a synchronic point of view, the

directionality problem remains unsolved: the base stem fVr (where V

indicates an ablaut vowel) can be either nominal (considering the

historical relationship between fōr and fēran) or verbal (considering

the relationship between faran and fōr.

The second criterion is to investigate the semantic dependency between

a base and its derived word. Plag (2003) states that, in general,

derived words are semantically more complex than their base. Kastovsky

(1996: 95) also argues for the basis of semantic dependency, demonstrating

that the item which is required for the definition of the other pair is

regarded as the basis (cf. Marchand 1969): PE ring (noun) > ring

(verv) 'to provide with a ring', OE huntian 'to hunt' > hunta 'one

who hunts'. However, the semantic information alone cannot solve the

directional problem because there are many cases where the semantic

relationship between base forms and derived forms cannot be clearly


determined (e.g., hwistlian 'to whistle' vs. hwistle 'whistle', cnyllan

'to strike, knock, ring a bell' vs. cnyll 'clang, stroke of a bell').6)

The next criterion proposed by Plag is the inflectional behavior of

forms. He states that the regularly inflecting word is derived from

the irregularly inflecting word. For instance, the irregular inflectional

behavior of verbs like to drink, to hit, to shake, or to sleep, he claims,

is a strong argument for the deverbal nature of the nouns such as

drink, hit, shake, and sleep. However, this criterion cannot be used for

derivational relationship between OE nouns and verbs because in OE

noun morphology there is no way of determining regularity of nouns.

Since OE has several noun declensions (a-stem, o-stem, n-stem, z-stem,

etc.) which contain various inflected forms according to class, number and

gender, it is not possible to tell which one is more regular than the others.

The last property relevant for the determination of directionality is

frequency of occurrence. Plag states that there is a strong tendency

for derived words being less frequently used than their base words.

This criterion may also end up with difficult cases in OE because there

are many derived words in OE whose base words are less frequently

words than them or even lost. According to Kastovsky (1996: 99),

there are many instances where the nominal base was lost and only

the verbal derivative survived in OE.

I have discussed the issue regarding the determination of directionality

by citing Plag's four criteria. The criteria are not successful for OE

derivational morphology because many equivocal cases occur in OE. I

argue that this directionality problem can be avoided by assuming

6) Even in PE, there are many cases where the semantic criterion does not

lead to a clear result. For example, forms such as love (N.) and love (V.)are hard to decide upon because both have existed since OE times, and

that neither of them seems to be semantically primary. Namely, to lovecould be paraphrased as 'being in a state of love', which would make

the noun primary. However, the opposite direction can also be argued

for because the noun could be paraphrased as 'state of loving', which

makes the verb primary (cf. Plag 2003: 111).


that OE base is not marked for word-category, thus being word-class

neutral at the initial stage of morphological derivation. Word-category

can be specified by a separate morphological process before inflection

or derivation takes place. I will turn to this issue again in section 3.

2.2.2 Conversion or Zero-Affixation?

Conversion is a morphological process referring to "the change in

form class of a form without any corresponding change of form" (Bauer

1983: 32). For instance, the form napalm, which had been used exclusively

as a noun, came to be used as a verb (They decided to napalm the

town) is a case of conversion. Conversion is frequently called zero-

derivation, a term which many scholars prefer (Jespersen 1942, Marchand

1969). Kastovsky (1968, 1992, 1996, 2006) also strongly argue for

the role of a zero-morpheme in the OE derivational morphology. Some

relevant examples are given below in (3).

(3) OE derived Class 2 weak verbs (Kastovsky 1996: 93)

ādlian 'to become ill' < ādl 'illness'

endian 'to end' < end 'end'

fiscian 'to fish' < fisc 'fish'

According to Kastovsky, the infinitive ending -ian of the derived

weak verbs functions as an inflectional ending just as inflectional suffixes

(-ie, -aþ, -ode) in fiscie, fisciaþ or fiscode so the denominal derivation

involved in such instances was affixless due to the existence of a zero

morpheme (e.g., end (base) + ø (denominal derivational morpheme)

+ ian (infinitive inflectional morpheme).

The postulation of a zero-morpheme has been controversial and the

question remains open in which particular cases it is justified to postulate

a zero-morpheme. Most morphologists think that a zero-form can be

justified only in those cases where there is also an overt (non-zero)


form that expresses exactly the same meaning or function as a zero-

morpheme does (Sanders 1988, Plag 1999, cf. Plag 2003: 112-113).

This constraint has also been called the overt analogue criterion.

This means that for each type of conversion we would have to find at

least one affix that expresses exactly the same range of meanings as

conversion. If so, we can safely assume the existence of a zero-morpheme,

if not, we have to reject it.

Let us take an example of OE deverbal suffixation to see what types

of semantic types they represent and to determine whether they can

express the same range of meanings as deverbal conversion. Kastovsky

(1985) examines the semantic types of OE deverbal suffixes including

those of deverbal conversion. According to him, the following suffixes

are involved in the derivation of OE deverbal nouns: -(e)d/-(o)þ/-t,

-(e)l/-ol, -els, -en, -end, -ere, -estre, -ett, -icge, -ing/-ung, -ness, -ø.

The semantic types he considers include action, agentive, experiencer,

objective, factitive, goal/benefactive, instrumental, and locative. He

argues that a ø-derivative is the most productive among the deverbal

nouns and that it has a wide range of semantic types: action, agentive,

objective, factitive, goal, instrumental, and locative. However, he adds

that overt suffixes also produce a variety of semantic types of nouns. For

example, the nominal suffix -end, according to him, produces a deverbal

nouns whose semantic types include action, agentive, experiencer,

objective, goal, and instrumental. All semantic types represented by

a zero-morpheme are also expressed by other overt affixes even though

there is the relative strength of each suffix in terms of their productivity

(cf. Kastovsky 1985: 254). This means that in OE there are overt

suffixes which can express the same range of semantic meanings as

a zero-morpheme so it can be said that the overt analogue criterion

is satisfied in OE deverbal noun morphology and that the postulation

of a zero-morpheme in OE can be justified.

In conclusion, in line with Kastovsky's argument for the postulation


of a zero-morpheme, I assume that a zero-morpheme exists in OE.

Furthermore, I claim that the zero-morpheme plays an active role in

OE morphology. It is shown in section 4 that whether a derivative

form appears at the surface or not (i.e. attested or unattested) depends

on the presence or the absence of the zero-morpheme.

In sum, this section has discussed the two issues concerning OE

derivational morphology, providing a critical review of some relevant

previous works: the directionality of derivation and the postulation

of a zero-morpheme. To handle these two issues and to provide a

morphological analysis of derived words in OE, I examine the derivation

of OE ge-nouns. The following section presents some relevant data

and poses main research questions.

3. Data and Main QuestionsIn order to investigate OE derivational process, I chose the OE prefix

ge- because the prefix is very productive both when preverbal and

when prenominal.7) In particular, ge- is affixed both to nouns and to verbs

having derived from the same base, resulting in various morphological

forms: ge-noun (ge+feoht 'battle'), underived noun (feoht 'fight, battle'),

ge-verb (ge+feohtan 'to fight'), underived verb (feohtan 'to fight').

As a way of providing an answer to the two morphological questions

(the directionality of derivation and conversion), I attempt to show

how the affixation of ge- occurs, and how and when the word-category

of the base is marked in OE.

As a point of departure, I collected 38 ge-nouns found in Beowulf

using Mitchell & Robinson's (1998) edition. The ge-nouns are listed

7) The prefix ge- is also used before pronouns (e.g, gehwer 'whoever'),adjectives (e.g, gecynde 'natural'), and adverbs (e.g, genoh 'enough') eventhough it is much less productive than before verbs and nouns.


below in (4).

(4) 38 Ge-nouns in Beowulf

gebedda, gebrōþor, gebyrd, gedræg, gedryht, gefēa, gefeoht,

geflit, gehygd, gehyld, gelād, gemēde, gemet, gemēting, gemynd,

genip, gesacu, gescād, gescæphwīle, gesceaft, gesceap, geselda,

gesīð, geslyht, getrum, geþinge, geþōht, geþonc, geþræc, geþring,

geþyld, gewǣde, gewealc, geweald, geweorc, gewidre, gewif,

gewrixle

Then, I collected nouns (without ge-) and verbs (both with and

without ge-) which are morphologically related to the ge-nouns (e.g.,

feoht, gefeohtan, feohtan related to gefeoht) by referring to Toller's

An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (1973). Finally, the ge-nouns and their

related words are classified according to 6 categories shown below in

Table 1.

<Table 1> 6 categories for morphological analysis

ge-nounsimplex

nounge-verb

simplex

verbExamples

Type 10

(gefea)

0

(feoh)

0

(gefeohan)

0

(feohan)

gefea, gefeoht, gehyld, gesacu,

getrum, geþinge, geþoht,

geþonc, geþring, gewǣde,

gewealc, geweald, geweorc,

gewidre, gewrixle

Type 20

(gemet)

X 0

(gemetan)

0

(metan)

gemet, gemynd, genip,

gesceap, gewif

Type 30

(geflit)

0

(flit)X

0

(flitan)

geflit, gesīð, geslyht, geþræc,

geþyld

Type 40

(gebedda)

0

(bedd)X X

gebedda, gebroþor, gelad,

gesceaft, geselda

Type 50

(gedræg)X X

0

(dragan)gedræg

Type 60

(gehygd)X X X gehygd

(0 = attested, X = unattested)


Each type differs according to the presence or the absence of attested

forms: type 1 having all possible attested forms (ge-noun, simplex noun,

ge-verb, simplex verb) to type 6 having only ge-nouns. Historically

speaking, the absence of attested forms may be considered as the

results of the loss of the forms or simply as accidental gaps. From a

synchronic point of view, the distribution of attested forms of each

type poses a number of questions concerning their morphological

derivation. For example, in the case of type 6 where only ge-nouns

are attested, what is their morphological source? Are they derived

from unattested simplex nouns (or unattested simplex verbs) (Base

→ *N → ge + N / Base → *V → *N → ge + N) or directly from a base

(Base → ge + Base)? In addition, in type 6 where all possible forms

are attested, where do nominal derivatives (ge-nouns) come from?

Are they derived from simplex nouns (Base → N → ge-N) or ge-verbs

(Base → V → ge-V → ge-N)? These questions regarding morphological

derivation are closely related with the morphological issues discussed

in the previous section and have to be taken into consideration in a

morphological study. Providing an answer to the questions can give

an understanding of OE derivational morphology as well as provide a

solution to the long-standing problems (the directionality of derivation

and conversion). Main relevant questions are summarized below.

(a) What is the morphological status of the input to morphological

derivation of ge-nouns? (the status of base)

(b) What is the morphological source of simplex nouns or verbs?

Are they directly derived from base or from the other by zero-

derivation? (zero-morpheme)

(c) How can the occurrence of lexical gaps (unattested derivatives)

be accounted for in a morphological theory? Is it possible to

predict the presence or the absence of a specific morphological

derivative?


4. A Morphological Analysis of OE Ge-nounsIn this section, I attempt to provide a morphological analysis of

each type of ge-nouns with the assumption that a zero-morpheme exists in

OE morphology. Let us first present how OE morphological operations

take place and then begin to analyze the data.

4.1 Assumptions and Morphological Framework

The OE Morphological algorithm used in this paper is provided below

in (5) with a sample derivation.

(5) Morphological operations in OE8)

feoht Base (B)

↓ ↓ ↤Word-Class Marking

(obligatory)

{feoht}N {B}Word Class (WCl)

↓ ↓ ↤Zero-derivation(optional)

{feoht}N+{ø} {B}WCl+{ø}

↓ ↓ ↤Derivation(optional)9)

{ge}+[{feoht}N+{ø}] {ge}+[{Base}WCl+{ø}]

↓ ↓ ↤Inflection(optional)

[{ge}+[{feoht}N+{ø}]]+{es} [{ge}+[{Base}WCl+{ø}]]

+Inflectional ending

8) The notation "{ }" indicates an individual morpheme; "[ ]" morphological

structure; "+" a morphological boundary.

9) According to Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky 1982, Mohanan 1986), there are

two levels or strata in English derivational morphology and affixes belong

to one of the two. Affixes belonging to one level are distinguished from the

affixes of the other level by a number of properties (e.g,, stress shift,

morpho-phonological alternations). In addition, level 1 affixes are generally

less productive than level 2 affixes. In the theory, irregular inflection

occurs at level 1 while regular inflection takes place at level 2. In this paper,

I do not treat this leveling issue because it is not directly relevant of the

main purpose of this paper.


As shown in (5), OE derivation begins with a base, which is not

marked for word-class. The word-category of the base becomes specified

at the next step by Word-Class Marking so derived stems (nominal

or verbal) are produced, being ready for further morphological process

(derivational or inflectional). This means that simplex nouns or verbs

are directly derived from a word-class neutral base, not by conversion

(from a noun to a derived verb or from a verb to a derived noun). As

a consequence, the directionality problem of conversion can be avoided

in this analysis because nouns and verbs directly come from a word-

class neutral base. Put differently, there is no need to determine which

one is the base of the other. The word category of a noun or a verb

is specified by Word-Class Marking at this point of morphological

derivation. This class-marking process producing a word-class specified

stem can be interpreted as a historical relic of the Germanic stem-

formative having been lost before OE (cf. section 2.1).

The following step is the occurrence of a zero-morpheme, which is

optional in morphological derivation. If an overt suffix occurs after

the class-specified stem, the zero morpheme does not take place because

there is no morphological motivation of the zero-derivation. The stem is

already marked for word-class by Word-Class Marking and other

morphological functions (person, case, number, tense) can be represented

by the overt affix. By contrast, in cases where such an overt suffix does

not occur, the zero-morpheme must take place in order to play a

morphological function (e.g., {bāt}N+ø (singular nominative)). If the

zero-morpheme is not attached with a stem, the stem cannot surface,

which means the form is not attested in OE (e.g., *{bāt}N).

The prohibition of occurrence of affixless stems without having a zero-

morpheme can be justified by the consideration of the typological stage

of OE. As discussed in section 2, OE is at the transitional stage between

stem-based morphology and word-based morphology. This ambivalent

typological status of OE can be well characterized by the postulation


of the zero-morpheme. Since OE is partly word-based, stems can

occur as a word. However, the surface occurrence of OE stems must

be restricted under a certain condition because OE morphology still

remains stem-based. The OE morphological condition for the occurrence

of affixless stems is to require the stems to acquire a zero-morpheme

which can represent inflectional functions. In short, OE stems can

appear as a word at the surface under one of the following two conditions:

either with a zero-morpheme or with an overt affix. Therefore, it is

assumed in this analysis that all uninflected forms (masculine/neuter

a-stem nominatives/accusatives (e.g., bāt 'boat'), some neuter plural

nominatives/accusatives (e.g., word 'words')) are marked by a zero-

morpheme at this stage of morphological derivation. The OE　morphological

requirement can be formalized as in (6).

(6) OE Zero-Constraint

OE stems can appear as a word at the surface only if either of

the following conditions is satisfied:

(a) an overt affix is attached to them

(b) a zero-morpheme is attached to them

Finally, additional derivation and inflection take place in sequence,

producing a final output. The application of these operations are also

optional so that a number of affixless stems can appear (with a zero-

morpheme) at the surface without being attached to any affixes.

Now, we are ready for morphological analysis of each type of

ge-nouns. The following section attempts to provide a morphological

analysis using the morphological algorithm presented in this section.

4.2 Morphological Analysis

Let us begin with type 1 in which all possible derivatives are attested.

The derivation of the derivative forms are exemplified below in (7).


(7) Type 1 (ge-noun/simplex noun/ge-verb/simplex verb)

Nouns: gehyld 'protector', hyld 'protection',

Verbs: gehyldan 'to keep', hyldan 'to recline'

hyld → {hyld}N → {hyld}N+{ø} → hyld

↘

{ge}+[{hyld}N] → gehyld

{hyld}V → [{hyld}V]+{an} → hyldan

↘

{ge}+[{hyld}v] → [{ge}+[{hyld}v]]+{an} → gehyldan

The base hyld becomes specified for word-category by Word-Class

Marking in the beginning of the derivation so the nominal stem ({hyld}N)

and the verbal stem ({hyld}V) are produced. Then, in order to appear

as words at the surface, the stems must satisfy the OE Zero-Constraint

formulated in (6), which requires them to be affixed either by an

overt-affix (cf. (6a) or a zero-morpheme (cf. (6b)). The noun hyld

becomes a word by being connected with a zero-morpheme and the other

derivatives (gehyld, hyldan, gehyldan) by being attached with overt

affixes (ge-, -an). In this way, the attestation and the derivation of all

derivative forms can be explained without having directionality problem.

Since the nominal stem and the verbal stem are separately derived

by the base, not by their counterpart (noun from a verbal stem or

verb from a nominal stem), there is no need to determine which one

is the base of the other. In addition, the constraint in (6) shows why

all the derivative forms are attested in this type. The stems of the

words belonging to this type satisfy the derivational conditions, and

thus can surface as words.

Let us turn to type 2 where all derivatives forms are attested with

the exception of simplex nouns. The sample derivation is provided

below in (8).


(8) Type 2 (ge-noun/*simplex noun/ge-verb/simplex verb)

Noun: gemet 'measure of strength'

Verbs: gemetan 'to measure', metan 'to measure'

met → {met}N (no zero-derivation) *met

↘

{ge}+[{met}N] → gemet

{met}V → [{met}V]+{an} → metan

↘

{ge}+[{met}v] → [{ge}+[{met}v]]+{an} → gemetan

The only difference between type 1 and type 2 is that the simplex

nominal form of type 2 words is not attested while all derivative

forms appear in the case of type 1. The absence of simplex nouns in

type 2 can be interpreted as the result of the violation of the Zero-

Constraint in (6). As a zero-morpheme does not occur to the nominal

stem ({met}N), the stem cannot appear as a word. Instead, the

stem is affixed with the prefix ge- and becomes a part of the noun

gemet.

Type 3 includes ge-nouns whose corresponding ge-verbs are not

attested. Their derivation are exemplified below in (9).

(9) Type 3 (ge-noun/simplex noun/*ge-verb/simplex verb)

Nouns: geflit 'strife, discussion', flit 'scandal, strife'

Verb: flitan 'to compete, to strive'

flit → {flit}N → {flit}N+{ø} → flit

↘

{ge}+[{flit}N] → geflit

{flit}V → [{flit}V]+{an} → flitan

↘

(no prefixation) *geflitan


The absence of ge-verbal form *geflitan can be simply seen as the

result of no application of prefixaton. Let us move on to Type 4 where

verbal forms are not attested at all.

(10) Type 4 (ge-noun/simplex noun/*ge-verb/*simplex verb)

Nouns: gelād 'a course, a path', lād 'passage, voyage'

lād → {lād}N → {lād}N+{ø} → lād

↘

{ge}+[{lād}N] → gelād

No Verbal Marking (*lādan, *gelādan)

As shown in (10), the absence of verbal derivatives is due to

the non-application of Word-Class Marking (verb marking). By

contrast, the base is marked as a noun so nominal derivatives are

produced.

The choice of whether Word-Class Marking applies or not to a specific

base in OE may be determined based on OE native speakers' morphological

knowledge. Synchronically, verbal derivatives related to ge-nouns in

this type do not exist in the OE lexicon while nominal derivatives do.

This morphological information can be learned by OE speakers and their

knowledge has an effect on morphological derivation. If speakers know

there are derivatives from a certain word-class, Word-Class Marking

applies to make the word-class stem.

Ge-nouns of the type-5 category have only affixless verbal forms.

Their corresponding simplex nouns and ge-verbs are not attested in

OE. Relevant sample derivation is given below in (11).

(11) Type 5 (ge-noun/*simplex noun/*ge-verb/simplex verb)

Noun: gedræg 'dragging, band'

Verb: dragan 'to drag, to draw'


drag → {drag}N (no zero-derivation) *drag

↘

{{dræg}N} → {ge}+[{{dræg}N}] gedræg

{drag}V → [{drag}V]+{an} → dragan

↘

(No prefixation) *gedragan

The simplex nominal form *drag and the ge-verbal form *gedragan

cannot occur as words due to the absence of zero-derivation and

prefixation, respectively. One thing I should mention about this case is

the derivation of umlaut forms: {drag} → {{dæg}}. Historically speaking,

the phonological modification of roots was produced by i-umlaut which

occurred in the pre-OE period. The OE residue of the phonological

vocalic change is the variation of root vowels as shown in (11). From

a synchronic point of view, this issue is involved in the interaction

between morphological operations and phonological change. As this

topic is not directly related with the purpose of this paper, I simply

assume that a modified root form is represented by "{{ }}" (e.g.,

{drag} → {{dæg}}) without providing further relevant discussion.

Last, type 6 only consists of ge-nouns. Simplex nouns and verbal

forms are not found in OE. The derivation of the type-6 ge-nouns is

exemplified below in (12).

(12) Type 6 (ge-noun/*simplex noun/*ge-verb/*simplex verb)

Noun: gehygd 'thought, meditation'

hygd → {hygd}N (no zero-derivation) *hygd

↘

{ge}+[{hygd}N}] gehygd

No Verbal Marking (*gehygdan, *hygdan)


As shown in (12), the simplex nominal form cannot occur because

its nominal stem is not attached with a zero-morpheme. The verbal

forms also do not appear at the surface because the base is not marked

as a verbal stem.

5. ConclusionIn sum, this paper has provided a morphological analysis of 6 types

of ge-nouns, addressing the controversial issues: the directionality of

affixless derivation and the postulation of a zero-morpheme. The

directionality problem could be avoided in my analysis because unlike

traditional morphological accounts assuming that a noun is derived

by a verb or vice versa, a base is marked for word-category by Word-

Class Marking. Namely, nominal or verbal stems were produced

directly from the base by means of the application of Word-Class Marking,

not from the other stem by conversion.

Furthermore, the Zero-Constraint in (6) successfully accounted for

why some derivative forms were not attested in OE even though they

were morphologically possible forms. It is very significant to attempt

to explain the absence of some derivatives at a specific period of a

language because there have been no formal treatments of this issue

at all. Derivative forms have been simply considered as lexical gaps

or as the result of historical loss. By contrast, this analysis clearly

has showed how some derivatives appear at the surface while others do

not. The presence or the absence of a derivative form were determined

by the Zero-Constraint.


ReferencesAnderson, Fran. (1998) “A Core Morphology for Old English Verbs.”

English Language and Linguistics 2(2): 199-222.

Bauer, Laurie (1983) English Word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Colman, Fran. (1985) “On Some Morphological Formatives in Old

English.” Folia Linguistica Historica 6(2): 267-283.

Dalton-Puffer, Christiane (1992) “A View on Middle English Derivation:

Verbs.” VIEWS 1(3): 1-15.

Dalton-Puffer, Christiane (1993) “How Distinct are Inflection and

Derivation? Reply to Lass and Ritt.” VIEWS 2: 40-44.

Fisiak, Jacek. (1980) Historical Morphology (ed.) (Trends in Linguistics.

Studies and Monographs 17). The Hague: Mouton.

Hogg, Richard (1992) “Phonology and Morphology”. In R. Hogg (ed.) The

Cambridge History of the English Language. vol.1. The Beginnings

to 1066, 67-167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jespersen, Otto (1942) A Modern English Grammar: On Historical

Principles. Part 6 Morphology. London: Allen and Unwin.

Kiparsky, Paul (1982) “Lexical Morphology and Phonology”. In I.S. Yang

(ed.) Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 3-91. Seoul: Hanshin.

Kastovsky, Dieter (1968) Old English Deverbal Substantives Derived

by Means of a Zero Morpheme. Esslingen: Langer.

Kastovsky, Dieter (1985) “Deverbal Nouns in Old and Modern English:

From Stem-Formation to Word-Formation.” In J. Fisiak (ed.),

Historical Semantics-Historical Word-Formation, 221-261. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Kastovsky, Dieter (1992) “Semantics and Vocabulary.” In R. Hogg (ed.)

The Cambridge History of the English Language. vol.1. The

Beginnings to 1066, 290-407. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.


Kastovsky, Dieter (1996) “Verbal Derivation in English: A Historical

Survey.” Or: Much ado about nothing. In D. Britton (ed.), English

Historial Linguistics 1994, 93-117. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Kastovsky, Dieter (2002) “The Derivation of Ornative, Locative, Ablative,

Privative and Reversative Verbs in English.” In T. Fanego et

al. (ed.), English Historical Syntax and Morphology: Selected

Papers from 11 ICHEL, 99-109. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Kastovsky, Dieter (2006) “Typological Changes in Derivational

Morphology.” In A. van Kemenade et al. The Handbook of the

History of English, 151-176. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Kuryłowicz, Jerzy (1968) Indogermanische Grammatik. Band 2: Akzent,

ablaut. Heidelberg: Winter.

Marchand, hans (1969) The Categories and Types of Present-Day

English Word-Formation. München: Beck.

Mitchell, Bruce & Fred Robinson (1998) Beowulf: An Edition with

Relevant Shorter Texts. Oxford: Blackwell.

Mohanan, Karuvannur P. (1986) The Theory of Lexical Phonology.

Dordrecht: Reidel.

Lass, Roger (1993) “Old English -ian: Inflectional or Derivational?”

VIEWS 2: 26-34.

Plag, Ingo (1999) Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints

in English Derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Plag, Ingo (2003) Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Ritt, Nikolaus (1993) “What Exactly is it that Makes OE -ian

Derivational?” VIEW 2: 35-39.

Sanders, Gerald (1988) “Zero Derivation and the Overt Analogon

Criterion.” In M. Hammond et al. Theoretical Morphology, 155-

175. San Diego: Academic Press.

Szemerényi, Oswald (1996) Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics.

[Translated from Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft,


1990]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Toller, Northcote (1973) An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary: Based on the

Manuscript Collections of Joseph Bosworth. London: Oxford

University Press.

[449-791] 경기도 용인시 모현면 왕산리 산 89 한국외국어대학교 영어학부E-mail: [email protected]

논문접수 : 2007년 7월 15일게재확정 : 2007년 9월 3일

nominal and verbal derivation in old english

Documents