And:
>Considering that among the few people working within a more or less
>WG framework, an interest in verb alternations and the like has been
>disproportionately prominent, I find it a bit disappointing that
>we've never really addressed this distinction between, on the one
>hand, derivational relations/lexical rules, and, on the other hand,
>multiple category membership (of the sort you describe & I have long
>espoused). It's hard to deny that lexical derivation does exist,
>for it clearly does if it involves affixation, and most analysts
>would allow for the possibility of zero-derivation/conversion.
>That then leaves us with the unanswered question of how to decide
>whether a given grammatical phenomenon involves lexical derivation
>or mere multiple category membership.
## As I implied in a recent message, I think most cases need both kinds of
apparatus because they involve two kinds of similarity: across a lot of
similar but distinct lexemes (e.g. Middle), and across different versions
of 'the same' lexeme (e.g. ordinary and middle WASH).
Richard (= Dick) Hudson
Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London,
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT.
+44(0)20 7679 3152; fax +44(0)20 7383 4108;
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm
|