Akiko Nagano

Data-Rich Approaches to English Morphology University of Victoria at Wellington July 6, 2012

Doing Morphology with the OED: A Data-Rich Approach to English Affixation Akiko Nagano University of Tsukuba [email protected] 0. Outline ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------● Two important hypotheses about derivational morphology (proposed independently): (1) The Righthand Head Rule (RHR) (Williams 1981) In morphology, the head of a morphologically complex word is the righthand member of that word. →Suffixes determine the output category, but prefixes do not. (2) Semantic, output-oriented approach to derivational morphology (Plag 2004, Lieber 2004, 2006) Selectional properties of a derivational affix (e.g. its input-category selection) are predictable from its output semantics. →Both suffixes and prefixes have a (basically) unitary semantic representation (“skeleton,” “LCS”). ● A potential challenge to (1) and (2): verb-deriving prefixes in English Certain prefixes seem to derive V from N, A, and V. ---seem to determine the output category (in N/A-to-V usage). ---seem to have two distinct semantic representations (one for N/A-to-V usage and one for V-to-V usage). ● A theoretical solution: conversion analysis ● Empirical validation: Diachronic and synchronic examination using the data from OED ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Introduction (3) Complex words in English --- the determinant-determinatum structure (Marchand 1969) a. compounds steamboat, colorblind b. prefixed words unfair, subtitle, rewrite c. suffixed words baker, understandable, motorize (4) Exceptions? Verb-deriving prefixes in English (Lieber 1980, 1992, 2004, 2005, Williams 1981, Namiki 1982, Bauer 1983, Plag 1999, 2003, 2004, Adams 2001, Bauer and Huddleston 2002) be-: [be-[fool]N]V, [be-[little]A]V ‘make N/A’, ‘provide with N’ out-: [out-[jockey]N]V, [out-[smart]A]V ‘surpass in the quality of N/A’ en-: [en-[cage]N]V, [en-[noble]A]V ‘put into N’, ‘make A/N’ un-: [un-[saddle]N]V, [un-[bottle]N]V ‘deprive N’, ‘remove from N’ de-: [de-[louse]N]V, [de-[plane]N]V ‘deprive N’, ‘remove from N’ dis-: [dis-[burden]N]V, [dis-[bar]N]V ‘deprive N’, ‘remove from N’ 

This study is supported by University of Tsukuba and Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B24520417).

2. Problems of the left-headed analysis 2.1. RHR as a typological property of Germanic languages (Marchand 1969, Kastovsky 1986, 1996) (5) a. wæter / berere ‘bearer of water’ winter / setl ‘winter-quarters’ b. forþ / faran ‘go forth, depart’ sin / cald ‘perpetually (sin-) cold’ c. feond / scipe ‘hostility = state (-scipe) of being an enemy (feond-)’ lær / end ‘teacher = someone (-end) who teaches (lær-)’ (Kastovsky 1992: 356) (6)

The verb-deriving prefixes in (4) can be the only exception to the RHR in PE (Namiki 1982, Plag 2004). Non-category-changing suffixes in English all attach to only one category (almost always N; e.g. N-ess > N, N-ling > N); English has no category-neutral suffixes like Romance evaluative suffixes (Scalise 1988).

2.2. V-to-V prefixation (7) beshout, bemoan, bestrew; deeducate, deconcentrate, deintegrate; disclose, disestablish, disown; enclose, enkindle, entwist; outachieve, outtalk, outwait; unfreeze, uninvent, unscramble (8)

V-deriving suffixes (-ate, -en, -ify, -ize) cannot attach to V; there is no V-to-V suffixation in PE. a. en-: +N (empower), +A (enlarge), +V (enclose) b. -en: +N (strengthen), +A (shorten)

(9)

V-deriving prefixes are assigned dual roles as heads (e.g. empower, enlarge) and modifiers (e.g. enkindle), hence dual semantic representations (cf. Lieber’s 2004 analysis of de-): a. enlarge: en-: ‘cause to be A/N’ + large ‘large’ enkindle: en-: ‘emphatic’ + kindle ‘cause to be on fire’ b. unsaddle: un-: ‘cause not to have N’ + saddle ‘saddle’ unfreeze: un-: ‘not’ + freeze ‘cause to be frozen’

2.3. Theoretical solution: Conversion analysis (Marchand 1969, Kastovsky 1986, 1996) (10) V-to-V “N”-to-V “A”-to-V be-: [be-[moan]V]V , [be-[[fool]N ]V]V, [be-[[little]A ]V]V out-: [out-[achieve]V]V , [out-[[jockey]N ]V]V, [out-[[smart]A ]V]V en-: [en-[close]V]V , [en-[[cage]N ]V]V, [en-[[noble]A ]V]V de-: [de-[educate]V]V, [de-[[louse]N ]V]V dis-: [dis-[close]V]V, [dis-[[bar]N ]V]V un-: [un-[freeze ]V]V , [un-[[bottle]N ]V]V --- These prefixes always attach to V and derive V. --- These prefixes have a unitary semantic representation. 3. Diachronic evidence for the right-headed analysis: There seems to be no stage of grammar in which N/A-to-V prefixation is possible but V-to-V prefixation or N/A-to-V conversion is not. (11) a. be- (Marchand 1969, De La Cruz 1975, Fraser 1985, Kastovsky 2002) ►‘around, about’ (bebugan ‘flow around’, benorth) ►V-to-V intensive (beceorfan ‘cut off/up’, bestrew) ►V-to-V transitivizing (besprecan ‘speak against/about’, beshout) ►N/A-to-V transpositional (bebrave, benet) 2

[OE-ME] [OE-PE] [OE-ModE] [ModE-PE]

Types of be-verbs V-to-V, intensification V-to-V, transitivisation N/A-to-V, “make (into) A/N” N-to-V, “call N” N-to-V, “cover/bedaub with N” N-to-V, “affect with N” Total

16c. 121 18 16 2 40 21 218

17c. 84 12 29 7 33 37 202

18c. 9 4 4 8 6 11 42

19c. 52 16 13 2 21 35 139

Total 266 50 62 19 100 104 601

Table 1. The number of be-verbs formed in ModE b.

out- (Marchand 1969, Nevalainen 1999) ►‘out, outlying, outside, outward’ (outhouse, outflow, outgoing) ►V-to-V intensive (outbāken ‘bake thoroughly’, out-tire) ►V-to-V ‘surpassing, going beyond’ (outrennen ‘outrun’, outbid, outlive) ►N/A-to-V transpositional (outgun, outsubtle)

[OE-PE] [ME-ModE] [ME-PE] [the 16th c.-PE]

c.

un- (Marchand 1969, De La Cruz 1975, Kastovsky 1992, 2002, Nevalainen 1999) ►‘against, opposite’ (onsacan ‘contest’, andcwiss ‘answer’) [OE] ►V-to-V intensive (oncnawan ‘recognize’, onliesan ‘redeem’) [OE] ►V-to-V reversative (onwindan ‘unwind’, untie, unfreeze) [OE-PE] ►N-to-V transpositional (unman, unkennel) [ModE--]

d.

en-, dis-, de- (Marchand 1969, Burnley 1992, Nevalainen 1999, Kastovsky 2002) i. ►V-to-V intensive en- (enkindle, enwrap) [from the 14th c.] ►N-to-V transpositional en- (endanger, embosom) [productive in the 16th c.] ii. ►purely negative dis- (distrust, discare, disloyal) ►V-to-V reversative dis- (discompose, dishearten) ►N-to-V transpositional dis- (disburden, dishouse) iii. ►V-to-V reversative de- (demoralize, demilitalize) ►N-to-V transpositional de- (debark, decart)

[from the 15th c.] [the 15th c.-PE] [productive from the 16th c.] [the 18th c.-PE] [productive from the 19th c.]

(12) a. Conversion was already active in OE (Biese 1941, Marchand 1969, Kastovsky 1985, 1992). e.g. N-to-V conversion: heafdian ‘behead’, muncian ‘make a person into a monk’ A-to-V conversion: brædan ‘broaden’, byldan ‘make bold’ V-to-N conversion: cyme ‘coming’, faru ‘journey, going’, delf ‘digging’ b. Conversion began to develop on a larger scale at the beginning of the 13th century (Biese 1941); the number of new conversions increased steeply from the 13th century onward, showing a drop only in the 18th century. In PE, ‘conversion is an extremely productive way of producing new words’ (Bauer 1983: 226). (13)

Since all the V-deriving prefixes are originally of V-to-V type, and since conversion has produced denominal and deadjectival verbs since OE, there should emerge the possibility that right-headed morphology produces verbs of the structure [Prefix + [[N/A]V]V.

3

4. Derivational evidence for the right-headed analysis: Input morphology 4.1. Input morphology (I): The assumed converted base always exists as an actual word.

Table 2. Change-of-state be-verbs and their converted counterparts Be-verbs “make (into) N/A” Converted verbs from the same N/A beblind 1575 “make completely blind” to blind 1300 “make blind” bebrave 1576 “make brave” to brave 1593 “make brave” becalm 1613 “make calm” to calm 1559 “make calm” becripple 1660 “cripple” to cripple 1300 “make a cripple of” bedead 1656 “deaden” to dead 1340 “make dead” bedeaf 1620 “deafen” to deaf 1460 “make deaf” bedim 1583 “make dim” to dim 1300 “make dim” bedull 1617 “make dull” to dull 1392 “make dull” befast 1674 “fasten” to fast 1220 “make fast to” beghost 1620 “make a ghost of” to ghost 1606 “haunt as an apparition” beguilty 1653 “render guilty” No converted form beknight 1794 “make into a knight” to knight 1300 “create (one) a knight” belion 1837 “make a lion of” No converted form belittle 1782 “make small” to little 888 “make little” bemad 1605 “make mad” to mad 1399 “make mad” bemoist 1567 “make moist” to moist 1382 “render moist” bemonster 1605 “make monstrous” to monster 1605 “make a monster of” beprose 1739 “turn into prose” to prose 1393 “turn into prose” beshag 1868 “make shaggy” to shag 1612 “render shaggy” beslow 1645 “retard” to slow 1557 “delay, retard” besot 1581 “turn into a sot” to sot 1400 “render foolish” bestill 1770 “make quiet, still, hush” to still 1000 “make or become still” bewhig 1832 “convert into a whig” to whig 1681 “behave like a whig toward” Table 3. Ornative be-verbs and their converted counterparts Be-verbs “surround/cover with N” Converted verbs from the same N beash 1530 “cover with ashes” to ash 1645 “strew with ashes” bebutter 1611 to butter 1496 “smear with butter” becloud 1598 “cover with clouds” to cloud 1583 “cover with clouds” bedimple 1718 “cover with dimples” to dimple 1602 “mark with dimples” bedirt 1622 “cover with dirt” to dirt 1587 “pollute with dirt” bedust 1530 “cover with dust” to dust 1592 “sprinkle with dust” beflower 1594 “cover with flowers” to flower 1577 “cover with flowers” befoam 1618 “cover with foam” to foam 1400 “cover with foam” befog 1603 “envelop in fog” to fog 1599 “envelop with fog” befringe 1611 to fringe 1480 “furnish with a fringe” beguard 1605 “furnish with guards” to guard 1500 “ornament with guards” begum 1730 to gum 1610 “smear with gum” behoney 1611 “smear with honey” to honey 13.. “make sweet with honey” bejewel 1557 “deck with jewels” to jewel 1601 “furnish with jewels” belace 1648 “border with lace” to lace 1599 “ornament or trim with lace” belard 1885 to lard 1330 “insert lard in” belime 1555 “cover with bird-lime” to lime 1413 “smear with bird-lime” belitter 1660 “strew with litter” to litter 1398 “furnish with litter” bemire 1532 “cover with mire” to mire 1508 “bespatter with mire” bepearl 1640 “cover with pearls” to pearl 1386 “adorn with pearls” 4

bepitch 1547 “cover with pitch” to pitch 1000 “cover with pitch” beplague 1870 to plague 1481 “afflict with plague” bepowder 1583 “powder over” to powder 1305 “sprinkle with powder” berust 1631 to rust 1596 “affect with rust” bescurf 1653 to scurf 1599 “cover with a scurf” beshame 1556 “cover with shame” to shame 1530 “fill with shame” bespangle 1612 “set about with to spangle 1548 “decorate with spangles” spangles” besugar 1611 to sugar 1530 “cover with sugar” betallow 1638 to tallow 1400 “smear with tallow” betear 1580 “suffuse with tears” to tear 1620 “fill with tears” beulcer 1662 to ulcer 1590 “ulcerate” bevenom 1565 to venom 1350 “put venom in/on” bewig 1774 “furnish with a wig” to wig 1826 “supply with a wig” (14) a.

out-: outdevil 1883/ to devil 1593, outfool 1638/ to fool 1593, outfriend 1615/ to friend 1387, outbreast 1612/ to breast 1599, outmouth 1625/ to mouth 1300, outtrap 1806/ to trap 1460, outhymn 1704/ to hymn 1677, outnight 1596/ to night 1303, outplot 1681/ to plot 1590 b. en-: enearnest 1603/ to earnest 1602, enfree 1599/ to free 1000, entame 1600/ to tame 1315, encup 1881/ to cup 1482, enshelter 1611/ to shelter 1590, ensoap 1598/ to soap 1585, encap 1847/ to cap 1482, enleaf 1789/ to leaf 1611, enspangle 1648/ to spangle 1548 c. un-: uncork 1727/ to cork 1580, unfrill 1791/ to frill 1574, unmask 1602/ to mask 1588, uncage 1602/ to cage 1577, unhook 1611/ to hook 1250, unthrone 1611/ to throne 1377, unbaronet 1867/ to baronet 1733, uncountess 1797/ to countess 1785, ungrand 1747/ to grand 1602 d. dis-: discrest 1887/ to crest 1440, disennui1829/ to ennui 1805, disfoliage 1885/ to foliage 1836, dispowder 1865/ to powder 1305, disarchbishop 1875/ to archbishop 1692, disprince 1847/ to prince 1590, discastle 1876/ to castle 1587, dischest 1579/ to chest 1473 e. de-: decart 1860/ to cart 1440, deflesh 1837/ to flesh 1530, demiracle 1884/ to miracle 1611, deparliament 1648/ to parliament 1491, depetticoat 1892/ to petticoat 1850, deprivilege 1979/ to privilege 1386, detenant 1883/ to tenant 1634, detruth 1647/ to truth 1300

4.2. Input morphology (II): Prefixed and converted verbs are subject to the same morphological restriction. (15) V-to-V prefixation bedarken, bequalify, beruffianize, besanctify, bewomanize; encapsulate, enlighten, enliven; deactivate, decentralize, dehumidify (16)

N/A-to-V prefixation becalm, befriend, beguile; enable, encamp, engender; debark, decode, detrain (Hammond 1993)

(17)

N/A-to-V conversion *to abandonee, *to arrival, *to banality, *to guidance, *to kindness, *to improvement, *to organization (Marchand 1969: 372-373, Bauer 1983: 226-227)

(18) a. to airmail, to chairman, to moonlight, to piggy-bank b. be-blockhead, bebutterfly, benightmare, beschoolmaster (19)

Lexicalized bases are perceived as simplexes. a. to allowance, to pressure, to slipper, to supplement, to package b. beguilty, beknowledge, bemissionary, beslipper 5

(Clark and Clark 1979)

(Clark and Clark 1979)

Table 4. Restriction on input morphology Input form Conversion a. Simplex form b. Suffixed form c. Compound form

√ (to friend) * √ (to airmail)

Prefixation N-to-V √ (befriend) * √ (beschoolmaster)

V-to-V √ (bebark) √ (bedarken) no compound V

5. Derivational evidence for the right-headed analysis: Output semantics A denominal/deadjectival prefixed verb expresses the meaning of a converted verb modified by the meaning of a V-to-V prefix. Structure Semantics ► The left-headed analysis: [Prefix + N]V ---The prefix: head, The base: modifier ► The right-headed analysis: [Prefix + [N]V]V ---- The prefix: modifier, The converted base: head

5.1. The semantics of V-to-V prefixation (20) Di Sciullo (1997): verbal prefixes are aspectual adjuncts, internal or external to the verbal projection. a. Internal prefixes affects the internal event structure (Aktionsart) and argument structure (AS) of the base verb (e.g. French en-: emporter ‘bring in’ < en- + porter ‘carry’) b. External prefixes modify the base verb as a whole adverbially and do not affect its event structure or AS (e.g. French dé-: décomposer ‘decompose’ < dé- + composer ‘compose’). (21)

The V-to-V prefixes in ModE a. Internal prefixes: be- (intensive/transitivizing), out- (‘surpassing’) b. External prefixes: en- (intensive), de- (reversative), dis- (reversative), un- (reversative)

(22) a. AS: shout (int.) > beshout (tr.), run (int.) > outrun (tr.) b. aktionsart: be-verbs and out-verbs are accomplishments (e.g. bekick, belike; outwork, outgrow). c. Unselected objects: {beshout/*shout} the child, {bedwell/*dwell} the village, {outsing/*sing} Mary, {outrun/*run} Mary, {outlast/*last} one’s time (23)

Internal prefixation involves LCS subordination (Spencer and Zaretskaya 1998, Kemenade and Los 2003, Los 2008) or LCS conflation (McIntyre 2003, Hasebe 2004). a. the LCS of ‘intensive/transitivizing’ be-verbs: [[x COMPLETELY AFFECT y] BY [x VERB (PREP) y]] (Booij 1992: 56; 2005: 210) b. the LCS of ‘surpassing’ out-verbs: [[x SURPASS y] IN [x/y VERB]] (cf. Yumoto 1997: 194)

(24) a. x bestrew y: x beshout y: b. x outsing y: x outrun y: (25)

[x COMPLETELY AFFECT y] BY [x STREW y] [x COMPLETELY AFFECT y] BY [x SHOUT AT y] [x SURPASS y] IN [x /y SING] [x SURPASS y] IN [x/y RUN]

External prefixation adds a modificational semantic element to the input LCS. a. reversative un-/de-/dis-verbs: x untie y: [x CAUSE [BECOME [y BE NOT AT/IN [TIED]]]] x discompose y: [x CAUSE [BECOME [y BE NOT AT/IN [COMPOSED]]]] x demilitarize y: [x CAUSE [BECOME [y BE NOT WITH [MILITARY]]]] 6

b. intensive en-verbs: x enwrap y: [x CAUSE [BECOME [y BE AT/IN [WRAPPED]]]]

(Boldface signifies emphasis.)

5.2. The semantics of N/A-to-V conversion (26) Converted verbs are semantically sparse (Clark and Clark 1979, Aronoff 1980, Lieber 1992), expressing much more diverse meanings than suffixed verbs (Plag 1999, Lieber 2004). Table 5. The main meanings of denominal and deadjectival converted verbs OE ME ModE PE Suffixation a. locative ‘put into N’, hūsian shrine casket archive hospitalize change-of-state ‘make (into) N/A’ martyrian knight slave zero acidify b. ornative ‘provide with N’ bōcian fodder jewel caption fluorinate c. similative ‘act like N’ þēofian cripple mother terrier nannify d. instrumental ‘affect with N’ næglan saw raft fax — e. privative ‘deprive of N’ heafdian head husk brash — f. ablative ‘remove from N’ — mine shell pod — g. performative ‘perform N’ weddian witness capture access — h. object-incorporating fug(e)lian whelp vacation nosh — i. miscellaneous þunrian piece riddle yo-yo — NB1. ‘Object-incorporating’ refers to converted verbs that incorporate their base noun as a direct object. NB2. For the LCSs of these semantic classes, see Kageyama (1997). 5.3. The semantics of N/A-to-V prefixation 5.3.1. Internal prefixes + converted verbs (27) be-prefixation on converted verbs a. change-of-state: beknight ‘make a knight’ i. x knight y: [x CAUSE [BECOME [y BE KNIGHT]]] ii. x beknight y: [x COMPLETELY AFFECT y] BY [x CAUSE [BECOME [y BE KNIGHT]]] b. ornative: bejewel ‘adorn with jewels’ i. x jewel y: [x CAUSE [BECOME [y BE WITH JEWEL]]] ii. x bejewel y: [x COMPLETELY AFFECT y] BY [x CAUSE [BECOME [y BE WITH JEWEL]]] c. similative: bedevil ‘treat diabolically’ i. x devil (y): [x ACT (ON y) LIKE DEVIL] ii. x bedevil y: [x COMPLETELY AFFECT y] BY [x ACT ON y LIKE DEVIL] d. privative: betail ‘deprive the tail of’ i. x tail y: [x CAUSE [BECOME [y BE NOT WITH TAIL]]] ii. x betail y: [x COMPLETELY AFFECT y] BY [x CAUSE [BECOME [y BE NOT WITH TAIL]]] (28) out-prefixation on converted verbs a. similative: outdevil ‘outdo in deviling’ i. x devil (y): [x ACT (ON y) LIKE DEVIL] (= (27c) (i)) ii. x outdevil z: [x SURPASS z] IN [x/z ACT LIKE DEVIL] (29) a. Be-/out-verbs are always transitive due to the LCS subordination in (23a, b). b. Be- attaches to transitive converted verbs or unergative verbs taking a prepositional object, whereas out- attaches to intransitive converted verbs. This is due to the difference between the functions BY and IN. c. The holistic interpretation of be-verbs stems from the notion of complete affectedness expressed by the superordinate LCS component. 7

e.g. bejewel X ‘adorn X all over with jewels’ vs. jewel X ‘adorn X with jewels’ bejeweled crown (depreciative) vs. jeweled crown 5.3.2. External prefixes + converted verbs (30) un-prefixation on converted verbs a. ablative: unhearse ‘remove from a hearse’ i. x hearse y: [x CAUSE [BECOME [y BE IN HEARSE]]] ii. x unhearse y: [x CAUSE [BECOME [y BE NOT IN HEARSE]]] b. privative: unjewel ‘deprive of jewel’ i. x jewel y: [x CAUSE [BECOME [y BE WITH JEWEL]]] (= (27b) (i)) ii. x unjewel y: [x CAUSE [BECOME [y BE NOT WITH JEWEL]]] (31) en-prefixation on converted verbs a. locative: enhearse ‘put in a hearse’ i. x hearse y: [x CAUSE [BECOME [y BE IN HEARSE]]] (= (30a) (i)) ii. x enhearse y: [x CAUSE [BECOME [y BE IN HEARSE]]] b. ornative: enjewel ‘adorn with jewels’ i. x jewel y: [x CAUSE [BECOME [y BE WITH JEWEL]]] (= (27b) (i)) ii. x enjewel y: [x CAUSE [BECOME [y BE WITH JEWEL]]] (32) a. The external prefixes semantically target the resultant-state component of the input LCS, so they attach to the locative and ornative verbs. e.g. *un- + to devil (similative), *en- + to tongue (instrumental) b. The analysis in (30a, b) shows that the prefixal privative and ablative meanings should be subsumed under the reversative meaning; they express the reversal of the pre-action expressed by the converted verb. The genuine privative and ablative meanings do not presuppose the pre-action (Kastovsky 2002), so they are expressed without prefixes, as follows: e.g. privative: to feather a goose, to seed the grapes, to string the beans, to milk the cow (= Table 5 (e)) ablative: to mine the tin, to pod the peas, to quarry a white stone, to shell peas (= Table 5 (f))

6. Concluding Remarks (33) Summary a. N/A-to-V prefixation developed from conversion and V-to-V prefixation. It was established in the ModE period. b. The derivational properties of N/A-to-V prefixation can be reduced to those of conversion and V-to-V prefixation. c. Therefore, so-called category-changing prefixes do not actually change the category of their base. They do not violate the RHR. So-called category-changing prefixation is nothing but a type of V-to-V prefixation. (34) a. The derivational function of prefixes is purely semantic. Each derivational prefix has information about the semantics but not the category of its output derivatives. b. Not only the prefixes in (4) but also other V-to-V prefixes can give rise to examples of so-called category-changing prefixation. (35)

The other prefixes with V-to-V usage: fore-, inter-, mis-, pre-, re-, sub-, super-, trans-, over-, undere.g. forebode, interaccuse, misread, premake, rewrite, sublet, superfix, trans-situate 8

(36) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.

fore-: inter-: mis-: pre-: re-: sub-: super-: trans-: over-: under-:

to forepicture, to forepole, to foreprophecy, to foreshield, to forespell to interfinger, to interlibel, to interpage, to interplait, to intersoil, to intersour to miscipher, to miscode, to misenglish, to misperson, to misword, to misyoke to preclean, to predevine, to predoom, to prefool, to preplot, to preprogram to recement, to redistrict, to rejigger, to rejourney, to reperiwig, to reyoung to subfeu, to subminister to superbody, to supercool, to superdevil, to superheat to transdialect, to transparish, to trans-spirit, to transverse, to transvillage to overchill, to overfeast, to overfee, to overjob, to overman, to overland, to overnurse to underchurch, to undercomment, to underfund, to undergarrison, to understaff

(37)

foremind 1513/ to mind 1340, interpale 1553/ to pale 1330, misenglish 1567/ to English 1388, prefashion 1614/ to fashion 1413, transboard 1807/ to board 1494, reserene 1755/ to serene 1613

(38) a. b. c. d. e. f.

to misread/miscipher X means ‘to read/cipher X badly’. to sublet/subfeu X means ‘to let/feu X further’. to superfix/superdevil X means ‘to fix/devil over X’. to forebode/forepicture X means ‘to bode/picture X beforehand’. to interaccuse/interlibel means ‘to accuse/libel among themselves or one another’. to premake/preplot X means ‘to make/plot X beforehand’.

REFERENCES Adams, Valerie. 2001. Complex words in English. Harlow: Pearson. Aronoff, Mark. 1980. Contextuals. Language 56, 744–758. Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, Laurie and Rodney Huddleston. 2002. Lexical word-formation. In Rodney Huddleson and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 1621–1721. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biese, Y. M. 1941. Origin and development of conversions in English. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, B XLV. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Booij, Geert. 1992. Morphology, semantics and argument structure. In I. M. Roca (ed.), Thematic structure: Its role in grammar, 47–63. Berlin: Foris. Booij, Geert. 2005. The grammar of words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Booij, Geert and Jaap van Marle (eds.). Yearbook of morphology 2003. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Burnley, David. 1992. Lexis and semantics. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 2, 409–499. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark, Eve V. and Herbert H. Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55, 767–811. De La Cruz, Juan M. 1975. Old English pure prefixes: structure and function. Linguistics 145, 47–81. Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria. 1997. Prefixed-verbs and adjunct identification. In Anna-Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), Projections and interface conditions: Essays on modularity, 52–73. New York: Oxford University Press. Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). 1985. Historical semantics・Historical word-formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fraser, Thomas. 1985. Etymology and the lexical semantics of the Old English preverb be-. In Fisiak (ed.), 113–126. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hammond, Michael. 1993. On the absence of category-changing prefixes in English. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 562–567. 9

Hasebe, Ikuko. 2004. Over- + V in English and compound verbs in Japanese. English Linguistics 21, 1–33. Kageyama, Taro. 1997. Denominal verbs and relative salience in lexical conceptual structure. In Kageyama (ed.), 45–96. Kageyama, Taro (ed.). 1997. Verb semantics and syntactic structure. Tokyo: Kurosio. Kastovsky, Dieter. 1985. Deverbal nouns in Old and Modern English: From stem-formation to word-formation. In Fisiak (ed.), 221–261. Kastovsky, Dieter. 1986. Problems in the morphological analysis of complex lexical items. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Tomus 36, 93–107. Kastovsky, Dieter. 1992. Semantics and vocabulary. In Richard M. Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 1, 290–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kastovsky, Dieter. 1996. Verbal derivation in English: A historical survey or much ado about nothing. In Derek Britton (ed.), English historical linguistics 1994, 93–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kastovsky, Dieter. 2002. The derivation of ornative, locative, ablative, privative and reversative verbs in English. In Teresa Fanego, Maria José López-Couso, and Javier Pérez-Guerra (eds.), English historical syntax and morphology: A selected papers from 11 ICEHL, 99–109. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kemenade, Ans van and Bettelou Los. 2003. Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English. In Booij and van Marle (ed.), 79–117. Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the organization of the lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lieber, Rochelle. 2005. English word-formation processes: Observations, issues, and thoughts on future research. In Štekauer and Lieber (eds.), 375–427. Lieber, Rochelle. 2006. The category of roots and the roots of categories: What we learn from selection in derivation. Morphology 16, 247–272. Los, Bettelou. 2008. Particles as grammaticalized complex predicates. In Maurizio Gotti, Marina Dossena and Richard Dury (eds.), English historical linguistics 2006: Syntax and morphology, 157–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach, 2nd edn. Munich: C. H. Beck’sche. McIntyre, Andrew. 2003. Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles. In Booij and van Marle (eds.), 119–144. Namiki, Takayasu. 1982. The notion of ‘head of a word’ and core and periphery word formation: interaction between affixation and subcategorization. Studies in English Linguistics 10, 21–41. Nevalainen, Terttu. 1999. Early Modern English lexis and semantics. In Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 3, 332–458. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn., on CD-ROM version 3.1. 2004. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 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. Plag, Ingo. 2004. Syntactic category information and the semantics of derivational morphological rules. Folia Linguistica 38, 193—225. Scalise, Sergio. 1988. The notion of ‘head’ in morphology. In Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1988, 229—246. Dordrecht: Foris. Spencer, Andrew and Marina Zaretskaya. 1998. Verbal prefixation in Russian as lexical subordination. Linguistics 36, 1–39. Štekauer, Pavol and Rochelle Lieber. 2005. Handbook of word-formation. Dordrecht: Springer. Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of word’. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245–274. Yumoto, Yoko. 1997. Verbal prefixation on the level of semantic structure. In Kageyama (ed.), 177–204. 10