Cover not available
Part of
Lexical Polycategoriality: Cross-linguistic, cross-theoretical and language acquisition approaches
Edited by Valentina Vapnarsky and Edy Veneziano
[Studies in Language Companion Series 182] 2017
► pp. 175–203

What determines constraints on the relationships between roots and lexical categories?

Evidence from Choctaw and Cherokee

| University of Oklahoma
Evidence from Amerindian languages suggests that there are roots that have no inherent lexical category and roots that do. Both can co-exist in a single language. Acategorial roots, typical of Cherokee, have semantic content, but lexical category does not emerge until the level of the grammatical word. Words that share lexical roots are not predictable in their relationships. A different type of root, exemplified in Choctaw, places robust restrictions on its derivations. These roots predict not only a verb-noun correspondence, but also the semantic type of derivation. Nouns derived from verbs utilize the argument structure of the related verb to determine semantic type. Predicative roots with no argument structure have no predictable correspondences; those derivations are simply examples of conversion.
Keywords: polycategoriality, lexical roots, Amerindian languages, properties of lexical categories, conversion
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The nature of lexical categories
    • 2.1A strict use of the term noun
  • 3.Conversion is not polycategoriality
    • 3.1Polycategoriality must involve predictable relationships
  • 4.Roots with no inherent lexical category
    • 4.1A pure noun root in Cherokee
    • 4.2Kuikuro evidence
  • 5.Lexical roots with inherent category
    • 5.1Choctaw noun-verb pairs are related through argument structure
    • 5.2Choctaw derivational affixes do not change lexical category
  • 6.A pure noun root class in Choctaw
    • 6.1Choctaw roots of the neutral morphological class that are not verbs
  • 7.The persistence of the verbal property argument structure
  • 8.Morphological class and lexical category
  • 9.Are there polycategorial roots?
  • 10.Implications
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.182.07haa
References (34)
References
Arad, M. 2005. Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2003. Lexical Categories. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. & Valera, S. 2005. Conversion or zero derivation: An introduction. In Approaches to Conversion/Zero derivation, L. Bauer & S. Valera (eds), 7–18. Munster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Beard, R. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Borer, H. 2003. Exo-skeletal versus endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory, J. Moore & M. Polinks (eds), 31–67. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. 2006. Polycategoriality and predictability: Problems and prospects. In Lexical Categories and Root Classes in Amerindian Languages, X. Lois & V. Vapnarsky (eds), 343–389. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (eds), 184–221. Waltham MA: Ginn and Co.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Parts of speech as language universals and as language-particular categories. In Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes, P. Vogel & B. Comrie (eds), 65–102. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delancey, S. 1997. Grammaticalization and the gradience of categories. In Essays on Language Function and Language Type, J. Bybee, J. Haiman & S. Thompson (eds), 51–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. 1997. Are grammatical relations universal? In Essays on Language Function and Language Type, J. Bybee, J. Haiman & S. Thompson (eds), 115–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feeling, D. & Pulte, W. 1975. Cherokee-English Dictionary. Tahlequah OK: Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.Google Scholar
Feeling, D., Kopris, C., Lachler, J. & van Tuyl, C. 2003. A Handbook of the Cherokee Verb. Tahlequah OK: Cherokee National Historical Society, Inc.Google Scholar
Franchetto, B. 2006. Are Kuikuro roots lexical categories? In Lexical Categories and Root Classes in Amerindian Languages, X. Lois & V. Vapnarsky (eds), 33–68. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2008. Roots, nouns and verbs and other dangerous things: Kuikuro (Southern Carib, Brazil). Ms presented at the International Conference on Polycategoriality , École Normale Supérieure, Paris.
. 2010. The emergence of nouns and verbs in Kuikuro language and children’s speech. Ms presented at the second International Conference on Polycategoriality , École Normale Supérieure, Paris.
Haag, M. 1996. Lexical Categories in Choctaw and Universal Grammar. PhD dissertation, State University of New York at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
. 1997. Continuous and discrete adjectival scales. Lingua 103: 113–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Word-level evidence for lexical categories in Salishan languages. IJAL 64: 379–393.Google Scholar
. 2006. Thematic structure and lexemes: A comparison of Choctaw and Cherokee word formation. In Root Classes and Lexical Categories in Amerindian Languages, X. Lois & V. Vapnarsky (eds), 117–146. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Halle, M., & Marantz, A. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, K. Hale & S.J. Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jelinek, E. 1995. Quantification in Straits Salish . In Quantification in Natural Languages, Vol. 2, E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer & B. Partee (eds), 487–540. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
King, D. 1975. A Grammar and Dictionary of the Cherokee Language. PhD dissertation, University of Georgia.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. 2006. The category of roots and the roots of categories: What we learn from selection in derivation. Morphology 16: 247–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lois, X. & Vapnarsky, V. 2006. Root indeterminacy and polyvalence in Yukatekan Mayan languages. In Lexical Categories and Root Classes in Amerindian Languages, X. Lois & V. Vapnarsky (eds), 117–136. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1997. No escape from syntax. In Proceedings of the 1998 Penn Linguistics Colloquium, A. Dimitriadis & I. Siegel (eds), 201–225. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60: 847–894. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Noun and verb in Iroquoian languages: Multicategorisation from multiple criteria. In Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes, P. Vogel & B. Comrie (eds), 397–420. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montgomery-Anderson, B. 2008. A Reference Grammar of Oklahoma Cherokee. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Neef, M. 2005. On some alleged constraints on conversion. In Approaches to Conversion/Zero derivation, L. Bauer & S. Valera (eds), 103–130. Munster: Waxman.Google Scholar
Noonan, M. 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In Essays on Language Function and Language Type, J. Bybee, J. Haiman, & S. Thompson (eds), 373–394. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scancarelli, J. 1987. Grammatical Relations and Verb Agreement in Cherokee. PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Skeat, W. 2005. An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. Mineola NY: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.