Datapoint for feature 111A and language wals_code_eng

Discuss WALS Datapoint for feature 111A and language wals_code_eng.

4 Responses to “Datapoint for feature 111A and language wals_code_eng”

  1. Thomas Hart Chappell Says:

    What example of a morphological nonperiphrastic causative is there in English?
    What reference says English has morphological nonperiphrastic causatives?

  2. Jae Jung Song Says:

    English has morphological causatives, albeit not very productive, e.g. -fy as in falsify, beautify, solidify, en- as in enable, encourage, enlarge, enslave -ize in materialize, industrialize, privatize.

  3. Thomas Hart Chappell Says:

    -fy makes \false\ into \falsify\, etc.; (\false\ and \solid\ are adjectives, \beauty\ is a noun):

    en- makes \able\ into \enable\, etc.; (\able\ and \large\ are adjectives, \courage\ is a noun);

    -ize makes \material\ into \materialize\ (\material\, \industrial\, and \private\ are all adjectives.

    The periphrastic causatives English has all work on verbs.

    Does English have any morphological causativization that produce the same sort of transformation of the semantics that its periphrastic causatives produce?

    In the chapter 111A text, section 1 \Defining Non-Periphrastic Causative Constructions\, says \… in which the causee … or undergoes a change of condition or state as a result of the causer’s action\.

    So falsify, beautify, solidify, enable, encourage, enlarge, materialize, industrialize, privatize, are indeed all non-periphrastic causative constructions by that definition.

    Hwoever section 2 \Defining the values\, says \The morphological type involves a morphological process which applies directly to a basic verb\.

    So none of those examples are morphological type, since the affixes \-fy\, \en-\, and \-ize\ aren’t applied to verbs.

    They aren’t compound type either, since they don’t consist of a series of two verbs.

  4. Thomas Hart Chappell Says:

    My question about “Datapoint for feature 111A and language wals_code_eng” has been answered completely, and I’m satisfied that the datapoint is correct as it stands.

    But I stil think the paragraph in section 2 “Defining the Values” on the _Morpholgical_Type, is misleading. It implies that the input (”the basic verb”) to the causativization process must be a verb, but that the output (”the causative predicate”) need not be. Apparently that’s exactly backwards.

    Did I misunderstand? If so, can that paragraph be rewritten more clearly?

Leave a Reply