2026-05-17T18:13:51Zhttps://www.bilketa.eus/in/rest/oai

oai:www.bilketa.eus:ark:/27020/ASJU-3902ALL2025-10-25T06:23:27Z

https://www.bilketa.eus/ark:/27020/ASJU-3902Padrosa Trias, SusannaASJU, 39022007-04-13In this paper I argue that en-prefixed words in Catalan and English (e.g. amorN 'love' > [[en+amor]V+ar]V 'to make someone fall in love'; nobleA > [en+noble]V are not exceptions to the Right-hand Head Rule (RHR; Williams 1981a). I argue that a Ø-suffix, and not the prefix en-, is responsible for the conversion of adjectives and nouns to verbs (Neeleman & Schipper 1992). The q-grid of N/A-to-V prefixations provides the empirical evidence in favour of the conversion-suffix. The Ø-suffix will be responsible for the presence of a [+c] role and the prefix will account for the [-c-m] features sometimes present in denominal verbs. I will also show that an unaccusative approach (Grimshaw 1990, Sportiche 1998) to reflexives (in Romance) can deal with the data more satisfactorily than an unergative one (Reinhart & Siloni 1999). Finally, a syntactic theory of argument structure (cf. Hale & Keyser 1993, 1998, 2002) will prove not to be sufficient to account for the data. In this paper I argue that en-prefixed words in Catalan and English (e.g. amorN 'love' > [[en+amor]V+ar]V 'to make someone fall in love'; nobleA > [en+noble]V are not exceptions to the Right-hand Head Rule (RHR; Williams 1981a). I argue that a Ø-suffix, and not the prefix en-, is responsible for the conversion of adjectives and nouns to verbs (Neeleman & Schipper 1992). The q-grid of N/A-to-V prefixations provides the empirical evidence in favour of the conversion-suffix. The Ø-suffix will be responsible for the presence of a [+c] role and the prefix will account for the [-c-m] features sometimes present in denominal verbs. I will also show that an unaccusative approach (Grimshaw 1990, Sportiche 1998) to reflexives (in Romance) can deal with the data more satisfactorily than an unergative one (Reinhart & Siloni 1999). Finally, a syntactic theory of argument structure (cf. Hale & Keyser 1993, 1998, 2002) will prove not to be sufficient to account for the data.In this paper I argue that en-prefixed words in Catalan and English (e.g. amorN 'love' > [[en+amor]V+ar]V 'to make someone fall in love'; nobleA > [en+noble]V are not exceptions to the Right-hand Head Rule (RHR; Williams 1981a). I argue that a Ø-suffix, and not the prefix en-, is responsible for the conversion of adjectives and nouns to verbs (Neeleman & Schipper 1992). The q-grid of N/A-to-V prefixations provides the empirical evidence in favour of the conversion-suffix. The Ø-suffix will be responsible for the presence of a [+c] role and the prefix will account for the [-c-m] features sometimes present in denominal verbs. I will also show that an unaccusative approach (Grimshaw 1990, Sportiche 1998) to reflexives (in Romance) can deal with the data more satisfactorily than an unergative one (Reinhart & Siloni 1999). Finally, a syntactic theory of argument structure (cf. Hale & Keyser 1993, 1998, 2002) will prove not to be sufficient to account for the data. https://ojs.ehu.eus/index.php/ASJU/article/view/3902/3516https://ojs.ehu.eus/index.php/ASJU/article/view/3902vignette : https://www.bilketa.eus/in/rest/Thumb/image?id=ark:/27020/ASJU-3902&mat=articleNumengCopyright (c) 2015 Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca "Julio de Urquijo"Argument structure and morphology: the case of en-prefixation revisited