Portuguese converted deverbal nouns: Constraints on their bases

Abstract

0-IntroductionConversion is one of the mechanisms which are responsible for the formation of deverbal nouns in Portuguese. Portuguese converted deverbal nouns are morphologically characterised by a stem, inherited from the base verb, and a theme vowel (1).(1)corte 'cut'-CONVERTED DEVERBAL NOUN cort 'to cut'-VERBAL STEM e-NOMINAL THEME VOWEL voo 'flight'-CONVERTED DEVERBAL NOUN vo-'to fly'-VERBAL STEM o-NOMINAL THEME VOWEL This theme vowel, as is common to nouns which have not a deverbal origin nor even a derivational one, i.e., which are basic nouns (mesa 'table', gato 'cat', ponte 'bridge'), does not have a derivational status (cf. Aronoff (1994: 45-46) for the arguments of stating a theme vowel -Aronoff's work is related with theme vowels of Latin verbs, but the arguments are transferable to nominal theme vowelsas a morphophonological unit lacking semantic content; cf. Rodrigues (to appear) for the negation of the derivational status to the theme vowel of Portuguese converted deverbal nouns; cf. Kerleroux (1996) forthe assumption of conversion as the mechanism that forms French nouns such as attaque 'attack' and avance 'advance' from the verbs attaquer 'to attack' and avancer 'to advance', respectively; and Rodrigues (2001) for the same assumption related to Portuguese converted deverbal nouns).The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that there are constraints that govern the formation of converted deverbal nouns with regard to the kind of verbs that may or may not function as bases of these deverbal nouns and that those constraints, although belonging to different structures of language, have interfaces with each other. The existence of those constraints shows that (i) the constraints on the bases are not exclusively founded on morphological incompatibilities between derivational affixes and other morphological units to which those would be adjoined, and thus, a derivational mechanism which does not involve affixation, such as conversion, is also ruled by restrictions on the bases; (ii) structural constraintsbased on prosodic, morphological, lexical-semantic and argument

Limits on the extension of affixal combination: structural restrictions and processing conditions

“…This emphasises studies such as Ji et al (2011: 419), who highlight the importance of semantics to the processing of words. It also stresses works such as Gagné and Spalding (2004, 2009, who propose that the reconstruction of meaning depends on data of the meanings of constituents, when available.…”

“…Nevertheless, it is a productive pattern as long as it functions as a productive way to form words and to enable their recognition (cf. Bauer and Valera (2005) Valera (2015); Rodrigues (2001;2009;2013)). This is the case of conversion of noun to verb in English, such as hammerN/to hammerV.…”

“…conversion) or working with other kinds of morphological derivational devices (backformation; compounding) (cf. Rainer 2005;Rodrigues 2009;2014;. Structural constraints are described as (in)compatibilities working on the phonological, semantic and syntactic structures, in different tiers of each of the structures.…”

“…Considering morphemes as either lexical items or as spell-outs of rules (cf. Beard 1995), we follow authors such as Schreuder and Baayen (1995: 132), who defend the notion that morphological structure serves the computation of meaning, Ji et al (2011: 419), who emphasize the importance of semantics to the processing of words, and Gagné and Spalding (2004, 2009, who suggest that the reconstruction of meaning departs from information of the meanings of constituents, if this kind of information is available (cf. also Libben 1998: 32 for compounds).…”

Nomes deverbais não sufixados e os equívocos da falsa “derivação regressiva” no português brasileiro e europeu

“…Os nomes em análise têm sido encarados como formados por supressão de Vogal Temática e de Morfema de Infinitivo (apoiar > [apoio]N) -visão regressiva tradicional -, como formados por conversão (Rodrigues, 2001(Rodrigues, , 2009 (Resende, 2016). Esta última interpretação parte do princípio de que toda a nominalização deverbal implica sufixação, explícita ou não ([ø]).…”