Cover not available
Part of
Paradigms in Word Formation: Theory and applications
Edited by Alba E. Ruz, Cristina Fernández-Alcaina and Cristina Lara-Clares
[Studies in Language Companion Series 225] 2022
► pp. 319–340

Chapter 12
English participles in the derivational paradigm

 | Goldsmiths, University of London
This chapter surveys the different uses of the English participles and discusses their status with respect to the distinction between derivation and inflection. In the debate about whether participles are verbal or adjectival, or indeed a mix between the two, most scholars have taken the position that ability to undergo further derivation (with affixes like -ness or negative un- for instance) indicates adjectival status. The paper assumes a descriptive focus and, without aiming to take a conclusive position relative to this general debate, explores such derivation further. The patterns covered in the paper are relatively few, but productive. This leads to derivational networks with sparse membership, but generally stable formal and semantic alignment.
Keywords: participle, derivational paradigms, deadjectival derivation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Participles in English: An overview
    • 2.1Participial constructions as modifiers
  • 3.Participles and the inflection-derivation distinction
  • 4.Participial adjectives from complex verbs
  • 5.Participles and affixation with -ly
  • 6.Suffixation with -ness
  • 7.Negative prefixation
  • 8.Participles in the derivational paradigm
  • 9.Summary
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 September 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.225.12pop
References (50)
References
Aarts, Bas. Forthcoming. Participles and so-called synthetic compounds as attributive modifiers in English. In Word Grammar, Cognition and Dependency, Andrew Rosta, Eva Eppler & Nikolas Gisborne (eds). Cambridge: CUP.
Ackerman, Farrell & Stump, Gregory. 2004. Paradigms and periphrastic expressions. In Projecting Morphology, Louisa Sadler & Andrew Spencer (eds), 111–157. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Webelhuth, Gert. 1998. A Theory of Predicates. Standford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Gehrke, Berit & Schäfer, Florian. 2014. The argument structure of adjectival participles revisited. Lingua 149: 118–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan & Corbett, Greville. 2005. The Syntax-Morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville G. & Brown, Dunstan (eds). 2010. Defective Paradigms: Missing Forms and What They Tell Us. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2001. Paradigmatic derivation. Transactions of the Philological Society 99(2): 211–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonami, Olivier. 2015. Periphrasis as collocation. Morphology 25(1): 63–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Strnadová, Jana. 2019. Paradigm structure and predictability in derivational morphology. Morphology 29(2): 167–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyé, Gilles & Schalchli, Gauvain. 2016. The status of paradigms. In The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, Andrew Hippisley & Gregory Stump (eds), 206–234. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. In The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Joan Bresnan (ed.). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina, Corbett, Greville, Popova, Gergana & Spencer, Andrew. 2012. Defining ‘periphrasis’: Key notions. Morphology 22(2): 233–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. Word-formation is syntactic: Adjectival passives in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 363–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2010. Canonical derivational morphology. Word Structure 3(2): 141–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2004. British National Corpus (from Oxford University Press). <[URL]> (10 September 2021).
. 2018. The iWeb Corpus. <[URL]> (10 September 2021).
De Smet, Hendrik & Vancayzeele, Evelyn. 2015. Like a rolling stone: The changing use of English premodifying present participles. English Language and Linguistics 19(1): 131–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3): 355–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio. 2014. Adjectival and adverbial derivation. In The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 276–295. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. Structural and lexical aspects of the morphology of English participles. In Paradigms in Word Formation: Theory and Applications [Studies in Language Companion Series 225], Alba E. Ruz, Cristina Fernández-Alcaina & Cristina Lara-Clares (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 2012. The morphology of -ly and the categorial status of ‘adverbs’ in English. English Language and Linguistics 16(3): 341–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1996. Word-class-changing inflection and morphological theory. In Yearbook of Morphology 1995, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 43–66. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hathout, Nabil & Namer, Fiammetta. 2019. Paradigms in word formation: What are we up to? Morphology 29: 153–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B. & Baayen, R. Harald. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9: 342–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Körtvélyessy, Lívia, Bagasheva, Alexandra & Štekauer, Pavol (eds). 2020. Derivational Networks across Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2016. On the interplay of facts and theory: Revisiting synthetic compounds in English. In Morphological Metatheory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 229], Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds), 513–536. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lowe, John J. 2019. The syntax and semantics of nonfinite forms. Annual Review of Linguistics 5: 309–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach, 2nd edn. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Melloni, Chiara & Dal Maso, Serena. 2022. For a topology of derivational paradigms. In Paradigms in Word Formation: Theory and Applications [Studies in Language Companion Series 225], Alba E. Ruz, Cristina Fernández-Alcaina & Cristina Lara-Clares (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meltzer-Asscher, Aya. 2010. Present participles: Categorial classification and derivation. Lingua 120: 2211–2239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary Online (OED). 2021. OUP. <[URL]> (10 September 2021).
Payne, John, Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2010. The distribution and category status of adjectives and adverbs. Word Structure 3(1): 31–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadler, Louisa & Spencer, Andrew. 2001. Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. In Yearbook of Morphology 2000, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 71–96. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sims, Andrea. 2015. Inflectional Defectiveness. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2003. Periphrastic paradigms in Bulgarian. In Syntactic Structures and Morphological Information, Uwe Junghanns & Luka Szucsich (eds), 249–282. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Lexical Relatedness: A Paradigm-Based Model. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. How are words related? In Morphological Metatheory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 229], Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds), 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Split-morphology and lexicalist morphosyntax: The case of transpositions. In On Looking into Words (and Beyond), Claire Bowern, Laurence Horn & Raffaella Zanuttini (eds), 385–421. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Theoretical approaches to morphology. In The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar, Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie & Gergana Popova (eds), 222–239. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Popova, Gergana. 2015. Periphrasis and inflection. In The Oxford Handbook of Inflection, Matthew Baerman (ed), 197–230. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol. 2014. Derivational paradigms. In The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 354–369. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2016. Inflectional Paradigms: Content and Form at the Syntax-Morphology Interface. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thornton, Anna M. 2011. Overabundance (multiple forms realizing the same cell): A non-canonical phenomenon in Italian verb morphology. In Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology, Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldback & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds), 358–381. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Reduction and maintenance of overabundance. A case study on Italian verb paradigms. Word Structure 5(2): 183–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vartiainen, Turo. 2012. Telicity and the premodifying ing-participle in English. In English Corpus Linguistics: Looking Back, Moving Forward. Papers from the 30th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 30), Sebastian Hoffmann, Paul Rayson & Geoffrey Leech (eds), 217–233. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Fábregas, Antonio
2022. Structural and lexical aspects of the morphology of English participles. In Paradigms in Word Formation [Studies in Language Companion Series, 225], ► pp. 285 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 december 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.