Collateral adjectives are Latinate relational adjectives, typically meaning ‘of’ or ‘pertaining to ...’, such as paternal (base noun: father), vernal (base noun: spring), etc. The existence of these adjectives poses serious problems to form-based approaches to morphology because of their apparent derivational status, they provide us with extreme cases where these adjectives and base nouns are formally unconnected.
The author shows that the meaning-based approach has real benefits not only in the theoretical analysis of them but also in their lexicographical treatment and in the description of the sociolinguistics of their use.
In addition, after comparing English and Japanese, the author explains how, in English, the knowledge of these adjectives is not acquired automatically with literacy and hence has come to matter in sociolinguistics terms.
4. Collateral Adjectives and Lexicography 171
CHAPTER 4 Collateral Adjectives and Lexicography 4.1. Introduction This chapter deals with how CAs are – and should be – treated in lexi- cography. As we have seen in Chapter 2, CAs are defined as Latinate suppletive RAdjs that have the following two properties: (a) Formal unconnectability of CAs to their BNs: they cannot be related to their BNs in terms of form, which leads to the use of the term ‘suppletion’, as we have seen in Chapter 2. (b) Constant semantic relations between CAs and their BNs: they all have shared common grammatical and semantic properties with their BNs as we have seen in Chapter 3, which enables us to refer to them as RAdjs. The following three questions are derived from the above properties and have implications for lexicography. The first question is how dic- tionaries should treat morphological derivatives. As we have seen in previous chapters, the grammatical and semantic relationship between RAdjs and their BNs is always constant, which enables us to conclude that there are certain derivational relations held between CAs and their BNs; then, it is reasonable to assume that CAs should be treated just as the same way as other non-suppletive morphological derivatives. In considering this possibility, one point that we should bear in mind is that lexicography is different from pure theoretical linguistics. For example, although under the Lexicalist Hypothesis, which started with the monumental work of Chomsky (1970), many nominalised forms are treated as derivationally unconnected to their alleged under- 172 lying base...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.