1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory
  4. Volume 2, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2589-1588
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1596
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

One of the most common ways of morphological marking is affixation, morphemes are classified according to their position. In languages with affixal morphology, suffixes and prefixes are the most common types of affixes. Despite several proposals, it has been impossible to identify solid generalisations about the behaviour of prefixes, in opposition to suffixes. This article argues that the reason is that our traditional definitions of suffix and prefix are based on pre-theoretical, surface criteria that have been given up in other areas of linguistics: defining a morpheme as a prefix does not tell us anything about its grammatical nature, as that label does not take into consideration the structural configuration underlying the morpheme. Once the structural configuration is taken into account, solid generalisations begin to emerge. The article illustrates the advantages of this approach through a study of the interaction between vowel harmony and affixes.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00016.fab
2020-11-06
2024-09-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/elt.00016.fab
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, S. R.
    (1980) Problems and perspectives in the description of vowel harmony. InR. Vago (Ed.), Issues in vowel harmony (pp.1–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.6.02and
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.6.02and [Google Scholar]
  2. Aronoff, M.
    (1976) Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, M.
    (1985) “The Mirror Princople and morphosyntactic explanation”. Linguistic Inquiry16, 373–415.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, M. C.
    (1988) Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakovic, E.
    (2000) Harmony, dominance and control. PhD Dissertation, Rutgers University.
  6. Bauer, L.
    (1990) Be-heading the word. Journal of Linguistics, 26, 1–31. 10.1017/S0022226700014407
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700014407 [Google Scholar]
  7. Beckman, J.
    (1998) Positional faithfulness. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
  8. Black, J.
    (2000) History of morphological research, I.II.4. The Ancient Near East. InGeert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan and Stavros Skopeteas (Eds.), Morphology: an international handbook on inflection and word formation (pp.35–40). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bobaljik, J. D.
    (2000) The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics (2000), 35–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bonet, E.
    (1991) Morphology after syntax. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
  11. Booij, G.
    (1977) Dutch Morphology. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press. 10.1515/9783112327708
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112327708 [Google Scholar]
  12. (1983) Principles and parameters in prosodic phonology. Linguistics21: 249–280. 10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.249
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.249 [Google Scholar]
  13. Booij, G. and Audring, J.
    (2017) Construction Morphology and the parallel architecture of gram-mar. Cognitive Science, 41, 277–302. 10.1111/cogs.12323
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12323 [Google Scholar]
  14. Borer, H.
    (2005) In name only. Vol. 1 of the Exoskeletal Trilogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (2013) Taking form. Vol. 3 of the Exoskeletal Trilogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Brody, M.
    (2000) Mirror theory: syntactic representation in perfect syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 29–56. 10.1162/002438900554280
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554280 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bybee, J. L., Pagliuca, W., & Perkins, R. D.
    (1990) On the asymmetries in the affixation of grammatical material. InW. Croft, K. Denning and S. Kemmer (Eds.), Studies in typology and diachrony (pp.1–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.20.04byb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.20.04byb [Google Scholar]
  18. Caha, P.
    (2009) The nanosyntax of case. PhD Dissertation, CASTL, University of Tromsø.
  19. Chomsky, N.
    (2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22. 10.1162/0024389052993655
     https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cinque, G.
    (2005) Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 315–332. 10.1162/0024389054396917
     https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389054396917 [Google Scholar]
  21. Clements, G. N.
    (1976 [1980]) Vowel harmony in Nonlinear Generative Phonology: an autosegmental model. Bloomington: Indiana Linguistics Club.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. (1985) The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook, 2, 225–252. 10.1017/S0952675700000440
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000440 [Google Scholar]
  23. Cutler, A., Hawkins, J. and Gilligan, G.
    (1985) The suffixing preference: a processing explanation. Linguistics, 23, 723–758. 10.1515/ling.1985.23.5.723
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1985.23.5.723 [Google Scholar]
  24. Den Dikken, M.
    (2018) Dependency and directionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316822821
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316822821 [Google Scholar]
  25. Di Sciullo, A. -M.
    (2005) Asymmetry in Morphology. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/1465.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1465.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Downing, L., & Krämer, M.
    (2019) Domains and directionality in Kinande vowel harmony: A Correspondence approach. Ms. University of Gothenburg, UiT The Arctic University of Norway.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Embick, D.
    (2000) Features, syntax and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 185–230. 10.1162/002438900554343
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554343 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fábregas, A., Gil, I., & Varela, S.
    (2010) ¿Existen los prefijos categorizadores en español?InM. V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti and C. Sánchez López (Eds.), 60 problemas de gramática (pp.360–366). Madrid: Akal.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Folarin, A. Y.
    (1988) Lexical phonology of Yoruba nouns and verbs. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Fradin, B.
    (1996) On morphological entities and the copy principle. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 43, 111–151.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (2003) Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. 10.3917/puf.fradi.2003.01
     https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.fradi.2003.01 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gafos, A. I.
    (1999) The articulatory basis of locality in Phonology. PhD Dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.
  33. Gibert Sotelo, E.
    (2017) Source and negative prefixes. PhD Dissertation, Universitat de Girona.
  34. Grimshaw, J.
    (2005) Words and structure. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Hall, B., Hall, R. M. R., Pam, M. D., Antell, S. A., & Cherono, G. K.
    (1974) African harmony systems from the vantage point of Kalenjin. Afrika und Übersee, LVII: 4, 241–267.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Halle, M.
    (1973) Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 3–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. (1997) Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and Fission. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 30, 425–449.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Halle, M., & Marantz, A.
    (1993) Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. InK. Hale and S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from Building20 (pp.111–176). Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Hansson, G. O.
    (2001) Theoretical and typological issues in consonant harmony. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
  40. Harris, J. W.
    (1983) Syllable structure and stress in Spanish. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Hawkins, J. A., & Gilligan, G.
    (1988) Prefixing and suffixing universals in relationto basic word order. Lingua, 74, 219–59. 10.1016/0024‑3841(88)90060‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(88)90060-5 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hupp, J. M., Sloutsky, V. M., & Culicover, P. W.
    (2009) Evidence for a domain-general mechanism underlying the suffixation preference in language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 876–909. 10.1080/01690960902719267
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960902719267 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hyman, L. M.
    (2002) ‘Abstract’ vowel harmony in Kàlon: A system-driven account. InP. Sauzet and A. Zribi-Hertz (Eds.), Théories linguistiques et langues subsahariennes (pp.130–151). Paris: L’Harmattan.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. (2008) Directional asymmetries in the morphology and phonology of words, with special reference to Bantu. Linguistics, 46, 309–350. 10.1515/LING.2008.012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2008.012 [Google Scholar]
  45. Jakobson, R.
    (1971) Selected writings, vol.2. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Kayne, R. S.
    (1994) The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Kiparsky, P.
    (1981) Vowel harmony. Unpublished Ms., MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Kiparsky, P., & Pajusalu, K.
    (2003) Towards a typology of disharmony. The Linguistic Review, 20, 217–241. 10.1515/tlir.2003.009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2003.009 [Google Scholar]
  49. Krämer, M.
    (2003) Vowel harmony and correspondence theory. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197310
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197310 [Google Scholar]
  50. Lebeaux, D.
    (1988) Language acquisition and the form of grammar. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
  51. Lightner, T. M.
    (1965) On the description of vowel and consonant harmony. Word, 21, 244–250. 10.1080/00437956.1965.11435427
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1965.11435427 [Google Scholar]
  52. Mateu, J.
    (2002) Argument structure: Relational construal at the syntax-semantic interface. PhD Dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
  53. Mithun, M.
    (2003) Why prefixes?Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 50, 155–185. 10.1556/ALing.50.2003.1‑2.9
     https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.50.2003.1-2.9 [Google Scholar]
  54. Montermini, F.
    (2008) Il lato sinistro della morfologia. La prefissazione in italiano e nelle lingue del mondo. Milano: Franco Angeli.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Mous, M.
    (1986) Vowel harmony in Tunen. InK. Bogers, H. van der Hulst and M. Mous (Eds.), The phonological representation of suprasegmentals (pp.281–295). Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110866292‑014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866292-014 [Google Scholar]
  56. Nespor, M., & Vogel, I.
    (1986) Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Nevins, A.
    (2010) Locality in vowel harmony. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262140973.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262140973.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  58. Panagiotidis, Ph.
    (2002) Pronouns, clitics and empty nouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.46
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.46 [Google Scholar]
  59. Pensalfini, R.
    (2002) Vowel harmony in Jingulu. Lingua, 112, 561–586. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(01)00061‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(01)00061-4 [Google Scholar]
  60. Picallo, C.
    (2006) On gender and number. Unpublished Ms., CLT-Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Poser, W. J.
    (1982) Phonological representation and action-at-a-distance. InH. van der Hulst and N. R. Smith (Eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations (pp.121–158). Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Pulleyblank, D.
    (1988) Vocalic underspecification in Yoruba. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 233–270.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. (1996) Neutral vowels in Optimality Theory: A comparison of Yoruba and Wolof. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 41, 295–347. 10.1017/S0008413100016601
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100016601 [Google Scholar]
  64. Ritter, E.
    (1991) Two functional categories in noun phrases. InS. Rothstein (Ed.), Perspectives on phrase structures: heads and licensing (pp.37–62). San Diego: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004373198_004
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373198_004 [Google Scholar]
  65. Ross, J. D.
    (1967) Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
  66. Scalise, S.
    (1984) Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783112328040
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112328040 [Google Scholar]
  67. Serrano Dolader, D.
    (1995) Las formaciones parasintéticas en español. Madrid: Arco Libros.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. (1999) La derivación verbal y la parasíntesis. InI. Bosque and V. Demonte (Dirs.). Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp.4683–4757). Madrid: Espasa.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Smolensky, P.
    (1993) Harmony, markedness and phonological activity. Paper presented at theRutgers Optimality Workshop 1, Rutgers University: New Brunswick, New Jersey, October 1993.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. St. Clair, M. C., Monaghan, P., & Ramscar, M.
    (2009) Relationships between language structure and language learning: The suffixing preference and grammatical categorization. Cognitive Science, 33, 1317–1329. 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2009.01065.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01065.x [Google Scholar]
  71. Travis, L.
    (1984) Parameters and effects of word order variation. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
  72. Underhill, R.
    (1976) Turkish Grammar. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Uriagereka, J.
    (1999) Multiple spell-out. InS. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein (Eds.), Working Minimalism (pp.251–282). Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Varela, S.
    (1990) Fundamentos de morfología. Madrid: Síntesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Varela, S., & Martín García, J.
    (1999) La prefijación. InI. Bosque and V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp.4993–5041). Madrid: Espasa.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Vincent, N.
    (1999) The evolution of c-structure: prepositions and PPs from Indo-European to Romance. Linguistics, 37, 1111–1153. 10.1515/ling.37.6.1111
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.6.1111 [Google Scholar]
  77. Williams, E.
    (1981) On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 245–274.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Wiltschko, M.
    (2014) The universal structure of categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139833899
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139833899 [Google Scholar]
  79. Zamparelli, R.
    (2000) Layers in the determiner phrase. New York: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Zwicky, A. M.
    (1985) Heads. Journal of Linguistics, 21, 1–29. 10.1017/S0022226700010008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700010008 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00016.fab
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): head; prefix; root control; specifier; spell out; suffix; vowel harmony

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error