View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by York St John University Institutional Repository

Hall, Christopher J (2000) Prefixation, suffixation and circumfixation. In: Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian, Mugdan, Joachim, Kesselheim, Wolfgang and Skopeteas, Stavros, (eds.) Morphology. An international handbook on and word formation. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (17.1). Berlin, De Gruyter, pp. 535-545

Downloaded from: http://ray.yorksj.ac.uk/id/eprint/2866/

The version presented here may differ from the published version or version of record. If you intend to cite from the work you are advised to consult the publisher's version:

Research at York St John (RaY) is an institutional repository. It supports the principles of open access by making the research outputs of the University available in digital form. Copyright of the items stored in RaY reside with the authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full text items free of charge, and may download a copy for private study or non-commercial research. For further reuse terms, see licence terms governing individual outputs. Institutional Repository Policy Statement

RaY Research at the University of York St John For more information please contact RaY at [email protected] 54. Prefixation, suffixation and circumfixation 535

Majewicz, Alfred F. & Pogonowski, Jerzy (1984), iel (eds.), “Words Are Physicians for an Ailing “On Categorial Marking in Natural Languages”. Mind”. For Andrzej Bogusławski on the Occasion of Lingua Posnaniensis 26, 56Ϫ68 His 60th Birthday. München: Sagner (Sagners Sla- Ϫ Matthews, P[eter] H. (1972), Inflectional Morphol- vistische Sammlung 17), 279 293 ogy: A Theoretical Study based on Aspects of Latin Mel’cˇuk, Igor A. (1993), Cours de morphologie Verb Conjugation. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge ge´ne´rale (theoretique et descriptive), Vol. I: Intro- Univ. Press (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 6) duction et Premie`re partie: Le mot. Montre´al: Presses de l’Universite´ de Montre´al; [Paris]: CNRS Matthews, P[eter] H. (1974), Morphology. Cam- bridge etc.: Cambridge Univ. Press. Mel’cˇuk, Igor A. (1997 a), Cours de morphologie ´ ´ 2 generale (theoretique et descriptive), Vol. IV: Cin- Matthews, P[eter] H. ( 1991), Morphology. Cam- quie`me partie: Signes morphologiques. Montre´al: bridge etc.: Cambridge Univ. Press. Presses de l’Universite´ de Montre´al; [Paris]: CNRS Mel’cˇuk, Igor’ A. (1963), “O ‘vnutrennej fleksii’ v Mel’cˇuk, Igor A. (1997 b), “Grammatical Cases, indoevropejskich i semitskich jazykach”. Voprosy Basic Verbal Construction, and Voice in Maasai: Ϫ jazykoznanija 1963.4, 27 40 [German transl.: “Zur Towards a Better Analysis of the Concepts”. In: ‘inneren Flexion’ in den indoeuropäischen und Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Prinzhorn, Martin & semitischen Sprachen”. In: Mel’cˇuk, I[gor’] A. Rennison, John R. (eds.), Advances in Morphology. (1976), Das Wort: Zwischen Inhalt und Ausdruck. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter (Trends in Linguis- München: Fink (Internationale Bibliothek für all- tics: Studies and Monographs 98), 131Ϫ170 gemeine Linguistik 9), 258Ϫ287] Mugdan, Joachim (1977), Flexionsmorphologie und Mel’cˇuk, Igor’ A. (1973), Model’ sprjazˇenija v alju- Psycholinguistik. Tübingen: Narr (Tübinger Bei- torskom jazyke. IϪII. Moskva: Institut russkogo träge zur Linguistik 82) jazyka AN SSSR (Predvaritel’nye publikacii Prob- Nida, Eugene A. (21949), Morphology. Ann Arbor: lemnoj gruppy po e˙ksperimental’noj i prikladnoj Univ. of Michigan Press [11946] lingvistike 45Ϫ46) Reformatskij, Alexandr A. (41967), Vvedenie v jazy- Mel’cˇuk, Igor A. (1982), Towards a Language of kovedenie. Moskva: Prosvesˇcˇenie [11947] Moskva: Linguistics. München: Fink (Internationale Biblio- Ucˇpedgiz] thek für allgemeine Linguistik 44) Sapir, Edward (1921), Language: An Introduction Mel’cˇuk, Igor A. (1990), “Where and How to State to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace Some Generalizations in Morphology”. In: Wiener Szymanek, Bogdan (1989), Introduction to Morpho- ϭ slawistischer Almanach 25/26 [ Festschrift L’u- logical Analysis. Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydaw- ˇ Ϫ bomir Durovicˇ zum 65. Geburtstag], 299 310 nictwo Naukowe Mel’cˇuk, Igor A. (1991), “Subtraction in Natural Language”. In: Grochowski, Maciej & Weiss, Dan- Igor Mel’cˇuk, Montre´al (Canada)

54. Prefixation, suffixation and circumfixation

1. Terminology bound before, and the other part after, the 2. Formal properties base. The term is also commonly used 3. Common functions to refer to “zero” or “empty ” (cf. Art. 4. Distribution of affix position 45), which are ignored here. 5. Theoretical issues 6. References Although the terms , and cir- cumfix (and their translation equivalents) are the most widely accepted, a variety of other 1. Terminology terms have been employed historically and/or are found in contemporary work. In Ger- Prefixation, suffixation and circumfixation man, Vorsilbe and Nachsilbe are frequently are the non-intrusive types of affixation, i.e. employed, especially by school grammarians, those which add affixes to the margins of a for and , respectively. These lexical base, as opposed to infixation (Art. terms suggest that affixes are always (single) 55) and transfixation (Art. 56). A prefix is an syllables, which is not always the case, even affix which is bound before the base. A suffix in German (cf. 2). Ending (French de´sinence, is an affix which is bound after the base. A German (Flexions)endung, Russian okoncˇa- circumfix is an affix of which one part is nie) is often used as a synonym for inflec-

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 01.03.18 16:04 536 VIII. Formale Prozesse tional suffix, especially for case-marking on One of the most basic characteristics of non- nominal elements and person-marking on intrusive suffixes is that they tend to be short; verbal elements (cf. Pei & Gaynor 1954 on indeed, it seems that they rarely extend be- ending; Dubois et al. 1973 on de´sinence; yond a single syllable. The most widely at- Conrad 1985 on Endung; Rozental’ & Telen- tested phonological shape for prefixes and kova 21976 on okoncˇanie). This usage reflects suffixes (and the elements that make up cir- the Indo-European focus of most earlier lin- cumfixes) appears to be a single syllable with guists (and of many contemporary scholars), a CV sequence, which has been established as who worked with a family of languages in the phonologically unmarked (and only uni- which inflectional functions were commonly versally attested) syllable structure (cf. Ja- marked exclusively by suffixes (cf. 3). kobson 1941): Where these special terms for inflectional suffixes are employed, the term suffix and its (1) (a) Chichewa plural prefix /ma-/, e.g. translation equivalents (Fr. suffixe, Ger. Suf- /bwe´6zi/ ‘friend’, /ma-bwe´6zi/ ‘friends’ fix, Russ. suffiks) are generally used for deri- (b) Kiwai iterative suffix -ti,e.g.arigi vational categories only (although German ‘[to] scratch’, arigi-ti ‘[to] scratch re- also makes the distinction Flexionssuffix ‘in- peatedly’ flectional suffix’ and Derivationssuffix or Beyond this canonical structure, the prefer- Ableitungssuffix ‘derivational suffix’). In this ences seem to change depending on position case, Russ. postfiks and Ger. Postfix are used before or after the root: after CV, the next to cover both inflectional “endings” and deri- most preferred shape for prefixes appears to vational “suffixes”, but Eng. postfix is used be a single consonant, followed again by sim- only rarely (for example, in Mayan glyph ple syllables of the form CVC, VC, and V; studies). In Chinese, two terms are used for bisyllabic prefixes appear to be relatively un- suffix: ho`uzhuı`, meaning ‘something attached common. after’ and cı´wei, meaning ‘word-tail’. Simi- larly, Japanese uses setsubigo or setsubiji, (2) (a) Maasai negative prefix m-,e.g.a-rany meaning ‘join-tail-word’. ‘I sing’, m-a-rany ‘I do not sing’ Prebase is an alternative, but rare, English (b) English privative prefix dis-,e.g.arm, form for prefix (Fr. pre´fixe, Ger. Präfix, dis-arm Russ. prefiks) as is Russian pristavka for pre- (c) Kekchi 1st person possessive prefix fiks. Pre´verbe is used by some French lin- in-,e.g.ci ‘dog’, in-ci ‘my dog’ guists for verbal (usually valence-changing) (d) Huichol locative prefix e-,e.g.ne- prefixes. In Chinese, again, two terms are p-e-i-nanai ‘1.sg.subj-indic-another— used: qia´nzhuı`, meaning ‘something attached place-3.sg.obj-buy(completive) before’ and cı´to´u, meaning ‘word-head’. And, (I bought it in another place)’ again, Japanese uses settogo or settoji, ‘join- head-word’. It is likely, of course, that data on deriva- Ambifix and confix are used as synonyms tional affix shape preferences will yield dif- for circumfix, although for some scholars am- ferent patterns; thus, derivational prefixes of bifix is used to refer to an affix that can ap- bisyllabic structure, such as Latin mono-, pear on either side, rather than both sides, para-, circum-, may be more common than of the root (cf. Malkiel 1978: 145). Similarly, their inflectional counterparts. Such distribu- confix has also been proposed as a term for tional data are, however, currently unavail- nonintrusive affixes consisting of a single able, and so further claims would be impres- phonological unit, i.e. for prefixes and suf- sionistic only. fixes, excluding circumfixes (Mel’cˇuk 1982: Beyond the preferred CV structure, inflec- 84; cf. Mugdan 1990: 51). tional suffixes, unlike prefixes, show a con- tinuing preference for full syllables, including monosyllables CVC, VC, V, and bisyllables 2. Formal properties CVCV, VCV. Much less preferred than in Unless otherwise indicated, the statistical data in prefix position, but still widely attested, is the this and subsequent sections come from the single consonant C. GRAMCATS database at the University of New Mexico, which records information on grammati- (3) (a) German diminutive -lein,e.g.Kind cal (inflectional) morphemes from a genetically- ‘child’, Kind-lein ‘little child’ balanced survey of 94 languages (cf. Bybee et al. (b) Ket plural -an,e.g.am ‘mother’, am- 1994; Art. 77). an ‘mothers’

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 01.03.18 16:04 54. Prefixation, suffixation and circumfixation 537

(c) Siberian Yupik possessive -a,e.g.an- show more variation from the canonical form jaq ‘boat’, anja-a ‘his boat’ in terms of non-phonologically conditioned (d) Malayalam plural -kalø,e.g.parawa allomorphy (cf. Bybee et al. 1990: 12, 18). ‘dove’, parawa-kalø ‘doves’ Figures from the GRAMCATS sample (Tab. (e) Coos ‘kinship’ -ıˆni,e.g.sla’atc 54.2) show how free morphs with grammati- ‘cousin’, sla’tc-ıˆni ‘mutual cousins’ cal functions exhibit greater phonological (f) Siberian Yupik possessive -n,e.g.an- strength than affixes on these measures. jaq ‘boat’, anja-n ‘your boat’ Generalising, then, it seems that CV is the Phonologically All most common shape for inflectional affixes conditioned allomorphy (over a third in the GRAMCATS sample), allomorphy and that most affixes are monosyllables (around two thirds), but that prefixes show a Affixes 17.7 56.0 much stronger tendency to appear as single Free morphs 6.0 28.5 consonants or pairs of consonants and that suffixes show a greater toleration for bisyl- Tab. 54.2: Allomorphy in affixes vs. free grammati- lables. Consonant clusters are not common. cal morphs (% affixes) Tab. 54.1 shows figures from the GRAM- CATS sample (Ͻ1 indicates that the affix is Moreover, it seems that of affixes which ex- sub-syllabic, i.e. it consists of a single conso- hibit allomorphy, most (56.3%) have more nant or consonant cluster). than two allomorphs. Clearly, then, affixes tend to be phonologically weaker and for- mally less stable than free grammatical No. of syllables Prefix (%) Suffix (%) morphs. Free grammatical morphs, in turn, Ͻ tend to be phonologically weaker and for- 1 17.70 6.87 mally less stable than full lexical morphs, and 1 65.64 53.49 indeed, it has been suggested that this gradi- 2 15.02 25.72 ϩ ent from free lexical expression to bound 3 1.64 3.92 grammatical expression reflects a diachronic process, whereby free lexical items pro- Tab. 54.1: Canonical shape of inflectional affixes gressively lose their formal integrity until they become formally dependent on adjacent Of monosyllabic prefixes in the sample, 41% items, i.e. they become affixes. The postula- are of CV structure; of suffixes, 27.5%. Af- tion that processes of semantic generalisation fixes of up to four syllables may be identified and phonological attrition and fusion explain (e.g. Garo -nabadona ‘uncertain future’; cf. the origins of affixes has a long history (cf. Bybee 1985: 179f.), but this seems to be the Bopp 1820). It has been proposed that bound upper limit, and, in many cases (perhaps in- morphs, both inflectional as well as deriva- cluding Garo -nabadona), such forms are fur- tional, were originally free lexical items which ther analysable (if only diachronically) into underwent semantic generalisation, and con- strings of two or more separate affixes. sequently reduction of form, until they fused An account of the canonical phonological with habitually contiguous free items, to be- shape of affixes must also address the issue come prefixes or suffixes (cf. Meillet 1912; of phonological strength or formal stability, Givo´n 1971; Bybee & Pagliuca 1985; Hall in terms of degree of allomorphy, suscep- 1992: 84Ϫ111; for the genesis of circumfixes, tibility to reduction or loss, and degree of fu- cf. Greenberg 1980). For example, the Eng- sion with the base. One of the most funda- lish causative suffix -(i)fy,asinpurify, sim- mental factors to be taken into account in plify (and its cognates in related languages) such an assessment is the diachronic source derives ultimately from Latin facere ‘to of affixes as free lexical morphs. Non-intru- make’, a semantically general free lexical sive affixes not only tend to be short; they verb. In habitual contiguity with adjectives also tend to be phonologically weak, being like purus ‘pure’ and simplus ‘simple’, the typically unstressed, and are generally more verb gradually became reanalysed as a bound prone than free grammatical morphemes to morpheme on adjective bases to give Latin assimilate to the base (i.e. to undergo phono- purificare, simplificare etc. Auxiliary verbs logically conditioned allomorphy). They also constitute a particularly rich source of inflec-

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 01.03.18 16:04 538 VIII. Formale Prozesse tional affixation: In Romance languages, for transitive verbs have a subject prefix and an instance, suffixes marking future have arisen object prefix, but with some subjects a first from Late Latin periphrastic forms using ha- person singular object is expressed by means beo ‘have’. The verb habeo underwent seman- of a prefix (cf. Muravyova 1998: 531). In He- tic change, becoming progressively more brew, person markers appear in both prefix general, from its original full lexical meaning and suffix position, depending on aspect, of possession, through modal meaning of ob- while in Chimariko, their position as prefix ligation, to auxiliary status as tense marker or suffix is lexically governed, being deter- (cf. Art. 145, 156; also, Bybee & Pagliuca mined by the verb to which they are added 1985 for a similar analysis of Eng. have). It (cf. Sapir 1921: 71). has been suggested that the most common According to the GRAMCATS database, sources of affixes are words in the syntax in which 315 functions (“meaning compo- which constitute heads of the phrases in nents” or morphosyntactic properties) were which they occur (cf. Givo´n 1984: 228Ϫ237; factored out from the meanings expressed by Hall 1992: 74Ϫ77; see also 4). a total of 4819 verbal affixes from 94 lan- guages (cf. Bybee et al. 1994), the inflectional function most typically expressed by affixa- 3. Common functions tion on the verb is clearly number (plural and singular), followed by subject, person (1st, Most cross-linguistic or typological work has 2nd and 3rd), object, tense (past and future), concentrated on affixes expressing inflec- and imperative. The present tense is less tional functions, since these, although vary- generally overtly marked than other tenses. ing greatly across languages, tend to do so Other functions commonly expressed through less than derivational functions. Derivational affixation are: allative (direction towards), affixes span an astonishing range of modify- anterior, and the aspectual distinctions con- ing functions, from the ubiquitous nominalis- tinuous, habitual, and immediate; also com- ers, changing verbs and adjectives to nouns mon are location of speaker, negation, and (in a sample of fifty languages, 70% employ protasis (if-clause). Tab. 54.3 shows figures nominalising affixes; cf. Hawkins & Gilligan from the GRAMCATS database. 1988: 249) to more idiosyncratic cases like the Gombe Fulani verbal suffix -(i)law, indi- cating that the action of the verb happens “Meaning component” No. % quickly (cf. Comrie 1985: 343). In so-called plural 308 6.39 polysynthetic languages, the affix inventory singular 296 6.14 is particularly rich, and its members are used subject 287 5.95 to express meanings that in most languages 3rd person 232 4.81 would be expressed through free lexical or 1st person 226 4.69 grammatical morphemes in syntactic phrases 2nd person 216 4.48 (cf. examples from Greenlandic and Nahuatl object 205 4.25 in Art. 128 and Art. 132). past 168 3.49 Generally, in inflectional languages which future 106 2.20 utilise both prefixes and suffixes, a single imperative 100 2.07 grammatical function is expressed either in location of speaker 83 1.72 prefix or suffix position, rather than in both present 78 1.62 (Sapir 1921: 72). For example, in Bantu lan- allative 71 1.47 guages the person affixes on verbs (for both negation 67 1.39 subject and object) are prefixed and the voice anterior 64 1.33 affixes (active and passive) are suffixed (cf. habitual 56 1.16 2 Nida 1949: 81); one is not likely to find lan- protasis (if-clause) 55 1.14 guages which express active voice as a prefix immediate 54 1.12 and passive voice as a suffix. Exceptions to continuous 51 1.06 this pattern do occur, however. Classical Na- huatl, for instance, expresses tense functions TOTAL 2723 56.48 in both prefix and suffix positions. Choctaw indicates first person as a suffix and other Tab. 54.3: Most typical affix functions on verbs persons as a prefix (cf. Haas 1946); Chukchi (over 50 occurrences in GRAMCATS database)

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 01.03.18 16:04 54. Prefixation, suffixation and circumfixation 539

The nineteen functions listed in Tab. 54.3 genetically-shared word order regularities (cf. constitute around 6% of the total number of Givo´n 1971; Dahl 1979; Bybee 1985: 177; functions identified, and yet together account Greenberg 1980; Art. 145; see also 4 for other for over half of the affix data. On nouns, potential explanatory factors). number is probably also the most common inflection, but in this case only for marking plurality (singular marking appears to be 4. Distribution of affix position quite rare; cf. Greenberg 21966: 94). Affixa- tion is much more common than any other It seems that human language makes more use of suffixes than of prefixes (cf. Sapir expression type for the plurality function (cf. 2 Dryer 1989: 866); from a survey of 307 lan- 1921: 70; Greenberg 1966: 92; Hawkins & guages, 84% were found to express plurality Gilligan 1988). Although there are individual through an affix on the noun. languages which appear to express grammati- There does not seem to be a clear correla- cal functions exclusively or almost exclusively tion between function and position as prefix through prefixes, there are many more which or suffix, although some generalisations, at employ only suffixes (cf. Sapir 1921: 70; Hawkins & Gilligan 1988: 228). Exclusively various degrees of robustness, can be made prefixing languages include: Kabyl*, Na- for some functions and for some families. vaho*, Tiwi*, Temiar*, Khmer, Akan- The best attested correlation is in the expres- Fante*, Yoruba*, Acholi*, Mangbetu*, Pa- sion of case functions, which have an over- lantla, Chinantec*, from six different families whelming tendency to be suffixed (cf. Haw- (* indicates data on verbal affixes only). Ex- kins & Gilligan 1988: 222). It appears that clusively suffixing languages include: Tur- suffixes marking subject and object are never kish, Nama, Eskimo, Nootka, Yana, Kui*, prefixed, although affixes for other cases are Uigur*, Maidu*, Chacobo*, Jivaro*, Gu-Ya- reported to appear in prefix position in a lanji*, Alyawarra*, and Nimboran*, from small number of languages, including Zulu, eleven different families. Squamish, Sakao and Temiar (data from It seems that, cross-linguistically, approxi- Matthew Dryer’s database at the State Uni- mately 70% of affixes (including individual versity of New York, Buffalo). Person/ elements of circumfix pairs) are suffixes as number agreement affixes on verbs have a compared with 30% prefixes (cf. Hawkins & tendency to be suffixed (cf. Bybee et al. Gilligan 1988: 236; Bybee et al. 1990: 4f.). 1990: 9), but a greater proportion of prefixes Explanations for this distribution have been than of suffixes express this function. Valence offered basically from two sources: marking on the verb is also overwhelmingly suffixed, as is interrogative and imperative. (a) psychological processing constraints, Sentence negation, however, appears to have based on the assumption that functional a tendency to be prefixed (cf. Bybee 1985: pressures (here in the form of the lan- 177). Even at the higher level of inflection vs. guage processing mechanism) have the derivation, universal patterns are elusive, al- capacity to influence the form of lan- though, again, some regularities emerge in guage, and particular languages or families. Indo-Euro- (b) the exigencies of diachronic change. pean inflection is overwhelmingly suffixed From the point of view of on-line word re- (although Greek has inflectional prefixes), cognition (viewed as information processing; whereas derivation appears in both positions. cf. Art. 163), the root morpheme is the key In contrast, Mayan languages tend to have element and so should optimally occur earlier inflectional prefixes and derivational suffixes. in the input than less informative bound ma- Khmer is predominantly prefixing, but uses terial (cf. Greenberg 1957: 93; Cutler et al. its prefixes only to express derivational cate- 1985: 748f.; Hall 1992: 155f.). Psycholinguis- gories, whereas Bantu’s overwhelming use of tic experimentation has demonstrated the prefixation is limited to inflection (cf. Sapir critical importance of the temporal nature of 1921: 134). These tendencies are ultimately speech in lexical processing, especially in spo- explicable in terms of word order typology ken word recognition (cf. Marslen-Wilson and word order change; since affixes are the 1987), and these findings have been comple- bound legacy of earlier free elements, subject mented by work which suggests that the be- to word order rules, their positional tenden- ginning portions of words are more informa- cies within a family can often be traced to tive in lexical processing that the final or

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 01.03.18 16:04 540 VIII. Formale Prozesse middle portions (cf. Nooteboom 1981; Cole planation for the suffixing preference derived 1973; Cooper & Paccia-Cooper 1980; Brown from these data is that & McNeill 1966: 329f.). Further evidence (a) grammatical morphs at clause bound- suggests that morphologically complex words aries (i.e. in verb-initial and verb-final are decomposed during recognition in at least languages) show a strong tendency to be- some cases, especially with inflectional af- come bound as affixes, whereas gram- fixes, and with derivational affixes where the matical morphs which occur clause-in- structure is part of speakers’ morphological ternally (i.e. in verb-medial languages) competence, i.e. where the combination is show a weaker tendency to become transparent and the affix productive (cf. Mar- bound, and in this case reduction to affix Ϫ slen-Wilson et al. 1994: 27; Hall 1995: 177 is determined by semantic factors (cf. 5); 185). It has been concluded from this evi- (b) verb-final languages greatly outnumber dence that the optimal position for lexically verb-initial languages and grammatical heavy elements (roots) will be before lexically morphs appear more consistently in post- light elements (affixes), giving rise to a pre- posed position. ponderance of suffixes. Other factors which have been suggested A second regularity is that there appears to contribute to the psychological explana- to be a partial correlation between the pre- tion are the predictability of the content ex- dominant (or exclusive) positioning of affixes pressed by affixes and the phonological re- (as either prefixes or suffixes) and the domi- dundancy of affixes (cf. Greenberg 1957: 93; nant order of syntactic head and modifier, Cutler et al. 1985: 750f.; Hall 1992: 97Ϫ107, particularly in the VP and PP (cf. Hawkins & Gilligan 1988: 226Ϫ231; Art. 118). If the 157Ϫ161). It has been argued that suffixes overall skewing in favour of suffixing is dis- tend to induce changes in the root mor- counted, the head/affix correlation clearly pheme, whereas prefixes retain their phono- emerges. Explanations for this distribution logical integrity, and on the basis of this it have been offered from has been suggested that suffixes are made even more predictable, since the root modifi- (a) cross-component organising principles cation presignals the upcoming suffix (cf. for the syntax and morphology (Haw- Greenberg 1957: 93; Hall 1992: 103). Quanti- kins & Gilligan 1988: 226Ϫ231) and tative studies have, however, cast some doubt (b) the results of diachronic change (Hall on this assumption (cf. Bybee et al. 1990: 1992: 74Ϫ83). 19Ϫ27). Although there is some experimental Following much work in theoretical mor- support for suffix redundancy (cf. Tyler & phology in which principles of phrase syntax Marslen-Wilson 1986: 749Ϫ751), extensive have been extended to word syntax (cf. Sel- cross-linguistic research would need to be kirk 1982; Williams 1981; Scalise 1984; Art. conducted to confirm this possibility. 22, 42), it has been proposed that in the mor- An alternative view of the cross-linguistic phology, the affix is the head of the word, distribution of affixes vs. suffixes is that the and thus follows the same head-ordering predominance of suffixes results from the pattern as syntactic elements. Alternatively, it predominance of postposed free grammatical has been argued that the correlation between elements in verb-final languages, which cross- syntactic heads and modifiers is a historical linguistically outnumber verb-initial lan- accident, in that the typical diachronic source guages. These free forms generalise semanti- for affixes is a free lexical item of head status cally and reduce phonologically to become in the syntax, which becomes bound on its bound as affixes. In an analysis of inflec- former modifiers (cf. Hall 1992: 75Ϫ77; Gi- tional morphs on verbs in 71 languages, verb- vo´n 1971; 1984: 228Ϫ237). final languages showed a strong tendency for Circumfixation is much rarer than suffix- bound and unbound morphs expressing ation or prefixation in languages, but does grammatical functions to be postposed, appear to occur in a large number of dispa- whereas verb-initial and verb-medial lan- rate language families, as illustrated in a sam- guages showed more of a balance between pling from a non-systematic survey of gram- post- and preposing (cf. Bybee et al. 1990: mars and grammatical studies: 7Ϫ18). Preposed grammatical morphs tended (4) Afroasiatic (Amharic, Classical Arabic, to be free in verb-medial languages, but were Harari, Margi, Tuareg); Australian bound in the other language types. The ex- (Alawa, Worora); Austronesian (Indone-

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 01.03.18 16:04 54. Prefixation, suffixation and circumfixation 541

sian, Rukai, Samoan, Tagalog, Ton- tive orders are established. Proponents of a dano); Caucasian (Georgian); Chukotko- syntactic approach to morphological analysis Kamchatkan (Chukchi); Finno-Ugric argue that positional analysis may be accom- (Udmurt); Ge-Pano-Carib (Abipon); Ho- plished through the postulation of subcateg- kan (Karok); Indo-European (Germanic: orization frames (cf. Selkirk 1982: 71Ϫ74). Dutch, German; Iranian: Balochi, Cas- Advocates of paradigm functions, in con- pian subgroup, Early Modern Persian, trast, argue that syntactic operations intro- Ormuri, Pamir subgroup, Pashto, Ta- ducing an affix into a tree structure should lysh); Khoisan (!Kung); Kiwai (Kiwai); be kept distinct from operations which realise Macro-Algonquin (Cheyenne); Niger- an affix in a specific sequential position rela- Congo (Voltaic: Akasele; West Atlantic: tive to the root, and thus reject subcategori- Dyola); Oto-Manguean (San Pedro Mix- zation explanations (cf. Stump 1992; 1993). tepec, Zapotec, Amatlan Zapotec); Penu- From a theoretical point of view, linguists tian (Mayan: Kekchi, Mam); Totonacan have been concerned with the question of af- (Totonac); Uto-Aztecan (Nahuatl) fix order as determined by ordered rule appli- cation (in either a characterisation of our In certain families, e.g. Indo-European and tacit knowledge of language or of grammar Afroasiatic, circumfixation is particularly as an abstract object). In Lexical Morphol- well documented and in a few languages, e.g. ogy affix order is viewed as a problem of Indonesian, circumfixes are used to express a rule-block ordering (cf. Siegel 1979; Allen wide variety of functions, including marking 1978). In relatively simple affix systems like of nominalisation, verbalisation, iterative, re- English, the affix inventory has been claimed ciprocal, locative, causative, and stative. In to be divisible into classes (also called strata, German and Dutch, however, circumfixes are layers or levels), characterised by their prox- found only sporadically. imity to the root, their liability to undergo certain phonological rules (especially stress 5. Theoretical issues rules) and other phenomena. It is argued that affixes at lower levels are introduced by rules One of the major theoretical issues arising in applying earlier than those introducing af- the analysis of affixation to the root is how fixes at higher levels. In English, for example, these affixes interact with each other, i.e. how -ify,asinpurify is introduced at Level I, they are ordered on either side of the root. whereas -er,asinpurifier is introduced at This problem has been studied from various Level II (cf. Chomsky & Halle 1968; Ka- points of view, and with different goals in tamba 1993: 89Ϫ153). The fundamental no- mind. Although affixes almost always appear tion is that some morphological processes in- in a fixed order within the word (unlike syn- volve a closer relationship between collocated tactic constituents in a sentence), the problem morphemes than other processes; in the the- of determining the positional classes of an af- ory, the latter correspond to lower levels and fix inventory is often just as difficult as word the former to higher levels (for the psycho- order determination, especially with a large logical reality of these levels, cf. Emmorey & inventory, as in polysynthetic languages, Fromkin 1988: 137Ϫ141). The approach has where the combinatorial possibilities are been extended to other languages to a limited multiple. Consequently, considerable effort extent (cf. Booij & Rubach 1987; Pulleyblank has been expended on devising systematic 1986), but some researchers regard it as un- procedures for what has been called in this able to account for all the data in certain lan- context positional analysis (cf. Nida 21949: guages (cf. Aronoff & Sridhar 1983). 205Ϫ207; Grimes 1967; 1983; Muysken 1986; In attempts to identify universal causal Elson & Pickett 1983: 12Ϫ16). A typical field factors in determining the proximity of af- practice is to record for each affix (or class fixes to the root, appeals have been made to of affixes) the numerical position it occupies, principles of iconicity (cf. Art. 30). It has counting to the left or right of some reference been suggested, for example, that affix order point, normally the root. Taking the furthest is determined by degree of semantic relevance position from the reference point, the set of (cf. Bybee 1985: 33Ϫ35). Within non-intru- immediately preceding suffixes or subsequent sive affixation, the prediction is that affixes prefixes is identified. From this set, the af- expressing more relevant categories will ap- fix(es) which occupy the next furthest posi- pear closer to the root in multi-affix strings tion from the reference point are determined and show a greater degree of fusion with the and the procedure is repeated until all rela- root (cf. Art. 39). For example, derivational

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 01.03.18 16:04 542 VIII. Formale Prozesse affixes virtually always occur closer to the distributional, and/or semantic properties of root than inflectional affixes (cf. Bloomfield the elements introduced differ according to 1933: 222; Nida 21949: 99; Greenberg 21966: whether the elements occur combined around 93) and, within inflection, it has been pro- a single base or independently (cf. Bauer posed that more relevant categories appear 1988 b: 20f.; Anderson 1990: 284f.). In the closer to the stem than less relevant cate- prototypical case, the elements do not occur gories (cf. Bybee 1985: 33Ϫ35). Thus, affixes outside the combination (the distributional expressing aspect tend to appear closer to the criterion), nor express identifiably indepen- verb stem than those expressing subject dent meanings/functions within the combina- agreement, and the iconicity hypothesis tion (the semantic criterion). Clear cases in- claims that this is because aspect expresses clude: fundamental properties of the verb meaning, (5) (a) Georgian comparative/superlative cir- whereas subject agreement refers to an argu- cumfix u-…-esi,e.g.lamazi ‘beauti- ment of the verb rather than affecting the ful’, u-lamaz-esi ‘more/most beautiful’ verb meaning itself. For nouns, it appears (b) Amatlan Zapotec negative circumfix that number affixes occur closer to the noun na-…-t,e.g.top ‘to gather’, na-top-t stem than case affixes (cf. Greenberg 21966: ‘to not gather’ 95), and number expresses significant infor- mation about what is referred to by the noun Many reported cases of circumfixation pre- stem, whereas case refers to the entity or enti- sent problems, however, for these criteria, ties’ role in relation to other entities referred and might be analysed as defective cases of to. In line with this hypothesis, it appears circumfixes or, simply, as prefix-suffix combi- that aspect provokes phonological changes in nations. For example, it is often difficult to the stem much more often than number distinguish circumfixation from what has agreement does, and lexically-conditioned al- been called parasynthesis (Malkiel 1978: 146), lomorphs are attested to a much greater ex- where a prefix and suffix pair obligatorily co- tent for aspect than for number (e.g. in occur but have identifiably separable roles Serbo-Croatian; cf. Bybee 1985: 37). These within the combination, as in this example findings are taken to reflect a greater degree from Spanish: of fusion between verb stem and affix for as- (6) (a) grande ‘large’ en-grand-ecer, a-grand- pect than for number. ar ‘to enlarge’ Another explanatory account of affix or- (b) loco ‘mad’ en-loqu-ecer, a-loc-ar ‘to der, again proposed as a linguistic universal, madden’ appeals to syntactic rather than semantic factors, claiming that rule application in In these forms the en-/a- prefixes mark ver- morphology and syntax are essentially iso- balisation, and -ecer/-ar mark the infinitive. morphic. The “Mirror Principle” makes ex- Deadjectival forms such as *en-grand-ar or plicit this claim, stating that “the syntactic *a-grand-ecer are not attested. The infinitive ordering known via examination of […] feed- forms can stand alone (cf. abast-ar, abast- ing and bleeding relationships [between syn- ecer ‘[to] supply’ from the noun abasto ‘sup- tactic rules] must match the morphological ply’), but the prefixes always derive verbs ordering known independently by examining from adjectives, and so require verbal inflec- morpheme orders” (Baker 1985: 382). Evi- tion. In such cases, the suffix could be said dence from a wide range of unrelated lan- to potentiate the prefix (i.e. the presence of guages seems to be compatible with this prin- the suffix is a necessary condition for the ciple; however, its status is still controversial presence of the prefix). So, despite their given the separation of syntax and morphol- obligatory co-occurrence in deadjectival ver- ogy in many grammatical theories (cf. Art. balisation, a circumfix analysis *en-…-ecer 22, 34, 36). Furthermore, its compatibility and *a-…-ar would seem unmotivated and with the historical semantic iconicity account the postulation of a linked prefix-suffix pair of affix order remains to be explored. favoured (cf. Scalise 1984: 147Ϫ150 for a The term circumfixation has been em- similar phenomenon in Italian). An oft-cited ployed to refer to the morphological process case of circumfixation is the German past introducing a discontinuous affixal unit ge-…-t,e.g.filmen ‘to film’, ge- which surrounds the base (cf. Bergenholtz & film-t ‘filmed’. In this case, the element -t Mugdan 1979: 59; Mel’cˇuk 1982: 84f.); it has does occur alone on some verbs as the past also been used to refer to simultaneous pre- participle marker (e.g. wiederholen, wieder- fixation and suffixation, when the formal, hol-t; probieren, probier-t; passieren, passier-t),

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 01.03.18 16:04 54. Prefixation, suffixation and circumfixation 543 and so can be analysed as a suffix; the ele- -nu-nu expresses intense iteration (cf. Bybee ment ge-, on the other hand, does not occur 1985: 150f.). In Tagalog, elements of circum- independently. For the group of verbs which fixes may also be reduplicated (cf. Schach- take the circumfix, however, both elements ter & Otanes 1972). are necessary: neither *ge-film nor *film-t are well-formed past participle forms of the verb 6. References filmen (cf. Bauer 1988 a: 22f., 197). Since the distributional criterion is partially compro- Allen, Margaret Reece (1978), Morphological Inves- mised for this circumfix, it should be seen as tigations. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Connecticut defective. Kekchi presents a problematic case Anderson, Stephen R. (1990), “Sapir’s Approach for the semantic criterion, in a form of the to Typology and Current Issues in Morphology”. 3rd person plural possessor, reported as the In: Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Luschützky, Hans circumfix /r-…-e?p/ (cf. Nida 21949: 50f.). C. & Pfeiffer, Oskar E. & Rennison, John R. (eds.), Contemporary Morphology. Berlin, New York: The prefix element is identical to one form of Mouton de Gruyter (Trends in Linguistics: Studies the 3rd person singular ergative marker and and Monographs 49), 277Ϫ295 nominal possessive marker, and the suffix ele- Aronoff, Mark & Sridhar, S[hikaripur] N. (1983), ment is identical to a 3rd person plural abso- “Morphological Levels in English and Kannada; lutive marker: or Atarizing Reagan”. Papers from the Annual Re- gional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (7) (a) /r-otsots/ ‘his house’ Ϫ ? 19.2, 3 16 [Parasession on the Interplay of Pho- (b) /r-otsots-e p/ ‘their house’ nology, Morphology, and Syntax] (c) /jas/ ‘he is sick’ s ? Baker, Mark (1985), “The Mirror Principle and (d) /ja -e p/ ‘they are sick’ Morphosyntactic Explanation”. Linguistic Inquiry It is possible to analyse (7b), then, as a com- 16, 373Ϫ415 bination of possessive prefix plus plural suf- Bauer, Laurie (1988 a), Introducing Linguistic Mor- fix, where the suffix encodes the plurality of phology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press the possessor as it does the plurality of the Bauer, Laurie (1988 b), “A Descriptive Gap in subject in (7d) but in this combination does Morphology”. Yearbook of Morphology 1988, not express absolutive. 17Ϫ27 Circumfixation is a special case of the Bergenholtz, Henning & Mugdan, Joachim (1979), expression of a single function (a mor- Einführung in die Morphologie. Stuttgart etc.: Kohl- pheme) by a combination of several markers hammer (Urban-Taschenbücher 296) (morphs), a phenomenon for which the term Bloomfield, Leonard (1933), Language. New York: synaffix has been suggested (Bauer 1988 b). Holt [British edition 1935, London: Allen & Un- For example, Pawnee expresses potential win] modality through two prefixes, kus- and i-, Booij, Geert & Rubach, Jerzy (1987), “Cyclic ver- which occur to the left and right of the sub- sus Postcyclic Rules in Lexical Phonology.” Lin- guistic Inquiry 18, 1Ϫ44 ject prefix respectively (cf. Bybee 1985: 181). In the Kubachi dialect of Dargva, essive and Bopp, Franz (1820), “Analytical of the Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and Teutonic Lan- ablative locative case is expressed through guages, Showing the Original Identity of Their pairs of suffixes (cf. Comrie 1981: 210). Grammatical Structure”. Annals of Oriental Litera- A further possibility is that an affix may ture 1, 1Ϫ64 [reprinted 1889 in: Internationale not be specified for position, i.e. it may ap- Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 4, pear either as a prefix or a suffix, depending 14Ϫ60; reprint reproduced in: Bopp, Franz (1974), on context (cf. Malkiel 1978: 145). In Afar, Analytical Comparison of the Sanskrit, Greek, for example, the determining context for Latin, and Teutonic Languages, Showing the Origi- nal Identity of Their Grammatical Structure, ed. by some affixes is the nature of the onset of the E. F. K. Koerner. Amsterdam: Benjamins (Amster- base-form: an affix is realised as a prefix be- dam Classics in Linguistics 3)] fore stems beginning with [e, i, o, u], e.g. t- perf Brown, Roger & McNeill, David (1966), “The ‘Tip okm-e´ ‘2-eat- (you ate)’, but as a suffix of the Tongue’ Phenomenon”. Journal of Verbal after stems beginning with [a] or a consonant, Learning and Verbal Behavior 5, 325Ϫ337 imperf e.g. yab-t-e´ ‘speak-2- (you speak)’; ab- Bybee, Joan L. (1985), Morphology: A Study of the t-e´ ‘do-2-perf (you did)’ (cf. Fulmer 1991). Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam, A similar phenomenon appears to occur in Philadelphia: Benjamins (Typological Studies in Kekchi (cf. Nida 21949: 42). Finally, affixes Language 9) may be reduplicated (cf. Art. 57). For exam- Bybee, Joan L. & Pagliuca, William (1985), ple, Yukaghir -nu expresses iteration, whereas “Cross-linguistic Comparison and the Develop-

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 01.03.18 16:04 544 VIII. Formale Prozesse ment of Grammatical Meaning”. In: Fisiak, Jacek Givo´n, Talmy (1971), “Historical Syntax and Syn- (ed.), Historical Semantics, Historical Word-forma- chronic Morphology: An Archaeologist’s Field tion. Berlin etc.: Mouton (Trends in Linguistics: Trip”. Papers from the Annual Regional Meeting of Studies and Monographs 29), 59Ϫ83 the Chicago Linguistic Society 7.1, 394Ϫ415 Bybee, Joan L. & Pagliuca, William & Perkins, Re- Givo´n, Talmy (1984), Syntax: A Functional-typo- vere D. (1990), “On the Asymmetries in the Affixa- logical Introduction, Vol. I. Amsterdam, Philadel- tion of Grammatical Material”. In: Croft, Wil- phia: Benjamins liam & Denning, Keith & Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Studies in Typology and Diachrony. Papers Pre- Greenberg, Joseph H. (1957), Essays in Linguistics. sented to Joseph H. Greenberg on His 75th Birthday. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins (Typological Greenberg, Joseph H. (1963), “Some Universals of Studies in Language 20), 1Ϫ42 Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order Bybee, Joan L. & Perkins, Revere D. & Pagliuca, of Meaningful Elements”. In: Greenberg, Joseph William (1994), The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, H. (ed.), Universals of Language. Report of a Con- Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. ference Held at Dobbs Ferry, New York, April 13Ϫ Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press 15, 1961. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press, 58Ϫ90 2 Ϫ Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968), The [ 1966, 73 113; reprinted in: Greenberg, Joseph H. Sound Pattern of English. New York etc.: (1990), On Language: Selected Writings, ed. by Harper & Row Keith Denning & Suzanne Kemmer. Stanford/CA: Stanford Univ. Press, 40Ϫ70] Cole, Ronald A. (1973), “Listening for Mispronun- ciations: A Measure of What We Hear During Greenberg, Joseph H. (1980), “Circumfixes and Speech”. Perception and Psychophysics 11, 153Ϫ Typological Change”. In: Traugott, Elizabeth 156 Closs & Labrum, Rebecca & Shepherd, Susan Comrie, Bernard (1981), Languages of the Soviet (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference Union. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge Univ. Press on Historical Linguistics [Stanford 1980]. Amster- dam: Benjamins (Current Issues in Linguistics The- Comrie, Bernard (1985), “Causative Verb Forma- Ϫ tion and Other Verb-deriving Morphology”. In: ory 14), 233 241 Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and Grimes, Joseph E. (1967), “Positional Analysis”. Syntactic Description, Vol. III: Grammatical Cate- Language 43, 437Ϫ444 gories and the Lexicon. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge Ϫ Grimes, Joseph E. (1983), Affix Positions and Univ. Press, 309 348 Cooccurrences: The PARADIGM Program. Dallas/ Conrad, Rudi (1985), Lexikon sprarchwissenschaft- TX: Summer Inst. of Linguistics (SIL Publications licher Termini. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut in Linguistics 68) Cooper, William E. & Paccia-Cooper, Jeanne Haas, Mary (1946), “A Proto-Muskogean Gram- (1980), Syntax and Speech. Cambridge/MA, Lon- mar”. Language 22, 326Ϫ332 don: Harvard Univ. Press (Cognitive Science Series 3) Hall, Christopher J. (1992), Morphology and Mind: A Unified Approach to Explanation in Linguistics. Cutler, Anne & Hawkins, John A. & Gilligan, London, New York: Routledge Gary (1985), “The Suffixing Preference: A Process- ing Explanation”. Linguistics 23, 723Ϫ758 Hall, Christopher J. (1995), “Formal Linguistics Dahl, Östen (1979), “Typology of Sentence Nega- and Mental Representation: Psycholinguistic Con- tion”. Linguistics 17, 79Ϫ106 tributions to the Identification and Explanation of Morphological and Syntactic Competence”. Lan- Dryer, Matthew (1989), “Plural Words”. Linguis- guage and Cognitive Processes 10, 169Ϫ187 tics 27, 865Ϫ895 Dubois, Jean & Giacomo, Mathe´e & Guespin, Hawkins, John A. & Gilligan, Gary (1988), “Pre- fixing and Suffixing Universals in Relation to Basic Louis & Marcellesi, Christiane & Marcellesi, Jean- Ϫ Baptiste & Mevel, Jean-Pierre (1973), Dictionnaire Word Order”. Lingua 74, 219 259 de linguistique. Paris: Larousse Jakobson, Roman (1941), Kindersprache, Aphasie Elson, Benjamin F. & Pickett, Velma B. (1983), Be- und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Almqvist & ginning Morphology and Syntax. Dallas/TX: Sum- Wiksell (Spra˚kvetenskapliga Sällskapets Förhand- mer Inst. of Linguistics lingar 1940Ϫ1942) [reprinted 1969, Stuttgart: Suhr- Emmorey, Karen D. & Fromkin, Victoria A. kamp (edition suhrkamp 330); also in: Jakobson, (1988), “The Mental Lexicon”. In: Newmeyer, Roman (1962), Selected Writings, Vol. I: Phonologi- ϭ 2 Frederick J. (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Sur- cal Studies. ’s Gravenhage: Mouton [ 1971 The Ϫ vey, Vol. III: Language: Psychological and Biologi- Hague, Paris: Mouton], 328 401; English transl. cal Aspects. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge Univ. 1968: Child Language, Aphasia and Phonological Press, 124Ϫ149 Universals, transl. by Allan R. Keiler. The Hague, Paris: Mouton (Janua Linguarum Series Minor Fulmer, S. Lee (1991 [1990]), “Dual-position Af- fixes in Afar: An Argument for Phonologically- 72)] driven Morphology”. Proceedings of the West Katamba, Francis (1993), Morphology. Basing- Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 9, 189Ϫ203 stoke, London: Macmillan

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 01.03.18 16:04 55. Infixation 545

Malkiel, Yakov (1978), “Derivational Categories”. Pei, Mario & Gaynor, Frank (1954), A Dictionary In: Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of Hu- of Linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library man Language, Vol. III: Word Structure. Stanford/ Pulleyblank, Douglas (1986), Tone in Lexical Pho- Ϫ CA: Stanford Univ. Press, 125 149 nology. Dordrecht, Boston: Reidel (Studies in Nat- Marslen-Wilson, William D. (1987), “Functional ural Language and Linguistic Theory 4) Parallelism in Spoken Word-recognition”. Cogni- Rozental’, Ditmar E. & Telenkova, Margarita A. tion 25, 71Ϫ102 (21976), Slovar’-spravocˇnik lingvisticˇeskich termi- Marslen-Wilson, William D. & Tyler, Lorraine nov. Moskva: Prosvesˇcˇenie K. & Waksler, Rachel & Older, Lynn (1994), “Mor- Sapir, Edward (1921), Language: An Introduction phology and Meaning in the English Mental Lexi- to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace con”. Psychological Review 101, 3Ϫ33 Scalise, Sergio (1984), Generative Morphology. Meillet, A[ntoine] (1912), “L’e´volution des formes Dordrecht, Cinnaminson/NJ: Foris (Studies in grammaticales”. Scientia 12, 384Ϫ400 [reprinted Generative Grammar 18) in: Meillet, A[ntoine] (1948), Linguistique historique Schachter, Paul & Otanes, Fe T. (1972), Tagalog et linguistique ge´ne´rale. Paris: Champion (Collec- Ϫ Reference Grammar. Berkeley etc.: Univ. of Cali- tion linguistique 8), 130 148] fornia Press Mel’cˇuk, I[gor’] A. (1982), Towards a Language of Selkirk, Elizabeth O. (1982), The Syntax of Words. Linguistics. München: Fink (Internationale Biblio- Cambridge/MA: MIT Press (Linguistic Inquiry thek für allgemeine Linguistik 44) Monographs 7) Mugdan, Joachim (1990), “On the History of Lin- Siegel, Dorothy (1979), Topics in English Morphol- guistic Terminology”. In: Niederehe, Hans-Josef & ogy. New York, London: Garland [orig. 1974, Koerner, Konrad (eds.), History and Historiogra- Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of phy of Linguistics. Papers from the Fourth Interna- Technology] tional Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (ICHoLS IV), Trier, 24Ϫ28 August 1987, Stump, Gregory T. (1992), “On the Theoretical Status of Position Class Restrictions on Inflec- Vol. I. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins (Stud- tional Affixes”. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, ies in the History of the Language Sciences 51), 211Ϫ241 49Ϫ61 Stump, Gregory T. (1993), “Position Classes and Muravyova, Irina A. (1998), “Chukchee (Paleo-Si- Morphological Theory”. Yearbook of Morphology berian)”. In: Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold 1992, 129Ϫ180 M. (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford, Malden/MA: Blackwell, 521Ϫ538 Tyler, Lorraine K. & Marslen-Wilson, William (1986), “The Effects of Context on the Recognition Muysken, Pieter (1986), “Approaches to Affix Or- Journal of Memory and Ϫ of Polymorphemic Words”. der”. Linguistics 24, 629 644 Language 25, 741Ϫ752 2 Nida, Eugene A. ( 1949), Morphology. Ann Arbor: Williams, Edwin (1981), “On the Notions ‘Lexi- 1 Univ. of Michigan Press [ 1946] cally Related’ and ‘Head of a Word’ ”. Linguistic Nooteboom, Sieb G. (1981), “Lexical Retrieval Inquiry 12, 245Ϫ274 from Fragments of Spoken Words: Beginnings vs Endings”. Journal of Phonetics 9, 407Ϫ424 Christopher J. Hall, Cholula (Mexico)

55. Infixation

1. Definition and terminology themselves. For instance, the Sundanese 2. Formal properties word barudak ‘children’ exemplifies infixa- 3. Meanings tion since it is analysable into budak ‘child’ 4. Distribution in the languages of the world and -ar- ‘plural’, with neither b- nor -udak 5. Why does infixation exist? independently meaningful (similarly s3ar8are, 6. References the plural of sare ‘sleep’, and n3ar8iis, the plu- ral of niis ‘cool oneself’). In Chamorro, it is 1. Definition and terminology a reduplicated syllable of the base that is in- fixed, e.g. metgogot ‘very strong’ from metgot An is an affix which is positioned inside ‘strong’ (on infixal , cf. Art. 57). the base such that the preceding and English strong verbs (sing Ϫ sang) and in- following portions are not meaningful by ternal plurals (foot Ϫ feet) can also be de-

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 01.03.18 16:04