Suffixes 4047592

7/27/2019 Suffixes 4047592

1/14

English Suffixation Is Constrained Only by Selectional RestrictionsAuthor(s): Nigel FabbSource: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Nov., 1988), pp. 527-539Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4047592 .Accessed: 29/09/2013 15:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Natural Language &LinguisticTheory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 13 2.66.11.212 on Sun, 29 Sep 20 13 15:42:38 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4047592?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4047592?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

7/27/2019 Suffixes 4047592

2/14

NIGEL FABB

ENGLISH SUFFIXATION IS CONSTRAINED

ONLY BY SELECTIONAL RESTRICTIONS

1. THE LEVEL-ORDERING OF ENGLISH MORPHOLOGY

One of the central arguments or a level-ordering of English morphology(Siegel 1974) is based on the nonoccurrence of certain pairs of affixes,e.g. *-ness-ic, *-er-ian, etc. The descriptive claim which has been made

on the basis of this is that English affixes are divided into two sets,sometimes called LEVEL 1 AFFIXES and LEVEL 2 AFFIXES, and that level 1affixes are not able to attach to a word to which a level 2 affix has alreadyattached. This has been incorporated into Lexical Phonology/Mor-phology by having a word pass through a sequence of levels of represen-tation as it is derived. Level 1 suffixes are first attached to the word, witheach suffixation ollowed by the application of a subset of the Englishphonological rules, e.g. the English Stress Rule (Halle and Mohanan

1985); then level 2 suffixes are attached to the word, and other phonolo-gical rules are allowed to apply. This system encodes not only theordering of suffixes, preventing level 1 suffixes rom attaching to a wordto which a level 2 suffix has attached, but also accounts for the fact thatcertain phonological rules (such as the English Stress Rule) do not takeas their input words derived with level 2 suffixes. In fact, this is usuallytaken as the test of a level 2 as opposed to a level 1 suffix.

The English data provide two well-known types of counterexample,which suggest that the generalisation about nonoccurring affix-pairs(from which the level-ordering theory draws much support) may beincorrect. On the one hand, there are BRACKETING PARADOXES, where alevel 1 suffix appears to attach to the output of a level 2 prefixation; anexample is un-grammatical-ity (where level 1 -ity must attach after level2 un- in order to satisfy categorial selectional restrictions). On the otherhand, there are a few specific pairs of suffixes which involve a level 2suffix preceding a level 1 suffix; for example -abil-ity, -ist-ic, -ment-al.These problems have sometimes been accommodated within systemswhich nevertheless retain level-ordering for the morphology. For exam-ple, Strauss (1982) suggests that suffixes and prefixes are not level-ordered with respect to each other (thus dealing with the bracketingparadoxes).

This paper looks again at how it can be predicted that certain pairs of

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6 (1988) 527-539.

? 1988 by Kluwer Academic Publishers.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

7/27/2019 Suffixes 4047592

3/14

528 NIGEL FABB

affixes do not arise. Siegel's claim was basically that if we combine thefamiliar selectional restrictions (mainly category based) holding for

affixes with the ordering of affix subsets, then we correctly predict whichaffix pairs do not exist, and hence which affix pairs do exist. Previousobjections to Siegel's approach (mentioned in the preceding paragraph)aim to show that level-ordering rules out pairs which do exist. Incontrast, I will now show that the approach based on level-ordering andcategory selection fails to rule out a very large number of affix pairswhich do not exist. I will then go on in Section 2.1 to suggest a restrictionwhich covers a much wider range of data and makes redundant much of

the work of level-ordering.

1.1. Familiar Restrictions on Suffixation

There are a great many suffixes in English; in common with Siegel (andother lexical morphologists), I will discuss the behaviour of only the morefrequently occurring ones, and have listed in Table A the suffixes whosebehaviour I will concentrate on. As will be clear from Sections 2.1 and

2.2, it would have made no difference for my claim about suffix pairs if Ihad listed every word-selecting suffix of English. Table A lists as separatesuffixes segmentally identical pairs which have different category-selec-tional or category-forming properties, and includes this information inthe listing (e.g. >N means that the suffix FORMS A NOUN, V> means thatthe suffix ATTACHES TO A VERB or is DEVERBAL). I am concerned onlywith suffixes which attach to words (i.e. this approach is consistent with aword-based morphology such as that of Aronoff (1976)). My claimsabout occurring and nonoccurring pairs of suffixes are based on Walker(1924), supplemented by my own collection of data.

If there were no restrictions on suffixation, these 43 suffixes ought togive rise to 1849 potential suffix pairs. Because all the suffixes in Table Aselect for a particular part of speech, however, the number of potentialsuffix pairs is cut to 663, all of which obey part-of-speech selectionalrestrictions.' Various local restrictions on suffixation (pointed out bySiegel) cut the number of potential suffix pairs further. Suffix [18]

-fulattaches to nouns only with final stress; since none of the noun-forming

' This calculation is derived as follows. Working through the 43 suffixes in Table A, wefind that 9 suffixes select for adjectives, and 16 form adjectives (hence 9 x 16 = 144combinations are allowed); 21 suffixes select for nouns and 21 form nouns (hence 21 x 21 =441 allowed); and 13 suffixes select for verbs and 6 form verbs (hence 6 x 13 = 78combinations allowed). The total allowed is 144 + 441 + 78 = 663.


7/27/2019 Suffixes 4047592

4/14

ENGLISH SUFFIXATION 529

TABLE A

Column I Column 2 ExampleSUFFIX SUFFIX

1. -able >A V> -able manage-able2. -age >N V> -age steer-age3. -age >N N> -age orphan-age4. -al >N V> -al betray-al5. -al >A N> -al natur-al

6. -an >N N> -an librari-an7. -an >A N> -an reptil-ian8. -ant >N V> -ant defend-ant9. -ant > A V > -ant defi-ant

10. -ance >N V> -ance annoy-ance11. -ary > N N> -ary function-ary12. -ary >A N> -ary legend-ary13. -ate >V N> -ate origin-ate14. -ed >A N> -ed money-ed15. -en >V A> -en wid-en16. -er >N N> -er prison-er17. -er >N V> -er kill-er18. -ful >A N> -ful peace-ful19. -ful > A V > -ful forget-ful20. -hood >N N> -hood nation-hood21. -ic > A N > -ic metall-ic22. -ify >V N> -ify class-ify23. -ify >V A> -ify intens-ify24. -ion > N V > -ion rebell-ion25. -ish >A N> -ish boy-ish26. -ism > N A > -ism modern-ism27. -ism > N N > -ism despot-ism28. -ist > N A > -ist formal-ist29. -ist > N N > -ist method-ist30. -ity > N A > -ity profan-ity31. -ive > A V > -ive restrict-ive32. -ize >V A> -ize special-ize33. -ize >V N> -ize symbol-ize34. -ly > A A> -ly dead-ly35. -ly >A N> -ly ghost-ly36. -ment > N V > -ment contain-ment37. -ness > N A > -ness happi-ness38. -ory > A V > -ory advis-ory39. -ous > A N> -ous spac-ious40. -y > A N> -y heart-y41. -y > N A> -y honest-y42. -y >N V> -y assembl-y43. -y > N N > -y robber-y


7/27/2019 Suffixes 4047592

5/14

530 NIGEL FABB

suffixes in Table A give rise to words with final stress, we would notexpect to find any pairs of the type -suffix-ful. Suffix [19] -ful and

suffix [4] -al both attach only to verbs with final stress; as before, theverb-forming suffixes do not form final-stressed words, and thus thesetwo suffixes would not be able to attach outside another suffix. Suffix 15]-en attaches only to monosyllabic adjectives; since all the adjective-forming suffixes n Table A add a syllable, we would therefore not expectto find pairs like -suffix-en. (One suffix not in Table A, -th, does combinewith -en in this way; this suffix does not add a syllable to the word. SeeSection 2.3.) These restrictions, combined, rule out a total of 49 possible

combinations, and bring the total of potential suffix pairs down to 614.2

1.2. Level-ordering

So far this simply fills in the background to the argument for level-ordering. The assumption s roughly that level-ordering cuts down these614 potential pairs to something ike the actual set of pairs. We turn nowto level ordering. Table B shows the classification of Table A's suffixesinto level 1 and level 2 suffixes, based on the test of whether or not thesuffix s part of the input to the English Stress Rule. The restriction hat alevel 1 suffix can not attach to the output of level 2 suffixation ules out atotal of 155 further potential suffix pairs.3 This brings the total ofpredicted suffix pairs down to 459, incorporating evel-ordering as well asthe previously mentioned restrictions. This prediction s incorrect: thereare in fact only about 50 attested pairs of suffixes. Some other constraintmust be at work ruling out the other c.400 suffix pairs. It can be seen thatlevel-ordering of suffixes achieves relatively little in predicting whichsuffix pairs exist and which do not.

2 This calculation is derived as follows. Suffix [18] -ful does not attach to any of the 21noun-forming suffixes. Suffix [19] -ful does not attach to any of the 6 verb-forming suffixes,nor does suffix [4] -al. Suffix [15] -en does not attach to any of the 16 adjective-formingsuffixes. Thus 21 + 6 + 6 + 16 = 49 combinations

are ruled out.I This calculation is derived by comparing Tables A and B. Recall that the suffixesmentioned in note 2 do not attach to suffixed words, and so are ruled out of consideration.Also, 3 of the 8 remaining Adj-selecting suffixes are level 1, and 8 of the 16 Adj-formingsuffixes are level 2; these 3 x 8 = 24 combinations are ruled out. Further, l() of the 20remaining noun-attaching suffixes are level 1, and I1 of the 21 noun-forming suffixes arelevel 2, so lO x I I = 110 more combinations are ruled out. Finally, 7 of the I I remainingverb-selecting suffixes are level 1 and 3 of the verb-forming suffixes are level 2, so7 x 3 = 21 more combinations are ruled out. The total of combinations ruled out bylevel-ordering is 24 + 110 + 21 = 155.


7/27/2019 Suffixes 4047592

6/14


TABLE B

Column 1 Column 2SUFFIX SUFFIX

1. -able >2 2> -able2. -age >2 2> -age3. -age >2 2> -age4. -al >1 1> -al5. -al > 1 1 > -al6. -an >1 1 > -an7. -an >1 1 > -an8. -ant > 1 1 > -ant9. -ant >1 1> -ant

10. -ance > 1 1 > -ance11. -ary >1 1> -ary12. -ary > 1 1 > -ary13. -ate >1 1> -ate14. -ed > 2 2 > -ed15. -en >2 2> -en16. -er >2 2> -er

17. -er >2 2> -er18. -ful > 2 2 > -ful19. -ful > 2 2 > -ful20. -hood > 2 2 > -hood21. -ic > 1 1 > -ic22. -ify >1 1> -ify23. -ify > 1> -ify24. -ion >1 1> -ion25. -ish > 2 2 > -ish26. -ism > 2 2 > -ism

27. -ism > 2 2 > -ism28. -ist > 2 2 > -ist29. -ist > 2 2 > -ist30. -ity > I > -ity31. -ive > I I> -ive32. -ize >2 2> -ize33. -ize > 2 2 > -ize34. -ly > 2 2 > -ly35. -ly > 2 2 > -ly36. -ment > 2 2 > -ment

37. -ness > 2 2 > -ness38. -ory > I I > -ory39. -ous >1 1> -ous4(0. -y > 2 2 > -y41. -y > 1 > -y42. -y > 1 1> -y43. -y >1 1> -y


7/27/2019 Suffixes 4047592

7/14

532 NIGEL FABB

2. NEW RESTRICTIONS ON SUFFIXATION

My claim now is that if we look at all the cases of double suffixationwhich exist (e.g. which can be found in Walker (1924)), we find thefollowing. Many suffixes never attach to an already-suffixed word. Somesuffixes attach outside only one other particular suffix. Some suffixesattach to all the suffixes which we would expect, given the previouslymentioned selectional restrictions. And a final set of suffixes attachoutside some but not all of the suffixes that we would expect. I will showhow these results can be achieved without the level-ordering of suffixes.

2.1. Suffixes which Never Attach to an Already-Suffixed Word

Consider first the suffixes which do not attach outside any other suffix, i.e.which are never found in the environment [word-suffix--]. These are:

( 1 [2] deverbal -age[3] denominal -age[4] deverbal-al[6] noun-forming -an[7] adjective-forming -an[8] noun-forming -ant[9] adjective-forming -ant[10] -ance[13] -ate[14] denominal -ed[18] denominal -ful[19] deverbal -ful[20] -hood[22] denominal -ify[23] deadjectival -ify

[25] -ish[27] denominal -ism[29] denominal -ist[31] -ive[33] denominal -ize[34] deadjectival -ly[35] denominal -ly[36] -ment[38] -ory[39] -ous[40] adjective-forming -y


7/27/2019 Suffixes 4047592

8/14

ENGLISH SUFFIX ATION 533

[42] deverbal -y[43] denominal noun-forming -y

Sporadic exceptions can be found. For example, I know of one casewhere -ate attaches to an already-suffixed word, which is differ-ent-iate.Exceptions seem to be extremely rare, however (I can find no others).We must conclude that some selectional restriction is at work here, whichhas the result that these suffixes cannot attach to a word which hasalready undergone suffixation. Leaving aside for a moment the exactformulation of this, consider how it relates as a restriction to the

level-ordering of suffixes. Many level 1 suffixes are among this group ofsuffixes which do not attach outside any other suffix, hence of course willnot attach outside any level 2 suffix. Taking the level 1 suffix -ify as anexample, level-ordering predicts that it does not attach outside any level2 suffix (hence *derivable-ify); this is alternatively predicted if the suffixis prevented by the above-mentioned selectional restriction from attach-ing outside any suffix, and this second approach also makes a furtherprediction not made by level-ordering, which is that -ify does not attach

outside any other level 1 suffix either (e.g. *person-al-ify, *destruct-iv-ify). The restriction against suffixation to an already-suffixed word cutsdown the number of potential suffix pairs considerably, and at the sametime does a large part of the work of level-ordering of suffixes.

Given the basic assumption with which we are working - that suffixesare free to attach (subject to restrictions) - we are committed to for-malising the restriction against suffixation to an already-suffixed word.The suffixes in (1) must select for a host which does not contain a suffix,

or (which is the same thing) does not contain an internal ] bracket. (It isinteresting that this restriction is the converse of the restriction on cyclicstructure-changing rules like trisyllabic shortening, which apply only towords which have undergone suffixation; though it is not clear how tointerpret this fact.) In fact, stating the selection like this raises a problemfor the level-ordering approach as developed in e.g. Kiparsky (1982a).Kiparsky adopts a convention whereby brackets are erased at the end ofa level; this means, in his words, that "a secondary affix such as -ismcould not be sensitive to the difference between an underived base and aprimary derivative." A nuimber of the affixes in (1) are secondary (i.e.level 2) affixes, which do distinguish between a host of the type [word(unsuffixed)] and of the type [word + level 1 suffix]; hence Kiparsky'sprediction appears to be incorrect. This may suggest that all internalbrackets are visible to all suffixes. The approach to bracketing suggestedhere, where all internal brackets are visible to all derivational suffixes, is


7/27/2019 Suffixes 4047592

9/14

534 NIGEL FABB

incompatible with an account of noun-to-verb ZERO-DERIVATION pro-posed by Kiparsky which requires debracketing after level 1 suffixation

and before level 2 suffixation in order to account for the possibility of e.g.to engineer and the impossibility of e.g. *to singer (Kiparsky, 1982b, p.141).

2.2. Suffixes which Attach Outside One Other Suffix

Consider next the suffixes which attach outside just one other suffix. Therelevant suffixes and their pairs are:

(2) [1 1] Noun-forming -ary -ionary eg. revolutionary (noun)[12] Adj-forming -ary -ionary e.g. revolutionary (adj)[16] denominal -er -ioner e.g. vacationer[21] -ic -istic e.g. modernistic[38] -(at)ory -ificatory e.g. modificatory[40] deadjectival -y -ency e.g. residency

How can we enable -ary to attach outside -ion but not outside any othersuffix? One possibility is that there is a non-compositional suffix -ionary,which coexists alongside -ary and -ion. There are several problemswhich arise in the attempt to argue for a compound suffix of this kind.These, exemplified with -ionary, are as follows: (a) the pair -ionary hasthe same selectional properties as -ion; (b) where there is a word with thestructure X-ionary there is always also a word with the structure X-ion;(c) the semantics of the X-ion-ary word is the semantics we wouldexpect if it was constructed by X-ion, then by Xion-ary. These problemscan be solved if -ion-ary is not monomorphemic, but rather constructedas a compound suffix, as follows: -ary selects for a non-complex host.However, it is unusual in that while the unmarked case for most suffixesis that they select for words, -ary has the option also of selecting for onespecific suffix, -ion. Both noun- and adjective-forming -ary attach to -ionto form a compound suffix, and -ion-ary then attaches to the word. Theconsequences of this analysis are as follows: (a) The compound suffix-ion-ary would share the selectional properties of -ion as these propertieswould percolate from -ion to -ionary (the selectional properties of -arywill not percolate as they will be bound, or 'used up', in the compoundingwith -ion.) (b) Since -ionrary and -ion share the same selectional proper-ties, we would expect always to find that a word which is selected by-ionary can also be selected by -ion. (c) The history of construction ofthe word would then be represented as [[word] [[ion] [ary]]; but seman-


7/27/2019 Suffixes 4047592

10/14


tically the word would be interpreted as [[[word][ion]][ary]], hence res-pecting a different constituency from that derived by the history of

derivation. In some current research it is argued that the step-by-stepcarrying out of a semantic interpretation need not respect the history ofderivation of a word: a mismatch is found between the structure given bythe order of derivation and the structure implied by the meaning in otherEnglish words like transformational grammarian, as discussed by Wil-liams (1981), and in German words with the compound suffix -er-in, asdiscussed by Moortgat (1985). Williams argues for a limited dissociationof semantic constituency from history-of-derivation constituency, while

Moortgat argues for a complete dissociation of the two.A similar account could be given of the other suffixes in (2). Aronoff

(1976, p. 120) argues that -ist-ic is actually derived from -ism + -ic. Notethat level-ordering does not solve the problems we are faced with here.In each case a suffix seems to have a particular affinity for another suffix;we are not dealing with affinities between sets of suffixes, as in level-ordering. It is interesting to note that many of these suffixes attach to-ion. An interesting footnote here is deadjectival -er, which attaches toadjectives ending in -ern: southern, southerner etc., but not to unsuffixedadjectives or adjectives ending in other suffixes. Here we seem to beconfronted with a specialised form (deadjectival -er) which attaches onlyto a bound morpheme (-ern) to form a suffix compound -ern-er, never toa word.

2.3. Freely Attaching SuffixesA few suffixes are subject to no selectional restrictions other than thoseinvolving part-of-speech. These are:

(3) [1] -able[17] deverbal -er[37] -ness

About these, nothing need be said.Suffix [15] -en is something of a special case; as pointed out earlier, it

will attach only to monosyllables. Thus the failure of -en to attachoutside other suffixes is derivable from that; -en does attach outside -th -a suffix which does not add a syllable to the word. The correct resultsfollow from saying that -en is constrained only by two selectionalrestrictions (a) involving category, (b) involving monosyllables.


7/27/2019 Suffixes 4047592

11/14

536 NIGEL FABB

2.4. A Problematic Group of Suffixes

We have considered suffixes which attach only to non-complex hosts, andsuffixes which are (except for part-of-speech) unrestricted. We now turnto the only suffixes so far not mentioned, the six suffixes which aresemi-productive:

(4) SUFFIX COMBINES WITH[5] Noun-selecting-al -ion -ment -or[24] -ion -ize (both) -ify (both) -ate[30] -ity -ive -ic -al -an -ous -able[26] Adj-selecting -ism -ive -ic -al -an[28] Adj-selecting -ist -ive -ic -al -an[32] Adj-selecting -ize -ive -ic -al -an

There are two ways that we might account for these pairs. We might takethe approach of Section 2.2, and specify that the suffix attaches only tounderived words and to some specific suffixes (e.g. - ion selects forunderived words, but also selects for the following suffixes: ize, ify, ate),or we could look for some property common to the selected-for suffixeswhich is encoded in the selectional properties of the selecting suffix. Thesecond approach is difficult to test for -al and -ion in particular, as -al isthe only one of these suffixes which attaches to nouns, and -ion the onlyone which attaches to verbs. Thus for example we could assign a feature[F] to -ion, -or and -ment, and say that -al selects for this feature; butthere would be no way of independently testing whether the feature isrelevant for selection because no other suffixes in (4) select for nouns. Allsix suffixes in (4) are characterised by Anshen et al. (1986) as "cate-gorically preferring Latinate bases". This is likely to be at least partiallyresponsible for the restricted combinatory properties of these suffixeswith other suffixes; the suffixes which they combine with (on the right in(4)) could be assigned a feature [+latinate], and the six suffixes (on theleft in (4)) would select for [+latinate]. Such an approach plausiblyaccounts for -ion, which fails to attach to just one verbalising suffix - -en- which is

etymologically Germanic (and which itself selects for Ger-manic bases). This does not work so well for -al, which, if it attached toany latinate noun-forming suffix, we might expect to attach to e.g. -ity,-ism, -ance etc. Thus either denominal -al is in principle free to attachbut there are other (unknown) selectional restrictions involved whichprevent it attaching to these suffixes, or -al belongs with affixes like -ismin that it attaches to underived words and to three specified suffixes.

Consider now -ity, which attaches to Latinate bases, and combines


7/27/2019 Suffixes 4047592

12/14


with six suffixes (which are presumably therefore Latinate). The ad-jective-forming suffixes which it does not attach to are -ant, -ary, -ed,

thetwo

-ful, -ish, thetwo

-ly, -ory, -y. However, some of these suffixeswould seem to be Latinate; -ant and -ary for example attach to Latinatebases. Thus restricting ity to attach to Latinate bases still fails to accountfor at least two non-occurring pairs, -ant-ity and -ary-ity. Possibly ablocking effect (Aronoff 1976, ch. 3) is responsible for *-ant-ity (it isblocked by -ance). And there may be a phonologically-based estrictionapplying to -ity as well; adjective-selecting -ity attaches only to basewords ending in non-glide consonants, which means that it would not

attach outside -ary, -ory or -y. Thus -ity can be plausibly accounted forby saying that it selects for latinate bases which end in a consonant, andthat there is a blocking effect with -ance.

The remaining hree suffixes are interesting because they combine withthe same restricted set of suffixes: al, -ive, -an and -ic. While -ize, -ismand -ist select for latinate bases, this restriction s clearly inadequate tocover all the nonoccurring ypes of suffix pairs in this case, as it does notexplain why -ous, -able, -ant, - ary, and -ory are not potential partners.

Consider for example the possibilities nvolving the base word sense:

(5) sens-ual-ize, sens-ual-ist, sens-ual-ism

(6) sens-itive-ize, (?sens-itiv-ist), ?sens-itiv-ism)

(7) *sens-uous-ize, *sens-uous-ist, *sens-uous-ism

(8) *sens-ible-ize, *sens-ible-ist, *sens-ible-ism

(9) *sens-ory-ize, *sens-ory-ist, *sens-ory-ism

The pairs -ant + -ism and -ant + -ist may be blocked by -ance; -ant +-ize may not occur because the structure of the word would then beVerb+ant+ize, a form possibly blocked by the existence of the underly-ing word (e.g. defend blocks defendant-ize). Support or this comes fromthe observation that it is denominal -al (not deverbal -al) that -izeattaches to. I have no proposals regarding the failure of the othersuffix-combinations level-ordering does not help; e.g. it cannot explainwhy the level 1 suffix -ous cannot be followed by the level 2 suffix -ismetc.). The descriptive facts can be straightforwardly, f nonexplanatorily,derived by assigning a feature cp to -al, -an, -ic and -ive, and assigning aselectional restriction o -ism, -ist and -ize requiring hat they attach toalready-suffixed words only if the word carries the feature ,p.


7/27/2019 Suffixes 4047592

13/14

538 NIGEL FABB

3. LEVEL-ORDERING AND THE SELECTIONAL RESTRICTIONS

In the first part of this paper I showed that, given the general aim ofruling out all nonoccurring pairs of suffixes, level-ordering of suffixes isless powerful than may have been assumed. In the second part of thepaper I showed how all but a few non-occurring pairs of suffixes can beruled out solely by a combination of selectional restrictions, of which oneof the most extensive in its effects is a restriction against attachment toan already-suffixed word. The argument against the level-ordering ofsuffixes which arises from Sections 1 and 2 is for the most part an indirect

one: it is that level-ordering does no extra work in ruling out suffix pairsbeyond that done by independently needed selectional restrictions. Noneof the selectional restrictions proposed in part 2 of this paper is maderedundant by level-ordering. The selectional restrictions in part 2moreover make correct predictions where level-ordering makes incorrectpredictions, and the few unaccounted-for cases are unaccounted for alsoby level-ordering.

The only incompatibility with the level-ordering approaches relates tothe Bracketing Erasure Convention (Kiparsky 1982a, b), which erases allinternal brackets in a word at the end of a level. The problem is thatmany suffixes (listed in (1)) which attach only to unsuffixed words arelevel 2 suffixes. If any suffixation at level 1 was rendered invisible bybracketing erasure, then one of these level 2 suffixes would not be able todistinguish between a word containing no suffix and a word containing alevel 1 suffix, and so would not be able to obey the selectional restrictionwhich is descriptively true of it.

The interest of level-ordering of affixes came from the identicaldivisions into two subsets of affixes required (a) in order to predictnonoccurring pairs, and (b) in order to identify them as being visible tocertain phonological rules (such as the English Stress Rule). Abandoninglevel-ordering of affixes would mean dropping one of the subdivisions;affixes would now be distinguished only by whether or not they arevisible to the appropriate phonological rules. It would be possible toretain a level-ordered

phonology,but to

carryout all

affixation inadvance of phonology, with a subset of the affixes assigned a featurewhich would make them a possible input to rules like the English StressRule (rather in the way that Case makes an NP visible to certainsemantic or phonological rules in Government-Binding theory). This issimilar to the LOOP device used in Halle & Mohanan (1985, p. 64), which"allows a stratum distinction for the purposes of phonology, withoutimposing a corresponding distinction in morphological distribution".


7/27/2019 Suffixes 4047592

14/14

ENGLISH SUFFIX ATION 539

To conclude, one of the strongest, most frequently stated, and mosthistorically important arguments for level-ordering is that level-ordering

of suffixes makes new predictions about nonoccurring pairs in English. Inthis paper I have suggested that this argument can no longer be made,thus weakening the overall evidence for the level-ordering of mor-phemes.

REFERENCES

Anshen, Frank, Mark Aronoff, Roy Byrd and Judith Klavans: 1986, 'The Role of

Etymology and Word-length in English Word Formation', ms., SUNY Stonybrook/IBMThomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY.Aronoff, Mark: 1976, Word Formation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge,

Mass.Halle, Morris and K. P. Mohanan: 1985, 'Segmental Phonology of Modern English',

Linguistic Inquiry 16, 57-1 16.Kiparsky, Paul: 1982a, 'Word Formation and the Lexicon', in F. Ingemann (ed.), Proceed-

ings of the Mid-America Linguistics Conference, University of Kansas, Lawrence.: 1982b, 'From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology', in H. van der Hulst & N.

Smith (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations, Part 1, Foris, Dordrecht.Moortgat, Michael:

1987, 'Mixed Composition and Discontinuous Dependencies', inR. Oehrle, E. Bach and D. Wheeler (eds.), Categorial Grammars and Natural Lan-guage Structures, Reidel, Dordrecht.

Siegel, Dorothy: 1974, 'Topics in English Morphology', Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, published1979 by Garland, New York.

Strauss, Steven: 1982, 'On "Relatedness Paradoxes" and Related Paradoxes', LinguisticInquiry 13, 694-700.

Walker, John: 1924, The Rhyming Dictionary, revised by L. Dawson, Routledge, London.Williams, Edwin: 1981, 'On the Notions "Lexically Related" and "Head of a Word"',

Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245-274.

Received 21 April 1987Revised 16 December 1987

Programme in Literary LinguisticsDepartment of English StudiesUniversity of StrathclydeLivingstone Tower, 26 Richmond StreetGlasgow GI IXH, Scotland

Suffixes 4047592

Documents

Transcript of Suffixes 4047592