Affix: a bound morpheme that attaches to bases; It is not so easy … · Affixes are obligatorily bound. Yet, what is the difference between an affix and a bound root? A root is by

AffixationAffixation

� Affix: a bound morpheme that attaches to bases;

� It is not so easy to determine whether an element in a word is a bound morpheme or not;

◦ Consider the words in italics below:

◦ ‘I only choose user-friendly programmes’;‘I only choose user-friendly programmes’;

◦ ‘Some students are careless, others are restless’;

◦ ‘Turn the key clock-wise to open the door’;

◦ ‘Exposure to dioxin-like compounds is very dangerous’;

� Which of the morphemes making up the italiced compounds above do you think is a bound morpheme and which a free morpheme?

1


� To determine whether the elements in the complex words user-friendly; careless; clock-wise; dioxin-like are free or bound we have tocheck whether they have the same meaning as when they are alone;

� Consider:

� Friendly: ‘easy to understand or use’. Is the meaning of friendly in the � Friendly: ‘easy to understand or use’. Is the meaning of friendly in the compound the same as that of friendly as a free morpheme? Syntactic category?

� Like= ‘similar to’. Is the meaning of like in the compound the sameas that of like as a free morpheme? Syntactic category?

� Less: ‘opposite of more’. Is the meaning of less in the compound the same as that of less as a free morpheme? Syntactic category?

� Wise: ‘clever’. Is the meaning of wise in the compound the same asthat of wise as a free morpheme? Syntactic category?

2


� Conclusions: only if there are significant differences in usage between a certain element in a complex word and its usage as a free morpheme can we assume that we are dealing with two different items. In such a case the with two different items. In such a case the given element is an affix;

� Conversely, if there are not significant differences, we can safely assume that we are dealing with free morphemes and then the complex word is a compound;

3

AffixationAffixation� Affixes are obligatorily bound. Yet, what is the difference between

an affix and a bound root?

� A root is by definition the central part of a complex word. However, when is that part central and when it is not?

� This problem is crucial in all those words which contain neoclassical elements; that is to say, elements borrowed from Latin or Greek even though their combination has a modern origin;Latin or Greek even though their combination has a modern origin;

� Consider the words below:

� Biography Astrology

� Biodata Scientology

� Biorhythm Psychology

� BUT: what about a word like Biology?

4


� To solve the problem we have to consider elements ofLatin-Greek origin as bound roots;

� In such a case, words like Biography; Biodata; Biorhythmand so on are examples of compounding, not ofaffixation;

� In fact, most native speakers would recognize that the word bio means ‘life’ and that the word ‘graphy’ means‘something written’;

� Thus, ‘biography’ means writing about the life (ofsomeone) or ‘biodata’ means ‘facts of information’ aboutthe life (of someone) and so on;

5


� There is a difference, however, between neoclassical forms and native compounds: the former are obligatorily bound;

� This is the reason why neoclassical elements tend to be called combining forms;tend to be called combining forms;

� In conclusion, neoclassical formations are usually dealt with as compounds, while native compounds are dealt with as cases of affixation.

6

GeneralGeneral propertiesproperties ofof English English affixationaffixation

� The advantage of investigating general properties of English affixes first, is that such properties need not be considered again when each individual affix is examined;

� Individual properties, in fact, are predictable on the basis of more general properties;

� The general properties of affixes are mainly of a phonological nature, but they also play a crucial role on the combinatorial possibilities between affixes, roots and other affixes;

� The phonological properties of suffixes and prefixes show both differences and similarities between sets of affixes;

7


� Consider as an example the words below:

� A (prefixes)

� Construct Deconstruct

� Consider Reconsider

� Doctoral Postdoctoral

Evidence Counterevidence� Evidence Counterevidence

� B (suffixes)

� Collective Collectivism

� Address Addressee

� Mandate Mandatory

� Terror Terrorize

� Do you notice any change in the pronunciation or in the shape of bases between affixes and prefixes?

8


� Prefixes:

� /ˈdɒktərəl / /ˌpəʊstˈdɒktərəl /

� /kənˈsɪdəʳ/ /ˈriːkənˈsɪdəʳ/

� Suffixes:� Suffixes:

� /ˈmændeɪt / /mænˈdeɪtəri /

� /əˈdres/ /ˌædreˈsiː/

BUT

� /ˈlɪmɪt/ /ˈlɪmɪtlɪs/

� ˈemptɪ/ /ˈemptɪnɪs/

9


� Consider also the following changes (dots mark syllable boundaries):

� Man.date Man.da.tory

� Chal.lenge Chal.len.ging

� What happens in the suffixation process?

� Look at the words below. Which of them produce alternation and � Look at the words below. Which of them produce alternation and which don’t? Can you infer general rules for the suffixes that produce such a difference?

� emptiness; determination; careless; instrumental; simplicity; informative; plentiful;

� The morpho-phonological alternations above are due to what is called the prosodic structure of words;

10


� By prosody is meant all the phonological features (syllable, stress, rhythms, intonation) that affect phonological units larger individual sounds;

� All the phenomena related to such phonological features are governed by rules;

� In terms of suffixation what matters is the structure of the syllable and the prosodic word;

� A syllable is a phonological unit consisting of the onset; the nucleus and the coda;

� The onset is the first unit of the syllable and contains the syllable-initial consonant;

� The nucleus is the central part and consists of vowels;

11

ProsodicProsodic structurestructure

� The coda contains the syllable-final consonant:

� The rime is the part containing the nucleus and the coda (but not the onset);

� s/ \/ \

O R/ \ / \| | N C| | | |

[F l a p]

12


� The onset and the coda are in priciple optional

elements while the nucleus is obligatorily filled:

� s/ \/ \

O R/ \ / \| | N C| | | | | |

[ eye ]

�13


� There are as many onsets as there are syllables and not just one onset for more syllables. For example, a word like presenter has three syllabes with three onsets and not three syllables with only one onset: e.g. Pre.sen.ti.ment; *Pres.ent.i-ment

� The tendency of English syllables to create onsets rather than codas. Look below:

� Ba.na.na; *Ban.an.a;

� Ho.ri.zon; *Hor.iz.on;

� Yet, if there is a cluster of consonants such a division is more difficult. Observe what happens with consonant-clusters like [nf] and [rtm] and [str]:

� Down.fall *Dow.nfall

� Apart.ment *Apa.rtment

� What is the reason for this non-unitary behaviour of consonants?

14


� The reason is that some onset clusters are illegal in English;

� We can conclude by saying that, as a tendency, word-internal consonants end up in onset position unless such a cluster is illegal: e.g. it cannot form a syllable-initial combination;

� Question: what has syllabification to do with morphology?

� Look at the word boundaries in the sets of words below:� Look at the word boundaries in the sets of words below:

� Set 1:

� Snow.#flake; *Sno.w#flake;

� Bull.#dog; *Bull#d.og;

� Set 2:

� Tight.#rope; *Tigh.t#rope; cf.Trope;

� Drop.#let; *Dro.p#let; cf.Plethora;

� What can you infer from the data above in terms of onsets?

15


� Morphology has to do with syllabification because the domain of the mechanisms that rules the latter is the word;

� Syllabification deals with phonological units. Yet, since words are morphological units, the phonological or prosodic word is the domain of syllabification;

� Consider again the affixed words below:� Consider again the affixed words below:

� Mis.#un.der.stand; *Mi.s#un.der.stand;

� Help.#less; *Hel.p#less;

� As you can see, in the words in the left hand column the word boundary coincides with the syllable boundary, while in the right hand column, word boundaries that are allowed in English monomorphemic words are not licensed as word-boundaries;

� Conclusion 1: there must be a prosodic word boundary between the base and the affix: e.g. Mis.[un.der.stand]Prw; Prw[Help.]less

16


� Also, compare the complex words below:

� Help Help.less

� Al.ter.nate Al.ter.na.tion

� What difference do you notice in the two words above?

� Conclusion 2: suffixes that start with a consonant do not becomepart of the prosodic word, while suffixes that start with a vowelpart of the prosodic word, while suffixes that start with a vowelintegrate into the prosodic word:

� Prw[Help.]less vs [ Al.ter.na.tion]Prw

� Conclusion 3. by forming one prosodic word with the base, suffixes can influence the prosodic structure of the derivative.

� Affixes which are not part of the prosodic word cannot do this.

17

ExercisesExercises

� Look at the verbs below dealing with the nominalization of the verb mistify andcharacterize. Point out the restrictions that affect the selection of nominalizing affixes deriving from such verbs:deriving from such verbs:

� Mistification Characterization

� *Mistify-ation *Characterize-cation

� *Mistify-ion *Charactirize-ion

� *Mistify-al *Characterize-al

� *Mistify-ment *Characterize-ment

18

ExercisesExercises

� The verb-forming suffixes –ify and –ize impose severe phonological restricitions on the possible base words. Try to point them out using the words below. Focus on the number of syllables and stress pattern.

� -ize derivatives:

� Accademicize; accessorize; abslotutize;

� *artize; *massize; *speechize;

� -ify derivatives:

� Gentrify; massify; mythify;

� *randomify; *activify; *modernify;

19

GappingGapping

� Both in compounding and in (certain cases of) affixation it ispossible to coordinate two words by leaving aside one element;

� This phenomenon is called gapping. See below:

� 1.in compounds: e.g. ‘Word and sentence structure’;

� 2.with prefixes: e.g. ‘De-and recolonization’;

� 3.with suffixes: e.g. Child- and homeless’;� 3.with suffixes: e.g. Child- and homeless’;

� BUT:

� *feder- and local’ (federal and local);

� *computer- and formalize’ (computerize and formalize);

� From the data above, when is gapping possible?

20

GappingGapping and and EtymologyEtymology

� Conclusion: gapping is only possible with affixes thatdo not form one prosodic word together with the base;

� Also the etymology of a suffix may affect its behaviour. Compare the suffixes in word-set 1 and word-set 2. In what way do they differ?

� 1.Exterminate; Federal; Artist; Purify; Identity; Human; Laughable;

� 2.Freedom; Weaken; Beautifull; Citizenship;

� Surgeon; Attentiveness; Manhood; Sailor;

� Suffixes in set 1differ in behaviour from those in set 2. How?

21

EtymologyEtymology

� The suffixes in set 1 are of Germanic origin (e.g. –full; -dom; -ness; -se; -ship) and are indifferent to the type of base (both Latin and Germanic);Latin and Germanic);

� The suffixes in set 2, instead, are of Latin or Greek origin (also through intermediate languages like French) and prefer Latinate bases. Also, they often have the latter as bound roots;

22

EtymologyEtymology

� Question: how do native speakers know which suffix is ofGermanic origin and which of Latin or Greek origin?

� Again, phonology plays a crucial role in that the phonologicalproperties of roots and affixes discriminate between the two;

� In fact, most of Latinate suffixes start with a vowel sound whilenative suffixes (i.e. of Germanic origin) tend to start with a native suffixes (i.e. of Germanic origin) tend to start with a consonant sound;

� Native roots are mostly monosyllabic (or dysillabic with anunstressed second syllable: e.g. water). Latinate roots, instead, are mainly polysyllabic and often occur as bound roots (e.g. investig-);

� Latinate affixes are problematic in combining with Germanic affixes(e.g. *artist-hood), while Germanic affixes often present fewerproblems in this (e.g. effective-ness)

23

English English AffixesAffixes

� How many?

� It is very difficult to calculate the number of English affixes exactly but some corpora (Hay and Baayen, 2002) report 54 suffixes and 26 prefixes. Other corpora (Stockwell and Minkova, 2001), instead, report 129 affixes;

� There are vaious ways of classififying affixes:� There are vaious ways of classififying affixes:

� 1.according to their position in the word (affixes first, then infixes and finally suffixes);

� 2.according to the syntactic category of the base;

� 3.according to their semantic properties;

� 4.according to whether they change the syntactic category of the base;

� Classifications from 2 to 4 present, however, problems at various levels;

24


� Consider the words in the sets below and define both the class of words they attach to and their meaning;

� Suffixes:� Suffixes:

� Set 1: Coverage; recital; riddance; applicant; animacy; boredom; employee; auctioneer; singer; cakery; princess; cupfull; historian; wrapping; hyphenation; revisionism; profundity; assessement; attentiveness; friendship;

25


� Set 2: Formate; methanate; blacken; solidify; randomize;

� Set 3: readable; cultural; evolutionary; fair-minded; burlesque; forgetful; economic/al; minded; burlesque; forgetful; economic/al; boring; summerish; receptive; hopeless; continous;

� Set 4: Shortly; lengthwise;

26


� Prefixes:

� asymmetrical; anti-particle; decolinize; dishonest; mispronounce; dishonest; mispronounce; inactive/irregular/illegal; non-commercial; unreadable;

27

InfixesInfixes

� In general, English does not allow infixes. Yet, there is the possibilityof inserting expletives to coin new words especially to express a negative attitude (e.g. abso-blooming-lutely);

� This implies that English, up to a certain extent, does allowinfixation, even though there are not bound morphemes entitled tobe defined as infixes proper;

� Two types of questions about this type of infixation process in English:1.what kind of structural properties words deriving frominfixation have; 2.should we consider this type of infixation as a part of the word-formation process in English? See below:

� Possible infixes Impossible infixes

� Frònt-expl-tier *Tí-expl-ger

� Sàr-expl-dine *Sé-expl-rene

� What can you conclude from the words above?

28

InfixesInfixes

� There should be a stressed syllable to the left and one to the right of the expletive;

� BUT: * cár-expl-nivòre

� English is mainly a trochaic language. That is, feet are formed by one stressed syllable followed by one unstressed syllable;

� Conclusions: expletives have to be inserted between two feet. It is not possible to interrupt a foot. Thus, infixation in English can be seen as a case possible to interrupt a foot. Thus, infixation in English can be seen as a case of prosodic morphology,whereby prosodic units and prosodic restrictions are mainly responsible for the formation of complex words;

� Question 2: even though it is true that infixation in English does not create new lexemes (the meaning of the base is not affected), yet it reveals the speaker’s attitude, which adds something new to the original meaning;

� Also, consider a word like doggy: it does not add the meaning ‘small’ but only expresses the speaker’s attitude. There is, then, a problem of lexicalization, even though the latter may be due to the low frequency of the word.

29

ExercisesExercises

� Study the data below and point out the features the suffixes –ion and –ure have in common.

� -ion

� Dominate - Domination

� Elevate - Elevation

� Dissipate - Dissipation� Dissipate - Dissipation

� -ure

� Seize - Seizure

� Depart - Departure

� Displease - Displeasure

30

Documents

Affix: a bound morpheme that attaches to bases; It is not so easy … · Affixes are obligatorily bound. Yet, what is the difference between an affix and a bound root? A root is by