On the Absence of Category-Changing Prefixes in English

On the Absence of Category-Changing Prefixes in EnglishAuthor(s): Michael HammondSource: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Summer, 1993), pp. 562-567Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178828 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 22:28

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 ofcontent 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].

.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Linguistic Inquiry.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.77.15 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 22:28:20 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178828?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


562 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION

ON THE ABSENCE OF

CATEGORY-CHANGING

PREFIXES IN ENGLISH

Michael Hammond University of Arizona

It has often been noted that there is a systematic gap in the paradigm of affixation in English. Whereas there is a plethora of category-changing suffixes, like those in (1), there are only a few category-changing prefixes, shown in (2).

(1) -er teacher, baker, runner, . . . -ness happiness, sadness, darkness, . -ize organize, scandalize, winterize, -ic atomic, syntactic, iconic, . etc.

(2) en- enrage, engender, encode, be- befriend, betoken, becloud, de- declaw, debrief, detrain, . .

This fact is noted by Williams (1981), for example, and for- malized as his Right-Hand Head Rule.

In this squib I argue that the rarity of these prefixes follows from a performance-based restriction on the generative capacity of affixation. Specifically, they are eschewed because they would require more than finite-state processing machinery. Moreover, I show that such a restriction on the generative power of affixation systems accounts for an unusual but con- sistent property of the few prefixes in (2).

Langendoen (1981) shows that the presence of prefixes like those in (2) would result in excessive generative power.

Consider first the hypothetical language Inglish in which agentive nouns are productively formed from verbs by the suffixation of -er, and in which verbs are productively formed from nouns by the prefixation of en-, with the meaning 'act like. . .'. For example, given the noun and verb stem fish 'fish', we have the words fisher 'one who fishes', enfish 'act like a fish', and enfisher 'act like one who fishes; one who acts like a fish'. More generally, the result of intersecting the vocabulary of Inglish with the regular set ([3]) re- sults in the set ([4]), which cannot be generated by a finite-state word-formation component.

([3]) {(en)"fish(er)n:m, n - O} ([4]) {(en)Y"fish(er)n:m, n 2 0 and I m - n 1}

Hence, the vocabulary of Inglish cannot be generated by a finite- state word-formation component. (p. 321)

A finite-state morphology can generate a regular language, that is, a language closed under union, concatenation, and Kleene star. Oversimplifying, what is schematized in (4) is a nonlocal dependency. The number of suffixes that can be added

Thanks to N. Fabb, C. Gerfen, C. Golston, A. Heiberg, S.-H. Hong, T. Langendoen, A. Lehrer, P. Lewis, S. Lorenson, S. O'Connor, D. Ohala, R. Sproat, J. Tsay, and two anonymous reviewers for useful discussion. All errors are my own.



SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION 563

is a consequence of the number of prefixes. Thus, if a form begins en-en-fish. . ., it must continue with from one to three -er's, else the form would be ungrammatical.

(5) [en [[en fishN]v erIN]v [[en [[en [fishv er]N]v er]NIv er]N [[en [[en fishNlv er]N]v er]N

or [en [[en [fishv er]NIv er]N]v

This demonstration requires that there be category-changing prefixes. If there are no such prefixes, or equivalently, if there were no category-changing suffixes, this problem would not arise. Hence, let us suppose that the rarity of the prefixes in (2) in English follows somehow from this natural restriction on the generative power of affixation systems.

Langendoen (1981) ends with a challenge to the reader. He contends that if a case like Inglish can be found, then affixation cannot be generated by a finite-state word-formation component. Here I will argue that although superficially English affixation is less powerful than that of Inglish, morphological theory should in fact countenance trans-finite-state affixation in principle. Specifically, cases that would enrich English to the point of Inglish are filtered out by the processing system in the course of acquisition. The argument that the limit is set by the processing system instead of the grammar is made on the basis of the following considerations: (a) the nature of the affixes that do make it into the morphology, and (b) the nature of the affixes that do not occur.

There are two ways to prevent English from becoming In- glish. One possibility is to restrict the morphology proper so that it is finite-state. Situations like (4) would then not be generated. Another possibility, however, is not to restrict the grammar per se, but restrict the processing system that allows the grammar to be acquired. The absence of cases like (4) then follows in much the same way as the absence of excessive center-embedding in syntax.

I propose the second solution, because restricting the affixation system so as to exclude category-changing prefixes misses the fact that there are category-changing prefixes in En- glish-albeit only a few of them. The absence of (4) follows not from an inherent restriction on the affixation system, but from a "conspiratorial" combination of independently required morphological properties.

What then of the fact that there are three category-changing prefixes in English? It turns out that all three prefixes in (2) are restricted in such a way that the relevant structures in (3) and (4) cannot arise. Specifically, all three prefixes are restricted so as to append only to morphologically underived bases. (I give in (6)-(8) all the even remotely plausible examples I could find from the American Heritage Dictionary.)




(6) en- enable enact enarmor encamp encase enchain enchant encipher encircle enclose encompass encounter encourage encroach encrust encumber encyst endanger endear endorse endow endure enforce enfranchise engage engender engrave engross engulf enjoin enjoy enlarge enlist enrage enrapture enroll enshrine enshroud enslave ensnare ensue entail entangle enthrall enthrone enthuse entomb entrain entrap entreat entrench entwine envenom envisage

(7) be- becalm becloud bedaub become bedazzle bedeck bedevil bedew befall befit befog befoul befriend beget begrime begrudge beguile behold behoove belabor belay beleaguer believe belittle bemoan bemuse benumb bequeath bequest berate beseech beset besiege besmear besmirch besot bespatter bespeak bespread besprinkle bestir bestow bestride betake bethink betoken bewitch bewilder bewail beware

(8) de- debark debase debrief debug debunk decamp decease deceive decide declaim declare decline decode decry deduce deface defame defeat defect defend defer deflate deflect deforest deform defray defrock defrost defuse defy degauss degrade deice deject delay delete delight delimit delude demand demean demerit demur denature denote denude depart depend deplane deplete deplore deploy deport depose deposit deprave depress deprive depute derail deride derive descend describe desert deserve design desire desist despair despise despite despoil despond destroy detach detail detain deter detest detour detrain devalue device devise devolve devote

There are only a few potential counterexamples (all boldfaced above). These all involve extremely opaque internal structure, however.

Support for this restriction on the prefixes comes from the behavior of en- and de- when they are not category-changing. Precisely when these affixes are appended to verbal bases, the base can be complex, as in (9) and (10). (I exclude from (10)




examples where de- is clearly not the last affix added, that is, deputize, desiccate, designate, and devaluate.)

(9) en- encapsulate enlighten enliven (10) de- deactivate decelerate decentralize

declassify decolonize deescalate defoliate degenerate dehumanize dehumidify dehydrate dehydrogenate deinstitutionalize delineate demagnetize demilitarize demobilize demodulate demoralize denitrify deodorize depopulate depreciate desolate detoxify

This restriction of category-changing prefixes to morphologically simple bases is not unusual. Fabb (1988) argues that a number of English suffixes are subject to a similar restriction. (See Hammond 1992 for an analysis of this general phenome- non.) It is unusual, however, that all category-changing prefixes exhibit this restriction and that they do not exhibit it when appended to bases of the same category.

Since there is no principled reason why all category-changing prefixes in English must exhibit this otherwise independent property of some suffixes, I conclude that it would be a mistake to exclude (4) by restricting the affixation system directly. Such a direct restriction on the affixation system would have the following character:

(11) The wrong grammatical restriction

Just in case a language has category-changing suffixation (alternatively, prefixation), its category-changing prefixes (alternatively, suffixes) are restricted to morphologically simple bases, unless they are for- tuitously attached to a base of the same category.

The details of such a constraint are hopelessly baroque, though the upshot is quite simple: finite-state power.

Instead, I propose that this restriction on category-changing prefixes is a consequence of the fact that the processing system cannot parse structures like (4). Hence, any productive prefix of English would end up being restricted in some way so that (4) does not result. Let us assume that the processing system is limited so that affixation must be finite-state. The grammar of affixation, on the other hand, has recourse to recursion, category-changing affixation, and the fact that certain affixes can be restricted to morphologically simple bases: the grammar of affixation is trans-finite-state. Confronted with forms like those in (4), the processing system would thus be unable to supply an analysis. The only prefixes that would emerge through such a processing filter would be either (a) those that




are not category-changing, (b) those that are category-changing, but are restricted to morphologically simple bases, or (c) those that are category-changing, but are restricted to morphologically simple bases when they do not apply in a category- changing fashion. Thus, on the view that the restriction is in the processing system, the facts of (11) emerge naturally. If, on the other hand, the processing system were not so restricted, these facts would have to be stipulated by brute force as in (11) as part of the grammar of affixation.

Of course, another reason to suppose that this restriction is a consequence of processing limitations is that it is very similar to the limits on certain kinds of center-embedding in syntax, which have also been argued to follow from processing con- cerns.

On either view, two facts are still unexplained. First, the same effect could be achieved by restricting suffixation instead of prefixation. Neither account above explains why it is the prefixes that are restricted here. This is no doubt connected to the fact that prefixation is generally more limited than suffixation, both in English and cross-linguistically.

Second, this limit on affixation does not extend to morphology in general. Culy (1985) argues that a type of whole- word reduplication in Bambara does exceed a finite-state morphology. This is not too surprising, however, since whole-word reduplication in Bambara behaves like compounding. Com- pounding is different from normal affixation in a number of re- spects. For example, Spencer (1991) notes that, although there is a great deal of evidence for hierarchical structure to compounding, such evidence is almost absent for affixation.

To sum up, I have argued that category-changing prefixes in English are rare and restricted to morphologically simple bases (when they actually change category). These properties prevent the problem Langendoen (1981) discusses from arising. I claim, then, that the resources of English affixation conspire so as to avoid exceeding the bounds of a finite-state morphological component. Langendoen (1981) ends his squib with a challenge to readers to find systems like (4). I have argued here that English affixation really is such a system, but the processing system prevents us from seeing it.

References

Culy, Christopher. 1985. The complexity of the vocabulary of Bambara. Linguistics and Philosophy 8:345-351.

Fabb, Nigel. 1988. English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6:527-540.




Hammond, Michael. 1992. Morphemic circumscription. Year- book of Morphology 4:195-209.

Langendoen, D. Terence. 1981. The generative capacity of word-formation components. Linguistic Inquiry 12:320- 322.

Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions "lexically related" and "head of a word." Linguistic Inquiry 12:245-274.

BULGARIAN AND SERBO-

CROATIAN YES-No

QUESTIONS: V0-RAISING TO

-LI VERSUS -Li HOPPING

Maria-Luisa Rivero University of Ottawa

Chomsky (1991) proposes that in Universal Grammar (UG) V?- raising is preferred over lowering of the affix-hopping type, because the latter is more costly than the former. In this squib I show that the distribution of the Bulgarian (B) and Serbo- Croatian (SC) question clitic -li in relation to Verbs supports this view of the relative costliness of lowering. Although recent treatments of English affix hopping by Iatridou (1990), Chom- sky (1992), and others have cast doubt on the availability of X?- lowering in UG by treating the relevant constructions as Spec- head agreement between a specifier and a base-inflected V, I will argue that Bulgarian -li cannot be so analyzed and that the facts thereby provide support for lowering.

I claim that B and SC -li is a bound morpheme generated in C?, which cannot remain stranded at S-Structure. B offers two X?-movement options to provide morphological support for this bound morpheme. V-movement may apply, incorporating V to -li. If this raising would violate constraints, then -li lowers instead. SC displays V-raising, but lacks the option of -li lowering.

1 V?-Raising to -1i in Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian

1.1 Simple or One-Word Tenses

The B and SC statements in (1) correspond to the yes-no questions in (2). In (2) -li occurs in second position, following V.

(1) a. Vidjaxme kniga-ta. (B) see + AORIST + I PL book-the 'We saw the book.'

I thank three reviewers and the editors for helpful comments, and Mila Dimitrova-Vulchanova and Emil Savov for Bulgarian data. M. Dimitrova-Vulchanova has provided extremely useful discussion, so I am indebted to her for this aspect also. SC da 1i and -li are discussed by Browne (1974, 1975), with excellent data; for examples not found in these sources, and help with SC, I am grateful to A. Donskov. I also thank the SSHRCC for grants 410-88-101 and 410-91-0178, and the Eurotyp project of the ESF. Usual disclaimers apply.



Documents

On the Absence of Category-Changing Prefixes in English