Some affixes are roots, others are heads

2018

A recent debate in the morphological literature concerns the status of derivational affixes. While some linguists (Marantz 1997, 2001; Marvin 2003) consider derivational affixes a type of functional morpheme that realizes a categorial head, others (Lowenstamm 2015; De Belder 2011) argue that derivational affixes are roots. Our proposal, which finds its empirical basis in a study of Dutch derivational affixes, takes a middle position. We argue that there are two types of derivational affixes: some that are roots (i.e. lexical morphemes) and others that are categorial heads (i.e. functional morphemes). Affixes that are roots show ‘flexible’ categorial behavior, are subject to ‘lexical’ phonological rules, and may trigger idiosyncratic meanings. Affixes that realize categorial heads, on the other hand, are categorially rigid, do not trigger ‘lexical’ phonological rules nor allow for idiosyncrasies in their interpretation.

1999

2001

Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft

In this paper we offer an overview of the linguistic phenomena that have traditionally been handled by means of zero affixes and of the theoretical debate around the advantages and disadvantages of employing such null morphemes in theoretical modeling. While the advantage of positing zero affixes is straightforward from an empirical perspective (see inflectional syncretism and affixless category change, among others), their theoretical legitimacy has been controversially debated for several decades. In this overview, we present the main problems that have been brought forward against zero affixation and some of the mechanisms that have been proposed as an alternative. Finally, we show how the different articles in our edited collection contribute to this debate by addressing the following three research questions: (1) How do current theories of derivational morphology deal with linguistic phenomena that seem to involve zero affixes? (2) How do zero derivational affixes compare with ...

2004

This article looks in some detail at the semantics of the affixes -er and -ee in English, at the affix -er in Dutch, and at the fact that Dutch seems to lack a specific process of word formation analogous to -ee in English. We also look at the formation of subject-and object-oriented nouns in a larger context, raising the question of what happens in a language that lacks a productive derivational means for expressing a particular morphological concept. We argue that an explanation of the most deviant derivations with these affixes arises only when we consider the paradigmatic nature of affixal semantics.

1986

Some morphologists have proposed the separation of form and meaning in morphology because of the lack of a one-to-one correspondence between them. In this paper it is shown that this position is ill-advised since it impedes a deeper insight into the systematics of the interpretation of complex words. This is demonstrated by a detailed study of one affix, the déverbal suffix -er in Dutch, which creates subject names. The apparent polysemy of this suffix appears to follow from independent, nonlinguistic principles.

2000

In this paper, a comment on Kaisse's article on the role of phonology in English word formation, a range of phenomena is discussed that confirm Kaisse's conclusion that "the relation between word formation and phonology is complex". The article deals with a number of types of interaction between morphology and phonology, in particular prosodic determinants of the shape of bound morphemes, the way in which affixes compete, and restrictions on stacking up affixes. The data are taken mainly from Dutch.

Cognition, 2000

2010

Perhaps the biggest challenge in derivational morphology is to reconcile morphological idiosyncrasy with semantic regularity. How can it be explained that words with dead affixes and irregulär allomorphy can nonetheless exhibit straightforward and stable semantic relations to their etymological bases (cf. strength ‘property of being strong’, obedience ‘act of obeying’, ‘property of being obedient’)? Theories based on the idea of capturing regularity in terms of synthetic rules for building up complex words out of morphemes along with rules for interpreting such structures in a compositional fashion have not made - and arguably cannot make - sense of this phenomenon. Taking the perspective of the learner in acquisition, I propose an alternative approach to meaning assignment based, not on syntagmatic relations among their constituent morphemes, but on paradigmatic relations between whole words. This approach not only explains the conditions under which meaning relations between words...