Classifying Affixes and Multiple Affixation in Modern English

Stein, Gabriele

doi:10.1515/zaa.2009.57.3.233

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their study is largely based on assumptions in Aronoff (1976) and uses the data set of the Oxford Dictionary of English on CD-Rom. Stein (2009), similar to, e.g., Hay (2002) and , also proposes a multiple-parameter approach. roughly the tendency for a word to have no more than one suffix, whereas German has closing suffixes.…”

Section: Corpus Evidence Psycholinguistics and Parsingmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…As will be shown, this issue is not easy to clarify. Other or new aspects of multiple affixation are discussed by, e.g., Burgschmidt (1978), , Kiparsky (1982), Fabb (1988, Giegerich (1999), Plag (1996Plag ( , 1999Plag ( , 2003, Hay (2000Hay ( , 2002, Hay and Baayen (2002), Aronoff and Fuhrhop (2002), , Rainer (2005), Kastovsky (1986Kastovsky ( , 2005, Bauer (2001Bauer ( , 2005, Stein (2009). Other or new aspects of multiple affixation are discussed by, e.g., Burgschmidt (1978), , Kiparsky (1982), Fabb (1988, Giegerich (1999), Plag (1996Plag ( , 1999Plag ( , 2003, Hay (2000Hay ( , 2002, Hay and Baayen (2002), Aronoff and Fuhrhop (2002), , Rainer (2005), Kastovsky (1986Kastovsky ( , 2005, Bauer (2001Bauer ( , 2005, Stein (2009).…”

Section: Combinability Selectional Restrictions and Parsing In (Multmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

46. Word-formation and analogy

Müller¹,

Ohnheiser²,

Olsen³

et al. 2015

Word-Formation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The implementation of argument-structural effects on word-formation is a vital aspect in modeling the lexical system and the interface between morphology and syntax. The current article provides an overview of theoretical perspectives in the field and presents analyses of structural principles holding in the domain. A number of test cases relating to fundamental operations, e.g., in compounding and nominalization are discussed, as well as specific conditions restricting the formation of morphologically complex words.of the integrative view of word-formation have been implemented in quite different grammar models since then, among them distributed morphology (cf. Harley 2008;Lieber 2006) and also construction grammar (cf. Booij 2009a(cf. Booij , 2009b Schlücker and Plag 2011, Borer 2003 and article 12 on construction grammar). A position mediating between the syntactic and the lexicalist stance is taken by Borer (1991), who promotes a parallel architecture. Here, internal word-structure is subject to a separate morphological rule system whose output, however, is visible to syntax in the derivation of the structural environment as well as the subcategorization features of complex words. Structural principlesIn order to capture the argument-structural characteristics of complex expressions in a principled manner, proponents of the different theories sketched above have formulated a number of rules relating to issues like the following: How is the AS of a verbal stem transferred to a derived form? What linking regularities underlie the linear and thematic organization of an output form? And what types of modifiers can a complex noun host? Certain answers to these questions might entail, for instance, that a phrasal modifier cannot occur within a synthetic compound: *apple on a stick taster, cf. Roeper (1988). Lieber (1992: 59 f.) explains this behavior on syntactic grounds when she argues that a phrase, i.e. a maximal projection like apple on a stick, is case-licensed in the complement position to the right of the head only and, therefore, cannot be moved leftward. Principles of argument projectionA central research question in the word-formation domain under discussion concerns the process by which AS features are projected up from lexical entries to produce complex word structures and, thus, grasp the intuition that the AS of a compound verb like panfry is a function of the AS of its head. Lieber (1983) conceives of this in terms of a feature percolation mechanism, which transfers the morpho-syntactic features (including the AS features) to the first non-branching node dominating that morpheme, see (ibid.: 252) and, for critical discussion, Lieber (1992: 86 ff.). Specific AS realizations are then derived from her argument linking principle see Lieber (1983: 258). It dictates that if a verbal head appears as sister to a (potential) internal argument that is the logical object, this argument slot will be linked (i.e. satisfied), thus bringing about the configuration of synthetic compounds like beer drinker as [[be...

show abstract

Section: Corpus Evidence Psycholinguistics and Parsingmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Combinability Selectional Restrictions and Parsing In (Multmentioning

confidence: 99%

46. Word-formation and analogy

Müller¹,

Ohnheiser²,

Olsen³

et al. 2015

Word-Formation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As will be shown, this issue is not easy to clarify. Other or new aspects of multiple affixation are discussed by, e.g., Burgschmidt (1978), Siegel (1979), Kiparsky (1982), Fabb (1988), Giegerich (1999), Plag (1996Plag ( , 1999Plag ( , 2002Plag ( , 2003, Hay (2000Hay ( , 2002, Hay and Baayen (2002), Aronoff and Fuhrhop (2002), Hay and Plag (2004), Rainer (2005), Kastovsky (1986Kastovsky ( , 2005, Bauer (2001Bauer ( , 2005, Baayen (2009), andStein (2009). Other or new aspects of multiple affixation are discussed by, e.g., Burgschmidt (1978), Siegel (1979), Kiparsky (1982), Fabb (1988), Giegerich (1999), Plag (1996Plag ( , 1999Plag ( , 2002Plag ( , 2003, Hay (2000Hay ( , 2002, Hay and Baayen (2002), Aronoff and Fuhrhop (2002), Hay and Plag (2004), Rainer (2005), Kastovsky (1986Kastovsky ( , 2005, Bauer (2001Bauer ( , 2005, Baayen (2009), andStein (2009).…”

Section: Combinability Selectional Restrictions and Parsing In (Multmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The major finding is that German and English are typologically different with respect to suffix combination: English has the monosuffix constraint, i.e. Stein (2009), similar to, e.g., Hay (2002) and Hay and Plag (2004), also proposes a multiple-parameter approach. More precisely, in English a suffix only combines with a Germanic base when the base has no suffix as a constituent.…”

Section: Corpus Evidence Psycholinguistics and Parsingmentioning

confidence: 99%