Cover not available
Article published In:
Lexical Issues in the Architecture of the Language Faculty
Edited by Andrea Padovan
[Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 2:1] 2020
► pp. 84–111

Why prefixes (almost) never participate in vowel harmony

| University of Tromsø
| University of Tromsø
One of the most common ways of morphological marking is affixation, morphemes are classified according to their position. In languages with affixal morphology, suffixes and prefixes are the most common types of affixes. Despite several proposals, it has been impossible to identify solid generalisations about the behaviour of prefixes, in opposition to suffixes. This article argues that the reason is that our traditional definitions of suffix and prefix are based on pre-theoretical, surface criteria that have been given up in other areas of linguistics: defining a morpheme as a prefix does not tell us anything about its grammatical nature, as that label does not take into consideration the structural configuration underlying the morpheme. Once the structural configuration is taken into account, solid generalisations begin to emerge. The article illustrates the advantages of this approach through a study of the interaction between vowel harmony and affixes.
Keywords: prefix, suffix, vowel harmony, specifier, head, spell out, root control
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: The problem with prefixes
    • 1.1The problems of the traditional definition of prefix
    • 1.2The problematic consequences of the surface definition of prefix
  • 2.How many ways to be linearised to the left? Structural configurations
  • 3.Prefixes are phonologically isolated from the base, except when they are not
  • 4.How typical vowel harmony from roots to suffixes works
  • 5.Prefixes that are isolated from vowel harmony processes
  • 6.Prefixes that undergo vowel harmony are heads
  • 7.Tunen or what happens when there is no root
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00016.fab
References (80)
References
Anderson, S. R. (1980). Problems and perspectives in the description of vowel harmony. In R. Vago (Ed.), Issues in vowel harmony (pp. 1–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1985). “The Mirror Princople and morphosyntactic explanation”. Linguistic Inquiry 161, 373–415.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bakovic, E. (2000). Harmony, dominance and control. PhD Dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1990). Be-heading the word. Journal of Linguistics, 261, 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckman, J. (1998). Positional faithfulness. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Black, J. (2000). History of morphological research, I.II.4. The Ancient Near East. In Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan and Stavros Skopeteas (Eds.), Morphology: an international handbook on inflection and word formation (pp. 35–40). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. (2000). The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, (2000), 35–71.Google Scholar
Bonet, E. (1991). Morphology after syntax. PhD Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (1977). Dutch Morphology. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1983). Principles and parameters in prosodic phonology. Linguistics 211: 249–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. and Audring, J. (2017). Construction Morphology and the parallel architecture of gram-mar. Cognitive Science, 411, 277–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. (2005). In name only. Vol. 1 of the Exoskeletal Trilogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Taking form. Vol. 3 of the Exoskeletal Trilogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brody, M. (2000). Mirror theory: syntactic representation in perfect syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 211, 29–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., Pagliuca, W., & Perkins, R. D. (1990). On the asymmetries in the affixation of grammatical material. In W. Croft, K. Denning and S. Kemmer (Eds.), Studies in typology and diachrony (pp. 1–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caha, P. (2009). The nanosyntax of case. PhD Dissertation, CASTL, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 361, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. (2005). Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry, 361, 315–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1976 [1980]). Vowel harmony in Nonlinear Generative Phonology: an autosegmental model. Bloomington: Indiana Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
(1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook, 21, 225–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., Hawkins, J. and Gilligan, G. (1985). The suffixing preference: a processing explanation. Linguistics, 231, 723–758. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, M. (2018). Dependency and directionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. -M. (2005). Asymmetry in Morphology. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downing, L., & Krämer, M. (2019). Domains and directionality in Kinande vowel harmony: A Correspondence approach. Ms. University of Gothenburg, UiT The Arctic University of Norway.Google Scholar
Embick, D. (2000). Features, syntax and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry, 311, 185–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, A., Gil, I., & Varela, S. (2010). ¿Existen los prefijos categorizadores en español? In M. V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti and C. Sánchez López (Eds.), 60 problemas de gramática (pp. 360–366). Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Folarin, A. Y. (1988). Lexical phonology of Yoruba nouns and verbs. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Fradin, B. (1996). On morphological entities and the copy principle. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 431, 111–151.Google Scholar
(2003). Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gafos, A. I. (1999). The articulatory basis of locality in Phonology. PhD Dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Gibert Sotelo, E. (2017). Source and negative prefixes. PhD Dissertation, Universitat de Girona.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (2005). Words and structure. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hall, B., Hall, R. M. R., Pam, M. D., Antell, S. A., & Cherono, G. K. (1974). African harmony systems from the vantage point of Kalenjin. Afrika und Übersee, LVII1: 41, 241–267.Google Scholar
Halle, M. (1973). Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry, 41, 3–16.Google Scholar
(1997). Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and Fission. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 301, 425–449.Google Scholar
Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from Building 201 (pp. 111–176). Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hansson, G. O. (2001). Theoretical and typological issues in consonant harmony. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Harris, J. W. (1983). Syllable structure and stress in Spanish. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A., & Gilligan, G. (1988). Prefixing and suffixing universals in relationto basic word order. Lingua, 741, 219–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hupp, J. M., Sloutsky, V. M., & Culicover, P. W. (2009). Evidence for a domain-general mechanism underlying the suffixation preference in language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 241, 876–909. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyman, L. M. (2002). ‘Abstract’ vowel harmony in Kàlon: A system-driven account. In P. Sauzet and A. Zribi-Hertz (Eds.), Théories linguistiques et langues subsahariennes (pp. 130–151). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
(2008). Directional asymmetries in the morphology and phonology of words, with special reference to Bantu. Linguistics, 461, 309–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1971). Selected writings, vol. 21. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1981). Vowel harmony. Unpublished Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P., & Pajusalu, K. (2003). Towards a typology of disharmony. The Linguistic Review, 201, 217–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krämer, M. (2003). Vowel harmony and correspondence theory. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lebeaux, D. (1988). Language acquisition and the form of grammar. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Lightner, T. M. (1965). On the description of vowel and consonant harmony. Word, 211, 244–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mateu, J. (2002). Argument structure: Relational construal at the syntax-semantic interface. PhD Dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. (2003). Why prefixes? Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 501, 155–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montermini, F. (2008). Il lato sinistro della morfologia. La prefissazione in italiano e nelle lingue del mondo. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Mous, M. (1986). Vowel harmony in Tunen. In K. Bogers, H. van der Hulst and M. Mous (Eds.), The phonological representation of suprasegmentals (pp. 281–295). Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nevins, A. (2010). Locality in vowel harmony. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panagiotidis, Ph. (2002). Pronouns, clitics and empty nouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pensalfini, R. (2002). Vowel harmony in Jingulu. Lingua, 1121, 561–586. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Picallo, C. (2006). On gender and number. Unpublished Ms., CLT-Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Poser, W. J. (1982). Phonological representation and action-at-a-distance. In H. van der Hulst and N. R. Smith (Eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations (pp. 121–158). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, D. (1988). Vocalic underspecification in Yoruba. Linguistic Inquiry, 191, 233–270.Google Scholar
(1996). Neutral vowels in Optimality Theory: A comparison of Yoruba and Wolof. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 411, 295–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritter, E. (1991). Two functional categories in noun phrases. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Perspectives on phrase structures: heads and licensing (pp. 37–62). San Diego: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. D. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Scalise, S. (1984). Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serrano Dolader, D. (1995). Las formaciones parasintéticas en español. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
(1999). La derivación verbal y la parasíntesis. In I. Bosque and V. Demonte (Dirs.). Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp. 4683–4757). Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. (1993). Harmony, markedness and phonological activity. Paper presented at the Rutgers Optimality Workshop 1, Rutgers University: New Brunswick, New Jersey, October 1993.
St. Clair, M. C., Monaghan, P., & Ramscar, M. (2009). Relationships between language structure and language learning: The suffixing preference and grammatical categorization. Cognitive Science, 331, 1317–1329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation. PhD Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Underhill, R. (1976). Turkish Grammar. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (1999). Multiple spell-out. In S. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein (Eds.), Working Minimalism (pp. 251–282). Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Varela, S. (1990). Fundamentos de morfología. Madrid: Síntesis.Google Scholar
Varela, S., & Martín García, J. (1999). La prefijación. In I. Bosque and V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp. 4993–5041). Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. (1999). The evolution of c-structure: prepositions and PPs from Indo-European to Romance. Linguistics, 371, 1111–1153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. (1981). On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry, 121, 245–274.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, M. (2014). The universal structure of categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zamparelli, R. (2000). Layers in the determiner phrase. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1985). Heads. Journal of Linguistics, 211, 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Panagiotidis, Phoevos
2024. Against semantic features: the view from derivational affixes. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Schmeiser, Benjamin
2023. Morphological effects on Pali gemination: A preliminary study. Loquens 9:1-2 ► pp. e095 ff. DOI logo
Downing, Laura J. & Martin Krämer
2022. Domains and directionality in Kinande vowel harmony: a Correspondence approach. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 7:1 DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2024. The Fine-grained Structure of the Lexical Area [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 39], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.