Cover not available
Part of
Competition in Word-Formation
Edited by Alexandra Bagasheva, Akiko Nagano and Vincent Renner
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 284] 2024
► pp. 34–71

Chapter 2
A lexicalist approach to affixal rivalry and its explanatory basis

ORCID logo | University of Shizuoka
This chapter explores the phenomenon of affixal rivalry, namely, the competition between synonymous affixes, using comparative data and the lexical semantic framework (LSF), which is a lexicalist theory in the generativist tradition. The LSF’s major goal is to explain derivational polysemy, and it uses the conceptual tools of (i) feature, (ii) underspecification, and (iii) merge and coindexation to address this issue. Crucially, these tools are indispensable to explaining why languages often have more than one derivational affix for one derivational function, as we demonstrate using paradigms of nominalization and adjectivization in English and Japanese. We interpret the observation of the same mechanisms underlying different phenomena not as a coincidence but rather as a suggestion that derivational polysemy and affixal rivalry are in fact two sides of the same coin, constituting a tight-knit interdependence on each other. As a related topic, we discuss the issue of base selection and elucidate key factors to successfully respond to the challenges raised in language acquisition and language change.
Keywords: affixal rivalry, affixal polysemy, semantic features, underspecification, merge, nominalization, adjectivization, base selection, English, Japanese
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Derivational polysemy in the LSF
    • 2.1Framework
    • 2.2The polysemy question
    • 2.3Three theoretical elements to explain the polysemy question
  • 3.Personal and participant nominalization in English
    • 3.1-er and ‑ee
    • 3.2LSF analysis
      • 3.2.1Transitive-verb-based doublets
      • 3.2.2Ditransitive-verb-based doublets
      • 3.2.3Morphological correspondence rules
  • 4.Personal and participant nominalization in Japanese
    • 4.1Deverbal nominalization
    • 4.2LSF analysis
      • 4.2.1Transitive or ditransitive-verb-based ‑te and ‑mono nominalizations
      • 4.2.2Intransitive-verb-based ‑te and ‑mono nominalizations
    • 4.3Denominal nominalization
    • 4.4Interim summary
  • 5.Base selection
    • 5.1Features rather than labels
    • 5.2Inclusion rather than mutual exclusion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.284.02nag
References (67)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2014. Nominal derivation. In The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 235–256. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Schäfer, Florian. 2010. On the syntax of episodic vs. dispositional ‑er nominals. In Syntax of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks, Artemis Alexiadou & Monika Rather (eds), 9–38. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andreou, Marios & Lieber, Rochelle. 2020. Aspectual and quantificational properties of deverbal conversion and ‑ing nominalizations: the power of context. English Language and Linguistics 24(2): 333–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arndt-Lappe, Sabine. 2014. Analogy in suffix rivalry: The case of English ‑ity and ‑ness. English Language and Linguistics 18(3): 497–548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1984. Morphology and lexical semantics. Quaderni di Semantica 5(1): 45–49.Google Scholar
. 2019. Competitors and alternants in linguistic morphology. In Competition in Inflection and Word-Formation, Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Wolfgang U. Dressler, & Hans Christian Luschützky (eds), 39–66. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. Three ways of looking at morphological rivalry. Word Structure 16 (1): 49–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Cho, Sungeun. 2001. The semantics of ‑ship suffixation. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 167–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Lindsay, Mark. 2014. Productivity, blocking, and lexicalization. In The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 67–83. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barker, Chris. 1998. Episodic ‑ee in English: A thematic role constraint on new word formation. Language 74: 695–727. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2006. Compounds and minor word-formation types. In The Handbook of English Linguistics, Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds), 483–506. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Notions of paradigm and their value in word-formation. Word Structure 12(2): 153–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Lexical word-formation. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), 1621–1721. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 2020. Morphological slips of the tongue. In Word Knowledge and Word Usage: A Cross-Disciplinary Guide to the Mental Lexicon, Vito Pirrelli, Ingo Plag & Wolfgang U. Dressler (eds), 634–679. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1986. Form and meaning in morphology: The case of Dutch ‘agent nouns’. Linguistics 24: 503–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Phonological output constraints in morphology. In Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages, Wolfgang Kehrein & Richard Wiese (eds), 143–163. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Polysemy and construction morphology. In Leven met Woorden, Fons Moerdijk, Ariane van Santen & Rob Tempelaars (eds), 355–364. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
. 2012. The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology. Third edition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds), 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn & Co.Google Scholar
. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann & Briscoe, Ted. 1995. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics 12(1): 15–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 2019. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Third edition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). 〈[URL]〉 (1 November 2022).
Díaz-Negrillo, Ana. 2017. On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes: The case of ‑dom, -hood and ‑ship. In Competing Patterns in English Affixation, Juan Santana-Lario & Salvador Valera (eds), 119–161. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fernández-Domínguez, Jésus, Bagasheva, Alexandra, & Lara-Clares, Cristina. 2020. Paradigmatic Relations in Word Formation. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 12), 95–107. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fradin, Bernard. 2019. Competition in derivation: What can we learn from French doublets in ‑age and ‑ment? In Competition in Inflection and Word-Formation, Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Wolfgang U. Dressler, & Hans Christian Luschützky (eds), 67–93. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gause, Georgyi Frantsevich. 1934. The Struggle for Existence. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. 2003. Componential analysis. In Handbook of Pragmatics Online, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
ten Hacken, Pius. 2015. Transposition and the limits of word formation. In Semantics of Complex Words, Laurie Bauer, Lívia Körtvélyessy & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 187–216. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Word-Formation in Parallel Architecture: The Case for a Separate Component. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. A lexical semantic approach to compounding. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 78–104. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Toward an OT morphosemantics: The case of ‑hood, -dom, and ‑ship. In New Impulses in Word Formation, Susan Olsen (ed), 61–80. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2014. Theoretical approaches to derivation. In The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 50–66. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. English Nouns: The Ecology of Nominalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. Ghost aspect and double plurality: On the aspectual semantics of eventive conversion and ‑ing nominalizations in English. In The Semantics of Derivational Morphology: Theory, Methods, Evidence, Sven Kotowski & Ingo Plag (eds), 15–36. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2024. Derivation and semantic theory: Foundations, frameworks, and outcomes. To appear in English Linguistics 40.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo. 2022. The semantics of conversion nouns and ‑ing nominalizations: A quantitative and theoretical perspective. Journal of Linguistics 58(2): 307–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. Second edition. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita. 2005. Unspecified arguments in episodic and habitual sentences. In The Syntax of Aspect, Nomi Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rapoport (eds), 237–273. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagano, Akiko. 2018. A conversion analysis of so-called coercion from relational to qualitative adjectives in English. Word Structure 11(2): 185–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. On property concept constructions in English derivational morphology. Paper read at the 5th American International Morphology Meeting, the Ohio State University, August 28, 2021.
. 2023. Affixal rivalry and its purely semantic resolution among English derived adjectives. Journal of Linguistics 59(3): 499–530. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 2019. Interconnectedness and variation of meaning in derivational patterns. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 16(1): 19–34.Google Scholar
Ono, Naoyuki. 2014. ‘N o suru’ kôbun ni okeru kôsentaku to kyôsei (Argument selection and coercion in ‘N o suru’ construction). In Hukuzatuzyutugokenkyû no Genzai (Current issues in complex predicate research), Hideki Kishimoto & Yoko Yumoto (eds), 17–40. Tokyo: Hituzi.Google Scholar
. 2016. Agent nominals. In Handbook of Japanese Lexicon and Word Formation, Taro Kageyama & Hideki Kishimoto (eds), 599–629. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Keidôsikôbun ni okeru kyôsei to kyôgôsei – ‘suru’ to ‘aru’ o megutte (Coercion and co-composition in light verb constructions involving suru and aru). In Meisi o Meguru Syomondai: Gokeisei, Imi, Kôbun (Issues relating to nouns: word-formation, semantics, and constructions), Yoko Yumoto & Hideki Kishimoto (eds), 88–108. Kaitakusha: Tokyo.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 4), 157–189. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Raffelsiefen, Renate. 2010. Idiosyncrasy, regularity, and synonymy in derivational morphology: Evidence for default word interpretation strategies. In New Impulses in Word Formation, Susan Olsen (ed), 173–232. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Rainer, Franz. 2015. Agent and instrument nouns. In Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Language of Europe, Volume 2, Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds), 1304–1316. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 1992. -ER nominals: implications for a theory of argument structure. In Syntax and Semantics 26: Syntax and the Lexicon, Tim Stowell & Eric Wehrli (eds), 127–153. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2010. Factorizing lexical relatedness. In New Impulses in Word Formation, Susan Olsen (ed), 133–171. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Sugioka, Yoko. 1986. Interaction of Derivational Morphology and Syntax in Japanese and English. New York: Garland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. ‘Dôsiren’yôkei + meisi’ hukugôgo no tagi ni tuite (On the polysemy of ‘ren’yô-form verb + noun’ compounds). In Meisi o Meguru Syomondai: Gokeisei, Imi, Kôbun (Issues relating to nouns: word-formation, semantics, and constructions), Yoko Yumoto & Hideki Kishimoto (eds), 2–23. Kaitakusha: Tokyo.Google Scholar
Sutton, Peter Roger. 2022. Restrictions on copredication: A situation theoretic approach. Proceedings of SALT 32: 335–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. Linguistic Review 1: 81–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar