Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 46:2 (2022) ► pp.376–401

Paradigmatic consequences of the suffixing preference

| University of Hamburg
As one of the most robust typological findings, the suffixing preference captures the empirical observation that grammatical categories are more likely to be coded by suffixes than by prefixes. The goal of this contribution is to explore the effects that this asymmetry may have on the inflectional paradigms of the languages of the world. Three empirical issues are addressed: do languages with either possessive prefixes or suffixes and languages with both possessive prefixes and suffixes differ in their suffix-to-prefix ratio? Do prefixes and suffixes differ in the number of cases that they code? Do prefixes and suffixes differ in their probability of explicit singular in addition to plural marking? The answer to all three questions is in the affirmative. These effects are understood in terms of a response to an inherent disadvantage of prefixes. Morphological systems reduce the processing difficulty incurred by prefixes by assigning them fewer tasks (i.e. number of cases), by limiting their occurrence in highly competitive contexts (i.e. inconsistent possessive-affix coding) and by creating prefix paradigms, which are conceived of as protective structures in which the individual members strengthen one another. The general claim these three effects lead up to is that morphological systems develop “repair strategies” which reduce the processing cost involved in using inherently disadvantaged units. These repair strategies shape morphological structure.
Keywords: paradigm, processing cost, suffixing preference, case, plural, possession
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data analysis
    • 2.1Inconsistent possessor marking
    • 2.2Number of nominal cases
    • 2.3Paradigms in nominal-number marking
  • 3.Theoretical discussion
    • 3.1The (in)consistency of paradigms
    • 3.2The size of paradigms
    • 3.3The presence or absence of paradigms
    • 3.4Predictions
  • 4.Synthesis
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20019.ber
References (53)
References
Alungum, John, Robert J. Conrad & Joshua Lukas. 1978. Some Muhian grammatical notes. In Richard Loving (ed.), Miscellaneous papers on Dobu and Arapesh, 89–130. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Asao, Yoshihiko. 2015. Left-right asymmetries in words: A processing-based account. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2019. Notions of paradigm and their value in word-formation. Word Structure 121. 153–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 2015. Locating affixes on the lexicon-grammar continuum. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 21. 150–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. The multiplanar nature of frequency. Glottotheory 71. 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Ordering biases in cross-linguistic perspective: The interaction of linear order and structural level. Linguistic Typology 241. 353–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1911. Chinook. In Franz Boas (ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages. Vol. 11, 559–665. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Bock, Kathryn & Carol A. Miller. 1991. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology 231. 45–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bodian, Lamine. 2017. Morphosyntaxe du guñaamolo, parler baïnounk de Niamone. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Bouquiaux, Luc. 1970. La langue Birom. Paris: Société d’Editions “Les Belles Lettres”.Google Scholar
Briggs, Elinor. 1961. Mitla Zapotec grammar. México: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
Bunn, Gordon. 1974. Golin grammar. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., William Pagliuca & Revere D. Perkins. 1990. On the asymmetries in the affixation of grammatical material. In William Croft, Keith Denning & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Studies in typology and diachrony, 1–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cabral, Ana Suelly de Arruda Camara. 1995. Contact-induced language change in the Western Amazon: The non-genetic origin of the Kokama language. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Casad, Eugene H. 1984. Cora. In Ronald W. Langacker (ed.), Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar. Vol. 41, 151–459. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris & Levi Namaseb. 2011. A grammatical sketch of N|uuki with stories. Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Cowan, H. K. J. 1955. Notes on Windesi grammar. Oceania 261. 42–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crowell, Thomas H. 1979. A grammar of Bororo. Ithaca: Cornell University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2003. The paradigmatic structure of person marking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013a. Prefixing vs. suffixing in inflectional morphology. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at: [URL] (last access 22 June 2021).
2013b. Position of case affixes. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at: [URL] (last access 22 June 2021).
2013c. Position of pronominal possessive affixes. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at: [URL] (last access 22 June 2021).
Einarsson, Stefán. 1945. Icelandic. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S. & Kathryn Bock. 2006. The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognitive Processes 211. 1011–1029. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, Steve & Pierce Baehr. 2005. Bariai grammar sketch (Data papers on Papua New Guinea Languages 49). Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Glushko, Robert J. 1979. The organization and activation of orthographic knowledge in reading aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 51. 674–691.Google Scholar
Green, Rebecca. 1995. A grammar of Gurr-goni (North Central Arnhem Land). Canberra: The Australian National University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie. 2005. The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Andres Karjus. 2017. Explaining asymmetries in number marking: singulatives, pluratives, and usage frequency. Linguistics 551. 1213–1235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hercus, Luise. 1999. A grammar of the Wirangu language from the west coast of South Australia. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Iggesen, Oliver A. 2013. Number of cases. In: Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at: [URL] (last access 22 June 2021).
Jany, Carmen. 2009. Chimariko grammar. Areal and typological perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kähler, Hans. 1940. Grammatischer Abriss des Enggano. Zeitschrift für Eingeborenensprachen 301. 81–320.Google Scholar
MacKay, Donald G. 1987. The organization of perception and action. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merlan, Francesca. 1983. Ngalakan grammar, texts and vocabulary. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Mitchell, David B. & Alan S. Brown. 1988. Persistent repetition priming in picture naming and its dissociation from recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 141. 213–222.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel & Louisa Sadler. 2004. Nominal tense in crosslinguistic perspective. Language 801. 776–806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santandrea, Stefano. 1963. A concise grammar outline of the Bongo language. Rome: St. Peter Claver.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
Saxton, Dean. 1982. Papago. In Ronald W. Langacker (ed.), Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar. Vol. 31, 93–266. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Scott, Graham. 1978. The Fore language of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2010. Person asymmetries in zero expression and grammatical function. In Franck Floricic (ed.), Essais de typologie et de linguistique générale, 471–485. Lyon: Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna & Dik Bakker. 1996. The distribution of subject and object agreement and word order type. Studies in Language 201. 115–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol, Salvador Valera & Lívia Körtvélyessy. 2012. Word-formation in the world’s languages. A typological survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph P. 1991. Apparent anti-frequency effects in language production: The Addition Bias and phonological underspecification. Journal of Memory and Language 301. 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Insup. 1969. Content and structure in sentence production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 81. 170–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tharp, Doug. 1996. Sulka grammar essentials. In John M. Clifton (ed.), Two non-Austronesian grammars from the islands, 77–179. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Topping, Donald M. 1973. Chamorro reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tucker, Archibald N. & Margaret A. Bryan. 1966. Linguistic analyses. The non-Bantu languages of North-eastern Africa. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vogt, Hans. 1940. The Kalispel language. Oslo: I Kommisjon hos Jacob Dybwad.Google Scholar
Waterhouse, Viola. 1967. Huamelultec Chontal. In Robert Wauchope (ed.), Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 5: Linguistics, 349–367. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Herce, Borja
2024. VeLePa: Central Pame verbal inflection in a quantitative perspective. Morphology 34:3 ► pp. 281 ff. DOI logo
Zingler, Tim
2023. A functional approach to the formal mismatches of indexation markers. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 42:2 ► pp. 373 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.