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
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