Article published In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2015
Edited by Björn Köhnlein and Jenny Audring
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 32] 2015
► pp. 33–47
Three types of suffixes in French
Discarding the learned / non-learned distinction
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 17 December 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.32.03don
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.32.03don
Traditionally a two-way distinction is made in French between learned and non-learned suffixes, based on etymology. However, this distinction does not account for all suffixes. Furthermore, suffixes are traditionally considered as categorial heads, but some suffixes derive words of multiple categories. This paper proposes an alternative analysis of French suffixes, distinguishing three instead of two types, using a theory by Creemers et al. (2015) proposed for Dutch. In their analysis in the framework of Distributed Morphology, Creemers et al. distinguish three instead of two types of suffixes, proposing an alternative to Lowenstamm (2010). Starting from their proposal, we show that it is possible to distinguish three types of suffixes in French as well, accounting for the categorial flexibility of some suffixes, without resorting to the vague distinction between learned and non-learned.
References (18)
Creemers, Ava, Jan Don & Paula Fenger 2015. “Stress-sensitivity and flexibility as a consequence of morphological structure”. Proceedings of NELS 45 ed. by Thuy Bui and Deniz Ozyildiz.
De Belder, Marijke 2011. Roots and Affixes: Eliminating lexical categories from syntax. Utrecht: LOT Publications (PhD Dissertation, Utrecht).
Dell, François C. & Elisabeth O. Selkirk 1978. “On a morphologically governed vowel alternation in French”. Recent transformational studies in European languages ed. by Samuel Jay Keyser, 1–51. Cambridge Ma: MIT Press.
Dendien, Jacques. “Trésor de la langue française informatisé (atilf)”. <[URL]> (20 March 2015).
Embick, David 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection”. The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in honor of Sylvian Bromberger ed. by Morris Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge Ma: MIT Press.
Harley, Heidi & Rolf Noyer 1999. “State-of-the-article: Distributed Morphology”. GLOT International 41, 3–9.
Kiparsky, Paul 1982. “From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology”. The Structure of Phonological Representations ed. by Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith, 131–175. Dordrecht: Foris.
Lowenstamm, Jean 2010. “Derivational Affixes as Roots. (Phasal Spellout meets English Stress Shift)”. ms. Université Paris-Diderot & CNRS.
Marantz, Alec 1997. “No escape from Syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon”. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium ed. by Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek-Clark, and Alexander Williams, 201–225. Penn Working Papers in Ling. 4.
2007. “Phases and words”. Phases in the theory of grammar ed. by Choe Sook-Hee, 199–222. Seoul: Dong In.
Petit Robert 2012. Paris: Dictionnaires le Robert – SEJER.
Petit Robert Electronique, 2015 edition.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Gouskova, Maria
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 december 2025. 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.