Cover not available

In:All Things Morphology: Its independence and its interfaces
Edited by Sedigheh Moradi, Marcia Haag, Janie Rees-Miller and Andrija Petrovic
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 353] 2021
► pp. 147–168

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 9
The suffixing preference

A preliminary report on processing affixes in Georgian

 | University of Massachusetts Amherst
ORCiD logo with link | Stony Brook University | Ikerbasque, Basque Center on Cognition, Brain, and Language
Published online: 25 August 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.353.09har
Abstract
The suffixing preference refers to the observation that cross-linguistically suffixes are more abundant than prefixes (Greenberg 1963). Hawkins & Cutler (1988) explain this preference in part by noting that spoken word recognition relies heavily on the beginnings of words, making it advantageous to have no prefix. To test the Hawkins-Cutler hypothesis in Georgian, we carried out lexical decision experiments, a standard kind of experiment in which the participant is presented with real words and nonce words and must identify which is which. In general, responses to Georgian words with prefixes were more accurate and/or faster than to comparable words with suffixes. These results suggest that prefixes may be easier to process than suffixes, contrary to the universalist claim stated above.
Article outline
  • 1.The Hawkins-Cutler hypothesis and subsequent work
  • 2.Overview of the morphology studied
  • 3.Experiment 1
    • 3.1Materials
    • 3.2Subjects and methods
    • 3.3Results and discussion
  • 4.Experiment 2
    • 4.1Materials
      • Complex stems with v- or -s
      • Derivational prefix i- or suffix -d
    • 4.2Subjects and methods
    • 4.3Results and discussion
      • Complex stems with v- or -s
      • Derivational prefix i- or suffix -d
  • 5.Concluding discussion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (26)
References
Amenta, Simona & Davide Crepaldi. 2012. Morphological processing as we know it: An analytical review of morphological effects in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology 3. 232–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bertram, Raymond, Matti Laine & Katja Karvinen. 1999. The interplay of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity in lexical processing: Evidence from a morphologically rich language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28. 213–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bridgers, Franca Ferrari & Natalie Kacinik. 2017. How linearity and structural complexity interact and affect the recognition of Italian derived words. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 46. 175–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne. 1985. Cross-language psycholinguistics. In Ulrich Hans Frauenfelder & Anne Cutler (eds.), special issue of Linguistics 23. 659–667. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Psycholinguistics in our time. In Patrick Rabbitt (ed.), Inside psychology: A science over 50 years, 91–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne, John A. Hawkins & Gary Gilligan. 1985. The suffixing preference: A processing explanation. Linguistics 23. 723–758. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Prefixing vs. suffixing in inflectional morphology. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), World Atlas of Language Structure, Ch. 26. [URL]. (Accessed 21 July 2019).
Feldman, Laurie Beth, Ram Frost & Tamar Pnini. 1995. Decomposing words into their constituent morphemes: Evidence from English and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21. 947–960.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feldman, Laurie Beth & Jacqueline Larabee. 2001. Morphological facilitation following prefixed but not suffixed primes: Lexical architecture or modality-specific processes? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 27. 680–691.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friederici, Angela D., Anja Hahne & Axel Mecklinger. 1996. Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related brain potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22. 1219–1248.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friederici, Angela D. & Jürgen Weissenborn. 2007. Mapping sentence form onto meaning: The syntax-semantic interface. Brain Research 1146. 50–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7. 394–415.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, Christopher. 1988. Integrating diachronic and processing principles in explaining the suffixing preference. In John A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining language universals, 321–349. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hana, Jirka & Peter W. Culicover. 2008. Morphological complexity outside of universal grammar. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, [URL]. (Accessed 20 July 2019).
Hawkins, John A. & Anne Cutler. 1988. Psycholinguistic factors in morphological asymmetry. In John A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining language universals, 280–317. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. & Gary Gilligan. 1988. Prefixing and suffixing universals in relation to basic word order. Lingua 74. 219–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2014. Asymmetries in the prosodic phrasing of function words: Another look at the suffixing preference. Language 90. 927–960. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kgolo, Naledi & Sonja Eisenbeiss. 2015. The role of morphological structure in the processing of complex forms: Evidence from Setswana deverbative nouns. In Alice C. Harris, T. Florian Jaeger & Elisabeth Norcliffe (eds.), Laboratory in the field: Advances in cross-linguistic psycholinguistics, special issue of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30. 1116–1133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mač’avariani, Givi. 1959. ‘Unišno vnebiti’ kartvelur enebši. [The ‘markerless passive’ in the Kartvelian languages]. Kartvelur enata st’rukt’uris sak’itxebi 1. 101–129.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William D. 1980. Speech understanding as a psychological process. In Jean Claude Simon (ed.), Spoken language generation and understanding, 39–67. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William D. & Alan Welsh. 1978. Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology 10. 29–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Šanize, Ak’ak’i. 1973 [1953]. Kartuli enis gramat’ik’is sapuzvlebi. [Fundamentals of the grammar of the Georgian language.] Tbilisi: Universit’et’i.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schreuder, R. & R. Harald Baayen. 1997. How complex simplex words can be. Journal of Memory and Language 37. 118–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
St. Clair, Michelle C., Padraic Monaghan & Michael Ramscar. 2009. Relationships between language structure and language learning: The suffixing preference in grammatical categorization. Cognitive Science 33. 1317–1329. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van den Brink, Daniëlle & Peter Hagoort. 2004. The influence of semantic and syntactic context constraints on lexical selection and integration in spoken-word comprehension as revealed by ERPs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16. 1068–1084. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Petrovic, Andrija
2023. A formal account of morphological epenthesis in Serbo-Croatian. Morphology 33:3 ► pp. 335 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue