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. 305–324

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 17
Two-suffix combinations in native and non-native English

Novel evidence for morphomic structures

 | University of Vienna
ORCiD logo with link | University of Vienna | Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Published online: 25 August 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.353.17man
Abstract
We demonstrate the existence of a novel type of morphomic structure: the suffix combination in word formation. We ran two psycholinguistic experiments with 45 native and 30 non-native English speakers, asking them to judge whether or not existing and non-existing two-suffix combinations presented without bases occur in English. Both groups identified existing and non-existing suffix combinations with very high accuracy; productive combinations were recognized more accurately than unproductive ones. Our research shows that suffix combinations are listed in the mental lexicon as morphomes. This finding accords with recent research in natural language processing that induces a language’s patterns, rules, and semantics based entirely on form relations. We also discuss other possible applications of the morphome outside of theoretical linguistics.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Suffix ordering in English: History of research, our approach and why suffix combinations are morphomes
  • 3.Two psycholinguistic experiments
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Stimuli
    • 3.3Testing method
    • 3.4Data analysis
    • 3.5Results
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (53)
References
Allen, Margaret. 1978. Morphological investigations. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Morphological stems: What William of Ockham really said. Word Structure 5. 28–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Unnatural kinds. In Ana Luís & Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero (eds.), The morphome debate, 11–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Nanna Fuhrhop. 2002. Restricting suffix combinations in German and English: Closing suffixes and the monosuffix constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20. 451–490. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 1991. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Geert E. Booij & Jaap van Marie (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991, 109–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993. On frequency, transparency and productivity. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992, 181–208. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Word frequency distributions. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald & Rochelle Lieber. 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A corpus based study. Linguistics 29. 801–843. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Richard Piepenbrock & Leon Gulikers. 1995. CELEX2 LDC96L14. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Greville G. Corbett, Dustan Brown & Andrew Hippisley (eds.). 2007. Deponency and other morphological mismatches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chrupala, Grzegorz. 2008. Towards a machine-learning architecture for lexical functional grammar parsing. Dublin, Ireland: Dublin City University dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deerwester, Scott, Susan T. Dumais, George W. Furnas, Thomas K. Landauer & Richard Harshman. 1990. Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 41(6). 391–407. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fabb, Nigel. 1988. English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 527–539. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fruchter, Joseph & Alec Marantz. 2015. Decomposition, lookup, and recombination: MEG evidence for the Full Decomposition model of complex visual word recognition. Brain and Language 143. 81–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fruchter, Joseph, Linnaea Stockall & Alec Marantz. 2013. MEG masked priming evidence for form-based decomposition of irregular verbs. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7. 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz. 1999. Lexical strata in English: Morphological causes, phonological effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Keyser Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hammarström, Harald & Lars Borin. 2011. Unsupervised learning of morphology. Computational Linguistics 37(2). 309–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39. 1041–1070. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. From speech perception to morphology: Affix ordering revisited. Language 78. 527–555. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Causes and consequences of word structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Ingo Plag. 2004. What constrains possible suffix combinations? On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22. 565–596. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kann, Katharina & Hinrich Schütze. 2016. MED: The LMU system for the SIGMORPHON 2016 shared task on morphological reinflection. In Proceedings of the 14th SIGMORPHON Workshop on Computational Research in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology, 62–70. Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In In-Seok Yang (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm: Selected papers from SICOL-1981 (Volume 1), 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lázaro, Miguel, Victor Illera & Javier Sainz. 2016. The suffix priming effect: Further evidence for an early morpho-orthographic segmentation process independent of its semantic content. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (Hove) 69(1). 197–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luís, Ana R. & Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero (eds.). 2016. The morphome debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2016. Some lessons from history: Morphomes in diachrony. In Ana R. Luís & Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero (eds.), The Morphome Debate, 33–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manova, Stela. 2010. Suffix combinations in Bulgarian: Parsability and hierarchy-based ordering. Morphology 20. 267–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. A cognitive approach to SUFF1-SUFF2 combinations: A tribute to Carl Friedrich Gauss. Word Structure 4. 272–300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Affix order and the structure of the Slavic word. In Stela Manova (ed.), Affix ordering across languages and frameworks, 205–230. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. Manuscript. Suffix combinations in English, Italian, Polish and Slovene: Theory and processing. University of Vienna.
Manova, Stela & Mark Aronoff. 2010. Modeling affix order. Morphology 20. 109–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manova, Stela & Luigi Talamo. 2015. On the significance of the corpus size in affix-order research. SKASE Journal of theoretical linguistics 12(3). 369–397.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manova, Stela, Harald Hammarström, Itamar Kastner & Yining Nie. 2020. What is in a morpheme? Theoretical, experimental and computational approaches to the relation of meaning and form in morphology. Word Structure 13(1). 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyer, David & Roger Schvaneveldt. 1971. Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology 90. 227–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mikolov, Tomas, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S. Corrado & Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Chris J. C. Burges, Léon Bottou, Zoubin Ghahramani, & Kilian Q. Weinberger (eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 26 (NIPS 2013), 3111–3119. Neural Information Processing Systems.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mohanan, Karuvannur Puthanveettil. 1986. The theory of lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Neill, Paul. 2014. The morphome in constructive and abstractive models of morphology. Morphology 24. 25–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 1996. Selectional restrictions in English suffixation revisited. A Reply to Fabb (1988). Linguistics 34. 769–798. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. The Role of selectional restrictions, phonotactics and parsing in constraining suffix ordering in English. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2001, 285–314. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo & Harald Baayen. 2009. Suffix ordering and morphological processing. Language 85. 109–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1982. The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siegel, Dorothy. 1974. Topics in English morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2019. Evidence for rule conflation. Paper presented at The 4th American international Morphology Meeting (AIMM4), Stony Brook, New York, May 3–5.
Taft, Marcus. 1979. Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory & Cognition 7(4). 263–272. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taft, Marcus & Kenneth Forster. 1975. Lexical storage and the retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14. 630–647. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1976. Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 15. 607–620. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talamo, Luigi. 2015. Suffix combinations in Italian: Selectional restrictions and processing constraints. In Stela Manova (ed.), Affix ordering across languages and frameworks, 175–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu, Yonghui, Mike Schuster, Zhifeng Chen, Quoc V. Le, Mohammad Norouzi, Wolfgang Macherey, Maxim Krikun et al. 2016. Google’s neural machine translation system: Bridging the gap between human and machine translation. Technical Report, arXiv:1609.08144v2 [cs.CL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Bawa, Puneet, Virender Kadyan, Gunjan Chhabra & Ashish Chopra
2025. Subspace Gaussian Mixture Modeling for low-resource non-native Punjabi Language Speech Recognition. Procedia Computer Science 259 ► pp. 408 ff. DOI logo
Khan, Afzal
2023. The diminutive morphological function between English and Pashto languages: a comparative study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10:1 DOI logo
Manova, Stela
2023. Ordering Restrictions between Affixes. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 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