English Suffixation Is Constrained Only by Selectional Restrictions Author(s): Nigel Fabb Source: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory,

Vol. 6, No. 4 (Nov., 1988), pp. 527-539 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4047592 . Accessed: 29/09/2013 15:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Natural Language &Linguistic Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:42:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NIGEL

FABB

ENGLISH SUFFIXATION ONLY BY SELECTIONAL

IS CONSTRAINED RESTRICTIONS

1.

THE

LEVEL-ORDERING

OF ENGLISH

MORPHOLOGY

One of the centralargumentsfor a level-orderingof English morphology (Siegel 1974) is based on the nonoccurrenceof certain pairs of affixes,
e.g. *-ness-ic, *-er-ian, etc. The descriptive claim which has been made

on the basis of this is that English affixes are divided into two sets, sometimescalled LEVEL 1 AFFIXES and LEVEL 2 AFFIXES, and that level 1 affixesare not able to attach to a word to which a level 2 affixhas already attached. This has been incorporated into Lexical Phonology/Morphology by having a word pass througha sequence of levels of representation as it is derived. Level 1 suffixesare first attachedto the word, with each suffixationfollowed by the applicationof a subset of the English phonological rules, e.g. the English Stress Rule (Halle and Mohanan 1985); then level 2 suffixesare attached to the word, and other phonological rules are allowed to apply. This system encodes not only the orderingof suffixes,preventing level 1 suffixesfrom attachingto a word to which a level 2 suffixhas attached, but also accounts for the fact that certain phonological rules (such as the English Stress Rule) do not take as their input words derived with level 2 suffixes.In fact, this is usually taken as the test of a level 2 as opposed to a level 1 suffix. The English data provide two well-known types of counterexample, which suggest that the generalisation about nonoccurring affix-pairs (from which the level-ordering theory draws much support) may be incorrect.On the one hand, there are BRACKETING PARADOXES, where a level 1 suffixappearsto attach to the output of a level 2 prefixation;an example is un-grammatical-ity (where level 1 -ity must attach after level 2 un- in order to satisfy categorial selectional restrictions).On the other hand, there are a few specific pairs of suffixeswhich involve a level 2 suffix preceding a level 1 suffix;for example -abil-ity, -ist-ic, -ment-al. These problems have sometimes been accommodated within systems which neverthelessretain level-orderingfor the morphology.For example, Strauss (1982) suggests that suffixes and prefixes are not levelordered with respect to each other (thus dealing with the bracketing paradoxes). This paper looks again at how it can be predicted that certain pairs of ?
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6 (1988) 527-539. 1988 by Kluwer Academic Publishers.

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:42:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

528

NIGEL

FABB

affixes do not arise. Siegel's claim was basically that if we combine the familiar selectional restrictions (mainly category based) holding for affixes with the ordering of affix subsets, then we correctly predict which affix pairs do not exist, and hence which affix pairs do exist. Previous objections to Siegel's approach (mentioned in the preceding paragraph) aim to show that level-ordering rules out pairs which do exist. In contrast, I will now show that the approach based on level-ordering and category selection fails to rule out a very large number of affix pairs which do not exist. I will then go on in Section 2.1 to suggest a restriction which covers a much wider range of data and makes redundant much of the work of level-ordering. 1.1. Familiar Restrictions on Suffixation There are a great many suffixes in English; in common with Siegel (and other lexical morphologists), I will discuss the behaviour of only the more frequently occurring ones, and have listed in Table A the suffixes whose behaviour I will concentrate on. As will be clear from Sections 2.1 and 2.2, it would have made no difference for my claim about suffix pairs if I had listed every word-selecting suffix of English. Table A lists as separate suffixes segmentally identical pairs which have different category-selectional or category-forming properties, and includes this information in the listing (e.g. >N means that the suffix FORMS A NOUN, V> means that the suffix ATTACHES TO A VERB or is DEVERBAL). I am concerned only with suffixes which attach to words (i.e. this approach is consistent with a word-based morphology such as that of Aronoff (1976)). My claims about occurring and nonoccurring pairs of suffixes are based on Walker (1924), supplemented by my own collection of data. If there were no restrictions on suffixation, these 43 suffixes ought to give rise to 1849 potential suffix pairs. Because all the suffixes in Table A select for a particular part of speech, however, the number of potential suffix pairs is cut to 663, all of which obey part-of-speech selectional restrictions.' Various local restrictions on suffixation (pointed out by Siegel) cut the number of potential suffix pairs further. Suffix [18] -ful attaches to nouns only with final stress; since none of the noun-forming

' This calculation is derived as follows. Working through the 43 suffixes in Table A, we find that 9 suffixes select for adjectives, and 16 form adjectives (hence 9 x 16 = 144 combinations are allowed); 21 suffixes select for nouns and 21 form nouns (hence 21 x 21 = 441 allowed); and 13 suffixes select for verbs and 6 form verbs (hence 6 x 13 = 78 combinations allowed). The total allowed is 144 + 441 + 78 = 663.

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:42:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENGLISH

SUFFIXATION

529

TABLE A Column I SUFFIX 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. -able -age -age -al -al -an -an -ant -ant -ance -ary -ary -ate -ed -en -er -er -ful -ful -hood -ic -ify -ify -ion -ish -ism -ism -ist -ist -ity -ive -ize -ize -ly -ly -ment -ness -ory -ous -y -y -y -y >A >N >N >N >A >N >A >N >A >N > N >A >V >A >V >N >N >A >A >N >A >V >V >N >A >N >N >N >N >N >A >V >V >A >A >N >N >A >A >A >N >N >N V> V> N> V> N> N> N> V> V> V> N> N> N> N> A> N> V> N> V> N> N> N> A> V> N> A> N> A> N> A> V> A> N> A> N> V> A> V> N> N> A> V> N> Column 2 SUFFIX -able -age -age -al -al -an -an -ant -ant -ance -ary -ary -ate -ed -en -er -er -ful -ful -hood -ic -ify -ify -ion -ish -ism -ism -ist -ist -ity -ive -ize -ize -ly -ly -ment -ness -ory -ous -y -y -y -y Example

manage-able steer-age orphan-age betray-al natur-al librari-an reptil-ian defend-ant defi-ant annoy-ance function-ary legend-ary origin-ate money-ed wid-en prison-er kill-er peace-ful forget-ful nation-hood metall-ic class-ify intens-ify rebell-ion boy-ish modern-ism despot-ism formal-ist method-ist profan-ity restrict-ive special-ize symbol-ize dead-ly ghost-ly contain-ment happi-ness advis-ory spac-ious heart-y honest-y assembl-y robber-y

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:42:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

530

NIGEL

FABB

suffixes in Table A give rise to words with final stress, we would not expect to find any pairs of the type -suffix-ful. Suffix [19] -ful and suffix [4] -al both attach only to verbs with final stress; as before, the verb-formingsuffixes do not form final-stressedwords, and thus these two suffixeswould not be able to attach outside anothersuffix.Suffix[15] -en attaches only to monosyllabic adjectives; since all the adjectiveformingsuffixesin Table A add a syllable,we would thereforenot expect to find pairslike -suffix-en.(One suffixnot in Table A, -th, does combine with -en in this way; this suffixdoes not add a syllable to the word. See Section 2.3.) These restrictions,combined, rule out a total of 49 possible combinations,and bring the total of potential suffixpairs down to 614.2 1.2. Level-ordering So far this simply fills in the background to the argument for levelordering.The assumptionis roughly that level-orderingcuts down these 614 potentialpairs to somethinglike the actual set of pairs.We turnnow to level ordering. Table B shows the classificationof Table A's suffixes
into level 1 and level 2 suffixes, based on the test of whether or not the

suffixis partof the input to the English StressRule. The restrictionthat a level 1 suffixcan not attach to the output of level 2 suffixation rules out a total of 155 further potential suffix pairs.3 This brings the total of predictedsuffixpairsdown to 459, incorporating level-orderingas well as the previouslymentionedrestrictions.This predictionis incorrect:there are in fact only about 50 attested pairs of suffixes.Some other constraint must be at work rulingout the other c.400 suffixpairs.It can be seen that level-ordering of suffixes achieves relatively little in predicting which suffixpairs exist and which do not.

This calculation is derived as follows. Suffix [18] -ful does not attach to any of the 21 noun-forming suffixes. Suffix [19] -ful does not attach to any of the 6 verb-forming suffixes, nor does suffix [4] -al. Suffix [15] -en does not attach to any of the 16 adjective-forming suffixes. Thus 21 + 6 + 6 + 16 = 49 combinations are ruled out. I This calculation is derived by comparing Tables A and B. Recall that the suffixes mentioned in note 2 do not attach to suffixed words, and so are ruled out of consideration. Also, 3 of the 8 remaining Adj-selecting suffixes are level 1, and 8 of the 16 Adj-forming suffixes are level 2; these 3 x 8 = 24 combinations are ruled out. Further, l() of the 20 remaining noun-attaching suffixes are level 1, and I1 of the 21 noun-forming suffixes are level 2, so lO x I I = 110 more combinations are ruled out. Finally, 7 of the I I remaining verb-selecting suffixes are level 1 and 3 of the verb-forming suffixes are level 2, so 7 x 3 = 21 more combinations are ruled out. The total of combinations ruled out by level-ordering is 24 + 110 + 21 = 155.
2

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:42:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENGLISH

SUFFIXATION

531

TABLE B Column 1 SUFFIX 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
21.

Column 2 SUFFIX >2 >2 >2 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >1 >2 >2 >2 >2 >2 >2 >2
>1

-able -age -age -al -al -an -an -ant -ant -ance -ary -ary -ate -ed -en -er -er -ful -ful -hood
-ic

2> 2> 2> 1> 1> 1> 1> 1> 1> 1> 1> 1> 1> 2> 2> 2> 2> 2> 2> 2>
1>

-able -age -age -al -al -an -an -ant -ant -ance -ary -ary -ate -ed -en -er -er -ful -ful -hood
-ic

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 4(0.
41. 42.

-ify -ify -ion -ish -ism -ism -ist -ist -ity -ive -ize -ize -ly -ly -ment -ness -ory -ous -y
-y -y

>1 > >1 >2 >2 >2 >2 >2 > I > I >2 >2 >2 >2 >2 >2 > I >1 >2
> >1

1> 1> I 1> 2> 2> 2> 2> 2> > I> 2> 2> 2> 2> 2> 2> I> 1> 2>
1> I 1>

-ify -ify -ion -ish -ism -ism -ist -ist -ity -ive -ize -ize -ly -ly -ment -ness -ory -ous -y
-y -y

43.

-y

>1

1>

-y

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:42:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

532 2.
NEW

NIGEL

FABB

RESTRICTIONS

ON SUFFIXATION

My claim now is that if we look at all the cases of double suffixation which exist (e.g. which can be found in Walker (1924)), we find the following. Many suffixes never attach to an already-suffixed word. Some suffixes attach outside only one other particular suffix. Some suffixes attach to all the suffixes which we would expect, given the previously mentioned selectional restrictions. And a final set of suffixes attach outside some but not all of the suffixes that we would expect. I will show how these results can be achieved without the level-ordering of suffixes. 2.1. Suffixes which Never Attach to an Already-Suffixed Word Consider first the suffixes which do not attach outside any other suffix, i.e. which are never found in the environment [word-suffix--]. These are: (1) [2] [3] [4] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [13] [14] [18] [19] [20] [22] [23] [25] [27] [29] [31] [33] [34] [35] [36] [38] [39] [40] deverbal -age denominal -age deverbal-al noun-forming -an adjective-forming -an noun-forming -ant adjective-forming -ant -ance -ate denominal -ed denominal -ful deverbal -ful -hood denominal -ify deadjectival -ify -ish denominal -ism denominal -ist -ive denominal -ize deadjectival -ly denominal -ly -ment -ory -ous adjective-forming -y

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:42:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENGLISH

SUFFIX

ATION

533

[42] deverbal -y [43] denominal noun-forming -y Sporadic exceptions can be found. For example, I know of one case where -ate attaches to an already-suffixed word, which is differ-ent-iate. Exceptions seem to be extremely rare, however (I can find no others). We must conclude that some selectional restriction is at work here, which has the result that these suffixes cannot attach to a word which has already undergone suffixation. Leaving aside for a moment the exact formulation of this, consider how it relates as a restriction to the level-ordering of suffixes. Many level 1 suffixes are among this group of suffixes which do not attach outside any other suffix, hence of course will not attach outside any level 2 suffix. Taking the level 1 suffix -ify as an example, level-ordering predicts that it does not attach outside any level 2 suffix (hence *derivable-ify); this is alternatively predicted if the suffix is prevented by the above-mentioned selectional restriction from attaching outside any suffix, and this second approach also makes a further prediction not made by level-ordering, which is that -ify does not attach outside any other level 1 suffix either (e.g. *person-al-ify, *destruct-ivify). The restriction against suffixation to an already-suffixed word cuts down the number of potential suffix pairs considerably, and at the same time does a large part of the work of level-ordering of suffixes. Given the basic assumption with which we are working - that suffixes are free to attach (subject to restrictions) - we are committed to formalising the restriction against suffixation to an already-suffixed word. The suffixes in (1) must select for a host which does not contain a suffix, or (which is the same thing) does not contain an internal ] bracket. (It is interesting that this restriction is the converse of the restriction on cyclic structure-changing rules like trisyllabic shortening, which apply only to words which have undergone suffixation; though it is not clear how to interpret this fact.) In fact, stating the selection like this raises a problem for the level-ordering approach as developed in e.g. Kiparsky (1982a). Kiparsky adopts a convention whereby brackets are erased at the end of a level; this means, in his words, that "a secondary affix such as -ism could not be sensitive to the difference between an underived base and a primary derivative." A nuimber of the affixes in (1) are secondary (i.e. level 2) affixes, which do distinguish between a host of the type [word (unsuffixed)] and of the type [word + level 1 suffix]; hence Kiparsky's prediction appears to be incorrect. This may suggest that all internal brackets are visible to all suffixes. The approach to bracketing suggested here, where all internal brackets are visible to all derivational suffixes, is

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:42:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

534

NIGEL

FABB

incompatible with an account of noun-to-verb ZERO-DERIVATION proposed by Kiparsky which requires debracketing after level 1 suffixation and before level 2 suffixation in order to account for the possibility of e.g. to engineer and the impossibility of e.g. *to singer (Kiparsky, 1982b, p. 141). 2.2. Suffixes which Attach Outside One Other Suffix Consider next the suffixes which attach outside just one other suffix. The relevant suffixes and their pairs are: (2) [1 1] Noun-forming -ary -ionary [12] Adj-forming -ary -ionary -ioner [16] denominal -er [21] -ic -istic [38] -(at)ory -ificatory [40] deadjectival -y -ency eg. revolutionary (noun) e.g. revolutionary (adj) e.g. vacationer e.g. modernistic e.g. modificatory e.g. residency

How can we enable -ary to attach outside -ion but not outside any other suffix? One possibility is that there is a non-compositional suffix -ionary, which coexists alongside -ary and -ion. There are several problems which arise in the attempt to argue for a compound suffix of this kind. These, exemplified with -ionary, are as follows: (a) the pair -ionary has the same selectional properties as -ion; (b) where there is a word with the structure X-ionary there is always also a word with the structure X-ion; (c) the semantics of the X-ion-ary word is the semantics we would expect if it was constructed by X-ion, then by Xion-ary. These problems can be solved if -ion-ary is not monomorphemic, but rather constructed as a compound suffix, as follows: -ary selects for a non-complex host. However, it is unusual in that while the unmarked case for most suffixes is that they select for words, -ary has the option also of selecting for one specific suffix, -ion. Both noun- and adjective-forming -ary attach to -ion to form a compound suffix, and -ion-ary then attaches to the word. The consequences of this analysis are as follows: (a) The compound suffix -ion-ary would share the selectional properties of -ion as these properties would percolate from -ion to -ionary (the selectional properties of -ary will not percolate as they will be bound, or 'used up', in the compounding with -ion.) (b) Since -ionrary and -ion share the same selectional properties, we would expect always to find that a word which is selected by -ionary can also be selected by -ion. (c) The history of construction of the word would then be represented as [[word] [[ion] [ary]]; but seman-

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:42:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENGLISH

SUFFIXATION

535

tically the word would be interpreted as [[[word][ion]][ary]], hence respecting a different constituency from that derived by the history of derivation. In some current research it is argued that the step-by-step carrying out of a semantic interpretation need not respect the history of derivation of a word: a mismatch is found between the structure given by the order of derivation and the structure implied by the meaning in other English words like transformational grammarian, as discussed by Williams (1981), and in German words with the compound suffix -er-in, as discussed by Moortgat (1985). Williams argues for a limited dissociation of semantic constituency from history-of-derivation constituency, while Moortgat argues for a complete dissociation of the two. A similar account could be given of the other suffixes in (2). Aronoff (1976, p. 120) argues that -ist-ic is actually derived from -ism + -ic. Note that level-ordering does not solve the problems we are faced with here. In each case a suffix seems to have a particular affinity for another suffix; we are not dealing with affinities between sets of suffixes, as in levelordering. It is interesting to note that many of these suffixes attach to -ion. An interesting footnote here is deadjectival -er, which attaches to adjectives ending in -ern: southern, southerner etc., but not to unsuffixed adjectives or adjectives ending in other suffixes. Here we seem to be confronted with a specialised form (deadjectival -er) which attaches only to a bound morpheme (-ern) to form a suffix compound -ern-er, never to a word.

2.3. Freely Attaching Suffixes A few suffixes are subject to no selectional restrictions other than those involving part-of-speech. These are: (3) [1] -able [17] deverbal -er [37] -ness

About these, nothing need be said. Suffix [15] -en is something of a special case; as pointed out earlier, it will attach only to monosyllables. Thus the failure of -en to attach outside other suffixes is derivable from that; -en does attach outside -th a suffix which does not add a syllable to the word. The correct results follow from saying that -en is constrained only by two selectional restrictions (a) involving category, (b) involving monosyllables.

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:42:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

536

NIGEL

FABB

2.4. A Problematic Group of Suffixes We have considered suffixes which attach only to non-complex hosts, and suffixes which are (except for part-of-speech) unrestricted. We now turn to the only suffixes so far not mentioned, the six suffixes which are semi-productive: (4) SUFFIX [5] Noun-selecting-al [24] -ion [30] -ity [26] Adj-selecting -ism [28] Adj-selecting -ist [32] Adj-selecting -ize COMBINES WITH -ion -ment -or -ize (both) -ify (both) -ate -ive -ic -al -an -ous -able -ive -ic -al -an -ive -ic -al -an -ive -ic -al -an

There are two ways that we might account for these pairs. We might take the approach of Section 2.2, and specify that the suffix attaches only to underived words and to some specific suffixes (e.g. - ion selects for underived words, but also selects for the following suffixes: ize, ify, ate), or we could look for some property common to the selected-for suffixes which is encoded in the selectional properties of the selecting suffix. The second approach is difficult to test for -al and -ion in particular, as -al is the only one of these suffixes which attaches to nouns, and -ion the only one which attaches to verbs. Thus for example we could assign a feature [F] to -ion, -or and -ment, and say that -al selects for this feature; but there would be no way of independently testing whether the feature is relevant for selection because no other suffixes in (4) select for nouns. All six suffixes in (4) are characterised by Anshen et al. (1986) as "categorically preferring Latinate bases". This is likely to be at least partially responsible for the restricted combinatory properties of these suffixes with other suffixes; the suffixes which they combine with (on the right in (4)) could be assigned a feature [+latinate], and the six suffixes (on the left in (4)) would select for [+latinate]. Such an approach plausibly accounts for -ion, which fails to attach to just one verbalising suffix - -en - which is etymologically Germanic (and which itself selects for Germanic bases). This does not work so well for -al, which, if it attached to any latinate noun-forming suffix, we might expect to attach to e.g. -ity, -ism, -ance etc. Thus either denominal -al is in principle free to attach but there are other (unknown) selectional restrictions involved which prevent it attaching to these suffixes, or -al belongs with affixes like -ism in that it attaches to underived words and to three specified suffixes. Consider now -ity, which attaches to Latinate bases, and combines

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:42:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENGLISH

SUFFIXATION

537

with six suffixes (which are presumably therefore Latinate). The adjective-forming suffixeswhich it does not attach to are -ant, -ary, -ed, the two -ful, -ish, the two -ly, -ory, -y. However, some of these suffixes would seem to be Latinate;-ant and -ary for example attach to Latinate bases. Thus restricting-ity to attach to Latinatebases still fails to account for at least two non-occurring pairs, -ant-ity and -ary-ity. Possibly a blocking effect (Aronoff 1976, ch. 3) is responsiblefor *-ant-ity (it is blocked by -ance). And there may be a phonologically-based restriction applying to -ity as well; adjective-selecting -ity attaches only to base words ending in non-glide consonants, which means that it would not attach outside -ary, -ory or -y. Thus -ity can be plausiblyaccounted for by saying that it selects for latinate bases which end in a consonant, and that there is a blocking effect with -ance. The remainingthree suffixesare interestingbecause they combine with the same restrictedset of suffixes:-al, -ive, -an and -ic. While -ize, -ism and -ist select for latinate bases, this restrictionis clearly inadequateto cover all the nonoccurringtypes of suffixpairs in this case, as it does not
explain why -ous, -able, -ant, - ary, and -ory are not potential partners.

Considerfor example the possibilitiesinvolving the base word sense: (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) sens-ual-ize,sens-ual-ist,sens-ual-ism sens-itive-ize, (?sens-itiv-ist),(?sens-itiv-ism) *sens-uous-ize,*sens-uous-ist,*sens-uous-ism *sens-ible-ize,*sens-ible-ist,*sens-ible-ism *sens-ory-ize,*sens-ory-ist,*sens-ory-ism
+

The pairs -ant + -ism and -ant + -ist may be blocked by -ance; -ant

-ize may not occur because the structure of the word would then be Verb+ant+ize, a form possibly blocked by the existence of the underlying word (e.g. defendblocks defendant-ize).Supportfor this comes from the observation that it is denominal -al (not deverbal -al) that -ize attaches to. I have no proposals regarding the failure of the other suffix-combinations (level-orderingdoes not help; e.g. it cannot explain why the level 1 suffix-ous cannot be followed by the level 2 suffix -ism etc.). The descriptivefacts can be straightforwardly, if nonexplanatorily, derived by assigninga feature cp to -al, -an, -ic and -ive, and assigninga selectional restrictionto -ism, -ist and -ize requiringthat they attach to wordsonly if the word carries the feature ,p. already-suffixed

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:42:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

538
3. LEVEL-ORDERING

NIGEL FABB AND THE SELECTIONAL RESTRICTIONS

In the first part of this paper I showed that, given the general aim of ruling out all nonoccurring pairs of suffixes, level-ordering of suffixes is less powerful than may have been assumed. In the second part of the paper I showed how all but a few non-occurring pairs of suffixes can be ruled out solely by a combination of selectional restrictions, of which one of the most extensive in its effects is a restriction against attachment to an already-suffixed word. The argument against the level-ordering of suffixes which arises from Sections 1 and 2 is for the most part an indirect one: it is that level-ordering does no extra work in ruling out suffix pairs beyond that done by independently needed selectional restrictions. None of the selectional restrictions proposed in part 2 of this paper is made redundant by level-ordering. The selectional restrictions in part 2 moreover make correct predictions where level-ordering makes incorrect predictions, and the few unaccounted-for cases are unaccounted for also by level-ordering. The only incompatibility with the level-ordering approaches relates to the Bracketing Erasure Convention (Kiparsky 1982a, b), which erases all internal brackets in a word at the end of a level. The problem is that many suffixes (listed in (1)) which attach only to unsuffixed words are level 2 suffixes. If any suffixation at level 1 was rendered invisible by bracketing erasure, then one of these level 2 suffixes would not be able to distinguish between a word containing no suffix and a word containing a level 1 suffix, and so would not be able to obey the selectional restriction which is descriptively true of it. The interest of level-ordering of affixes came from the identical divisions into two subsets of affixes required (a) in order to predict nonoccurring pairs, and (b) in order to identify them as being visible to certain phonological rules (such as the English Stress Rule). Abandoning level-ordering of affixes would mean dropping one of the subdivisions; affixes would now be distinguished only by whether or not they are visible to the appropriate phonological rules. It would be possible to retain a level-ordered phonology, but to carry out all affixation in advance of phonology, with a subset of the affixes assigned a feature which would make them a possible input to rules like the English Stress Rule (rather in the way that Case makes an NP visible to certain semantic or phonological rules in Government-Binding theory). This is similar to the LOOP device used in Halle & Mohanan (1985, p. 64), which "allows a stratum distinction for the purposes of phonology, without imposing a corresponding distinction in morphological distribution".

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:42:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENGLISH

SUFFIX ATION

539

To conclude, one of the strongest, most frequently stated, and most historically important arguments for level-ordering is that level-ordering of suffixes makes new predictions about nonoccurring pairs in English. In this paper I have suggested that this argument can no longer be made, thus weakening the overall evidence for the level-ordering of morphemes.
REFERENCES Anshen, Frank, Mark Aronoff, Roy Byrd and Judith Klavans: 1986, 'The Role of Etymology and Word-length in English Word Formation', ms., SUNY Stonybrook/IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY. Aronoff, Mark: 1976, Word Formation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Halle, Morris and K. P. Mohanan: 1985, 'Segmental Phonology of Modern English', Linguistic Inquiry 16, 57-1 16. Kiparsky, Paul: 1982a, 'Word Formation and the Lexicon', in F. Ingemann (ed.), Proceedings of the Mid-America Linguistics Conference, University of Kansas, Lawrence. : 1982b, 'From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology', in H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (eds.), The Structureof Phonological Representations, Part 1, Foris, Dordrecht. Moortgat, Michael: 1987, 'Mixed Composition and Discontinuous Dependencies', in R. Oehrle, E. Bach and D. Wheeler (eds.), Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures, Reidel, Dordrecht. Siegel, Dorothy: 1974, 'Topics in English Morphology', Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, published 1979 by Garland, New York. Strauss, Steven: 1982, 'On "Relatedness Paradoxes" and Related Paradoxes', Linguistic Inquiry 13, 694-700. Walker, John: 1924, The Rhyming Dictionary, revised by L. Dawson, Routledge, London. Williams, Edwin: 1981, 'On the Notions "Lexically Related" and "Head of a Word"', Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245-274. Received 21 April 1987 Revised 16 December 1987 Programme in Literary Linguistics Department of English Studies University of Strathclyde Livingstone Tower, 26 Richmond Street Glasgow GI IXH, Scotland

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.212 on Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:42:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions