[Lingtyp] CfP: Lexical affixes (workshop proposal, SLE 2024)

[Kasper Boye]

Dear colleagues,

We hereby invite you to send us an abstract for a workshop on lexical affixes that we intend to propose for the SLE conference to be held at the University of Helsinki, August 21-24, 2024 (https://societaslinguistica.eu/sle2024/<https://societaslinguistica.eu/sle2024/>). The abstract must not exceed 300 words. Please send it to boye at hum.ku.dk<mailto:boye at hum.ku.dk> before November 13, 2023. A preliminary workshop description is enclosed below (comments are welcome).

Kind regards,
Kasper Boye

**Workshop description**

Lexical affixes

Proposal for a workshop at the SLE 2024 Conference in Helsinki

Kasper Boye, Mads Nielsen, Johanne Nedergaard (University of Copenhagen)

Keywords: affix, lexical, grammatical, grammaticalization, polysynthetic

Affixes are often assumed to belong to grammar as opposed to the lexicon. For instance, a popular introductory textbook states that “[u]nlike roots, affixes do not belong to a lexical category […] [O’Grady, Archibald & Katamba 2011: 119], and the call for papers for a recent symposium of affixes states that “[a]ffixes are a part of grammar […]” (https://sites.utu.fi/affixes/call-for-papers/). If closed-class membership were co-extensive with grammatical status, this assumption might seem sound in so far as affixes form closed classes. But closed-class membership is hardly co-extensive with grammatical status (e.g. Bisang 2010: 291). For instance, there is a tradition, and good arguments, for recognizing both lexical and grammatical members of closed adposition classes, at least in some languages (e.g. Bennis, Prins & Vermeulen 1983; Rauh 1993).

The assumption that affixes are grammatical items has been challenged in two ways. Firstly, it has been claimed that derivational affixes or a subset thereof are lexical. For instance, Hopper & Traugott (2003) take some affixes to be lexical:

“Many derivational forms add a meaning component without affecting the category in question. The un- of unhappy adds to the adjective happy the meaning 'not,' but does not change the adjectival status of the word. Similarly the -ling of duckling adds to the noun duck the new meaning 'young and small,' but does not change the nominal status of the word. Such derivational morphemes are part of the lexicon and can be called ‘lexical derivational morphemes’” (Hopper & Traugott 2003: 5).

Secondly, the assumption has been challenged by studies of affixes in American languages. At least since Kinkade (1963a; 1963b), types of affixes characteristic of Chimakuan, Salishan, and Wakashan languages in northwestern North America have been characterized as lexical (see Bischoff 2011 for an overview). Other names that we have come across for these affixes are ‘referential affixes’, ‘etymological affixes’, ‘substantival affixes’, ‘field-affixes’, ‘verbal affixes’, ‘somatic affixes’ and ‘non-root bound morphemes’). Mithun (1997) and Bischoff (2011) describe the relevant type of affixes as forming classes that are rather large, yet relatively closed. Some are phonologically related to roots found in open classes. However, what is crucial is that they are all semantically related to roots within the language, or have ‘root-like meanings’.
A case in point is the Halkomelem suffix -cəp ‘firewood’ in (1)

     Halkomelem (Salishan; from Gerdts & Hinkson 1996: 8)
     (1)     Ni      yə́qʷ-əlˀ-cəp.
              aux   burn-cn-firewood
              ‘He made a fire.’

As can be seen from the translation, the meaning of the suffix is most naturally expressed by a freestanding word in English, namely fire. Note though that the suffix does not function as an argument in the clause. If it did, the clause would be transitive and the verb would be marked with the 3rd person ergative suffix -əs, which would be ungrammatical in this case. Perhaps a better translation of ni yə́qʷ-əlˀ-cəp would be ‘he fire-made’.

As another example, Mithun offers the following characterization of “lexical suffixes” in Bella Coola (Salishan):

“While typically more general in meaning than roots, the suffixes do have strikingly concrete meanings, meanings we normally expect of roots, such as -uc ‘mouth/eat’ or -lst ‘rock’” (Mithun 1997: 364).

The discussion of lexical affixes has been hampered by the absence of a coherent theory of the lexical-grammatical discussion. According to the usage-based theory outlined in Boye & Harder (2012) and refined in Boye (2023a; forthcoming), grammatical status is defined in in terms of conventionalized discourse secondariness (background status), whereas lexical status is defined in terms of a conventionalized potential for discourse primacy (foreground status). The theory entails that only lexical elements can be focalized, addressed in subsequent discourse, and modified (cf. Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994: 7; Keizer 2007).

In line with this theory (though actually predating it), Mithun (1997) has argued that the “lexical affixes” discussed above are in fact grammatical: the affixes are used to convey “information that is semantically or pragmatically subordinate within a particular context” (Mithun 1997: 369). In other words, the affixes are discourse secondary (cp. Mithun 1997: 362).
While at least some of the affixes that have been characterized as lexical may in fact be grammatical by the usage-based theory referred to above, then, the same theory entails that affixes that are truly lexical can be identified. Some of what Mattissen (2017: 72–74) calls “non-root bound morphemes” seem to be cases in point. Mattissen’s notion includes a range of item types in addition to the affixes discussed above, for instance, the manner suffixes found in Kalaallisut (West Greenlandic). At least a subset of the Kalaallisut manner suffixes are lexical by the modification criterion. Thus, for instance, the suffix -pallag ‘quickly’ can be modified by means of the degree suffix -ngaar ‘very’.

     Kalaallisut (Inuit; Naja Trondhjem, p.c.)
     (2)     Suli-palla-ngaar-mat                        tupiga-ara.
  work-quickly-very-caus.3sg           wonder-decl.1sg.3sg
              ’I am surprised how quickly he worked’.

The suffix -pallag corresponds semantically quite closely to adverbs in more analytic languages (Fortescue 1980: 270-71), and one might suspect that it is in fact an incorporated adverb. However, Kalaallisut also possesses non-bound manner adverbs, and the non-bound manner adverb sukkasooq ‘fast’ may in fact be combined with -pallag to focalize the manner meaning (Naja Trondhjem, p.c.).

     Kalaallisut (Inuit; Naja Trondhjem, p.c.)
     (3)     Assut sukkasuu-mik  suli-pallap-poq.
very   fast-instr        work-fast-decl.3sg.
              ’He worked VERY FAST’.

In this workshop, we welcome contributions that address the following theoretical, methodological and empirical issues pertaining to lexical affixes:

Empirical issues
-   What are the characteristics of lexical affixes?
-   Which is the range of functions lexical affixes may have?
-   At which positions in the affix order are lexical affixes typically found?
-   How are lexical affixes formed diachronically, and how may they develop further?

Methodological issues
-   How can lexical affixes be identified?
-   Which challenges does identification of lexical affixes present?

Theoretical issues
-   On which theoretical basis may lexical affixes be identified?
-   How do lexical affixes differ functionally from grammatical affixes and from non-bound morphemes?
-   What are the implications of lexical affixes for our understanding of words, the morphology-syntax distinction, and polysynthesis?

Abbreviations
1 = first person; 3 = third person; aux = auxiliary; caus = causative mood; cn = connective; decl = declarative; instr = instrument; sg = singular

References

Bennis, Hans, Ronald Prins, and Jan Vermeulen. 1983. Lexical-semantic versus syntactic disorders in aphasia: The processing of prepositions. Publikaties van het Instituut voor Algemene Taalwerenschap 40: 1–32.

Bisang, Walter. 2010. Word classes. In Jae Jung Son (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 280–302. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bischoff, Shannon T. 2011. Lexical affixes, incorporation, and conflation: The case of Coeur d’Alene. Studia Linguistica 65.1. 1–31.

Boye, Kasper. 2023. Grammaticalization as conventionalization of discourse secondary status: Deconstructing the lexical-grammatical continuum. Transactions of the Philological Society 121.2. 270–292.

Boye, Kasper. Forthcoming. Evidentiality, discourse prominence and grammaticalization. To appear in Studies in Language.

Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder. 2012: A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88.1. 1–44.

Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fortescue, Michael D. 1980. Affix-ordering in West Greenlandic derivational processes. International Journal of American Linguistics 46.4. 259–278.

Gerdts, Donna B. & Mercedes Q. Hinkson. 1996. Salish lexical suffixes: A case of decategorialization. In Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, 163–76. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keizer, Evelien. 2007. The lexical-grammatical dichotomy in Functional Discourse Grammar. Alfa – Revista de Lingüística 51.2 [Special issue ed. By Marize M.D. Hatthner & Kees Hengeveld: Advances in Functional Discourse Grammar]. 35-56.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1963a. Phonology and morphology of Upper Chehalis I. International Journal of American Linguistics 29.3. 181–195.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1963b. Phonology and morphology of Upper Chehalis II. International Journal of American Linguistics 29.4. 345–356.
Mattissen, Johanna. 2017. Sub-types of polysynthesis. In Michael D. Fortescue, Marianne Mithun & Nick Evans (eds.), The Oxford handbook of polysynthesis, 70–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mithun, Marianne. 1997. Lexical affixes and morphological typology. In Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type, 357–371. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
O’Grady, William, John Archibald & Francis Katamba. 2011. Contemporary linguistics: An introduction, 2nd edn. Harlow: Longman – Pearson Education.

Rauh, Gisa. 1993. On the grammar of lexical and non-lexical prepositions in English, in Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing, , 99– 150. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20231018/920f3970/attachment.htm>