Explore the vast range of titles available.

It has been known since Barbiers (2001) that genoeg ‘enough’ can turn predicate adverbs into sentence adverbs. When genoeg occurs in a sentence adverbial phrase, it is syntactically obligatory, but makes little to no semantic contribution: (1) Kees heeft gek * (genoeg) niet gek genoeg gedanst. Kees has weird * (enough) not weird enough danced ‘Weirdly, Kees didn’t dance weirdly enough.’ In this paper, I analyse the external and internal syntax of such enough support adverbs. Using Cinque’s (1999) adverbial hierarchy, I observe that enough support splits into subject-oriented and evaluative adverbs . Next, I nuance the accepted theory that genoeg in adverbial phrases is an affix: only enough support is a full-fledged affix; regular enough is an affixoid. Finally, I analyse the internal syntax of enough support . I suggest that a Sentence Predicate Projection is needed for the formation of sentence adverbials.

A recent debate in the morphological literature concerns the status of derivational affixes. While some linguists (Marantz 1997, 2001; Marvin 2003) consider derivational affixes a type of functional morpheme that realizes a categorial head, others (Lowenstamm 2015; De Beider 2011) argue that derivational affixes are roots. Our proposal, which finds its empirical basis in a study of Dutch derivational affixes, takes a middle position. We argue that there are two types of derivational affixes: some that are roots (i.e. lexical morphemes) and others that are categorial heads (i.e. functional morphemes). Affixes that are roots show 'flexible' categorial behavior, are subject to 'lexical' phonological rules, and may trigger idiosyncratic meanings. Affixes that realize categorial heads, on the other hand, are categorially rigid, do not trigger 'lexical' phonological rules nor allow for idiosyncrasies in their interpretation.

This article highlights the verbalization of affixes in the Limola language. This study uses a qualitative descriptive method with the following data collection techniques: elicitation, recording, and note-taking. The affixation process proves three kinds of verbalization affixes in the Limola language, i.e., 1) prefixes: ma-, mo-, pa-, mopa-, mapa-, ipa-, i-, and ti-; 2) suffixes: -i, -nga; and 3) confixes: i—i, i—a, ipa-i, mapa—i, and mopa—i. Verbalization of an inflectional affix does not change the word class when attached to a verb root morpheme. Meanwhile, the affix attached to an adjective base morpheme called derivation changes the word class. The change due to the morphophonemic process is found in the prefix ma-, which has allomorphs /mang-/, /man-/, /mam-/, and /mab-/. These allomorphs occur when the initial phonemes of the word are /k/, /s/, /t/, /p/, and /b/. In addition, the process of affixing the suffix -i to the base morpheme endings in vowels /i/, /u/, and /e/ causes epenthesis of the vowel /a/, which lies between the end of the base morpheme and the beginning of the bound morpheme. This study’s results provide a comprehensive viewpoint of the affixation process in Limola, illustrate how affixes interact with base morphemes to affect word formation and class transformation and emphasize the complex role of morphophonemic processes in the Limola language. The findings are beneficial for deepening understanding of the Limola language structure and, simultaneously, can be used in designing teaching materials for the Limola society to preserve and maintain the Limola language.

Western scholars believe that the difference between Chinese and Western languages is a conceptual gap in their traditions, apply the Western phonetic-centered language philosophy theory to study Chinese and Chinese characters, and put forward a series of ideas and views on the comparison of Chinese characters and Western languages, believing that Chinese characters as a thinking tool are far inferior to languages with perfect grammatical forms, and that Chinese remains in the childhood stage of human language development. This paper aims to reveal how Western scholars based on phonetic centrism and logocentrism ignore the particularity of Chinese characters, and should not copy the western language philosophy theory when understanding the nature of Chinese characters, but should pay attention to the characteristics and advantages of Chinese characters in the process of historical development.

This study examined affix letter spelling among 6th grade Hebrew-speaking children with dyslexia compared with chronologically age-matched and reading level-matched controls. As different languages are characterized by multiple dimensions of affix spelling complexity, we specifically targeted the following unique dimensions relevant to Hebrew: (i) affix envelope transparency; (ii) affix letter prevalence; (iii) internal morpho-phonological competition; (iv) overtness of the phonological-orthographic link; and (v) phono-morpho-orthographic consistency. The research instrument was a spelling task of 244 words containing affix letters, covering all non-root morphological roles, both inflectional and derivational. Results show that for both frequent and infrequent words, 6th graders with dyslexia perform similarly to reading age-matched controls when spelling involves morphological competition or when the phonological morphological and orthographic link is inconsistent. In frequent words the similarity in performance between the groups extends to the overt phonology criterion as well. In addition, 6th graders with dyslexia were assisted by affix letter prevalence but not by demarcation of the affix envelope, compared with reading age-matched controls. Regarding these criteria, the discrepancy between regular and irregular affix spelling was different between dyslexic children and non-dyslexic controls. These findings indicate that morphological knowledge in dyslexia is not a unified system, and while some morpho-orthographic regularities are acquired more easily, other morpho-orthographic regularities are quite challenging.

Compositionality is a primary feature of language, but graphics can also create combinatorial meaning, like with items above faces (e.g., lightbulbs to mean inspiration). We posit that these “upfixes” (i.e., upwards affixes) involve a productive schema enabling both stored and novel face–upfix dyads. In two experiments, participants viewed either conventional (e.g., lightbulb) or unconventional (e.g., clover-leaves) upfixes with faces which either matched (e.g., lightbulb/smile) or mismatched (e.g., lightbulb/frown). In Experiment 1 , matching dyads sponsored higher comprehensibility ratings and faster response times, modulated by conventionality. In Experiment 2 , event-related brain potentials (ERPs) revealed conventional upfixes, regardless of matching, evoked larger N250s, indicating perceptual expertise, but mismatching and unconventional dyads elicited larger semantic processing costs (N400) than conventional-matching dyads. Yet mismatches evoked a late negativity, suggesting congruent novel dyads remained construable compared with violations. These results support that combinatorial graphics involve a constrained productive schema, similar to the lexicon of language.

Recent research on the acoustic realization of affixes has revealed differences between phonologically homophonous affixes, e.g. the different kinds of final [s] and [z] in English (Plag, Homann & Kunter 2017, Zimmermann 2016a). Such results are unexpected and unaccounted for in widely accepted post-Bloomfieldian item-and-arrangement models (Hockett 1954), which separate lexical and post-lexical phonology, and in models which interpret phonetic effects as consequences of different prosodic structure. This paper demonstrates that the differences in duration of English final S as a function of the morphological function it expresses (non-morphemic, plural, third person singular, genitive, genitive plural, cliticized has , and cliticized is ) can be approximated by considering the support for these morphological functions from the words’ sublexical and collocational properties. We estimated this support using naïve discriminative learning and replicated previous results for English vowels (Tucker, Sims & Baayen 2019), indicating that segment duration is lengthened under higher functional certainty but shortened under functional uncertainty. We discuss the implications of these results, obtained with a wide learning network that eschews representations for morphemes and exponents, for models in theoretical morphology as well as for models of lexical processing.

A widespread assumption in the language contact literature is that affixes are never borrowed directly, but only indirectly, that is, as part of complex loanwords. From such complex loanwords, affixes may eventually spread to native stems, creating hybrid formations, in a process of language-internal analogical extension. Direct borrowing is the extraction of an affix based on knowledge of the donor language, without the mediation of complex loanwords within the recipient language. This article suggests that direct borrowing can also be the only or primary process leading to productive loan affixes. Criteria are provided to assess instances of direct and indirect borrowing on the basis of the distribution of borrowed affixes across complex loanwords and hybrid formations. These are applied to corpora of various languages. A scale of directness of affix borrowing is proposed, based on the extent to which speakers of the recipient language rely (i) on their knowledge of the donor language (direct borrowing) and (ii) on complex loanwords within their native language (indirect borrowing).

This article accounts for the traditionally-labelled Level 1/Level 2 affix distinction in English by combining the predictions of floating segmental structure (e.g. Rubach 1996) and cyclic spell-out by phase (Chomsky 1999; Marantz 2007). It offers insight not only into the different phonological patterns these affixes trigger, but importantly, explains when the same affix will trigger distinct phonological patterns (when an affix behaves sometimes as Level 1 and sometimes as Level 2). It is argued that Level 1 affixes are distinguished by an initial floating vowel in their underlying representations, and that if we combine this with the proposal that affixes that merge directly to roots are interpreted in the same phonological cycle as these roots then we can remove the reference to diacritic notions such as Level 1 and Level 2 from the grammar. This then allows for a fully modular account of English affix classes, where the phonological derivation refers solely to phonological representations.

This article examines the grammatical behavior of Dutch adverbs featuring so-called adverbial -s. This will be done on the basis of three questions: Firstly, what is the grammatical nature of adverbial -s? Secondly, in which structural configurations does it appear? Thirdly, what does adverbial -s tell us about the existence of adverbs as a separate part of speech? The article provides the following three answers to these questions: Firstly, adverbial -s is an affixal manifestation of the categorizing heads n and a (so-called -s-Support). Secondly, n and a externalize as -s when the raised root that forms an amalgam with the categorizing head is silent or a bound root. Thirdly, “adverbs” featuring adverbial -s are nominal, adjectival or adpositional expressions with an articulated syntactic structure. Some of these syntactic structures correspond to the so-called construct state. In short, linguistic expressions featuring adverbial -s do not support the idea that adverbs form a separate part of speech.