Suprafix

Last updated

In linguistics, a suprafix is a type of affix that gives a suprasegmental pattern (such as tone, stress, or nasalization) to either a neutral base or a base with a preexisting suprasegmental pattern. This affix will, then, convey a derivational or inflectional meaning. [1] [2] [3] [4] This suprasegmental pattern acts like segmental phonemes within a morpheme; the suprafix is a combination of suprasegmental phonemes, organized into a pattern, that creates a morpheme. [5] For example, a number of African languages express tense  / aspect distinctions by tone. [6] English has a process of changing stress on verbs to create nouns. [1] [7]

Contents

History

Driven by structural linguists in the United States, the suprafix was more frequently used by such linguists during the time of American structuralism. [8] The idea of suprasegmental morphemes was introduced in Eugene Nida's morphology textbook, where he suggested the term, suprafix, to account for these kinds of morphemes; the term was adopted by George L. Trager and Henry Lee Smith Jr. in their paper on the structure of English. [4] [9] It was further described in Edith Trager's article on the suprafix in English verbal compounds and in Archibald A. Hill's introductory linguistics of English text. [5] [10] Later, it was taken up in Peter Matthews' influential morphology textbook. [11]

Some linguists prefer superfix, which was introduced by George L. Trager for the stress pattern of a word, which he regarded as a special morpheme that combines and unifies the parts of a word. [12] Another term that has not been widely adopted, but has been suggested to replace suprafix or superfix, is simulfix. This word has been offered as a replacement term because many linguists have noted that the addition of suprasegmental phonemes is added neither above nor below the segmental phonemes; instead it is affixed altogether. [1] However, a simulfix has been used to describe different morphological phenomena and, therefore, has not been adopted for the purposes defined here. [7] [1]

Types

There are two different types of suprafixes: additive and replacive. Suprafixes are additive if they add a suprasegmental pattern to the base form, and replacive suprafixes simply change the pattern from the base form to a new pattern that conveys a different meaning.

Additive suprafixes

Additive suprafixes are affixes that add suprasegmental phonemes to the base. [4] Such processes occur as a result of an underlying pattern of stress, tones, or even nasalization being added to an underlying morpheme composed of only segmental phonemes. In other words, the affix is attached to a bare base that has no other suprasegmental pattern underlyingly. [13] That can fall under a broader category of additive morphology (e.g. processes of prefixation, suffixation, infixation). [4] This is exemplified by a language in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ngbaka: wà, wā, wǎ and wá all mean 'clean'. Nida, however, explains that the segmental base contains the meaning 'to clean', but the different tones associated with the base reveal different tense/aspect information. [6]

Replacive suprafixes

Replacive suprafixes are affixes that replace suprasegmental phonemes of the base form. [4] Such processes occur as a result of an underlying pattern of stress, tones or nasalization replacing a previous pattern of suprasegmental phonemes. More succinctly, the process involves stripping one suprasegmental pattern for another to convey a different meaning. That can fall under a broader category of replacive morphology. In this kind of morphology, some particular phoneme or phonemes are being replaced by another to attribute a different meaning. [1] An example can be found in another language from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mongbandi: ngbò and ngbó both mean 'swam'. [14] However, Nida explains that the first word is the base form, and the second shows the verb in second-person plural. Since the second-person plural suprafix replaces the tonal pattern of the base form, it is a replacive suprafix.

In English

The suprafix can also be defined as an underlying suprasegmental pattern that indicates a property of a particular type of phrase in a language but especially for English. Such patterns are most notable between an individually-uttered word and the same word in a larger phrase. Consider, for example, the word house, which has no internal stress pattern, alone. However, within a phrase like the white house (e.g. /ðə ʍàɪt hâʊs/) versus the White House (e.g. /ðə ʍáɪt hàʊs/), the stress on the word house changes. [5]

English also uses a process of replacive suprafixes in which base form verbs are changed to nouns by replacing the stress pattern alone: 'import (n) vs. im'port (v) and 'insult (n) vs. in'sult (v). The stress pattern alters to signal the difference between noun and verb. [1]

In Tibetan

In Tibetan, replacive suprafixes in stress are used to disambiguate many noun and verb homographs, in a way similar to English (e.g. 'import (n) vs. im'port (v), as described above). For example, the Tibetan word ལྟ་བ (Wylie: lta ba, IPA: [ˈta˥˥.wa]), with stress on the first syllable is a verb, meaning “to look”, while its homograph ལྟ་བ (Wylie: lta ba, IPA: [ta˥˥.ˈwa]), with stress on the second syllable is a noun, meaning a “view/outlook/sight”. This pattern of replacive suprafixes with stress, where homograph verbs and nouns are stressed on their first and second syllables, respectively, can be generalized in Tibetan, since a large number of verbs and nouns are two-syllable words consisting of a single-syllable free morpheme (and semantic root) followed by either of the two bound morphemes and nominalizing particles པ (Wylie: pa, IPA: [pa]) or བ (Wylie: ba, IPA: [wa]) (which of the two particles follows is determined by euphony rules, based on the final letter of the preceding syllable). [15]

Additionally, in the literary register of Tibetan (and to some extent in the colloquial register as well, although herein less often realized), a separate system of replacive suprafixes in aspiration allows speakers to disambiguate otherwise identically-pronounced volitional and non-volitional forms (this extends in some cases to transitivity, although this is a separate, yet often interrelated concept in Tibetan, usually conceived of as a causative/resultative relationship) of the same verb. For example, the Tibetan verb སྐོལ་བ (Wylie: skol ba, IPA: [ˈkøː˥˥.wa]) means “to boil” (volitional/transitive/causative—e.g. “He boiled the water”), while the verb འཁོལ་བ (Wylie: ‘khol ba, IPA: [ˈkʰøː˥˥.wa]) means “to boil” (non-volitional/intransitive/resultative—e.g. “The water is boiling”). Several other pairs of such verbs exist in Tibetan, for example བཅག་པ (Wylie: bcag pa)/ཆག་པ (Wylie: chag pa) ”to break” (causative/resultative), སྐོར་བ (Wylie: skor ba)/འཁོར་བ (Wylie: ‘khor ba) “to turn/rotate” (causative/resultative), and སྤར་བ (Wylie: spar ba)/འཕར་བ (Wylie: ‘phar ba) “to increase/raise” (causative/resultative). Though the verbs in each of these pairs of verbs differ in orthography, their pronunciation (including tone) is the same, but for the added aspiration in the involuntary verb, and other than in a difference in causativity (again, this can manifest in a complex interrelation of volition, transitivity, and causativity), their meanings are otherwise identical. [16] [17]

In other languages

In the Ma'ya language of Indonesia, there is a toneme that marks a replacive morpheme that is also described as a suprafix. Lex van der Leeden describes the language as having a toneme pattern, such as a class 12 toneme pattern of the language being replaced by a class 21 toneme pattern. He notes that they are inflectional changes. [18]

In the Waurá language of Brazil, there is a nasalization suprafix that arises when the word is placed in a possessive construction: nu-mapã́, 'my honey' and mápa, 'honey'. [19]

In Ngbaka, there are examples of additive suprafixes. The segmental string that constitutes the morpheme meaning 'to return' is kpolo. However, when the four different additive suprafixes are affixed, a change in tense/aspect is realised: kpòlò, kpōlō, kpòló and kpóló. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

In linguistics, an allomorph is a variant phonetic form of a morpheme, or in other words, a unit of meaning that varies in sound and spelling without changing the meaning. The term allomorph describes the realization of phonological variations for a specific morpheme. The different allomorphs that a morpheme can become are governed by morphophonemic rules. These phonological rules determine what phonetic form, or specific pronunciation, a morpheme will take based on the phonological or morphological context in which it appears.

A phoneme is any set of similar speech sounds that is perceptually regarded by the speakers of a language as a single basic sound—a smallest possible phonetic unit—that helps distinguish one word from another. All languages contain phonemes, and all spoken languages include both consonant and vowel phonemes. Phonemes are primarily studied under the branch of linguistics known as phonology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crow language</span> Missouri Valley Siouan language of Montana, US

Crow is a Missouri Valley Siouan language spoken primarily by the Crow Tribe in present-day southeastern Montana. The word Apsáalooke translates to "Children of the Large Beaked Bird", which was later incorrectly translated into English as 'Crow'. It is one of the larger populations of American Indian languages with 4,160 speakers according to the 2015 US Census.

In the phonology of the Romanian language, the phoneme inventory consists of seven vowels, two or four semivowels, and twenty consonants. In addition, as with other languages, other phonemes can occur occasionally in interjections or recent borrowings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tonkawa language</span> Native American language

The Tonkawa language was spoken in Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico by the Tonkawa people. A language isolate, with no known related languages, Tonkawa has not had L1 speakers since the mid 20th centiury. Most Tonkawa people now only speak English, but revitalization is underway.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eastern Pomo language</span> Pomoan language

Eastern Pomo, also known as Clear Lake Pomo, is a nearly extinct Pomoan language spoken around Clear Lake in Lake County, California by one of the Pomo peoples.

Tariana is an endangered Maipurean language spoken along the Vaupés River in Amazonas, Brazil by approximately 100 people. Another approximately 1,500 people in the upper and middle Vaupés River area identify themselves as ethnic Tariana but do not speak the language fluently.

Tübatulabal is an Uto-Aztecan language, traditionally spoken in Kern County, California, United States. It is the traditional language of the Tübatulabal, who still speak the traditional language in addition to English. The language originally had three main dialects: Bakalanchi, Pakanapul and Palegawan.

The Yimas language is spoken by the Yimas people, who populate the Sepik River Basin region of Papua New Guinea. It is spoken primarily in Yimas village, Karawari Rural LLG, East Sepik Province. It is a member of the Lower-Sepik language family. All 250-300 speakers of Yimas live in two villages along the lower reaches of the Arafundi River, which stems from a tributary of the Sepik River known as the Karawari River.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lhasa Tibetan</span> Official dialect of Tibetan, spoken in Lhasa

Lhasa Tibetan or Standard Tibetan is the Tibetan dialect spoken by educated people of Lhasa, the capital of the Tibetan Autonomous Region. It is an official language of the Tibet Autonomous Region.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tiipai language</span> Yuman language spoken in Mexico and US

Tiipai (Tipay) is a Native American language belonging to the Delta–California branch of the Yuman language family, which spans Arizona, California, and Baja California. As part of the Yuman family, Tiipai has also been consistently included in the controversial quasi-stock Hokan. Tiipai is spoken by a number of Kumeyaay tribes in northern Baja California and southern San Diego County, California. There were, conservatively, 200 Tiipai speakers in the early 1990s; the number of speakers has since declined steadily, numbering roughly 100 speakers in Baja California in a 2007 survey.

Misantla Totonac, also known as Yecuatla Totonac and Southeastern Totonac, is an indigenous language of Mexico, spoken in central Veracruz in the area between Xalapa and Misantla. It belongs to the Totonacan family and is the southernmost variety of Totonac. Misantla Totonac is highly endangered, with fewer than 133 speakers, most of whom are elderly. The language has largely been replaced by Spanish.

This article presents a brief overview of the grammar of the Sesotho and provides links to more detailed articles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nukak language</span> Endangered indigenous language of Colombia

The Nukak language is a language of uncertain classification, perhaps part of the macrofamily Puinave-Maku. It is very closely related to Kakwa.

Taos is a Tanoan language spoken by several hundred people in New Mexico, in the United States. The main description of its phonology was contributed by George L. Trager in a (pre-generative) structuralist framework. Earlier considerations of the phonetics-phonology were by John P. Harrington and Jaime de Angulo. Trager's first account was in Trager (1946) based on fieldwork 1935-1937, which was then substantially revised in Trager (1948). The description below takes Trager (1946) as the main point of departure and notes where this differs from the analysis of Trager (1948). Harrington's description is more similar to Trager (1946). Certain comments from a generative perspective are noted in a comparative work Hale (1967).

Odia grammar is the study of the morphological and syntactic structures, word order, case inflections, verb conjugation and other grammatical structures of Odia, an Indo-Aryan language spoken in South Asia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vamale language</span> Austronesian language spoken in New Caledonia

Vamale (Pamale) is a Kanak language of northern New Caledonia. The Hmwaeke dialect, spoken in Tiéta, is fusing with Haveke and nearly extinct. Vamale is nowadays spoken in Tiendanite, We Hava, Téganpaïk and Tiouandé. It was spoken in the Pamale valley and its tributaries Vawe and Usa until the colonial war of 1917, when its speakers were displaced.

Wamesa is an Austronesian language of Indonesian New Guinea, spoken across the neck of the Doberai Peninsula or Bird's Head. There are currently 5,000–8,000 speakers. While it was historically used as a lingua franca, it is currently considered an under-documented, endangered language. This means that fewer and fewer children have an active command of Wamesa. Instead, Papuan Malay has become increasingly dominant in the area.

Neverver (Nevwervwer), also known as Lingarak, is an Oceanic language. Neverver is spoken in Malampa Province, in central Malekula, Vanuatu. The names of the villages on Malekula Island where Neverver is spoken are Lingarakh and Limap.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Matlatzinca language</span> Endangered Oto-Manguean language of Mexico

Matlatzinca, or more specifically San Francisco Matlatzinca, is an endangered Oto-Manguean language of Western Central Mexico.[3] The name of the language in the language itself is pjiekak'joo.[4] The term "Matlatzinca" comes from the town's name in Nahuatl, meaning "the lords of the network." At one point, the Matlatzinca groups were called "pirindas," meaning "those in the middle."[5]

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Bauer, Laurie (2003). Introducing linguistic morphology (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. pp. 35–36. ISBN   0878403434. OCLC   51942679.
  2. ↑ Trask, R.L. (1993). A dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics. London. p. 270. ISBN   0415086272. OCLC   26363058.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  3. ↑ Trask, R.L. (1996). A dictionary of phonetics and phonology. London: Routledge. p. 342. ISBN   0415112605. OCLC   32508753.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Eugene Nida, Morphology: The Descriptive Analysis of Words, 2nd ed., Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 1949, p. 69.
  5. 1 2 3 Hill, Archibald A. (1958). Introduction to Linguistic Structures . United States of America: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, Inc. pp.  103, 105–106. ISBN   9780155430310.
  6. 1 2 Eugene Nida, Morphology: The Descriptive Analysis of Words, 2nd ed., Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 1949, p. 63, Problem 46.
  7. 1 2 Word-formation : an international handbook of the languages of Europe. Volume 1. Müller, Peter O., Dr., Ohnheiser, Ingeborg, Olsen, Susan, 1948–, Rainer, Franz. Berlin. 30 March 2015. ISBN   9783110246254. OCLC   909907714.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)
  8. ↑ Anderson, John M. (2005). "Structuralism and Autonomy: From Saussure to Chomsky". Historiographia Linguistica. 32 (1–2): 117–148. doi:10.1075/hl.32.1-2.06and. ISSN   0302-5160.
  9. ↑ Trager, George L.; Smith, Jr., Henry Lee (1957). An Outline of English Structure. Washington American Council of Learned Societies. pp. 56–57.
  10. ↑ Trager, Edith (Fall 1956). "Superfix and Sememe: English Verbal Compounds". General Linguistics. 2: 1–14 – via ProQuest.
  11. ↑ P[eter] H. Matthews, Morphology: An Introduction to the Theory of Word-Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 1974, p. 133
  12. ↑ George L. Trager, "Taos I: A language revisited". International Journal of American Linguistics 14 (1948), 155–160, p. 157
  13. ↑ Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.; Dixon, R. M. W. (2017-03-30). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic typology. Aĭkhenvalʹd, A. I︠U︡. (Aleksandra I︠U︡rʹevna), Dixon, Robert M. W. Cambridge. ISBN   9781107091955. OCLC   950901589.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  14. 1 2 Eugene Nida, Morphology: The Descriptive Analysis of Words, 2nd ed., Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 1949, p. 63, Problem 47.
  15. ↑ Hackett, Paul G. (2019). A Tibetan Verb Lexicon (2nd ed.). Boulder: Snow Lion. p. 11. ISBN   9781559394833.
  16. ↑ Tournadre, Nicolas (2003). Manual of Standard Tibetan: Language and Civilization. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion. pp. 419–420. ISBN   9781559391894.
  17. ↑ Sedláčcek, Kamil (1959). "The Tonal System of Tibetan (Lhasa Dialect)". T'oung Pao. 47 (1): 247. doi:10.1163/156853259X00097 . Retrieved 1 July 2023.
  18. ↑ van der Leeden, Lex (1997). Odé, Cecilia; Stokhof, Wim; Baak, Connie (eds.). Proceedings of the seventh International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Leiden, Netherlands: Leiden University, Department of Languages and Cultures of South East Asia and Oceania, Projects Division. pp. 327–350. ISBN   9789042002531.{{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  19. ↑ Payne, David L. (April 1987). "Some morphological elements of Maipuran Arawakan: Agreement affixes and the genitive construction". Language Sciences. 9 (1): 57–75. doi:10.1016/s0388-0001(87)80009-8. ISSN   0388-0001.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.