Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T21:03:03.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Asymmetries in the Prosodic Phrasing of Function Words: Another Look at the Suffixing Preference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Nikolaus P. Himmelmann
Nikolaus P. Himmelmann*
Affiliation:
Universität zu Köln
*
Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft Institut für Linguistik Universität zu Köln 50923 Köln, Germany [sprachwissenschaft@uni-koeln.de]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is a well-known fact that across the world's languages there is a fairly strong asymmetry in the affixation of grammatical material, in that suffixes considerably outnumber prefixes in typological databases. This article argues that prosody, specifically prosodic phrasing, plays an important part in bringing about this asymmetry. Prosodic word and phrase boundaries may occur after a clitic function word preceding its lexical host with sufficient frequency so as to impede the fusion required for affixhood. Conversely, prosodic boundaries rarely, if ever, occur between a lexical host and a clitic function word following it. Hence, prosody does not impede the fusion process between lexical hosts and postposed function words, which therefore become affixes more easily.

Evidence for the asymmetry in prosodic phrasing is provided from two sources: disfluencies, and ditropic cliticization, that is, the fact that grammatical PRoclitics may be phonological ENclitics (i.e. phrased with a preceding host), but grammatical enclitics are never phonological proclitics. Earlier explanations for the suffixing preference have neglected prosody almost completely and thus also missed the related asymmetry in ditropic cliticization. More importantly, the evidence from prosodic phrasing suggests a new venue for explaining the suffixing preference. The asymmetry in prosodic phrasing, which, according to the hypothesis proposed here, is a major factor underlying the suffixing preference, has a natural basis in the mechanics of turn-taking as well as in the mechanics of speech production.

Keywords

affixescliticslanguage processingturn-takinggrammaticizationexplanation in typologyTagalog

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 90 , Issue 4 , December 2014, pp. 927 - 960
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511586262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2005. Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199279906.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter. 1996. On the prosody and syntax of turntaking. Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies, ed. by Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Selting, Margret, 57–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, Geoffrey w., and Butterworth, B. L.. 1979. Contextual probability and word frequency as determinants of pauses and speech errors in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 22. 201–11.10.1177/002383097902200301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Pagliuca, William; and Perkins, Revere D.. 1990. On the asymmetries in the affixation of grammatical material. Studies in typology and diachrony: Papers presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th birthday, ed. by Croft, William A., Kemmer, Suzanne, and Denning, Keith, 1–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. (ed.) 1980. The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Fox Tree, Jean E.. 2002. Using uh and uhm in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 84. 73–111.10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Malt, Barbara C.. 1984. Psychological constraints on language: A commentary on Bresnan and Kaplan and on Givón. Method and tactics in cognitive science, ed. by Kintsch, Walter, Miller, James R., and Polso, Peter G., 191–214. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Wasow, Thomas. 1998. Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology 37. 201–42.10.1006/cogp.1998.0693CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Croft, William. 1995. Intonation units and grammatical structure. Linguistics 33. 839–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, Ann, Hawkins, John; and Gilligan, Gary. 1985. The suffixing preference: A processing explanation. Linguistics 23. 723–58.10.1515/ling.1985.23.5.723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2005. Morphology in the wrong place: A survey of preposed enclitics. Morphology and its demarcations, ed. by Dressler, Wolfgang U., 17–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2009. The asymmetry of affixation. Snippets (Special issue in honor of Manfred Krifka, ed. by Sigrid Beck and Hans-Martin Gärtner) 20. 10–14. Online: http://www.ledonline.it/snippets/.Google Scholar
Diez, Friedrich. 1838. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, Theil, zweiter. Bonn: Weber.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2011a. Prefixing vs. suffixing in inflectional morphology. In Dryer & Haspelmath, Ch. 26. Online: http://wals.info/chapter/26.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2011b. Coding of nominal plurality. In Dryer & Haspelmath, Ch. 33. Online: http://wals.info/chapter/33.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2011c. Position of case affixes. In Dryer & Haspelmath, Ch. 51. Online: http://wals.info/chapter/51.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2011d. Position of pronominal possessive affixes. In Dryer & Haspelmath, Ch. 57. Online: http://wals.info/chapter/57.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2011e. Position of tense-aspect affixes. In Dryer & Haspelmath, Ch. 69. Online: http://wals.info/chapter/69.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S., and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) 2011. The world atlas of language structures online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John w., Chafe, Wallace L., Meyer, Charles; and Thompson, Sandra a.. 2000. Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, part 1. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John w., Chafe, Wallace L., Meyer, Charles, Thompson, Sandra a.; and Martey, Nii. 2003. Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, part 2. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., and Englebretson, Robert. 2004. Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, part 3. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., and Englebretson, Robert. 2005. Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, part 4. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John w., Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan, Cumming, Susanna; and Paolino, Danae. 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research, ed. by Edwards, Jane and Lampert, Martin D., 45–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 2006. Drift and the grammaticalization divide between Northern and Southern Wakashan. International Journal of American Linguistics 72. 295–324.10.1086/509488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara a., Hayashi, Makoto; and Jasperson, Robert. 1996. Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. Interaction and grammar, ed. by Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Thompson, Sandra A., 185–237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620874.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Radio talk. Forms of talk, 197–327. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goldman Eisler, Frieda. 1968. Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1957. Order of affixing: A study in general linguistics. Essays in linguistics, 86–97. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos, and Jacobs, Haike. 1998. Understanding phonology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hall, Christopher J. 1988. Integrating diachronic and processing principles in explaining the suffixing preference. Explaining language universals, ed. by Hawkins, John A., 32149. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Christopher J. 1992. Morphology and mind: A unified approach to explanation in linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A., and Cutler, Anne. 1988. Psycholinguistic factors in morphological asymmetry. Explaining language universals, ed. by Hawkins, John A., 280–317. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A., and Gilligan, Gary. 1988. Prefixing and suffixing universals in relation to basic word order. Lingua 74. 219–59.10.1016/0024-3841(88)90060-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto. 2001. Postposition-initiated utterances in Japanese conversation: An interactional account of a grammatical practice. Studies in interactional linguistics, ed. by Selting, Margret and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, 317–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto. 2003a. Language and the body as resources for collaborative action: A study of word searches in Japanese conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 36. 109–41.10.1207/S15327973RLSI3602_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto. 2003b. Practices in joint utterance construction in Japanese conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Howell, Peter, and Sackin, Stevie. 2001. Function word repetitions emerge when speakers are operantly conditioned to reduce frequency of silent pauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30. 457–74.10.1023/A:1010432012241CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iwasaki, Shoichi. 1993. Subjectivity in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Klavans, Judith. 1985. The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization. Language 61. 95–120.10.2307/413422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. Μ. 1983. Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition 14. 41–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levelt, Willem J. Μ. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. Μ. 1992. Accessing words in speech production: Stages, processes and representations. Cognition 42. 1–22.10.1016/0010-0277(92)90038-JCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levelt, Willem J. Μ., Roelofs, Ardi; and Meyer, Antje S.. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 1–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Local, John, and Kelly, John. 1986. Projection and ‘silences’: Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies 9. 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. 1987. Functional parallelism in spoken word recognition. Cognition 25. 71–102.10.1016/0010-0277(87)90005-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matsumoto, Kazuko. 2000. Japanese intonation units and syntactic structure. Studies in Language 24. 515–64.10.1075/sl.24.3.03matCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2003. Why prefixes? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50. 155–85.10.1556/ALing.50.2003.1-2.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morita, Emi. 2005. Negotiation of contingent talk: The Japanese interactional particles ne and sa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina, and Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Reid, Lawrence A. 1970. Central Bontoc: Sentence, paragraph and discourse. Norman: University of Oklahoma and Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel; and Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50. 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. The prosodic structure of function words. Papers in optimality theory (University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18), ed. by Beckman, Jill, Dickey, Laura Walsh, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 439–70. Amherst: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Simpson, Adrian P. 2006. Hesitation phenomena and pauses. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., ed. by Brown, Keith, vol. 5, 284–88. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew, and Luís, Ana R.. 2012. Clitics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanja, Enfield, N. J., Brown, Penelope, Engler, Christina, Hayashi, Makoto, Heinemann, Trine, Hoymann, Gertie, Rossano, Federico, Peter, Jan Ruiter, de, Yoonf, Kyung-Eun; and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2009. Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106. 10587–92. Online: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/26/10587.full.10.1073/pnas.0903616106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Streeck, Jürgen. 1996. A little Ilokano grammar as it appears in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 26. 189–213.10.1016/0378-2166(96)00012-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Hiroko. 1999. Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: A study in grammar and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold m., and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n't. Language 59. 502–13.Google Scholar