tActa Linguisti.cdEungarica, VoI. 50 (1-2), pp. 155 135 (2003)
WHY PREFIXES?
M AR, I ANNE M I TH I T N
I
II
I
Abstract
A \,?dety of explanatiorrs have been offered for the obserr,'ed cross-lingrdstic preponderauce of
sufrxes ovet prefixes. Many are couched in terrns of syncbronic advantages, such as the cognitive simplicity of cross-category harmony betrveen synta".( and morphologr, and pre{ereuces
for processing the leical mea,Iring irr sterns belbre the $amrnatic&l material in afiixes. Brlt
hypotheses about ftlnctional a.dvantages caunot constitrrte explanations in thenr,seh'es 11-itLout
accounts of the mechanisrns by whicl the advantages are translated into glammati(.al stNcture. Here it is shown that the numerous exce.ptions to s[ch hypotheses can be explniued
when the individual histories of the affixes are couside-r€d, inchxling both their soruces and
the steps by which they develop.
It has long been recognized that suf;frxes outnumber prefixes cross-linguistically. As eaxly as 1921 Edward Sapir remarked,
the use of prefixes, suftr<es, aud infixes-suffixing
is
"Of the three types of affxing
much the commonest. Indeed, it is a fah guess that srmxes do more of the fornati\.e
work of language than all other methods combinecl." (1921, 67)
I
I
I
'
Several kinds of explanations have been offered for the suffixing preference.
Some have focused on cross-category harmonl', proposing that speakers prefer
consistent ordering of heads and dependents across sJmtax and morphology.
Since more languages show head-final s]ryrtactic structure (OV), it is natural
that they should also show head-final morphological structure (Stem-suffix).
Other explanations have focused on processing, proposing that hearers prefel
to process stems before a"ffixes,since they contain richer information. Still
other explanations have focused on production, proposing that since spealers
tend to elide the ends of words, morphemes occurring later in words are more
Iikely to erode into affixes than those occurring earlier.
But these proposa,is,even in combination, do not account fullv for the
morpheme orders we find. There are numerols examples of prefixes in languages with robust, head-final (OV) sptactic order. The identiflcatiou of
1216 8076/03/S20.00€) 2003Akad,4miaiKi.arl6,Btul,altest
156
MARIANNE MTTHUN
speaker preferences is a reasonable first step towar:d possible explanation, but
we canutot claim to explain particula.i. structures if we have not identified the
actual rnechanisms by which such preferences might shape grammar. As noted
by Gleerberg (1957), mechanisms might be identified in two areas: (i) origin,
that is, circumstances that could lead to the development of certain structures,
ald (ii) srrvival, that is, circumstances that could contribute to their stability.
Here we shall examine some situations in which expla.nations based. on
cross-category harmony, processing, and production fail to account for morpliological structure. These involve prefixes in languages with clea,r, headfinal (OV) syntactic structure. It will be shown that a key to explaining such
structures lies flrst in distinguishing the kinds of affixes involved a"nd then
urcor.ering the different paths by which they develop.
1. Correlations and explanations
In grouud-breafting typological work, Greenberg (1963; 1g66) observed correlations on the one hand between word order in clauses and the placement
of aclpositions, and on the other between the placement of adpositions and
affixes.
a. Larglrage€ rvith domiuaDt VSO order ar.e always prepositional.
(universal B)
b. With overwhelmiugly gr.eater. than cha.uce liequency, languages with normal SOV ordei
are postpositioua.l.
(universal 4)
c. If a la.uguage is exclusively suflixing, it is postpositionat; if it is exclusively prefixing, it is
plepositio[a.1.
(universal 2?)
A rnore direct correlation between syltactic and morphological order was
repolted by Wirrfred Lehmann (1978, 2t2).
"A nru[ber of rnor.phological char.acteristics have bee[ identified lbr specific language
tll)es. Promiueut aDroltg thcse is the placerue t of affixes, noiably those exprressing
verb:r.l clualifiers. Irr VSO languages tLese pr.ecede the ceutral velb; in OV languageg
or, the other LaDd, tlcr. lbllorv.
The ploposed correlations thus link predicate,initial clause structure (often
abbreviated VO) with prefixes, and predicate.fina,l structure (abbreviated
OV) I'ith suffixes.
VO
prefixes-Stem
OV
Siem-sufixes
These correlations were generalized,in a series of papers by Theo Venneman
(1973; 7974,etc.) as the Natural SerializationPrinciple. According to this
Acto Linguistica Hungarica 50, 2003
WHY PREFIXES?
r57
principle, languages tend to develop towa,rd consistent order between Operator
and Operand, also termed d,1terminant and ditermin1, or Head and Dependent. Operator-Operand order is manifested in Verb-Object, Noun-Genitive,
Preposition-NP, and Auxiliary-Verb orders, while Operand-Operator orcler is
the reverse: Object-Verb, Genitive-Noun, NP-Postposition, and Verb-Auxilia.ry. The prevalence of Operand-Operator order across languages was traced
to a cross-linguistic tendency for topical material, usually expressed by subjects, to be placed early in sentences, before predicates. If the notiol of
Operator or Head is extended to affixes, then the predominance of SOV word
order would result in a predominance of Stem-suffix order and explain the
suffixing preference.
John Hawkins and associates(Cutler et al. 1985; Hawkins 1988b; Hawkins
-Cutler 1988; Hawkins Gilligan 1988) adopted the Venneman proposal, which
they termed the HOP or Head-Ordering Principle, and added a second factor,
that of language processing, to explain the prevalence of suffixes.
HEAD-oRDERrNcenrNcrele (uoe)
Hea.ds are identically
PR O C E S S IN C
ordered relative to theh modifiers in both syntax and molphologl'.
P RE F E RE N CE
FOR SUFFIXING
Lexical recognition precedessyntactic processing, so langrrage lrsels will preler to process
sterns before affixes. Stem-affix order provides the most emcient stmctrue for proccssilg.
These proposals taise several issues. The first pertains to the exact nature of
heads in morphology. An extensive literature on the subject indicates that
identification of heads in morphology is not straightforwa.rd (Williarns 1981:
Selkirk 1982; Zwicky 1985; Hudson 1987; Scalise 1988; Bauer 1990; Corbett
et al. 1993, and others). In early discussions of heads in syntax, the Noun
was identified as the head of the Noun Phrase, and the Verb as the head
of the Verb Phrase. The Noun and Verb were the essentia.lfoundations of
their phrases, the more general, modified, subcategorized elements. They
determined the syntactic category of the phrase. When the notion of head
was extended to morphology the pa.rallels were not always clear. For some,
headedness is primarily a semantic notion: the head is the more general,
modified, subcategorized morpheme of a word. In a compound like newsltaper,
the head is the root paper, and, in an adverb like unkimlly, the head is the
root kirul,. For others, headednessis primarily a syntactic notion: the head
is the morpheme that determines the lexica.l category of the word. The head
of newspaperis strill paper, but the head of unkiruI,fuis identified as the suffix
-/y, since it is the suffix that determines the lexica.l category of the rvorcl, the
element that makes it into an adverb and identifies it as such. Even amonq
AcLa Linquislica Hunguri.n 5t1.'/,01).1
158
MARIANNE MITHUN
those who view a.ffixesas heads, opinion is not uniform. Some consider only
delivational amxes to be heads, since only they can change lexical category.
Others, such as Williams (1981), have proposed that the rightmost affix in
a word is always the head, even when it is inflectional, since it identifies the
lexical category of the word. Such questions about the nature of headedness
in morphology render principles of cross-category harmonv in this domain
sornewhat more difficult to eva.luate.
Another issue raised by all ofthese proposals is what constitutes adequate
explanation. The identification of recurring patterns is an importa.nt step, but
it only assemblesthe material to be expiained. Hypotheses about functional
advantages to certair patterns or clusters of patterns might lead us closer to
an explanation by suggesting motivations for their retention. A consistent
head-ordering principle might offer cognitive advantages in ease of acquisition, ald stem-initial words might ofer processing advantages if spealrers do
ildeed process lexical material before grammatical material. But perceived
adl'a.ntages alone cannot account lbr the existence of particular structures in
la,nguages until we have traced the precise mechanisms by which the structures enter the language and become established.
The recognition that the diachronic dimension should be considered is
not new. It has been known since the nineteenth century and before that
the most common source of a.ffixes is independent words. On this basis,
Giv6r (1971; 1979; 1984) proposed a general principle that the position of
affixes within words mirrors the earlier order of words within clauses. Like
Verreman, he hypothesized that all ianguagesoriginated with head-final (OV)
syntax, due to the general tendency for speakers to place topical information,
expressed by subjects, early in the clause. He maintained that affixes are
always descended from syntactic heads, so languages characterized by headfinal clause structure (OV) will show head-final word structure (Stem-suffix).
The ploposals that all languages were originally head-final (OV), and that
all affixes a,re descended from heads, have not met with general acceptance,
but the idea that explanation mnst incorporate the diachronic dimension is
a crucial one. Though explicitly discussed in Greenberg (1952), it is still
overlooked by many seeking explanations lbr cross-linguistic tendencies. Still,
it is an implicit fouudation of the work of many others and explicit in some,
such as Bybee (1988) and Hall (1988; 1992). In work discussing explanation
in rnorphology, Hall considers at length the kinds of factors that might favor
the suffixing preference. After detailed surveys of forma,l models of the lexicon
ald results of psycholinguistic experiments involving a"ffixes, he a.rgues for an
integration of psycholinguistic {actors (both processing and production) and
Acta Lingui,stica
Eungari,ca
50, 2003
159
WHY PREFIXES?
diachronic considerations (the mechanisms by which psycholinguistic factors
are incorporated into the grammar).
"The hypothesised uoiversal psycholinguistic dispreference 1br prefixing must, it
seems, be instantiated in pa.r'ticular languages word by word by a mec.hanism rvhich,
given the right conditions, 'blocks' the frsion of potential prefixes with Ire-e sterns.
The essential triggedog conditions a,r'epreseDt at the point where the fiIst terrta"
tive reanalysis of a pair of free forms a,s one bound + oue free form takes place in
the mental lexicon. This phs.se, I sugget, is characterised by a 'flirting' process,
in which a sema.ntically and phonologically decayed free form attempts to becolue
bound to (i.e., 'flirts'with) a full free form on which it depends and with which it is
habitually contiguous. When the dispreference is triggered with stfficient stre[gth.
the pressure for a bound analysis is challenged and the lbrm does not reduce a6 la-r
as aifix status." (Hall 1992, 166)
Bybee et al. (1990) undertook the task of untangling the respective roles of the
original position of grammatica.l markers in syntax and differential resistence
to the fusion of potential prefixes a.rrd suffixes. They surveyed 71 languages
for the relative positions of a small set of verbal morphemes to determine
whether the predominance of suffixes might be due to a general prelerence for
postposed grammatica,l morphemes, or a greater tendency to a.ffix morphemes
that are aheady postposed. Their results showed both.
GR AM M ATICAL
MA RKERS
AL L
F REE
BOU N D
Preposed
Postposed
34%
66%
48%
20%
s2%
80%
In their sample, grammatical markers appeax after the verb twice as often as
before the verb (66% aftet to 34Yobefore), suggesting a general preference for
postposed grammatical morphemes. Among the gra.mmatical markers that
followed the verb, there are four times as many affixes as independent words
(80% bound to 20% free), while among those that preceded the verb, the
proportions were about the same (52% bound 48Vo fuee). Together these
two sets of figures suggest a greater tendency to fuse postposed molphemes.
Bybee et a.l.did find some correlation between affix order and syntactic orcler.
Among the languagesin their sample with basic predicate-final (-V) syntactic
order, there were strong tendencies for both postposirlg and fusion. Among
those with predicate-initial order (V-), tendencies for postposing and fusion
were slight. Among those with predicate-medial order (-V-), there was a
slight tendency towa.rd preposing but none for fusion. They conclude that the
sufixing preference in their sample comes primarily from the prevalence of
Acta Ling istica Eungarica 50, 2003
160
MARIANNE MTTHUN
predicate-final order languages. Of the 71 languages, 32 were predicate-final
(-V), 31 predicate-medial (-V-), and just 8 predicate-.initial (VJ.
At least some of the forces proposed so far, that is, cross-category harmony, processing efficiency, erosion due to production, a preference for postposed grammatical morphemes, and a greater tendency to fuse postposed
morphemes, undoubtedly contribute to the structures we flnd, but they do
not account for the full raJrge, even when considered together. We could simply accept the fact that langlages ale full of exceptions. Alternatively, we
could tly to refine our predictions by a closer examination of the cases where
current explanations appea.r to fail. These cases a,re the prefixes that occur in
languages with clear head-final (OV) syntactic structure.
Such cases a.re actually not rare. Prefixes regula,rly occur in languages
with otherwise clea.r,head-final (OV) typologicat profiles. Navajo, for example, a la.nguage of the Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit
family spoken in the American Southwest, shows clear, basic SOV constituent order, along with a robust
inventory of postpositions but no prepositions. It is exclusively prefixing,
however, with an inventory of over a hundred prefixes. Samples of these
stucrrl es can be seen in (1).
( l)
Navajo: Dolly SouJ6.spealer p., .
(a)
Nihijish
biiMahohiil.
dhi-jish
b-iih-daiw-oh-l-uiil
2.pl-suitcase lintodistr-indeflt1ite.object-2.pl.subjectJ.p_gp4fgtrlgligld
1.our suitcases you all put things irto them
'Pack yoru' suitcases.'
(b)
Nihil
da.llat'iilwod.
dh-il
dalu-d-rii-l-wod
1.pl-with ofi-away-distr-indefi nite.sub ject-completive-detr-qg1..l@L!I[
nith rs something rarr off
'It [the bus] just lett wiih all of us.'
(c)
Alhan6iit'aash.
a-l-ha-ni,--iid-'aash
reciprocal-willlFriative-al'ourdl.dual.sub ject-lqgral.rE
'\\'e'll get together now aud theu.'
[..plgg
The interest of this morpheme order was noted by Keren Rice in her book on
morpheme order in the Athabaskan languages. She treats it essentially as an
aberration and posits an underlying structure in which all a.frxes axe suffixes.
"A prima.ry idiosyncrasy of the Athapaskan velb is that the verb stem is located in
tLe'wloDg'place iu the suface string. Iu the rernainder of this book, I assume a
rnovernent-based accorurt along the lines proposed in Speas 1990, 1991, and Rice
Actu Li,nguistica Hutuaarica 50, 2003
161
WHY PREFIXES?
1993, 1998. [...] The verb stem originates as a sister to the preverbs, both of rvhich
axe within the scope of, a.nd therefore enter into senautic comp(xition as a ulit
$dth, quaniificational elements [...]. What' is unusual about the verb is the srular:e
position of the stem it moves from its position within the verb phrase to the right
of the functional morphemes." (Rice 2000, 78)
"The greatest idiosyncrasy in the verb is the position of the verb stem a d the
markers of voice/ralence. Gilen the scope hypothesis, one expects these to occru
rvithin the verb phrase. I have treatecl their actual placement as a quirk of the
Athapaskan verb, achieved tluotgh the raising of verbs." (Rice 2000, 414)
We can refine our undeffitanding of the morpheme orders that occrrr, and
the reasons behind them, by peeling apart the various diachronic forces that
shape them. In most work so far, genera.lizations have been made over prefixes and sumxes considered as two homogenots groups. But affixes with
different functions develop from different kinds of sonrces, by diferent hinds
of diachronic routes. If we consider them individually, we may be able to
develop a finer-grained understanding of the processesthat shape granllnar)
and ultimately axrive at more accurate generalizations.
2. Pronominal affixes
Among the most common kinds of verbal affixes a.re pronominal affxes. \,Iore
often than not, these morphemes run counter to the prediction that languages
with head-initial (VO) syntactic structure should have prefixes, and those
with head-final (OV) order should have sumxes. Navajo shows basic OV
constituent order, but it contains pronominal prefixes.
(2)
Nara.jo pronominal prefixes: Dolly Soul6, speaker p.c.
(a) 6t strizte'e'
nl6i
shii
nl6i
6i shi-zh6'f
shij
that l.sg.possessor-fatherprobably there
'Ir{y father had probably
FortWingatedi
glaajlniiyi
Fort Wingate=di sh-aa.j!-niiyd.
Fort Wingate:at lgg-to-!.19!i9q!-ore.go.perfective
at FoIt Wingate he ca,meto me
gone to Foft Wingate to visit me.'
(b) A6di
mg!!nhj.
riri:di
ni-shi-ni-01-ti
there:at dom-!:q&&jg9!-term-3.subject-tr-handle.animate.object.pl.f
ovcr i here he put me dowrt
'He took me there.'
AeLo Linguistira Hungarira 5U. 2-00,3
I
I
L62
MARTANNE
r{rrHUN
(The Nar"ajo 'fourth person' category, is used for generic mentions much like
English'one', for respect, and often for the protagonist in narratives. In (2a)
the speaker used it to refer to her father. When basic third person subjects
and objects cooccur in transitive verbs, the object pi.onominal prefix shows a
distinction between proxirnates, the more topical of the two, and obviatives.
the less topical.)
The reason lbr this apparent exception is clear. These pronominal prefixes
sirnply continue the earlier syntactic order of their sources. With predicate_
filal word order, iudependent pronouns would have preceded the veib. When
they lirsed with the verb, they became prefixes.
There are numerous examples of the same appalent exception on the
othe' side as well. All languages of the Salisha' familv of northwestern North
America show clear predicate-initial (VO) order, so this order is easily recon_
structed for their common a.ncestorProto-Salish. yet pronominal suffixes a.re
common, as in Halkomelem.
(3) Htdkourelern
(Sa.lishan
lamily,BritishColumbia;Galloway1993,1761:
lllr-cal
l6m-cax-
eo-!lg."QJ99!
'l eo.'
e-Z!c."!!J9!!
'You go.'
luay0-illrra-cal
ney0-6x)-cox'
lrelp-2.sg.object-1.sg.sub
'It'"lP-fl-
=--
iect
help-bs!bjss!-2rs@iee!
'You help rne.'
As in Navajo, the moder.n morpheme order continues the ea,rlier syntactic
order'. But it would be premature to assume that modern morphological
stlucture always echoes earlier syntax. Within the Salishan familv we also
fi rrd plonorninal prefixes.
(.I)
Cocru d'Alene (Salisha.u,Idaho; Reicha.l.d1938 cited in Kroeber 1999. 106):
Lute hi-s-tap-sd6nt.
Dot 1.sg-uoninalizer.-shoot-iutla[sitive
'I dicl not shoot.'
It is easy to explain the position of these prefixes once we uncover the route
by wliich they developed. In all of the Salishan languages (and presumably
Proto-Salish), dependent clausescan be formed by nominalization. The result
is similar to English 4lljujng late 'is always a mistake or I loue walking along
the beuchat ni,ght The subjects of the nominalized. clauses*" u*pr""sed *it-f,
possessivepronominal prefixes, not unlike English My arriuing late uas
a
mistahe or I resent hi,s ualking along the beach at aight. Salish nominalized
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50, Z00a
163
WHY PREFIXES?
clauses are used regula.rly in certain constructions, such as negation, where
the negative word serves as a predicate and the negated clause as its argr.rment. In many of the Salishan languages nominalized clause structures have
been extended to use as independent sentences,often with special discourse
functions. When this independent use increases sufficiently in frequencl', it
ca.n compete with the earlier independent clause structure. In some of the
la.nguages it has even replaced it.
3. Directional affixes
Among the verbal affixes that would be termed 'verbal qualifiers' by Lehmann
are directional affixes. Navajo contains an extensive inventory of such affixes,
and all are prefixes, despite predictions made by hypothesized cross-category
harmony principles, processing preferences,and resistance to initial grammatical markers and fusion.
speaker,p.c.
(5) Navajodireciionalpre6xes:Dolly Sou16,
(a)
Hastiin adand.r{.tsaad
hastiin ada-n6#Gtsaad
nd99'
ni-de9'
ma.n dowa-again-3,subject-scoot.momentaneous.pfthat:hom
'When the man came lgql again . . . '
(b) habicycle
bikaa' darh'iz'1q
bikri,6' !q-ch'i-iz-'4:go
ha-bicycle
4.poss-bicycle&on.top !q-bqIEg44V-3.object-4.subject-hafdle.solid.obje.tt.ltt
'he put it up on his bicycle'
(c) T'66 hdd.hg66shjjandiidl66h.
t'66 h6rihgooshjj'a.ni-d-iid-dl66h
just really
gy3X-repeatedly-orally-1.du.subject'laugh.imprf
'We were just laughing ourselvesto death '
(d)
anri.6.nd.sdzri..
la'jig66
a-n66.n6-s-d-y6
la':ji:g66
some:to:towa.rd gI9[-back-dur.result.l.sg.subject-detr-one'walk
'I went somevrhereelse.'
prf
An explanation of their position as prefixes is easy to find in their origins. The
prefixes are descended from independent adverbs and nouns' some of t'hich
persist in the modern language. The adverbs and nouns still oecrrr before
the verb, just as they did in the parent language. The prefixes have simply
continued the position of their ancestors.
Acta Linguislica Hungarica 50, 2003
164
({i)
MARIANNE MTTHUN
Some adverb sources of Navajo directioual
PNI'FIXES
ada'downward'
da'.,p'
a'away out of siglrt'
(a)
prefixes: Dolly Soul6, speaker p.c.
ADVERBS
adah
'downwald'
dah
,ther€, remote'
6"6
Ad6h nri.rinrid6.
ad6li u6ri.n#0-d6
down rreverse-3.sg.srbje.ct-sit.perfective
'He came back dowrr again.'
(b) T'ah dah nt6ii
still up there
'He was still up there
ndishchi' bii'nji'n6'o.
udishchi' b:ii'-ui-ji-d-na':go
tree
3.proxir[ate.iu-a.rorurd-4.subject-detr-crawl.cout.prl:subordirute
clirnbing around il the tree.'
(c)
(7)
A6di
sid6.
t6i'.
si-0-d6
l6f
6{:di
there:at durative.sequel-3.subject-one,person.sit.prf
ruir.ative
'He was sitting back there!'
Sorne rroun sources of Navajo directional prefixes: Young (2000)
T'REFIXES
N OU N S
'up iDto the aA'
y6'
)'ri'sky'
a'i'into a hole or brurow'
a'ri6n
'hole, burrow'
d6'rik'e'into the field'
d6' 6k' eh' comfi el d,fi el d'
,dirt, soil,
le.
'into the ashes (to cook)'
leezb
,water'
taof
the
water,
to
shore'
'out
t6
tsrlza-
'in the belly'
'into mouth'
-ts,i
-z&'
'belly'
'mouth'
But not a.ll directional affixes have developed by this route.
Kawaiisu, a Uto-Azteca.n language of California, shows the sa.rne basic
heacl-final (OV) syntactic structure as Navajo, and this order can be reconstructed lbr its palent langauge as well. Kawaiisu also contains directional
amxes, but these are suffixes. A basic translocative suffix -&aree-,thither'indicates motion away from the speaker or other deictic center, and a cislocative
sufiix -,{,i- 'hither' indicates motion toward it.
Acta L irLgrislica Hungarica 50,2003
WHY PREFIXES?
(8)
165
Kawaiisu directional su.ffixes:Zigmond et al. (1991)
'enter'
"ig"'go in'
"ig*tlg'come in'
"iea-t!hutma'carry several'
hu?ma-kwee-'takeseveral'
h u "ma, - F ' br ings ev e ra l '
yaa'carry one'
yae-bg
'ta,ke one'
yaa-ti'bring oue'
The contrast in position is easy to explain if we consider the paths by rvhich
these directional maxkers made their way into the grammars. Kawaiisu., like
other Numic languages, shows extensive compounding of many kinds, including the combination of two verb roots to yield a new, compound verb.
(9)
Kawaiisu Vert>Verb compounds: Zigmond ei al. { 1991. 163)
ka?a-pagieat-walk
'walk along eating'
kaa-havi
singlie
yaa-pid!
carry-anlve
'bring'
pi"aa-"abigi
be.pretty-talk
'say in a pretty voice'
The directional suffixes -ftuee 'away' and -,ti 'toward' originated as the seconcl
members of Verb-Verb compounds. The first still persists as a verb root in
the modern language, that still occurs on its own.
(10) Kawaiisuverbrool -hwee'go':Zigmondet al. (1991,83)
Ilana?okosamam!ketyee-d!-mi?
reduplication-gg-realized-indicativepl
when
they
'When did they go?'
The source of the cislocative sufrx -ii 'toward' no longer persists as an independent verb root in Kawaiisu, but a probabie ancestra,l verb root is reconstructed for an earlier stage of the language, Proto-Uto-Azteca.n *kitn 'come'
(Miller 1987). Descendents of this verb still appear as independent roots in
a number of related languages.
The best explanation for the fact that directional a.ffixes appeal as prefixes in Nalajo but sufi.xes in Kawaiisu thus cannot be the cross-category
harmony principle, since both languages have developed from a.ncestorswith
basic OV clause structure which continues in the modern la.nguages. It is
Acta Lingr,isticaEungarica 50, 2003
i66
MARIANNE MITHUN
probably a.lsonot attributable to processing preferences. It is, however, easily
explailed by the different kinds of sources from which the markers developed.
4. Aspect
Among the most frequent verbal affixes are aspect markers. For la.nguages
with head-initial (VO) clause structure, the cross-category ha,rmony principle
would predict that they should be prefixes, while processing and production hypotheses would predict suffixes. The head-initial Sa.lisha"nlanguages
show numerous aspectual prefixes, among them the Bella Coola stativeprogressive ?al-.
(11) BeUa Coola stative.progressive prefix ?ol-: Nater (1984, 96)
(a) )afayucmtim
)al-zay-uc-m-tirn
stative-progressive-exchange-speech-detraositivizer'3.pl.passive
'somebody was telling them to . . . '
(b)
'aguya*r
14-r5uy-aa+
stativeprogressil,e-lall.over-tree
'[tree] lies fallen'
We could conclude that the force towa.rd cross-category haxmony is more powerful than processing and production factors, or we could look more closely at
the paths through which such markers develop. Common diachronic sources
of aspect markers are verb roots. These verbs may fifft erode in shape to
becone verbal auxiliaties, then subsequently fuse with associated verbs to
become affixes. Alternatively they may first fuse with other verbs to form
compounds, while their full shapes axe still intact, then subsequently erode
into affixes. In either case, in languages with basic predicate-initial clause
structure (VO), matrix velbs precede their complements, so we would expect
the aspect markers that descend from higher verbs to be prefixes, just as in
Bella Coola. The origin of this stative-progressive aspect prefix can in fact
be traced to the verb root ali- 'to be located, stay somewhere', which still
survives as a root in the language.
(12) Probable source: root oli- 'to be located, stay somewher.e':Nater. (1984, 49)
?alic
2alasultac
-""ti-"
?al:sul:?ac
stay-l.sg in:house:this
'I aln stayi[g in this house"
Acta Lirrguisticd Eungarica 50, 2003
167
WHY PREFIXES?
(The same root also deveioped into a locative preposition ?al 'in, at', another
common path.)
For languages with head-final (OV) syntax' all proposed principles would
predict suffixes: cross-category ha.rmony, production, and processing, as well
as the recognized path of development from higher verbs to aspect markers.
We might accordingly expect that in a language like Navajo, with the headfinal patterns throughout its syntax and that of its ancestor, aspect rnarkers
should be suffixes. Nala.jo does exhibit an unusually rich inventory of aspectual distinctions, but there are no suffixes. Aspect is expressed by complex
combinations of verbal prefixes and stem ablaut. An example is the Iterative in (13), formed with the prefix nri- and the Repetitive form of the verlr
stem'ask'.
(13) Navajo iterative a,spectprefix nri-: Do\
Sonl6' spea.kerp c
Nri'adishkido.
nri-'a-dlsh-kid:go
iterative.indefi oite.object-ora.lly-1.s9.subject-ask.lepetitive:sub
'I kept asking questions.'
The Iterative prefix evolved from a prefix
rui- 'again' .
nrore concrete meaning:
of the same shape with
a sliglrtly
(14) Navajo prefix zti-'again': Dolly Soul6,speakerp.c
Hastiin ada,n6,]itsaad.
hastiin ada-n60-tsaad
rnan down-ggg!4-3.s bject-scoot.momeutaneous.perfecti!€
'The man came dowrl again.'
This prefix can in turn
once more'.
be traced to an independent
adverb
ndrind'again,
(15) Earlier source: aAvetbnddnd'auother, again': Youlg-X'Iorgan(1987,583)
dilkos
N6rinri y6ego
di-l-kos
n56nri y66':go
glgg!1ll extremely=adv orally-detransitivizer-cough.imperfective
shilni
shi-l-Gni
1.sg-tG3.sub ject-transitivizer-say. imperfective
'I{e told me to coush hard once more.'
The modern prefix simply continues the position before the verb of its adverbial source. The development of a,spectual prefixes in Athabaskan ianAcla Linguistiro Hungartca 50. 200,t
168
M ARIANND
]\'I]TH U N
guages again illustlates the point that grammatical morphemes, even those
with comparable functions, can develop from a va.riety of sources. Although
there are no suffixes in modern Navajo, the stem ablaut that contributes to
the aspectual marking probably originated from earlier combinations of roots
and aspectual suffixes. The stem ablaut lbr aspect never affects the initial
consolant of the stem, but it can involve changes in the color, length, and
nasalization of the vowel, and add final consonants. The various forrns of the
stenr nsed above for'a.sk', for example, ate -heed, -hi', -kil, and -h[id.
5. Manner arrd means
A Lu'ge number of genetically unrelated languages in North America contain
velbal tr,ffixesthat ildicate the means or manner by which an activity takes
place. Both the cross-categoly harmony principle and proposed processing
prelerences predict that such mar.kerswill be suffixes in languages with headfilal (OV) syntax. But this prediction is violated more often than not. Some
ex;rrrlrlescatr be seeu irr Navajo.
(16) Nlrajo adverbial prefixes: Dolly Soul6, speaker p.c.
(tr) diueezjdd'o
{g!-s-0-j66'=go
I elaxirrg-tertrFdurative.seqrrel-3.subordirratejectnultiple.recline.prl:suborditrate
'l'heu everybody rvas ir bed'
(b)
t'66 baay.irriizlj'o
t'66 b-aa-y.i-rr-ii-zjj':go
.just 3-about-&sharu<-dpelrtillly-corupletive.l.sg-thiuk.pr l:subordiDate
'I got so e[rba.n asserl about it.'
((r) t'ah baa
utsidzikeeso
t'iilb-aa
ql{-ji-kees:go
still 3-about rlerrtallt'-4.subordinatejcct polde.r .inrperfective:subordirrateordinate
'lrc wds still thir iiDg aLout it'
(tl ) r'isk6q
yi-s-OJ<{:go
dtrwniDg-durative.sequel-3.subordiuateject-rnove.in.opeu.container.prl:srrbordiDate
'torrrorrow'
(c)
hidazhut6o
It6-da-j-rri-tri:go
fbr.distribtltive-.1.su]rordiDateiect-visually-search.coutiDuative.imprl:srbordiDate
'they were searcLiug fbl it'
Acta LinglLlsticu Eungartca 50, 2003
169
WHY PREFIXES?
j.
(f) N.ihodiih
n6-ho-di-yi-Gl-ti
upsrard-4.objg!99!!gb!gqEi99!-cmpl-3.subj-tr-handle.anim.obj-mom.prf
'He pickedhim up.'
Again there is a simple explanation. Many of these prefixes car still be seen
to notn roots that would have preceded the verb
to be related diachronically
in predicate-final clauses.
(17) Navajo noun sourcesof prefixesrYoung Molgan (1987)
(a) Chadilw{{'.
chg-4!-Gl-wd{'
crying-orally-3.subj ect-detransitivizer-snore.imperfective
'It (a puppy) is whimpering, whining.'
PREFIX
I N D E P E N D E NT NOUN
durative
YIU 270
cha- 'weeping, crying'
cha 'weepiug, crying'
(b) Baa j6'iinishn6.
b-aa j6'-yini-0.sh-n5
lwith carefully-toward-3.object-1.sg.subject-do.right.handedly.neuter.islprf
YM
'I handle it ca.refully.'
j6 'carefully'
PREFIX
NouN j6i 'pleura, hea.rt'
(c)
{s8
K'ad dzil gh{a.'di
k'ad dzil eh64':di
now mounta.ln top:at
keehasht'j.
k66ha-sh-d-'j
residing-axea-1.sg.subject-detr-anima.te,be.at.rest.druative.imprf
'I live on top of the mountain now.'
PREFIx
NouN
TNDEPDNDENT
k66
'living, residing'
k6l€h 'land'
(d) Biih \ eyifik'eh.
biih !3y-ii-l-k'eh
deer wounding-3.object-3.subject-tr-cut.momerrtalleous.prf
'He wounded a deer.'
PREFIX
NouN
YN.I 493
YIU 502
k'a- 'roundiug'
k'aa' 'axrow'
6. Causatives
Among the most frequent derivational afixes are causatives. As with aspectual maxkers, hypotheses about cross-category harmony would predict
Acta Linguistica Eungari,ca50, 2003
770
MARTANNE MTTHUN
such rnalkers to be prefixes in languages with head-initial (VO) syntax, but
hypotheses about processing a.nd production would predict suffixes. If we
consider their usual origins, the most obvious prediction would be prefixes.
Causatives often evolve frorn matrix verbs such as 'make' or ,cause,,associated
with a complement clause describing the event or state caused. Since matrix
verbs precede their conplements in languages with head-initial (VO) syntactic patterns, we expect causatives to appear as prefixes. Just this situation
can be seen in Bella Coola. The causative is a prefix lam-.
(18) BellaCoolacausative
prefi* Nater(1984,93);Nater(1990,123)
(a) tarn?ulx
G*-'"k
causative-be.silly
'to rnake sourebody (look) silly > to fool, cheat sourebody'
(b)
tarrqlk
@!-q"t'
carsative-deep
'to make sornebody low > to ridicule somebody'
(c)
'altamstl'x*
?al-tam-stl'x'
stative,progresive-rarrsative-behave.
well
'to [rake somebody behave well :- to gi\€ sorDebody sound advice'
The source of the causative prefix still survives in the language as the root
lanl-'make, construct'.
(19) Source of Bella Coola causative pr.efi* loot ,dm- 'make, cormtruct,
(a)
tamsultuurinu
tnlD-sul-tu-mi-rlu
i
<e-house-benelactive1.sg.subject-2. sg.obj ect
'I will build a house lbr yod
(b)
tamyayaxiitun
tan-yaya+ii-tu-m
nake-toy-benel'active-detrausitivizer
'soruebody rxade hiD a toy'
For larrguages with head-final (OV) syntactic patterns, all principles would
leacl us to expect causative suffixes. La.Iihota, a language o{ the Siouan family
of the Great Plains of North America, shows a basic SOV constituent order, an
order rvhich can be reconstlucted for its pa"rent,Proto-Siouan. As predicted, it
contai s a causative sumx, presumably descendedfrom a higher verb, though
this velb no longer edsts in the language as such.
A(ta Linguxstica
Hungarica50, 2003
1.7r
WHY PREFIXES?
(20) La.khota expected causative suffix -ye: Sta,nley Redbbd, speaker p.c
(a) khisl6
k"igle
go.home
'he went home'
(b) khigl6ye
I{ rgre-lp
go,home.causative
'he sent him home'
But Lakhota also contains some causative prefixes, among them yu-.
(21) La,khotaunexpectedcausativeprcfix yo-: Stan Redbird,speakerp.c.
(") p,iYa
p?Ya
drunl<
'he's drunk'
(b) tgp4ya
Jg-PaYa
causative-drunk
'GEiEmdrunk'
The existence of the La,khota causative prefixes goes against all predictions.
Again an explanation comes from a more detailed look at the steps by
which the causative prefixes entered the language. Lakhota contains a set of
means/manner prefixes.
(22) Lakhota meam/manner
prefixes
1.u-'involvingpulling'
pa.-'involvingpushing'
ka- 'involving sudden impact'
ya- 'involving the mouth, biting, talking'
lra- 'involving the foot or leg'
wa- 'involving a sawing motion or knife'
wo- 'involving action from a distance, shooting, blowing, pounding with the end of a
stic.k'
na- 'involving an inner force, heat, cold'
pu- 'involving pressure' (no longer' productive)
Some examples of their use can be seen below.
AcLa Linguislica Hunganca 50- 2tJ01
L72
MARIANNE MTTHUN
(23) Lalrtrota veDbswith means/rnanner prefixes: StaJrRedbird, speakerp.c.; Buechel (1970)
yg-bl6ya
'to spread out, unlbld, make level'
pg-bliya
'to spread out, as dough: to mafte level; to iron (clothes)'
ka-lrlf.ya
'to make level by beating'
'to open,e.g. a door'
I!-f6
Da-bl6ir'a 'to cruuch by pressing,pushing,or sitting on, as glass'
hi1-bl6itta 'to brea,ksomething brittle by striking, as a glass'
These prefixes axe old a.nd can be reconstructed for Proto.Siouan. It is still
possible to trace their origirs, however. In all of the Siouan languages, roots
ca.n be combined to form new, compound stems.
(2.1) Laldlota compounds:Boas Deloda (1941,70, 73)
NOUNNouN ir'4-h1pa
wood-moccasin :
NouN vERB ih1-16
fuewood-gather :
:
vERB vERB rj?iura-milni sleep-walk
'shoe'
'G/h") gathersfirewood'
'(s/he) is a somnarnbulist'
prefixes have developed from the first element of
The modern means/mannel
such courpounds. The source of at least one of the prefixes, po- 'by pushing',
can be traced to a verb root, pa 'push', which still persists in the la"nguage.
(25) LalJrota verb root pa 'push': Buechel(1970,422)
Irlay6pa
sni kihA, wait6 yelo.
ru1-ya-Da
5ni kjha wa.5t6:yelo
l.sg.patieut-2.sg.ageDt-pushnotif good:asseltive
'It's good if you dou't p!4 rDe.'
(Pronominal prefixes in Lakhota, Iike those in Mohawk and Choctaw discussed
below, categorize core participants
as grammatical
agents and patients, rather
than subjects and objects. The basis of the systems is semantic rather than
discourse-pragmatic,
but it is fully categorical a.nd lexicalized, lea,r'ned vrith
is
each verb) and in sorne cases the rationale behind certain categorizations
no longer transparent.)
affixes in Lakhota and other languages
Verbs formed with means/manner
The cauoften ilclude
an element of causation as paxt of their meaning.
prefix
gaprefix.
sation is not an explicit feature of the
The
'orally' does
not necessarily add causation, as can be seen in (26a) 'deceive/tell a falsehood', but stems derived with it can have a causative sense, as in (26b) 'be
angry/rnake angry'.
(26) Lahhota occasionalcausative efiect: Buechel (1970)
(a) gnriyq,
Yl-g!6ya
'deceive, cheat'
'tell a lalsehood'
Acta L,ingui,stica
Hungari,ca50, 2003
1J '1
WHY PREFIXES?
(b) ihqz6ka
yg.at'4zeka
'be angry'
'make angry by talking to'
The causative interpretation comes about through inference. Man;' situations described with means/manner amxes involve causation. If someonedies
tbrough beating, for example, it can be inferred that he or she was caused to
die by the beater. If someone is knocked down by kicking, it can be infered
that she or she was caused to fall by the kicker.
Because verbs are derived only as needed, the prefixes do not appear
ila the lexicon and in use in equal numbers. Verbs involving hancl action
are especially perlasive, since so many more actions are ca.rried out with
the hands than by shooting or by sawing, for example. As is well known,
the meanings of morphemes often become more general and abstract rvith
ex-tensiveuse. Several kinds of processescan be involved. An important one
is the metaphorical extension of common, concrete, lexical items to net', more
abstract contexts. In English, for example, we easily say it's otr,t o.f mg han,ds,
or the chance just slipped,through my f,ngers, even when no actual hand or
flnger action is involved. The basic, concrete meaning of the prefix oz- 'by
hand action, pulling' can still be seen in a number of derived verbs, inclucling
many with causalive meaning.
(27) La.khota causative gu- 'with discernible hand action'
yggl6glo
Xg-glo-glo
by.pulling-redupli'ation-grunt
'make grunt' (a buffalo calf by catching it)
But
the
felt
this
in some derived verbs, the causative element has been reinterpreted as
central meaning of the prefix. What was originally only inferred is now
to be asserted. As a result, new causative verbs have been formed with
prefix which show no element of hand action.
(28) Lafthotaextensionto abstrart catsation without physicalhand artion: Buechel(1970.656)
Toksa,
bluwiihakhikte,lo
tokia
wa-yg-wii" a,k"a:kte:lo
rtttre:a"ssertive
before.longl.sg.agent-causative-be.tme:fi
'In time, I will proveit.'
Evidence that the original means/manner prefix yz- 'b3r pulling' has been ftlly
reanalyzed as a causative in some uses ca.n be seen in the fact that it can norv
be used with verbs already containing another means/manner prefix.
Acta Linglristico Hungatx.a 50. 200:)
774
MARIANNE MITHUN
(29) Evideuceof rea.ua.lysis:
ccoccurencewith other mannerprefixes
yru6ii
JU-!!-.i
causative-on.foot-be.stiff
'ttE.rp'
Similar developments of causative prefixes from eaxlier means/manner prefixes
iu head-final (OV) languages are discussed in Mithun (2002). The existence
of both causative prefixes and causative sumxes within the same language
shox's again that a lirll explaration of affix positions will ultimately require
explolation of the complete range of possible histories of each kind of gra,mDatical maxker.
7. Applicatives
Nlany languages contain derivational a.ffixes called 'applicatives' that add a
core argument to the argument structure of verbs. The most common kinds
of applicatives add a recipient or beneficia,ry ('cook' > 'cook-for'), an instrument ('write' > 'write-with'), a companion ('sing' > 'sing-with'), or a location
('jurnp'
' 'jump-over'). The added participant is usually a direct object, absolutive, or grammatical patient. Examples of applicative sufiixes can be seen
in the Iroquoian languages of eastern North America. Among the applicatives
in Nlohawk, for example, a.rethe benefactive applicative suffixes -az.riand -ni.
(30) Itlohawk benefactive applicative suffixes
(a)
(b)
rinata,hrcn6iwi
ri-natahren.iii
wn"keuatalu'6:nen
wake-nataluen-en
l.sg.patient-visit-stati\€
'I've visited'
LSg/m.sg-vr$[- Dell.sla ve
'I've visited him'
khthri.rha'
k-hthar-ha'
l.sg.agent-ta,lk-impd
'I'm talking'
rihthar6:ni
ri-hthar-a--rri
r.sg/m.sg-iau(-eF DeD.rmprr
'I'm talkiug to him'
The origins of both of these applicative suffixes can be seen in verb roots
wlich still survive in the language: -awi,'give' and -ni 'lend'.
(31) Lexi(al sotuces of X,Iohawk applicativesi verb root -drri 'give', -ni 'lend'
(a) koni6.wihs
korri-awi-hs
1.sg/2.sg-give-imperlective
'I give it to you'
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50, 2003
koni6:wi
koni-awi1.sg/2.sg-give.stative
'I've given it to you'
WHY PREFIXES?
(b) t6ke4
775
wahiikeni'
wa-hak&i-'
Iactual-m-g/2.sg-!91g!-prf
'He lent it to rne'
take.ni
z.sg/Gg-&sl
'Lend it to me!'
Modern Mohawk does not have a syntactically-defined constituent order. The
order of words in sentencesreflects their pragmatic status within the discourse
rather than their grammatical role. A basic SOV order can be reconstructed
for the ancestral language, however. The Mohawk applicatives, like those
of related languages, are descended from the matrix verbs of complex seltences. Since matrix verbs usually follow their complements in langtages
with head-final (OV) syntactic patterns, it is no surprise that the applicatives
are suffixes.
Navajo contains numerous applicative afrxes. Given the strong head-final
(OV) syntactic patterns of both Navajo and its ancestor, and the recognizecl
development of applicatives from matrix verbs, there is every reason to expect that the Navajo applicatives should be suffixes. But again, Navajo runs
counter to expectation. All applicatives a.re prefixes. One example is the
locative applicative prefix le'i-'on'. Added to the intransitive verb root 'gaze',
it forms the transitive verb 'gaze on' > 'watch'.
i32) Nar,ajo -'pli'gaze' with applicative i'f- 'on': Dolly 5o1116,
speaker p.c
:ii'gaze'
k'i-'lj 'on-gaze' > 'watch'
(a) Nl6igo
desh'jj'.
Dl6i:Co
de_sh_'ii'
yonder:to thematic-1.sg.subject-gaze,imperfective
'I'm just gazing over there.'
(b) Awee' bik'id6sh'!i'.
a.wee' bi-k'i-d6sh-'i/'
baby 3-on-thematic-1.sg.subject-gaze.imperfective
'I'm watching the baby.'
Added to the intransitive verb'run' (actually based on a root meaning'flex',
referring to the flexing of legs) the applicative derives the transitive verb 'mn
o n'>'attack'.
tlB) Navajo -tuod'run'with
applicative *'i-'on':
-wod'run'
Dolly Soul6, spea.kerp.c.
-k'i-wod 'on-run' > 'attack'
(a) Eelwod.
"o0+l-4
completive-3.sudect-detra.nsitivizer-run.perfective
'It ran.'
A r La Lin g ui slira H ungarien i 0, 2-003
776
MARIANNE MITHUN
(b)
Ndshd6itsoh shik'iilwod.
shdoi-tsoh shi-k i-i-01-wod
wildcat-big
rne-rrpoD-completive-3,subject-detra.nsitivizer-r'un.p
'A rnourtaiD liol attacked rne.'
Again a consideration of the diachronic development of the markers provides
an explanation. They evolved frorn separate words that occurred before the
verb, postpositions with pronominal prefixes representing their arguments.
The language still contains a laxge inventory of postpositions. Some of these
show suggestive resemblances in form and meaning to applicative prefixes.
(34) Porstposition origin of Nar',ajo applicatives:
Dolly Soul6, speakel p.c.
Sltik'i de'
dahniyeeh
shi-lfide'
dah-0-ui-1'eeh
ture-orrhither utrr3.object-2.sg.subject-ha.ndle.burden.imprf
'Put it on me' : 'Put it (a heaw sack of fotatoes) up on my back.'
The direction of the evolution from postposition to applicative prefix is clear.
Where the postpositior sources of modern applicative prefixes still persist in
the language, they are often more substantial in form. One can compa^re,for
example, the postposition -'qq 'over' with the prefix -'q-, or the postposition
-lcitih 'beyond' with the prefix -ld-. The development of the prefixes has been
accompanied by phonological attdtion.
8. Headedness
We have seen a number of failures of the hypothesized match between sufixes
with head-final (OV) syntax, and there axe many more. It is not unlikely that
obselved cross-category harmony is more often an a.rtifact of regular processes
of lalguage change than the product of a synchronic force. We might find,
as proposed by Giv6n, that affixes axe descended from syntactic heads, but
that if syrtactic structure shifts, it may no longer coincide with morphological
structure. But can we be certain that a,ffixes always develop from syntactic
heads? In fact they do not. Both prefixes and suffixes can develop in a
language from the same construction.
The aucestor of Kawaiisu, Proto-Uto-Aztecan, is reconstructed with basic
head-final (OV) sptax, which has been passeddown to most of its daughters.
Both the parent and the daughters show extensive compounding of va.rious
kinds. The compounds, like the syntax, would be considered right-headed
(head-final) by all accounts.
Acta Linguisti,ca
Ilungarica50, 2003
777
WHY PREFIXES?
(35) Kawaiisu right-headed compounds: Zigmond et aJ. (1991)
sana-eoocozi
ciga-roci
hi?i-kamamo?ezigi?ataasiniya-kweenazipi-kwee-
pitch-bottle
rough-head
be.good-taste
hand-wash
slowly-go
lainatego
'pitch bottle'
'taDgl.'haired'
'to taste good'
'to wash one's hands'
'to go slorvly'
'to go to the bathr'oom'
Some suffixes have indeed developed from the heads of such compounds, the
right-hand members. As seen earlier, the directional su;ffix -huee developecl
from a verb root which still persists as such in the language.
(36) Root kwee'go': Zigmor'd et al. (1991, 83)
Hana"oko samami ke!ye9-di-mi?
reduplication-go-realized-iudicative-pl
when
they
'When did they go?'
It also appears as the right-hand member, or head, of verb-verb cornpouncls.
From constructions of this type ('crawling-go') it has been reinterpleted as
a directional suffix away.
(37) -kwee'away':
Zigmondet al. (1991,100)
kahni-mkrva
Togo$'a
iirigrii-kwee-di
house-rrnder
rattlesna.ke qawl-gryg{-indicative
'The rattlesna.ke is crawling away urder the horme.'
It is in paradigmatic opposition to the cislocative suffix -fi 'hither, toward',
which exists only as a sumx in modern Kawaiisu.
(38) Tla,nslocative sufix -kwee'away''. Zigmond et al. (1991)
"ig*-
'enter'
"iea-tlg-
'go in'
yaayaa-@g
'carry one object'
'take one object'
huemalrr?ma-$p-
'ca.rry several objects'
'take sevexal objects'
The tra.nslocative has in turn given birth to another sumx with slightl)' more
abstract mea.ning, an inchoative with the meaning 'become'. Added to the
terb 'be loose', for example, it derives the verb'come loose', or 'loosen'.
Acla Ltngunttra Hungartrn 5l). 200.t
178
MARIANNE MITHUN
(39) Irrchoativesulfix -&ueerZi$uoud et al. (1991)
ha.ylrni'jpii
hlia-1.e-e
cabi
'to
'to
'to
'to
be loose'
sleep'
be aged, elderly'
smash, deAt'
hay l m i - k w e e 'g e t l o o s e '
'go to sleep'
"ipii-btrq
h!a-ye?e-kwee'get old, to age'
caba-kwee'go flat (of a tire)'
It has also come to be used as a resultative. Added to the verb 'break,, it
yields'broken'.
(40) Resultative
suffx -fruee:Zigmondet al. (1991,97)
liolvqri-kwee-dj
bt eali.rnom-resultative-indicative
'The tree limb is tloken off.'
pogewa:ika.
'uusu
already branch-possessed:its
The verb root kwee 'go' has thus evolved, in its position as the right-hand
member or head o{ verb-verb compounds, from a root to a translocative
'thither, away' then to an inchoative and resultative. The counterpart of
the translocative suffix, tire cislocative sufix -&z 'hither', can be traced to a
different verb root +tr;irn 'come' that appa,rently appeared in the same head
position of compounds. This root no longer survives as such in Kawaiisu,
but it is reconstructed for Proto-Uto-Aztecan. The cislocative sumx has in
turn evolved still further into another kind of aspect ma.rker, a durative.
Similarly, a third Kawaiisu directional suffix -rni 'along' ca.n be traced to a
Proto-Uto-Aztecan verb root *mi 'walk' which has not survived as such in
Kawaiistr. The Kawaiisu svffix -mi has also evoived further into an aspect
marker', a habitual. There is thus robust evidence in Kawaiisu of the heads
of verb-verb compounds, the word-fina,l roots, evolving into suffixes serving
a valiety of functions.
But that is not the v/hole story for Kawaiisu. The very same rootroot conpound structures that gave rise to suffixes also gave rise to prefixes.
Among the verbs that can occur in the initial, non-head position of compounds is a root
"aaga 'be stealthy'.
(41) Iiau'aiisueooga'be stealthy':Zig:rrond
et al. (1991,79)
(a) siua"a-vi ?aagalnzi?a-u-pigadj:ina
Coyote-absbe.stealthylook-urcmentaneous-perfective:him
'Coyotestealthily peekedat hirn.'
(b) raqgt-'ablsibe.stealthy-talk
'whispe.r'
This nor-head root has given rise to a prefix 2aa- 'quietly, stealthily'.
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50, 2003
WHY PR.EFIXES?
L79
ll2) Prefix ?aa-'quietly,stealthily': Zigmondet al. (1991,79)
(a) Neeziaikardl.
grrl
sit
'The girl is sittirg.'
(b) Neeziii "aa-ga4dj.
quietly-sit
girl
'The girl is sitting quietly.'
prefixes
Kawaiisn, like other Uto-Aztecan
la.nguages, shows both additional
and additional sumxes descended from the same compound constructions.
Similar examples from Salisha.n languages axe discussed in Mithun (1997). It
is thus clea.r that headedness does not determine which roots will become
a.ffixes: both the heads and the dependents of compounds can evolve into
a.ffixes. Other factors must enter into the formation of prefixes and suffixes.
One of these factors can be surmised from the Kawaiisu examples just seen, a
factor that has been recognized for some time. This is generality of rreaning.
Verbs with general meanings like go and come. wili appear in large nnmbers
of compounds, setting the scene for grammatical evolution.
9. Flequency
The generality of meaning of verbs like 'go' and 'come' ensures that thel' 3vs
likely to be used more often than verbs like'smash' and 'sleep'. As discussecl
at length by Bybee Hopper (2001), a crucial factor which enters into the
formation of affixes from roots is frequency of use. The role of frequency
is illustrated in an interesting way in Choctaw, a language of the lUuskogeal
family of Alabama, Mississippi, and Oklahoma, in the southern United States.
Choctaw verbs contain pronominal afiRxesreferring to the core arguments
of clauses. Grammatical agents, patients, and datives are representecl. Third
persons aJe zero. The forms of the affixes can be seen below.
(43) Choctaw pronominal a.ffixes (X{uskogean lhmily)r
1.sg
2.sg
1.pl
2.pl
Ul ch (1986)
ACENTS PATIENTS DATIVES
sasanL
-li
l clc1mpimpiilha?-
haii-
haiim-
Normally pa.radigmatic sets of ma.rkers ali appear in the same area of the
grammax. The Choctaw pronominal afrxes show a surprising arrangement.
All of them are prefixes except for one, the first person singula.r agent -lz.
Acta Lin,gl1i,tlica,Hunpnrica 5(.1,200,9
180
MARI,ANNEMITHUN
({4) Choctaw first and secorrdpersol
pisalitok
pisa-li-tok
sec'1.sg.ageDt-past
'I sas' it'
i,ssrrssotoL
is-sa-ssctok
3!EIIESI!- 1.sg.p.tieDt-hi t-pa. t
'Yorr ilit rne'
plouorninal afExes: Ulrictr (19g6)
saillaaii
sa-illi-a:ti
l.sg.patieDt-die-luture
'I arn going to die'
aida:ha
2sg.patient-be.tall
'You're tall'
Olce again, the surprising positions of the amxes can be explained by inves_
tigating the events that led up to their development, this time observing
the
lole of Ii'equency in use. The parent languag€ proto_Muskogean, like the
mod_
ern dalrghter languages, contained auxiliaxies. As would be consistent
with
basic head-final (SOV) constituent order, the auxiliaries followed the
content
verb in sentences. The auxilia;ries were presumably descended from higher
verbs. In modern Choctaw some of these auxiliaries have evolved into
ve-rbal
suffixes. The Choctaw past tense suffix -toA, visible above in ,I saw it,
and
'you_hit me'for example, apparently developed from an auxiliary which itself
developed from a Proto-Muskogea,n verb *ia[ ,finish, complete'. This
verb
also survives as a.n independent verb root in modern Choctaw.
(45) Choctaw verb trx, ,firish,: Jacob et al. 1977 cited in Booker (19g0,
13g)
DiPi ba?li-t
ir_tah_li_tok
o.
rDcdt, [[-arlive-sal e.suLject 2.sg.agerrt-fiuish-artive_past q
'Did you finish cttting the rneat?,
Third person pronominal a,frxes are usually zero in the Muskogean languages.
There rvas thus often no overt pronominal prefix on either verb in comolex
senterces with the matr.ix verb ,finish'. As the construction became
tighter,
and the 'finish' verb developed into an auxiliary, it would be easy for leainers
to reanalyze the position of the pronominal prefixes, when they did
occur,
from before the verb to before the verb phrase. In most cases the two
anal_
yses would yield the same result. But first person singula,r agent prefixes
were plobably considerably more frequent in daily conversation than plurals
or secold persons. For the most par-t, inflected verbs, and especially inflected
auxilia.lies, would not be assembled online as speakers spoke, but rather
remernbered and selected as rrnits. The first person agent piefix was apparently
so firmly attached to the auxiliaries that it remained there after the-auxiliary
had evolved ilto a tense suffix. The result is a surprising paradigm, in
whicl
the first persol singular agent reflects the earlier order of-morphemes.
1111
The only explanation for its position is frequency of use.
Acta Lituguittica Eutugarica 50, Z00J
181
WHY PREFIXES?
10. Conclusion
f
a
I
J
I
The search for explanations ofthe suffixing preference has resulted in a clir.'erse
rt of hypotheses about the forces that shape gramma,r's. Nlany are couched
b terms of synchronic advantages, such as the cognitive simplicity of crossqategory harmony, and the efficiency of processing lexical material belbre
grammatical material. Certain issues remain unresolved in these accoults,
however. A compelling definition of the notion 'head' in morphology has not
5et been established. The extent to which laboratory experiments on lexical
recognition acurately model language processing in conte:'t remains to be
demonstrated. They also leave numerous unexplained exceptions, even whel
mnsidered tosether.
But hypotheses about functional advantages cannot constitute explanations in themselves, without accounts of the mechanisms by which the aclvantages are translated into grammatical structure. If we hope to explain I'hy
grammatical structures take the shapes they do, it males senseto unpack the
steps by which they come into being.
Very often the position of a.ffixeswithin words simply continues the syntactic position of the lexical items from which they a.re descended. Btt the
development of affixes is often more than a simple process of formal fusion. hi
order to explain the position of individual affixes, ra.'efirst need to identify their
sources. In some cases this is straightforwatd, because their ftrnctions have
remained little changed. Independent subject and object pronouns may develop into pronominal affixes, for example, as apparently happened in Navajo
and Halkomelem. In many cases, however, the path of development is Iess
straightforward. Sometimes the sources of pronominal subject prefxes were
not independent subject pronouns at all. In a number of la.nguages,including some of the Salishan languages seen here, they originated as possessive
prefixes on nominalized clauses.
The formal evolution from independent word to affix is typicallJ' accompanied by functional cha.nge. Navajo and Kawaiisu directional adverbs u'ere
seen to evolve first into directional a.ffixes and then into aspect ma.rkers. A
single lexical source may spawn a variety of grammatical ma.rkers. The Bella
Coola root 'be located, stay', for example, has yielded both a locative pr-eposition and an aspect prefix. Some kinds of affixes may develop frorr any
one of several kinds of sources. The Bella Cooia catsative prefix developed
from a verb root 'make', while the Lakhota causative prefix developed liom a
means/manner prefix'by hand'. Causatives from both kinds of soul'cesmay
even coexist within a single language, as in Lakhota The Mohawk applicaActa Li,nguisticaHungarica 50, 2003
782
MARIANNE MITHUN
tives have developed from matrix verb roots, while the Navajo applicatives
have developed from postpositions. The lelative timing of particular func_
tional and formal c"ha.ngesmay vary. Lexical roots may develop first into
irtdeperrdent grammatical words, such as auxiliaries, aduerbs, or adpositions,
before they fuse with hosts to become affixes, like the Navajo directiolj
prefixes. Alternatively, roots may first fuse with other roots in compounds,
then undergo the functional abstraction and phonological reduction that make
them into graanmatical affixes, as seen in Kawaiisu directional suffixes. So far
most caleful studies of sufixing preferences have involved a very limited in_
ventoly of in-flectional categories.
The case for cross-category ha.rmony as a motivating force behind the
patterns we find might be strengthened if historical langrrage changes
were
ideltified whereby prefixes shifted position, hopping over stems to suffix po_
sition, in response to a syntactic shift to head-final clause structure. So iar,
however', such situations are not well knovrn. In Navajo we saw the creation of
verbal prefixes from postpositions, but there was no shift in order. The oost_
positions, along with their pronorninal object prefixes, simply fused with
the
verbs that immediately followed them: baby it-on gaze > baby it-on_gaze,She
is watching the baby'. In Choctaw we saw a first person singular pronominal
suffix that developed from a prefix, but the marker itself never actua.lly moved.
Without an awa.renessof the individual histories of affixes, attempts at
genera"lexplanations for their positions are bound to faii much of the
time.
But generalizations are not impossible. Some of the seemingly idiosyncratic
developnents seen here reflect deeper, general principles. The development of
adverbial prefixes and adverbial suffixes in Kawaiisu from difierent members of
the same compound construction shows that headednessdoes not determine
which roots will develop into a.ffixes. But the same development suggests
that semantic generality and frequency in speech might. The f."qo"n"y iJ"to,
has also shaped the Choctaw pronominal a"ffix paradigm in a complex way,
t-esulting in pronominal prefixes for the entire pa,radigm except for the first
person agents. Explanations of both the observed suffixing preference and
the
occLlrrence of prefixes are surely not beyond our grasp. Our generalizations
will suffer, however, if we fail to tal<e into account the individual histories of
the affixes we are seekins to describe.
ALta L,ingui,stic&
Eungarica 50, p00S
183
WHY PREFIXES?
Abbreviations
abs
adv
cmpl
cont
delr
distr
du
dru
ep
imprf
m
absolutive
adverbializer
completive
contiNrative
det,ransitir_izpr
distribrtive
dual
dura.tive
epenthetic vowel
imperfective
masculine
mom
obj
pl
prf
prog
q
sg
sub
srrbj
ter.m
tI
momentateous
object
plura.l
perfe.ctive
ploglessive
questiol
singular'
srrboxlinate
subject
terlrinative
tlaDsitivizer'
References
Bauer, Laurie 1990. Be headilg the wold. Jorrnal of Linguistics 26 : 1-31.
Boas, Ilanz - Ella Deloria 1941. Dakota grammar:. I!{emoirs of the National Acvlerul
Sciences23.2. U.S. Government Printiug Office, Washingtou D.C.
Booker, Karen 1980. Compalative
1980, Unirenitv of Kansas.
Muskogban: aspects ol Protol\Iuskogean
of
verb molphologr'.
Buechel, Eugene 1970. A dictiona.ry of the Teton Dakota Sioux Lurguage. Red Cloud lndian
School and l{oly Rosary Mission, Pine Ridge SD.
Bybee, Joan 1988. The diacluonic dimension in explanation. In: Ha$'kins (1988a, 35(1 71)).
Bybee, Joan -Parul Hopper 2001. Introdrction. In: Joau Bybee Parrl Hopper (eds) Et'c1nclc1'
and the emeJgenceof linguistic structure, 1 26. John Benjamins, Arnsterdarn.
Bybee, Joan William Paglirca Revere Perkius 1990. O[ the asymmetries iu the afiixati(nr
of gra"mmatica.l material. In: William Croft I{eith Denning Suzanne Kermuer (cds)
Studies in typologr and diarluony, 1 39. John Benjamius, Arnsterdam & Philarlclphia.
Corbett, Greville Norman Fra"ser- Scott Mcclashan 1993. Heads in gramrnatical tlxxrlr-.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cutler, Anne John A. Harvkil,s Gary Gilligan 1985. The stffixiug prelbrence: a plot cssilg
explanation. In: Linguistics 23:723 58.
Galloway, Brent 1993. A $ammar of Upriver Halkomelerr Univelsity
tions in LiDgldstics 96. Uliversity of California, Berkeley CA.
of Calilbruia
Prrblica-
Giv6n, Talmy 1971. Historical syntax atd synclrronic morpholo[ry: an archn€ologist's fickt tri1).
ID: Proceedings of the Chicago Lingr stics Society 7:394 411-->.
Giv6n, Talmy 1979. On urderstanding
gramma.r'. Academic Pless, New Yolk.
Giv6n, Ta.lmy 1984. Syntax a functional-typological introcluctiorr. Jolrn Benjaurins. Arrrsterdam.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1957. Order of affxirrg: a stt(ly irr ge[eral liuguistics. Irr: Joscph H.
Greenberg (ed.) Essays in general lingnistics, 86 94. Univcrsit5, of Chicago, Chicagrr.
Aclo L,nq
^fxca
Hungonn J0, 200.1
184
MARIANNE MITHUN
Gr'eeub<rg. Joseph H. 1963. Sorle urriversals of gramma.r. with pa,rticulax rcference to the order
of urerufngful eleneuts. Iui Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.) Univelsals of language, 73 113.
IIIT Press, Cambridge I\{A.
Greeubelg, Joseph H. 1966. Language univenals, with special refi:rence to feature hietarchies.
.Ia.uru Lilgualum,
Series l\{inor 59. IMoutou de Gruyter, Berlin & New York.
Hall, Cllristopher J. 1988. Integrating diacluonic and processing principles ir o.alaning the
suffixiug plelbrence. In: Hawkins (1988a, 321-49).
Hall, Cluistopher J. 1992. Irlorphologr and mind. Routledge, London.
Harvkius, John (ed.) 1988a. Explaiuing
Oxfbrd.
la"nguage universals.
Blackwell,
Cambtidge
MA &
Har,r'liils, John 1988b. Ou explaining some right-left a€ynmetries iD syntactic and morphological ruriversals. In: Irlichael Haulnoud - Edith Moravcsik Jessica Wirth (eds) Studies in
sl{tactic typolo5,, 321-57. Jolu Benjaurios, Amsterdam & Philadelphia.
Hawkirrs, John Anne Cutler 1988. Psycholiuguistic
Hawkius (1988a, 280 317).
Harvkius, Jobm Ga.ry Gilligau 1988. Prefixiug
$'old order. Iu: Lingua 74:219-59.
fa.tors in morphological
aDd sumxing univenals
asyrnnrctry.
In:
in relation to basic
Hudsorr, Richard 1987. Zwicky on heads. Joulnal of Linguistics 23 : 109-32.
Kroebet, Paul 1999. The Salish language family. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Lehuramr, Winfred 1978. Errglish: a characteristic SVO langtage. In: Winlied Lehmann (ed.)
S]'rtactic typology: studies iu the phenomeDology of la[guage, 169-222. University of
Texa:sPress, Austin TX.
Irliller, Wick 1987. Computer.ized database lbr UtcAztecan coguate sets. Manuscr.ipt.
I\Iithur, l\Iarianue 1997. Leical a.ffixes a.rrd morphological typologr. In: John Haiman - Joan
B1'bee - Sandla Thourpsorr (eds) Essays on la.nguage fuuction and language t1pe, 357 72,
Jolu Benjamins, Arusterdarn,
XIitl[ur, hla,r'iaurle 2002. An irrvisible ha.nd at the root of causation: the role of lefcalization
irr the grammatica.lizatio[
of causatives. Iu: Ilse Wischer - Gabriele Diewa.ld (eds) New
IeflectioDs oD graDxnaticalization, 237 57. John Benjami[s, Amsterdam.
Nater', Her* 1984. The Bella Coola langua.ge. Ivlercury Series Canadian Ethnolog, Service
PaPcl 92. NatioDal tr{useuurs of Canada, Ottawa.
Nater, lleuk 1990. A coucise Nu-rcalk English dictioDary. Nlercuy Series Canadian Ethnologr
Piper 115. Canadirur Nluseuur of Ci\.ilizatioD, Ottawa.
Rice, Ii<+en 2000. Morpheure or.der aDd semaDtic scope: word lbrmation iu the Athapaskan
verb. Cambridge Uuiversity Pless, Carnbridge.
Sapir, Edwald 1921. Language. I{arcorut, Brace, and World, New York.
Scalise, Sergio 1988. The notion of 'head' in morphologr.
In: Yearbook of Morphologr
229- 15.
1:
Selhirk, Elizabeth O. 1982. The syntax of words. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Ulrich, Challes 1986. Choctaw molphophonology. Ph.D. disser.tation, UCLA.
Veuneura,u,Theo 1973. Expla[atioD in syntax. In: Syutax aud Senantics 2: 1 50.
Verlrlerrra.u, Theo 1974. A[alogy irl generative gr.am$ax, the origin of word order. In: Luigi
Heil[ram (ed.) Proceedilgs of the EleveDih InterDational Congress of Linguists, 79 83Il l\Iulino, Bologna.
Acta Linguisti,ca Eungaric& 50, 2003
WHY PREFIXES?
ldi)
Williams, Edwio 1981. On the notions 'lexically related' and 'head of a word'.
Inquhy 12 : 245-74.
Young, Robert W. 2000. The Nara.jo verb system: an overview.
Press, Albuquerque.
Yourg, Robert W. - William
Press, Albuquerque.
Urivenity
lvlorga,n 1987. The Nalajo la.nguage. University
In: Liugldstic
of New Ivlodco
of Nerv l\'Iexico
Pamela Munro 1991. Kawaiisu: a, grammar and dictio
Zigmond, Ifaruice - Cutis Booth
nary with texts. Univenity of California Ptblicatious in Linguistics 119. University of
California, Berkeley CA.
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Heads. In: Journal of Lingtistics 21:1 29.
Address of the author:
Marianne \4ithtn
Depaxtment of Lingdstics
University of California, Santa Balbaxa
Sa,nta Barbarq California
93106 USA
[email protected]
Actn Lin gllisli cd Eungan ra 50. 2003