Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-9nbrm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-19T09:20:21.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Suffix ordering and morphological processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Ingo Plag  and
Harald Baayen
Ingo Plag*
Affiliation:
Universität of Siegen
Harald Baayen*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
*
Plag, Universität Siegen, English Linguistics, Fachbereich 3, Adolf-Reichwein-Str. 2, D-57068 Siegen, Germany [plag@anglistik.uni-siegen.de]
Baayen, University of Alberta, Department of Linguistics, 4-26 Assiniboia Hall, Edmonton, T6G 2E5, Canada [baayen@ualberta.ca]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a long-standing debate about the principles constraining the combinatorial properties of suffixes. Hay 2002 and Hay & Plag 2004 proposed a model in which suffixes can be ordered along a hierarchy of processing complexity. We show that this model generalizes to a larger set of suffixes, and we provide independent evidence supporting the claim that a higher rank in the ordering correlates with increased productivity. Behavioral data from lexical decision and word naming show, however, that this model has been one-sided in its exclusive focus on the importance of constituent-driven processing, and that it requires supplementation by a second and equally important focus on the role of memory. Finally, using concepts from graph theory, we show that the space of existing suffix combinations can be conceptualized as a directed graph, which, with surprisingly few exceptions, is acyclic. This acyclicity is hypothesized to be functional for lexical processing.

Keywords

suffix orderingmorphological processingproductivitylexical stratagraph theorydirected acyclic graph

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 85 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 109 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by 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

Adams, Valerie. 2001. Complex words in English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Allen, Margaret R. 1978. Morphological investigations. Storrs: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
Andrews, Sally A. 1992. Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Lexical similarity or orthographic redundancy? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18. 234–54.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2005. Data mining at the intersection of psychology and linguistics. Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones, ed. by Cutler, Anne, 69–83. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. Storage and computation in the mental lexicon. The mental lexicon: Core perspectives, ed. by Jarema, Gonia and Libben, Gary, 81–104. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Davidson, Douglas J.; and Bates, Douglas M.. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Dijkstra, Teun; and Schreuder, Robert. 1997. Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language 37. 94–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Feldman, Laurie B.; and Schreuder, Robert. 2006. Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language 55. 290–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, and del Prado Martín, Fermín Moscoso. 2005. Semantic density and past-tense formation in three Germanic languages. Language 81. 666–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, and Neijt, Anneke H.. 1997. Productivity in context: A case study of a Dutch suffix. Linguistics 35. 565–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard; and Gulikers, Leon. 1995. The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, and Renouf, Antoinette. 1996. Chronicling The Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72. 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, and Schreuder, Robert. 1999. War and peace: Morphemes and full forms in a noninteractive activation parallel dual-route model. Brain and Language 68. 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Wurm, Lee H.; and Aycock, Joanna. 2008. Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words: A regression study across tasks and modalities. The Mental Lexicon 2. 419–63.Google Scholar
Balling, Laura, and Baayen, Harald. 2007. A study of lexical processing in Danish. Aarhus: Aarhus University, and Edmonton; University of Alberta, ms.Google Scholar
Balota, David A, Cortese, Michael J., Sergent-Marshall, Susan D., Spieler, Daniel H.; and Yap, Melvin J.. 2004. Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133. 283–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balota, David A., Yap, Melvin J., Cortese, Michael J., Hutchison, Keith A., Kessler, Brett, Loftis, Bjorn, Neely, James H., Nelson, Douglas L., Simpson, Greg B.; and Treiman, Rebecca. 2007. The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods 39. 445–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barker, Chris. 1998. Episodic -ee in English: A thematic role constraint on new word formation. Language 74. 695–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas M. 2005. Fitting linear mixed models in R. R News 5. 27–30.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas M., and Sarkar, Deepayan. 2005a. Ime4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0. 95–8. Online: http://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/lme4/.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas M., and Sarkar, Deepayan. 2005b. The lme4 library. Online: http://lib.stat.cmu.edu/R/CRAN/.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Allan, Jurafsky, Daniel, Fosler-Lussier, Eric, Girand, Cynthia, Gregory, Michelle; and Gildea, Daniel. 2003. Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113. 1001–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertram, Raymond, Baayen, R. Harald; and Schreuder, Robert. 2000. Effects of family size for complex words. Journal of Memory and language 42. 390–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, Raymond, Schreuder, Robert; and Baayen, R. Harald. 2000. The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Memory, Learning, and Cognition 26. 419–511.Google ScholarPubMed
Booij, Geert E. 2002. Prosodic restrictions on affixation in Dutch. Yearbook of Morphology 2001. 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc, Lange, Marielle; and van Wijnendaele, Ilse. 2000. The effects of age-of-acquisition and frequency-of-occurrence in visual word recognition: Further evidence from the Dutch language. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 12. 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burani, Cristina, and Caramazza, Alfonso. 1987. Representation and processing of derived words. Language and Cognitive Processes 2. 217–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnard, Lou. 1995. Users guide for the British National Corpus. Oxford. Oxford University computing service, British National Corpus consortium.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1994. Principles of English stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 2002. Missing players: Phonology and the past-tense debate. Lingua 112. 157–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, Samprit, Hadi, Au S.; and Price, Bertram. 2000. Regression analysis by example. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Coltheart, Max, Davelaar, Eddy, Jonasson, John T.; and Besner, Derek. 1977. Access to the internal lexicon. Attention and performance 6, ed. by Domič, Stanislav, 535–56. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, and Plag, Ingo. 2000. Categorywise, some compound-type morphemes seem to be rather suffix-like: On the status of -ful, -type, and -wise in Present-day English. Folia Linguistica 34. 225–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vaan, L., Schreuder, Robert; and Baayen, Harald. 2007. Regular morphologically complex neologisms leave detectable traces in the mental lexicon. The Mental Lexicon 2. 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabb, Nigel. 1988. English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 527–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faraway, Julian J. 2006. Extending linear models with R: Generalized linear, mixed effects and nonparametric regression models. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, Christiane (ed.) 1998. WordNet: An electronic database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gansner, Emden R., Koutsofios, Eleftherios, North, Stephen C.; and Vo, Kiem-Phon. 1993. A technique for drawing directed graphs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 19.3.214–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 1999. Lexical strata in English: Morphological causes, phonological effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrell, Frank E. 2001. Regression modeling strategies. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Jeff, and Blakeslee, Sarah. 2004. On intelligence. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39. 1041–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B. 2002. From speech perception to morphology: Affix ordering revisited. Language 78. 527–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B. 2003. Causes and consequences of word structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B., and Baayen, Harald. 2002. Parsing and productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 2001. 203–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B., and Plag, Ingo. 2004. What constrains possible suffix combinations? On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 565–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Query Google. Online: http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/QueryGoogle/.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1942. A modern English grammar on historical principles, part 6: Morphology. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jungnickel, Dieter. 2007. Graphs, networks and algorithms. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Allan, Gregory, Michelle; and Raymond, William D.. 2001. Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. by Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul, 229–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1986. Productivity in word formation. Linguistics 24. 585–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemps, Rachèl, Ernestus, Mirjam, Schreuder, Robert; and Baayen, Harald. 2005. Prosodic cues for morphological complexity: The case of Dutch noun plurals. Memory and Cognition 33. 430–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemps, Rachèl, Wurm, Lee H., Ernestus, Mirjam, Schreuder, Robert; and Baayen, Harald. 2005. Prosodic cues for morphological complexity in Dutch and English. Language and Cognitive Processes 20. 43–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keune, Karen, Ernestus, Mirjam, van Hout, Roeland; and Baayen, Harald. 2005. Social, geographical, and register variation in Dutch: From written ‘mogelijk’ to spoken ‘mok’. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1. 183–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. The structure of phonological representations, ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der and Smith, Norval, 131–76. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kostić, Aleksandar, Marković, Tanja; and Baucal, Aleksandar. 2003. Inflectional morphology and word meaning: Orthogonal or co-implicative domains? Morphological structure in language processing, ed. by Baayen, Harald and Schreuder, Robert, 1–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krott, Andrea, Schreuder, Robert; and Baayen, Harald. 1999. Complex words in complex words. Linguistics 37. 905–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landauer, Thomas K. 1986. How much do people remember? Some estimates of the quantity of learned information in long-term memory. Cognitive Science 10. 477–93.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M., Roelofs, Ardi; and Meyer, Antje S.. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 1–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, Michael B., Gerhand, Simon; and Ellis, Haydn D.. 2001. Re-evaluating age-of-acquisition effects: Are they simply cumulative-frequency effects? Cognition 78. 189–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ljung, Magnus. 1970. English denominal adjectives: A generative study of the semantics of a group of high-frequency denominal adjectives in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Luce, Paul A. 1985. Structural distinctions between high and low frequency words in auditory word recognition. Bloomington: Indiana University dissertation.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1977. Why ap-ish but worm-y? Studies in descriptive and historical linguistics, ed. by Hopper, Paul J., 341–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Miller, George A. 1990. WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography 3. 235–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, Karuvannur P. 1986. The theory of lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Morrison, Catriona M., and Ellis, Andrew W.. 2000. Real age of acquisition effects in word naming and lexical decision. British Journal of Psychology 91. 167–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermín, Bertram, Raymond, Haikio, Tuomo, Schreuder, Robert; and Baayen, Harald. 2004. Morphological family size in a morphologically rich language: The case of Finnish compared to Dutch and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 30. 1271–78.Google Scholar
Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermín, Kostić, Aleksandar; and Baayen, Harald. 2004. Putting the bits together: An information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition 94. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New, Boris, Ferrand, Ludovic, Pallier, Christophe; and Brysbaert, Marc. 2006. Reexamining word length effects in visual word recognition: New evidence from the English Lexicon Project. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13.1.45–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
OED. 1994. The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition), on compact disk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, Jose C., and Bates, Douglas M.. 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. (Statistics and computing.) New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1991. Rules of language. Science 153. 530–35.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1997. Words and rules in the human brain. Nature 387. 547–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and rules: The ingredients of language. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Pisoni, David B., Nusbaum, Howard C., Luce, Paul A.; and Slowiaczek, Louisa M.. 1985. Speech perception, word recognition and the structure of the lexicon. Speech Communication 4. 75–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plag, Ingo. 1996. Selectional restrictions in English suffixation revisited: A reply to Fabb (1988). Linguistics 34. 769–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 1998. Morphological haplology in a constraint-based morpho-phonology. Phonology and morphology of the Germanic languages, ed. by Kehrein, Wolfgang and Wiese, Richard, 199–215. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2002. The role of selectional restrictions, phonotactics and parsing in constraining suffix ordering in English. Yearbook of Morphology 2001. 285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2006. Productivity. Handbook of English linguistics, ed. by Aarts, Bas and McMahon, April, 537–56. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pluymaekers, Mark, Ernestus, Mirjam; and Baayen, Harald. 2005. Frequency and acoustic length: The case of derivational affixes in Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118. 2561–69.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2005. R language definition, version 2.4.0. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Online: http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2007. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Online: http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Raffelsiefen, Renate. 1999. Phonological constraints on English word-formation. Yearbook of Morphology 1998. 225–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riddle, Elizabeth. 1985. A historical perspective on the productivity of the suffixes -ness and -ity. Historical semantics, historical word-formation, ed. by Fisiak, Jacek, 435–61. New York: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ryder, Mary E. 1999. Bankers and blue-chippers: An account of -er formations in Presentday English. English Language and Linguistics 3.2.269–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saciuk, Bogdan. 1969. The stratal division of the lexicon. Papers in Linguistics 1. 464–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarborough, Rebecca A. 2004. Coarticulation and the structure of the lexicon. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Schreuder, Robert, and Baayen, Harald. 1997. How complex simplex words can be. Journal of Memory and Language 37. 118–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreuder, Robert, Burani, Cristina; and Baayen, Harald. 2003. Parsing and semantic opacity. Reading complex words: Cross-language studies, ed. by Assink, Egbert M. H. and Sandra, Dominiek, 159–89. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, Mark S. 1987. Sublexical structures in visual word recognition: Access units or orthographic redundancy? Attention and performance 12, ed. by Coltheart, Max, 245–64. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1982. The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Siegel, Doris. 1974. Topics in English morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory: An introduction to word structure in generative grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph P. 1981. Morphological haplology. Language 57. 791–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, Marcus. 1979. Recognition of affixed words and the word-frequency effect. Memory and Cognition 7. 263–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taft, Marcus. 1988. A morphological-decomposition model of lexical representation. Linguistics 26. 651–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, Marcus. 2004. Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 57A.745–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, Marcus, and Forster, Kenneth I.. 1976. Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 15. 607–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Heuven, Vincent J., Neijt, Anneke; and Hijzeldoorn, Maarten. 1994. Automatische indeling van Nederlandse worden op basis van etymologische filters. Spektator 23. 279–91.Google Scholar
van Son, Rob J. J. H., and Pols, Louis C. W.. 2003. Information structure and efficiency in speech production. Proceedings of Eurospeech 2003, 769–72.Google Scholar
van Son, Rob J. J. H., and van Santen, Jan P. H.. 2005. Duration and spectral balance of intervocalic consonants: A case for efficient communication. Speech Communication 47. 100–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitevitch, Michael S. 2002. The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28. 735–47.Google ScholarPubMed
Vitevitch, Michael S., and Stamer, Melissa K.. 2006. The curious case of competition in Spanish speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes 21. 760–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, Richard. 2004. Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. Papers in laboratory phonology 6, ed. by Local, John, Ogden, Richard, and Temple, Rosalind, 75–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wurm, Lee H. 1997. Auditory processing of prefixed English words is both continuous and decompositional. Journal of Memory and Language 37. 438–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurm, Lee H. 2000. Auditory processing of polymorphemic pseudowords. Journal of Memory and Language 42. 255–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurm, Lee H., and Aycock, Joanna. 2003. Recognition of spoken prefixed words: The role of early conditional root uniqueness points. Morphological structure in language processing, ed. by Baayen, Harald and Schreuder, Robert, 259–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zipf, George K. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of the least effort: An introduction to human ecology. New York: Hafner.Google Scholar