Bauers Treatment Of Blocking

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

This chapter sheds the light on the adopted model in the present study. It presents Bauer's (2004) analysis of blocking, and the fundamental factors interacting with blocking. Furthermore, it makes reference to the choice of noun-forming affixes in relation to which morphological blocking is going to be dealt with. In addition, the reference will include the dictionaries within limits the phenomenon of blocking is investigated.

4.1 Bauer's Treatment of Blocking: Reviewed

We have mentioned earlier that Bauer (2004) categorizes blocking into two types: token blocking and type blocking. We have also introduced the effect of blocking on productivity (see 2.2.4.2.2.2). On the surface, blocking is thought of as a constraint on productivity. In fact, this is not an accurate assumption. In this chapter, a different perspective is supported by Bauer's presentation of blocking.

60 Bauer (2004) presents seven constraints on productivity and blocking is assumed to be one of them. Although Bauer did not assert that blocking is not the constraint itself that limits productivity in a direct statement, he also did not affirm the otherwise i.e., that blocking is a constraint on productivity. Nevertheless, Bauer (2004: 137-138) demonstrates the fact that although blocking functions as a constraint on productivity, its function depends on the absence and\or the presence of the constraints that are going to be discussed below (see 4.1.1). Thus, in order to investigate how blocking works, constraints that motivate it must be presented.

4.1.1. Bauer's Constraints

In the following sections, different kinds of constraints that can affect the extent to which any given morphological process can be used in the production of new words are presented. Seven Constraints are postulated by Bauer: they are phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, lexical, pragmatic, and aesthetic.

4.1.1.1 Phonological Constraints

Bauer (2004: 129) distinguishes three phonological constraints that motivate blocking. The first constraint is seen in cases where the segmental make-up of the base is essential (ibid). Consider the following examples:

(4.1) The English suffix -er which forms verbs from adjectives, takes only stems ending in a stop or a fricative, and in the last two hundred years, only verbs from adjectives in t and d seem to have been formed such as neaten, quieten, smarten and tighten (Marchand, 1969: 272).

(4.2) In Dutch, the suffix -te, which forms nouns such as koelte ‘coolness’ from adjectives, cannot be added to adjectives that end in a vowel, and if the adjective ends in a cluster of C1C2, C1 must be a dental sonorant (e.g. warm·te ‘warmth’) (De Haas and Trommelen, 1993: 250).

(4.3) In Hebrew, the suffix -le which forms hypocoristics from personal names and ‘intimate nouns’ can only be added to bases ending in vowels, e.g. ába ‘father’ > ábale ‘daddy’(Glinert, 1989: 437).

The second constraint concerns the cases where the suprasegmental make-up of the base is essential. Example of such a case is provided by the English suffix -al and the Germanic suffix -heit:

(4.4) The noun-producing suffix -al in English (as in arrival, rebuttal) is added only to verbs which are stressed on the final syllable (Bauer, 2004:129).

(4.5) A similar example is available from German, where the suffix -heit which creates abstract nouns from adjectives is added only to bases which have final stress (Rainer, 1988: 177).

Moreover, the third constraint concerns the cases where the syllabic make-up of the base is essential (ibid).

(4.6) In Tzutujil, the suffix -C1oj meaning ‘-ish’ is affixed only to monosyllabic adjectives, as in q’eq·q’oj ‘blackish’ and rax·roj ‘greenish’ (Dayley, 1985: 212).

However, Bauer (2004: 129) points out to cases where it is not entirely clear whether a particular restriction is phonological or morphological.

(4.7) The Turkish suffix-ç, which forms abstract nouns mainly from reflexive verbs, appears to be restricted to verbs ending in -n (Lewis, 1967: 222).

This is largely due to the fact that the reflexive form is -n, but the fact that there are non-reflexive instances as well makes it look like a phonological restriction (ibid).

(4.8) In English, the adverbial -ly should not be added to adjectives which already end in -ly

This seems at one stage of English to have been a constraint preventing the sequences of homophonous affixes but now seems to block the appearance of words like sillily in which the first -ly is not a separate affix (see Baayen and Renouf 1996: 83).

Therefore, the phonological structure of the base works as a constraint that motivate blocking. Three areas where the phonological make-up of the base determines what kind of affix can be added.

4.1.1.2. Morphological Constraints

Blocking can be motivated by morphological constraints. Three morphological constraints, which limit the availability of a morphological process to certain potential bases, are proposed (Bauer, 2004: 130). The morphological structure of a base may prevent the application of a morphological process and thus act as a constraint on the subsequent affixation.

4.1.1.2.1 Category-Based Constraints

Category-based are associated with the morphologically defined class to which a base may have to belong. A base is defined in terms of category such as gender or in terms of etymological category. To illustrate the former category, the following examples are presented:

(4.9) The sarcastic Hebraic diminutive of the form CCaCCaC (e.g. zkankan ‘little beard’ < zakan ‘beard’) can only be made from masculine nouns (Glinert, 1989: 433).

(4.10) The suffix -iyat of Punjabi, which creates shaksiyat ‘individuality’ from shaks ‘person’, is used to derive feminine abstract nouns from masculine nouns (Bhatia, ……………1993: 286).

As a result, some affixes may only be added to masculine nouns and thus affixation to feminine nouns is blocked.

On the other hand, some affixes may only be added to either a native or foreign base. Instances from different languages are presented:

(4.11) In Dutch, the suffixes -aar and -aard demand underived Germanic bases (De Haas and Trommelen, 1993: 170, 181).

(4.12)In Modern Greek, the suffix -adoros which is added exclusively to words of Romance origin such as kombinadoros ‘trickster’ from kombina ‘trick’, itself from French combine ‘trick’ (Mackridge, 1985: 320).

(4.13)The Russian suffix -ant which, though productive in Russian, is added only to foreign bases such as kursant ‘student’ from kurs ‘course’ (Townsend, 1975: 175).

Therefore, the first constraint illustrates the sensitivity of an affix to the morphological category of the base. A requirement for a particular morphological category will eventually block derivations from other category.

4.1.1.2.2 Structure-Based Constraints

Structure-based constraints deal with the morphological structure of the base. i.e., whether the base is derived or non-derived (Bauer 2004, 131). Consider the following example:

(4.14) The Punjabi suffix gair- ‘un-’ is used only with derived bases, e.g. deriving gairsarkaarii ‘non- governmental’ from sarkaarii ‘governmental’, which is itself derived from sarkaar ‘government’ (Bhatia, 1993: 303)

Accordingly, the affix in question accesses the morphological structure of the base to which it attaches before affixation takes place.

4.1.1.2.3 Final Affix-Based Constraints

Final Affix-Based Constraint involves reference to cases in which the base may have to end in a particular affix or not end in a particular affix before affixation can occur (Bauer, 2004: 130). Restrictions involving particular affixes are manifested into several different ways. Additionally, Final Affix-Based constraints are manifested in the following:

The first type is present in cases where affixation with a second affix requires a particular affix (ibid, 131). In other words, affixation with a second affix demands a derived base that ends up with a particular affix. Following William's terminology (1981: 250), Bauer presents this type under the term potentiation of subsequent affixation. Consider the following examples:

(4.15) The Danish female marker -trice is derived only from bases ending in the suffix -Ør, as direktrice from direktØr ‘director’(Allan et al., 1995: 538).

(4.16) The Dutch female marker -ster is added only to a small group of derivatives including those in - aard, as in wandelaarster ‘female hiker, tramper’ (De Haas and Trommelen, 1993:190).

(4.17) In Hixkaryana, the suffix -mɨ forms nouns from adverbs, but only from adverbs having the prefix tɨ-, as in tɨmporyemɨ ‘thing that ought to be given’ from tɨmporye ‘that ought to be given’ (Derbyshire, 1979: 168).

The second type involves cases in which the affix demands not only a particular affix, but also a particular structure with that affix (Bauer, 2004: 131).

(4.18) The Dutch suffix –ster can be added to one of a group of words are those made up of the suffix - er added to a verbal base, as in zwemster ‘female swimmer’ correlating with zwemmer ‘swimmer’ (De Haas and Trommelen, 1993: 190).

The third type concerns cases in which a specific affix may not be essential but a specific type of affix may be (Bauer, 2004: 132). For instance

(4.19) The ‘gerund’ in Sanskrit is marked by the suffix … -tvā when added to a simple base, but -ya when added to a base with a prefix (Whitney, 1889: 355).

In the above example, therefore, it is the presence of a prefix which is required, not the particular prefix involved. Furthermore, instances from German illustrate the case where a particular type of affix must not be present.

(4.20)The suffix -heit, which creates abstract nouns from adjectives, can be added to compounds (Schreib·faul·heit ‘write-lazy-ness = the quality of being a bad correspondent’), prefixed adjectives (Un·gleich·heit ‘inequality’) or adjectival past participles derived with a circumfix (Ge·schloss·en·heit ‘shut-ness’), but is not added to adjectives derived with a suffix (Fleischer, 1975: 148).

Consequently, Final affix-based Constraints demonstrate the sensitivity of an affix to the last attached affix, i.e., the affix in question demands a derived base. In some cases, it demands a particular affix to be present. In others, it demands along with a certain affix a particular structure of the base. Nevertheless, in some cases and regardless to what kind of an affix, it is the type of that affix which is important. Yet, in other cases the absence of an affix that which is required.

Bauer (2004, 132) adds that the repeated morph constraint (Menn and MacWhinney 1984) or the multiple application constraint (Lieber 1981, 173) is a general restriction on the form of morphologically complex words to prevent the same affix to be added twice in succession. Such a constraint is imposed on affixation where the same affix is outermost in the base.

Accordingly, Bauer demonstrates three morphological constraints that motivate the operation of blocking, type blocking precisely. They all share the fact that the morphological structure of the base affects what type of affix(es) would be added, or\and the affix in question will require certain morphological structure of the base it may be added to. Additionally, the morphological constraints fall into three categories: the first deals with the morphological category of the base, the second deals with the morphological structure of the base, whereas the third constraint concerns what type of affix a base must end or not end with.

4.1.1.3 Syntactic Constraints

One of the important and most obvious syntactic constraints is that most affixes can be added only to certain word classes (e.g. nouns, verbs, adjectives) (Bauer, 2004: 133). Consider the following situation:

(4.21)The English suffix -able is used on transitive but not intransitive verbs. Thus, the affixation of -able to become is blocked (ibid).

Many types of deverbal affixations are sensitive to the transitivity of the verbal base. Another example is taken from Apalai:

(4.22) There are two distinct affixes used to denote ‘agents …….of present action’: -ne is used only with transitive …….verbs, -kety is used only with intransitive verbs as in ……the following examples (Koehn and Koehn, 1986: 90– ……91):

parata wo.ne

wa.kety

rubber cut.AGT

dance.AGT

Rubber-cutter

dancer

The distinction between morphological constraints and syntactic constraints lies in the fact that morphological constraints concerns the internal structure or inherent class of the word in the base. But, a syntactic constraint concerns the way the word is used in context (Bauer, 2004: 133).

4.1.1.4 Semantic Constraints

Regarding semantic constraints, two kinds of cases are presented (ibid, 134). In the first case, the semantic constraint on the base is a matter of what it makes sense to have a word for. Consider the following Greek suffix:

(4.23) In Modern Greek there is an affix -enios meaning ‘made of ’ which attaches to the names of materials as in lamarinenios ‘made of sheet metal’ from lamarina ‘sheet metal’ (Mackridge, 1985: 322).

Since the formed words mean "made of __", they can be made of their material.

The second case is illustrated by the Mangarayi suffix -NuNuN ‘person originating from’ which requires a base which denotes a place name or a language, as in GuwiMilen·NuNuN ‘Queenslander’ (Merlan, 1982: 170). As a rustle, according to Bauer (2004: 134) it is simply a matter of making sense.

3.1.1.5 Lexical Constraints

By lexical constraints, Bauer (2004: 134) refers to cases in which the words to which the affixes can be added are known and finite. Thus, all non-productive affixation is in turn lexically constrained. Moreover, some instances are where a particular affix is found with a very small number of bases, possibly only one or two. For example, the English suffix -th and the suffix -ter which is found only in laughter and slaughter.

4.1.1.6 Pragmatic Constraints

In principle, the difference between semantic and pragmatic constraints is that the effects of the former deal with the linguistic nature of the base, while the effects of the later deal with the way in which the words are used or the nature of the real-world referent of the word. In Abkhaz the suffix -c is a singulative marker, used to denote a single entity of a type normally thought of as occurring in groups (Hewitt, 1979: 243). For example, à-IxK-c means ‘a single bee’, while its root means ‘bee’, but with the implicit understanding that these naturally occur in large numbers (Bauer, 2004: 135).

4.1.1.7 Aesthetic Constraints

Aesthetic constraints on the production of morphologically complex forms are hard either to prove or to disprove. Since individuals do not necessarily share the same set of aesthetic reactions, one person can freely coin a word that others feel awkward. Adams (1973: 3) lists a number of apparently aesthetic reactions to words which have not prevented their subsequent adoption and use, and in particular cites the comment made in 1909 that ‘you could hardly think of a worse word’ than aviation.

Furthermore, Guilbert (1975: 191) discusses an aesthetic reaction against very long words in French, which might prevent oppositionnellement ‘oppositionally’ while permitting oppositionnel ‘oppositional’, it is guarded about how real such constraints might be. He points out that such forms do not appear to be ungrammatical, and can be perfectly well understood.

4.2. Selection of the Analyzed Data

4.2.1. Choice of English Suffixes and Arabic Patterns

Zandvort (1976) presents a reasonable number of noun-forming suffixes that it is suitable for our space and time and therefore they are chosen. For the same reason, Arabic noun-forming patterns presented by Al-Hidithi (1965) are chosen. However, in order to save space and time only regular noun forming patterns are chosen. Thus, the total sum of English suffixes are twenty nine suffixes, and that of the Arabic patterns are twenty nine patterns.

4.2.4. Selection, Classification and Arrangement of the ……..Analyzed Words

Each chosen English suffix and Arabic pattern is examined by selecting in maximum five words as its base. The selected bases are limited to those that are dependent words and that have a lexical entry in the consulted dictionary. Nevertheless, it is viewed that there are certain English suffixes and Arabic patterns have less than five nouns in the consulted dictionaries.

Additionally, words of both English and Arabic are classified in accordance with the tables of English suffixes and Arabic patterns presented in appendix I and II, respectively. Nevertheless, two groups of words are presented. The first group examines the potential bases for a particular suffix or pattern in question, while the second group examines the bases which are non-potential for the same particular suffix or pattern. The total sum of English potential bases are 139, and that of Arabic is 139. However, the sum of the English non-potential bases is 132, whereas that of Arabic is 95. The difference in number between the two is due to the differences of the constraints in both languages.

To save time and space, only the first meaning of each word is taken. Finally, the analyzed words are randomly arranged.

4.2.5. Selection of Dictionaries

The investigated bases are limited to Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary. This dictionary has been chosen for a number of reasons:

It is entirely work of over 76,000, 000 entries.

It provides an adequate amount of entries for a thoroughly up-to-date dictionary via a fresh examination of the range of possible entries, with careful attention to examples of current usage and the assistance of special consultants in the sciences and other field.

It gives fuller coverage to the general and scientific vocabulary than any other dictionary of comparable size have ever attempted (ibid: xx).

As for the investigation of Arabic patterns معجم اللغة العربية المعاصرة is chosen because it covers more than 171 dictionaries and Arabic resources (ibid: 33 ff) such as the following:

الصحاح، تاج اللغة وصحاح العربية، الجوهري - دار العلم للملايين - بيروت - ط/3 – 1984م

القاموس المحيط، الفيروزآبادي - مؤسسة الرسالة - بيروت - ط/5 - 1996م.

القرارات المجمعية في الألفاظ والأساليب من 1934 إلى 1987م، مجمع اللغة العربية بالقاهرة- الهيئة العامة لشئون المطابع الأميرية - القاهرة - 1989م.

المخصّص، ابن سيده - دار الكتاب الإسلامي - القاهرة.

Additionally, entries are organized in an up-to-date organization of method of listing.

4.3. Selection of the Model and Method of Analysis

The reason behind the selection of Bauer’s (2004) analysis of blocking as the adapted model in present study is because it is measurable and objective.

4.3.1 Limitation on the Model:

The present study will be limited to dealing with the morphological, syntactic, and semantic constraints that may motivate blocking. In this way phonological, lexical, pragmatic, and aesthetic constraints are considered as falling outside the limits of our study.

4.3.2. The Model

The model will be design to measure the potential bases for the selected English suffixes and Arabic patterns. Then, the non-potential bases, i.e., blocked bases, will be identified. They will be measured in accordance with their morphological structure, syntactic properties and semantic denotation.

The analysis will go as the following: First, an identification is made of the various morphological structure, syntactic properties and semantic denotation of the potential bases to which the affix may be added so as to result in well-formed derivatives. By so doing, the non-potential bases, namely the blocked bases, are to be specified. For the former and the latter type of bases are going to be cited in depended upon the selected dictionaries.

4.3.2.1 Modification on the Model

In this section, Bauer's account (2004) of the constraints that motivate blocking will be presented with some modifications. The modifications occur on the morphological constraints: Since the first and second morphological constraints share related information they can be combined under one constraint to reduce repetition. They organize the morphological structure of the base by sorting it into two types: derived and non-derived. If it is derived, then, what type of affix it consists, what kind of affix, and what is the morphological structure of the base before affixation occurs. The following table illustrates the morphological constraints before modification:

Table

Morphological Constraints before Modifications

No

Base

Category-based Constraints

Structure-based and Affix-based Constraints

Category of the Base

Etymology of the Base

Non-derived

Derived

Last Affix

Structure + Affix

Other Affix

However, the derived base section, the first and second column, contains the same information, i.e., the last affix. Thus, the first column will be eliminated. Adding the other constraints, the following table is organized.

Table

No.

Base

Morphological Constraints

Syntactic Constraints on the Base

Semantic Constraints on the Base

Category-based Constraints

Structure-based Constraints

Affix-based Constraints

Category of the Base

Etymology of the Base

Morphological, Syntactic, and Semantic Constraints

Table 12 illustrates the one of the aims of the study and since no previous studies that show the above constraints on the application of the selected English suffixes nor the Arabic patterns, this study aims at identifying the above constraints. Depending on the above organization, table 13 is organized to find out the selected constraints by examining the bases.

Table

No.

Base

Morphological Structure of the Base

Syntactic Properties

The Meaning of the Base

Category of the Base

Etymology of the base

Non-derived

Derived

Inner Structure of the Base

Other Affixes

4.3.2 Last Remark on the Model

Bauer’s (2004: 142) regarding the treatment of the constraints, asserts:

"The constraints discussed above are ones which limit the potential set of base–affix combinations, without any implication that one is selecting the other as part of an efficient statement of the functioning of a productive process"

Accordingly, the upcoming chapter is designed not to be a base-driven selectional restriction nor an affix-driven restriction. Rather, a combination of the two treatments into one coherent framework is made. Thus, it can be read as X suffix can be attached to the following B base with the particular morphological, syntactic, and semantic characteristics. And, the B base with the particular morphological, syntactic, and semantic characteristics requires the X suffix in question.