The analysis presented so far suggests that evaluative affixes are not heads, since they do not change the category of the base they combine with.
To sum up, in this paper, I commented on the headship status of evaluative affixes in Greek morphology.
While it seems that single-meaning affixes can occur, it also seems that affixes with multiple distinguishable meanings are more common.
Although we do not here have direct diachronic evidence, it seems that the are a few languages with monosemic affixes, and a lot with polysemic affixes which could imply that the move to polysemy is a case of diachronic development.
(ii) why do some affixes take prominence over others within the same set?
I have checked the combinations of evaluative affixes in dictionaries (Sabatini-Coletti and Zanichelli) but also on the WEB and in corpora personally collected (mainly from TV talks and newspapers).
iii) take affixes that express the same semantic category(s),
Phonological constraints are of especial relevance when they lead to the complementary distribution of affixes, as is the case of -ify and -ize (Plag 1999: 197, 228; see also Plag 2000: 10).
We should be careful to point out that the evidence that shows a BF effect in complex words only when these incorporate productive affixes is sparse.
In contrast with Bertram et al.'s (2000) study, we did not select a small number of derivative and inflectional affixes to carry out the experiment, but rather we concentrated on the case of derivative suffixes, selecting a broad sample of these (see Appendix A).
In that case, once the secondary-root-forming affixes
beginning with [a.bar]ya (provided in A.
Baayen 1992: 110-11) explains that affixes
cannot be compared simply by contrasting their frequency, because not all affixes
are freely attachable to a base (see 2).
Since the latter remains constant for the different affixes
, in relative terms P* turns out to coincide with the simple number of hapaxes.
The system also suggests a kind of basic paradigmatic structure for affixal semantics, a series of classes defined for the simplex lexicon into which affixes
may themselves fall.
For example, a well-known subtype of indirect insertion involves the addition of factitive/causative affixes
(Wohlgemuth 2009: 97-98).