bar]tuka-affix; once the replacements have been made, the affixes occur as provided afterwards (visayasaptami ceyarh, na parasaptami.
In that case, once the secondary-root-forming affixes beginning with [a.
Semantic conditions are required in the grammar to determine their relation, the proper affixes used to denote those relations, and compound formation.
First, the notion of "global productivity" is introduced by plotting a number of English affixes in a two-dimensional space whose coordinates are precisely P--the productivity as defined in (1)--and V-the number of different types (see Baayen and Lieber 1991: 819, Figure 3).
Since the latter remains constant for the different affixes, in relative terms P* turns out to coincide with the simple number of hapaxes.
In section 2 we will propose a different procedure for calculating P(N), namely, to evaluate it for different affixes at equal values of N.
As hinted at above, many objections to the first measure of productivity proposed by Baayen, namely the ratio P = h/N, focus on the same shortcoming: the ratio h/N does not seem to give meaningful results if, in a given corpus, one compares the results obtained for affixes with very different token frequencies.
And due to the decreasing character of all P curves, such a procedure will always imply an overestimation of the values of P for the less frequent suffixes, which can reach dramatic proportions if the affixes to be compared show great difference in token frequency, as is the case for van Marle's example of Dutch -er vs.
Precisely a direct comparison of affixes with very different frequency has been actually made in Baayen and Lieber (1991), and is responsible for the less convincing results obtained there: for instance, referring to the 18-million CELEX corpus, (3) Baayen and Lieber found out that among the deverbal suffixes, -ee outranks -er in productivity by a factor of about two.
Marchand 1969; Levin and Rappaport 1988; Rappaport Hovav and Levin 1992; Panther and Thornburg 1998; Ryder 1999; Heyvaerts 2001; Barker 1998; Booij 1986, 2002; De Caluwe 1992) that affixes like -er and -ee in English and -er in Dutch show a wide variety of meanings.
We might first ask whether the affixes themselves make any semantic contribution to their bases.
We are by no means the first in recent years to study these affixes, to note their polysemy, and to seek a unitary characterization of their behavior.
Significantly, each of these studies confines itself to the analysis of only one of the relevant affixes and, therefore, does not treat the issue of their overlap in meaning.
Our hypothesis is that it is not an accident that the affixes -er and -ee show the range of polysemy that they do, and that their ranges of polysemy overlap.