obligatory affixes : summary several weeks ago i asked how the traditional notion of obligatory affixes was recast in the theory of realizational morphology . the responce was not exactly overwhelming , but i wish to thank greg stump ( eng101 @ ukcc . uky . edu ) , don ringe ( dringe @ unagi . cis . upenn . edu ) , r . beard ( rbeard @ coral . bucknell . edu ) , and andrew carstairs - mccarthy ( a . c-mcc @ ling . canterbury . ac . nz ) for helpful responses . a few responses ( slightly edited ) : greg stump : in paradigm function theory , a language 's inventory of morphosyntactic features is assumed to determine - - for any major syntactic category x - - a paradigm schema : a set of cells each of which is associated with a complete and fully specified set of morphosyntactic feature specifications appropriate to category x . in latin , for example , the features of case ( i . e . nominative , genitive , dative , accusative , ablative ) , number ( singular , plural ) , and gender ( masculine , feminine , neuter ) determine a paradigm schema for adjectives which consists of thirty cells , one for each of the case / number / gender combinations for which adjectives may be inflected . an adjective 's paradigm is then viewed as the inventory of inflected forms assigned to these cells . for any given cell c in the adjectival paradigm schema , there is a corresponding paradigm function which applies to an adjectival lexeme l to yield the inflected form of l assigned to c . paradigm functions are defined in terms of more specific morphological rules , including rules of exponence and rules of referral ; two or more of these may come into competition in the evaluation of a given paradigm function , in which case the narrower rule overrides the more general . how , then , is the notion of obligatory affixes recast in this theory ? notice first that the architecture of the theory guarantees that every inflected word w of category x will be associated with a complete and fully specified set of morphosyntactic feature specifications appropriate to x , and that it is this set of specifications that drives the inflection of w . in other words , it is the morphology , not ( pace anderson ) the syntax , that ` ensures that any given word has all the features required by the affixes in question ' . ( naturally , i assume that a lexeme 's invariant feature specifications - - e . g . a noun 's gender - - are simply supplied by its lexical entry . ) second , if a particular affix position must be filled , then that position can be assumed to be associated with a set of rules of affixal exponence the least narrow of which functions as the default for that position . [ i have some questions about how that works where the choice of one affix seems to require the presence of morphosyntactic features which are otherwise absent , but it may be that all such examples could be reanalyzed . it would be unfair of me to say more until i ' ve had a chance to correspond with greg . - - mm ] [ some references : ] ` a paradigm-based theory of morphosemantic mismatches ' , _ language _ 67 ( 1991 ) , 675-725 . ` on the theoretical status of position class restrictions on inflectional affixes ' , in _ yearbook of morphology 1991 _ , ed . by geert booij and jaap van marle , 211-241 . ( dordrecht : kluwer , 1992 ) . ` position classes and morphological theory ' , in _ yearbook of morphology 1992 _ , ed . by geert booij and jaap van marle , 129-180 . ( dordrecht : kluwer , 1993 ) . ` on rules of referral ' , _ language _ 69 ( 1993 ) , 449-479 . ` the uniformity of head marking in inflectional morphology ' , to appear in _ yearbook of morphology 1994 _ , ed . by geert booij and jaap van marle . ( dordrecht : kluwer , 1995 ) . don ringe suggested consulting the mit dissertation of r . rolf noyer , " features , positions , and affixes in autonomous morphological structure " ( mit working papers in linguistics , dept . of linguistics and philosophy , room 20d-219 , mit , cambridge , ma 02139 ; email address : mitwpl @ athena . mit . edu ; cost $ 12 plus $ 2 s / h in us , $ 3 outside us ) . for background reading on noyer 's dissertation , he recommends the paper by halle & marantz in the festschrift for sylvain bromberger ( called * the view from building 20 * ) . r . beard mentioned a book ( of his , i believe ) " lexeme - morpheme base morphology " published by suny press , " hopefully , in june " . his theory assumes the complex ip functional categories of current p&p for tense , aspect , mood , etc . ; there also morpholexical features ( which i assume to be things like gender ) .