Inflectional Classes

Journal of Linguistics, 1994

Journal of Linguistics, 1986

In Linguistica Brunensia, Brno. On line http://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/130163, 2016

Abstract: Concentrating on the taxonomy of grammatical morphemes, this study shows that traditional definitions of inflectional vs. derivational morphemes do not pass more rigorous testing, although they probably reflect instinctive distinctions present in a natural language system. The authors propose to define the distinctions by referring to derivational stages, namely by distinguishing levels of insertion for morphemes. Most of what is usually classified as derivational morphology and subject to Williams's (1981) Right Hand Head Rule are morphemes which enter derivations in narrow syntax. As such, they conform to what is here termed a Logical Form Interpretation Condition, which allows only one syntactic feature per morpheme. On the other hand, morphemes such as agreements are not subject to the Right Hand Head Rule and result from post-syntactic insertion and exhibit cross-classification. The authors propose that the source of these bound inflections is the process of Alternative Realisation. They argue that their new distinction between derivational and inflectional morphology correlates with testable semantic, phonetic and syntactic properties and that in terms of these properties, both are necessary parts of an adequate formal linguistic framework. 1 The basis for dividing inflection and derivation Analysts of natural language grammars never seem to tire of the quest to categorize two kinds of affixes, which are widely termed (1) inflectional and (2) derivational. 1 The persistence of these attempts indicates that linguists share intuitions about the reality of some core distinction between two kinds of elements, that this distinction is inherent to the language system, and therefore it must be part of any linguistic framework. The inconclusive discussions and variety of definitions, on the other hand, suggest that the study of the phenomena has not yet found a formalisation that can stand up to more rigorous scientific testing. We are going to address the issue from the perspective of generative grammar, accepting what is usually called Borer's Conjecture. In her study of parametric syntax, BORER (1984) proposes that the distinctions among the variety of human languages can be best expressed as distinctions among the repertory and characteristics of their grammatical morphemes. If so, a taxonomy of those morphemes must be a part of every linguistic analysis. 1 The division is in fact tripartite, but we are not going to address here free or lexical morphemes at all. Not because their status are much clearer but because of time and space reasons which force us to concentrate on a more limited topic.

2014

I would like to thank Heinz Giegerich for inviting me to write this book, and him and Laurie Bauer for useful comments on a draft version. I must admit that, when I set out to write what is intended as an introductory text on an extremely well-described language, I did not expect to learn anything new myself; but I have enjoyed discovering and rediscovering both new and old questions that arise from the study of morphology and its interaction with syntax and the lexicon, even if I cannot claim to have provided any conclusive new answers. The Library of the University of Canterbury has, as always, been efficient in supplying research material. I would also like to thank my partner Jeremy Carstairs-McCarthy for constant support and help. viii At the end of each chapter are recommendations for reading relating to the subject-matter of the chapter. Here I offer some comments on general works dealing with English or morphology or both. Of the available books on English morphology in particular, Bauer (1983) delves deepest into issues of linguistic theory (although a now somewhat dated version of it), and offers useful discussion and casestudies of fashions in derivational morphology. Marchand (1969) is factually encyclopedic. Adams (1973) concentrates on compounding (the subject-matter of our Chapter 6) and conversion (discussed here in Chapter 5), but says relatively little about derivation (covered here in Chapter 5). There is no book that deals adequately with morphology in general linguistic terms and that also takes into account fully up-to-date versions of syntactic and phonological theory. Bauer (1988) is a clear introductory text. The main strength of Matthews (1991) is its terminological precision. Carstairs-McCarthy (1992) is aimed at readers whose knowledge of linguistics is at advanced undergraduate level or beyond. Spencer (1991) covers much ground, and may be said to bridge the gap between Bauer and Carstairs-McCarthy.

Language, 2003

Language, 2003

American Anthropologist, 1966

(Karcevskij); homonymy (Trnka); emphasis (Mathesius); taboo (Trost). Genetic comparison recedes into the background, etymology is inconspicuous to the vanishing point, and syntax plays second fiddle, unless its shaken status is redeemed by collateral reference to phonemics, as in Karcevskij's lengthy paper "Sur la phonologie de la phrase"-all this as expected from one's earlier exposure to Prague School preferences. Rut the rigorous exclusion of metrics and metaphorics runs counter to legitimate anticipations and seems to involve a bit of private editorial caprice. Vachek has succeeded in fitting into a book of reasonable length-though one far too costly for its less than attractive physical appearance-a wealth of materizl hitherto available, on this side of the Atlantic, only in a few research libraries, part of it, a t that, couched in languages familiar solely to a minority of potential readers; for this service we owe him gratitude. But, in delimiting the scope of the Prague School, he has interpreted his assignment in a distressingly unimaginative way. This parochial narrowness and arbitrary confinement to the original locale and its nearest affiliates-for the sake of authenticity?-have hindered him from disclosing the powerful impact of the Prague School on such versatile, mentally elastic, and influential Indo-Europeanists as Kurylowicz, Benveniste, and Martinet, whose writings one is shocked to see excluded. The increasingly important connection with Romance scholarship (T. Navarro, A. Alonso, E. Alarcos Llorach, D. Catalkn on the side of Spain; G. Contini, C. Segre, V. Belardi, on the Italian flank; G. Gougenheim in France; H. Lausberg and H. Weinrich in Germany; B. Malmberg in Sweden, to mention just a few names, plus their numerous disciples in two hemispheres) has been unwarrantedly swept under the rug; and the stature of the School has been commensurately diminished. What we need now without further delay, and preferably from an impartial, uncommitted anthologist, is a companion reader embodying the currently relevant worldwide repercussions of the practically defunct Prague School.