?tekauer Pavol, Lieber Rochelle. Handbook of Word-Formation
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
44
ELLEN M
.
KAI
SS
E
o
f North American English known as Flapping. Flapping is, at the very least, an
automatic, allophonic process, of the sort that derivational theories argue applies late
i
n derivations – postlexically within the LPM model. According to Steriade, the
process is actually not even what would traditionally be called phonological at all. It
distributes a non-contrastive and continuous timing value rather than a binary
feature, and is thus is phonetic
.
2
9
Drawing on work by Withgott (1983), Steriade
points out that the first /t/ in càpitalístic
i
s flapped, matchin
g
the flap in its base
cápital. However
,
the first /t/ in
mìlita
r
ístic
i
s not flapped, matchin
g
the aspirated
[
t
h
]
in its base,
m
ílitàr
y
,
where the aspiration is the r
e
g
ular outcome before a stressed
v
owel
,
as in -
à
ry. Steriade believes the carry-over of non-flapping fro
m
m
ilitary
to
milita
r
istic
means the length of the
t
of the base is encoded in the lexicon, where it
t
c
an be co
p
ied onto a derivative.
However, Bermúdez-Otero and McMahon (in press) and Davis (2004)
independently point out
another way to look at these
t
facts, citing the relevance of
J
ensen’s (2000) interpretation of Withgott
’
s
discovery. Jensen had argued that all
that is
g
oin
g
on here is the maintenance of foot structure – a phonolo
g
ical, not a
phonetic construct – from base to
derivative. The aspirated [t
h
t
t
]
in
[
mìli
][
tarístic
]
is
j
ust the re
g
ular pattern of phonetic interpretation for this foot structure as see
n
i
n
underived [Mèdi
]
[terránean
]
and [Nàvra][tilóva]. Davis agrees that ca
p
italisti
c
,
w
ith
i
ts fla
p
, does indeed result from a paradigm uniformity effect with ca
p
ital, but again,
i
t i
s
th
e
f
oo
t
s
tr
uc
t
u
r
eo
f capital that i
s
th
eb
a
s
i
so
f anal
o
gy, not the flap itself.
Raffelsiefen (in press) also challenges the idea that phonetic features implicated
i
n
s
imilariti
es be
t
wee
n
b
a
se
an
dde
ri
v
ati
v
e necessarily mean that phonetic features
are in the lexicon. Instead, she ar
g
ues, these similarities ma
y
be due to the
phonolo
gy
actin
g
in its
b
oundar
y
-delimitin
gf
unction – that is, helpin
g
to mark the
be
g
innin
g
s and ends of morphemes. Consider, for instance, the pai
r
s
h
y
ness
vs.
minus.
These words do not rhyme. The diphthong in the first syllable of shyness i
s
l
onger than that in
minus
an
d
th
e
n
which begins the suffix -
ness
is longer than that
i
n mor
p
heme-internal
p
osition in
minus
(
Umeda and Coker 1974: 5
)
.
One might
argue that paradigm uniformity is responsible: the diphthong of
s
hyness
w
ant
s
t
obe
as long as that of the base
s
h
y
.
But in that case
,
wher
e does
th
ee
ff
ec
t
o
n th
e
n
of
-
ness
come from? Raffelsiefen argues that it is not Paradigm Uniformity that is
e
nforcin
g
the odd phonolo
gy
of
s
h
y
ness but rather an ali
g
nment constraint. As we
m
entioned in section 6, such constraints favor structures where the phonolo
gy
and
m
orpholo
gy
line up to
g
ive the same parsin
g
s – for instance, where vowels that end
m
orphemes also end the syllables of the morphemes they belong to , and where
consonants that begin mor
phemes do not belong to th
r
r
e syllables of preceding
an individual word assumes [or even] … some specifiable subpart of the total paradi
g
m.” Obviousl
y
t
he question of what forms can influence one a
n
other’s’ pronunciation and t
h
us be the sub
j
ect of
Paradigm Uniformity constraints is a difficult
a
nd complicated one, which is unlikely to be easily
r
esolved. See also McCarthy (in press) and several
o
f the other papers in that same volume, (Downing
et. al.
(
eds.
)
2004
)
and in Lahiri (2003) for recent views on the sub
j
ect.
2
9
Steriade’s goal is to argue that the division of
processes into phonological and phonetic is ultimately
f
m
is
g
uided and that phonetic detail fi
g
ures into the proper understandin
g
of phonolo
g
ical patterns.
This is a fairly radical proposal, though Steriade
i
s certainly not alone in championing it. It will
probabl
y
be several
y
ears befor
e
th
e dus
t
se
ttl
es o
n thi
sdeb
at
e.
W
ORD
-
FORMATION AND PHONOLOGY
45
m
orphemes. For Raffelsiefen, then, the prosodic structures of the two words differ,
and the length in the [aj
Ö
]
of
s
hyness comes from its being final in a prosodic word.
T
he len
g
thenin
g
of the [n] of
s
h
y
ness is due to its bein
g
solel
y
s
y
llable initial, while
the [n] is ambisyllabic in
minus
:
(
27
)
a. b.
Ȧ
Ȧ
Ȉ
Ȉ
σ
σ
σ
σ
(
5
((
á
5
+
)
Ȧ
n
s
(
m
á
+
n
s
)
Ȧ
w
h
e
r
e
Ȧ = prosodic word
Ȉ
=
foo
t
Now
all th
ede
tail
so
f
vowe
l an
dco
n
so
na
n
t length can be assigned on the basis
o
f prosodic structure, within the phonetics or the postlexical phonology.
8.
CO
N
C
L
US
I
O
N
Phonology can get in the way of word formation, causing gaps in derivation
where no suitable compromise between the goals of morphology and pronunciation
c
an be found, and inducing allomorphy where morphology would prefer uniformity.
Phonology can also aid morphology, applying differently in derived and underived
forms; helping to delimit morphological boundaries with syllabifications and foot
s
tructures that are phonolo
g
icall
y
sub-
o
ptimal; stressin
g
one part of speech
differentl
y
from anoth
e
r;
and so forth. Word forma
t
ion responds in kind,
g
ettin
g
in
t
he wa
y
of phonolo
gy
b
y
concatenatin
g
phonolo
g
icall
y
displeasin
g
strin
g
s;
s
ubverting the realization of well-formed strings of sounds in order to maintain
e
asily reconstructed relations betwee
n
base and derivative; and causing non-
c
ohering affixes to be unavailable to the phonology, again in aid of maintaining
base-derivative resemblances.
W
hatever model we choose to describe these
i
nteractions, it cannot be an impoverished one, for the relation between word
formation and phonology is complex.
Ellen
K
aisse
Department o
f
Lin
g
uistics
University of Washington
Box 354340
S
eattle
,
WA 98195-4340
USA
46
ELLEN M
.
KAI
SS
E
E
mail: kaisse@u.washington.edu
R
EFEREN
C
E
S
A
ronoff
,
Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar.
C
ambridge: MIT Press.
A
ronoff, Mark. and Sridhar, Shikaripur N. 1987. “Mo
r
phological levels in English and Kannada.” In: E.
rr
Gussman
(
ed.
)
,
Rules and the
L
exicon
,
9-22.
B
enua, Laura 1995. “Identity effects in morphological truncation.” J.
B
eckman, L. Walsh-Dickey, and S.
U
rbancz
y
k (eds.), Papers in Optimalit
y
Theor
y
(Universit
y
of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18),
Amherst: GLSA
,
78-136.
B
enua
,
Laura.
199
7.
T
ransderivational identity: phonological relations between words. D
oc
t
o
ral
dissertation, Universit
y
of Massachusetts.
B
ermudez-Otero
,
Ricardo. 1999.
C
onstraint interaction in l
anguage change: quantity in English and
l
G
ermanic
.
Doctoral dissertation, Universit
y
of Manchester.
B
ermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (forthcoming).
S
tratal Optimality Theory: synchronic and diachronic
applications. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics Oxford: Oxford
Un
i
versity Press.
B
ermúdez-Otero, Ricardo and McMahon, April. (in press) English phonology and morphology. In: B.
Aart
s
an
d
A
.
M
c
Mah
o
n The Handbook of English Linguistics.
O
xford: Blackwell.
B
ooij, Geert. 1977. Dutch morphology: a study of word formation in generative grammar
.
D
o
r
d
r
ec
ht
:
F
o
ri
s.
B
ooij, Geert. 1995. The phonology of Dutch
.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
B
orowsk
y
, Toni. 1993. “On the word level.” In: S. Har
g
us and E. Kaisse (eds.), 199-234.
B
rame, Michael K. 1974. “The c
y
cle in phonolo
gy
: stress in Palestinian, Maltese, and Spanish.”
Linguistic Inquir
y
5
,39
-
60
.
B
urzio, Lui
g
i. 1996. “Surface constraints versus underl
y
in
g
representati
o
n.” In:
J
. Durand and B. Laks
(
eds.
)
,
C
urrent Trends in Phonolo
gy
: Models and methods. Paris-X and Salford: Universit
y
of
Salford Publications
,
123-42.
B
urzio, Luigi. 1997. “Multi
p
le corres
p
ondence.” Lingua 103
,
79-109.
C
homsky, Noam and Halle, Morris. 1968.
T
he sound pattern of English. New York: Har
p
er & Row.
Davis, Stuart
(
2004
)
. “Ca
p
italistic vs. militaristic: the paradigm uniformity effect reconsidered.” In: P.
Downing et al. (eds.), 107-121.
D
owning, Laura, J.; Hall, Alan T.;
a
n
d Raffelsiefen, Renate
(
eds.
)
.
(
2004
)
.
P
aradigms in phonological
theor
y
. Oxford: Oxford
Un
i
versity Press
.
Embick, David and No
y
er, Robert Rolf. 2001. “Movement operations after s
y
ntax.” Lin
g
uistic Inquir
y
32
,
555-5
9
5
.
F
abb, Ni
g
el. 1988. “En
g
lish suffixation is con
s
trained onl
y
b
y
selectional restrictions.” Natural Lan
g
ua
g
e
and Linguistic Theory 6
,
527-539.
G
ie
g
erich, Heinz. 1999. Lexical strata in En
g
lish: morpholo
g
ical causes, phonolo
g
ical e
ff
ects
.
C
ambrid
g
e: Cambrid
g
e Universit
y
Press.
H
all, Alan T. 1990.
S
yllable structure and syllable-related processes in German
.
Doctoral dissertation,
U
niversity of Washington.
H
ammond, Michael. 2000. “Review of Giegerich (1999).” Phonolog
y
17
,
287-290.
H
argus, Sharon. 1993. “Modeling the phonology-morphology interface.” In: S. Hargus and E. Kaisse
(
eds.
)
, 45-74.
H
argus, Sharon and Kaisse, Ellen (eds.) 1993. Studies in lexical phonolog
y
.
San Diego: Academic Press.
H
a
y
es, Bruce. 1982. “Extramet
r
i
calit
y
and En
g
lish stress.”
Linguistic Inquir
y
13, 22
7-
2
7
6
.
H
ayes, Bruce.
199
5.
M
etrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago/ London: University of
C
hicago Press.
I
nkelas, Sharon. 1993. “Deriving cyclicity.” I
n
: S. Hargus and E. Kaisse (eds.), 75-110.
J
ensen, John T. 2000. “A
g
ainst ambis
y
llabicit
y
.” Phonolo
gy
17
,
187-236.
Kaisse, Ellen M. and Har
g
us, Sha
r
o
n. “Introduction.” In: S. Har
g
us and E. Kaisse (eds.), 1-19.
Kaisse
,
Ellen M. and Shaw
,
Patricia. 1985
.
“On the theor
y
of lexical phonolo
gy
.”
P
honolo
gy
Yearbook
2,
k
1-30
.
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1995. “Cyclic
vs.
n
on-cyclic constraint evaluation.”
P
honology 12
,
397-436.
W
ORD
-
FORMATION AND PHONOLOGY
4
7
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1996. “Base-identity and unifor
m
exponence: alternatives to cyclicity.” In: J.
D
urand and B. Laks
(
eds.
)
,
C
urrent Trends in
P
honolo
gy
: Models and methods. Paris-X and
S
alford:
U
niversit
y
of Salford Publications, 363-93.
Kenyon, John S. and Knott, Thomas A. 1953. A pronouncing dictionary of American English.
4
th
edition.
h
Springfield, Mass.: Merriam.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. “From cyclic phonology to lexi
c
al phonology.” In: H. v.d. Hulst and N. Smith
(
eds.
)
,
T
he structure o
f
phonolo
g
ical representations, Pt. I. Dordrecht: Foris
,
131-175.
Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. “Opacity and cyclicity.”
T
he Linguistic Review 17
,
351-365.
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1949. “La nature des proc
º
es dits analogiques.” In: J. Kurylowicz. 1960.
E
squisses
l
in
g
uistiques
,
Wroclaw: Zakad Narodow
y
Menia Ossolinskich W
y
dawnictwo Polkie
j
Akademii
N
auk
,
66-86.
L
ahiri, Aditi
(
ed.
)
2003. Analogy,
leveling, markedness: princi
ples of change in phonology and
i
m
orphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
L
ahiri
,
Aditi. 2003.
Int
r
oduction.
I
n: A. Lahiri
(
ed.
)
, 1-14.
L
iberman, Mark and Prince, Alan. 1977. “On stress and linguistic rhythm.” Linguistic Inquir
y
8: 249
-
336.
Marchand
,
Hans. 1969.
T
he categories and types of present-day
E
nglish word formation: a synchronic
-
d
iachronic approach
.2
n
d
ed
iti
o
n
.
M
ü
n
c
h
e
n
:
B
ec
k
.
McCarthy, John (in press). “Optimal paradig
m
s
.” In: L. Downing et al. (eds.), 170-210.
Mohanan, Kar
uvannur Puthanveettil. 1982.
r
r
Lexical phonology.
D
octoral dissertation
,
Massachusetts
I
nstitute of Technolo
gy
.
N
essly, Larry. 1974.
E
nglish stress and synchronic descriptions
.
Doctoral dissertation, University of
Michigan
.
N
oyer, Rolf. 2004. “Some remarks on the architecture
o
f grammar with special attention to absolute
n
eutralization.” Paper delivered at the CUNY Symposium on Phonological Theory.
Odden
,
David. 1993. “Interaction b
e
t
ween modules in lexical phonology.” In: S. Hargus and E. Kaisse
(
eds.
)
, 111-144.
OED
(
1992
)
T
he Oxford English Dictionary
.
Second edition on compact disk, Oxford: Oxford University
Pr
ess.
Or
g
un, Cemil Orhan and Sprouse, Ronald L
.
1999. “From M-PARSE to CONTROL: derivin
g
un
g
rammaticalit
y
.” Phonolo
gy
16
,
191-224.
Prince, Alan and Smolensky, Paul. 1993
O
ptimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar
.
Manuscript, Rutgers University and University of Colorado.
Raffelsiefen
,
Renate. 2004. “
A
bso
l
u
t
e
ill-f
o
rm
ed
n
ess
an
do
t
h
er morphophonological effects. Phonolog
y
21
,
91-142.
Raffelsiefen, Renate (in p
r
e
ss). “Paradigm uniformity effects versus boundary effects.” In: P. Downing et
al.
(
eds.
)
, 211-262.
Rubach, Jerzy. 2000. “Glide and glottal stop ins
e
r
tion in Slavic languages: a DOT analysis.” Linguisti
c
I
nquiry
31, 2
7
1
-
31
7.
Siegel, Dorothy. 1974.
T
opics in English morphology, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. (Published 1979 by
Garland: New York
)
.
Spencer, Andrew. 1991.
M
orpholo
g
ical theor
y
.
O
xford: Blackwell
.
Steriade
,
Donca. 1999. “Lexical conservatism in Frenc
h
ad
j
ectival liaison.” in B. Bullock, M. Authier and
L. Reed
(
eds.
)
, Formal Perspectives in Romance Linguistics
.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 243-270.
Steriade, Donca. 2000. “Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary. In M. Broe and J.
Pierrehumbert
(
eds.
)
, Papers in laboratory phonology V
.
A
c
q
uisition and the Lexicon.
C
ambridge:
C
ambridge University Press, 313-334.
U
meda, Noriko and Coker, Cecil. 1974. “Allophonic variation in American English.”
J
ournal o
f
phonetics 2
,
1-5.
Webster’s New Colle
g
iate Dictionar
y
.
1981. Sprin
g
field, Mass.: Merriam
.
W
hitne
y
, William Dwi
g
ht. 1889.
S
anskrit
g
rammar.
C
ambrid
g
e, Mass.: Harvard Universit
y
Press.
W
ithgott, Meg. 1983. Segmental evidence for phonological constituents
.
Doctoral dissertation, University
o
f T
e
xa
s
at A
us
tin
.
49
Š
tekauer, P. and R. Lieber (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 49—71.
©
2005
S
prin
g
er. Printed in the Netherlands.
WORD-FORMATION AND INFLECTIONAL
MORPHOLOGY
G
RE
GO
RY T.
S
T
U
MP
1. THE
CO
N
C
EPT
U
AL DIFFEREN
C
E BET
W
EEN INFLE
C
TI
O
N AND
W
ORD-FORMATION
In morpholo
g
ical theor
y
, it is customar
y
to distin
g
uish inflectional morpholo
gy
fro
m
word-formation. At the root of this distinction is an ambi
g
uit
y
in the ever
y
da
y
m
eaning of ‘word’. To see this, cons
i
der first the sentences in
(
1
)
.
(1) a. I will put the book away.
b. When I leave, I put the book away.
c. When I left, I put the book awa
y
.
d. I have put the book awa
y
.
If we think of words as units of phonolo
g
ical anal
y
sis, then all four of the
s
entences in (1) can be regarded as containing the same word [
p
h
ut
]
. But if we think
o
f words as units of g
r
ammatical analysis, then pu
t
must be regarded as a distinct
t
word in each of of the sentences in
(
1
)
:an
(
unmarked
)
infinitive word in
(
1a
)
, a
finite non-
p
ast-tense word in
(
1b
)
, a finite
p
ast-tense word in
(
1c
)
, and a
p
ast
participial word in (1d). The fact that the four instances of
put
in (1) constitute a
t
s
ingle
phonological word
bu
t f
ou
r
d
iff
e
r
e
nt
d
grammatical words is
,
of course
,
a
peculiarit
y
of the verb
p
u
t
; the correspondin
gg
rammatical words in the paradi
g
m of
th
eve
r
b
be
are expressed by four distinct phonological words, as the examples in (2)
s
h
ow.
(
2
)
a. I will be on vacation.
b. Next week
,
I am on vacation.
c. Last week
,
I was on vacation.
d.
I ha
ve bee
n
o
n
v
a
c
ati
o
n
.
B
ut the examples in (2) suggest that yet a third sense of ‘word’ must be
distinguished: The words
be
,
am
,
was
,
and
been
c
an
be see
n a
s
f
ou
r
d
i
s
tin
c
t
phonological words or as four distinct gramma
tical words, but in another sense, they
a
a
ar
e
all f
o
rm
so
f th
es
am
ewo
r
d.
That
i
s, one can abstract awa
y
from both the
phonolo
g
ical and the
g
rammatical differences amon
g
be
,
am
,
was
,
and
been
t
o
arri
ve
at a single, abstract word
BE
1
whose essential properties remain constant across these
1
Here and throughout, I follow the convention of
r
epresenting lexemes in small capital letters.
50
GREGORY T
.
ST
U
M
P
(
and other) phonological/grammatical words; abstract words such as
B
E
ar
e
c
ustomarily referred to as
lexemes
.
A l
e
x
e
m
e
i
s
r
ealized b
y
o
n
eo
r m
o
r
ewo
r
ds
(
whether in the phonological or the grammatical sense); the full system of words
r
ealizin
g
a lexeme is its paradi
g
m. Some of the (phonolo
g
ical and
g
rammatical)
p
ro
p
erties of a word are
p
ro
p
erties of the lexeme that it realizes; others are not.
Thus
,
the lexeme BE is assumed to
p
ossess the
pr
o
perties shared b
y
the words
be
,
am
,
was
,
and
been
,
but to be unspecified for the properties that distinguish these fou
r
wo
r
ds.
G
iven the distinction between phonological words, grammatical words, and
l
exemes, one can draw a related distinction between two sorts of morphology. On
t
he one hand
,
i
nflectional morpholog
y
allows one to deduce the phonological and
g
rammatical properties of the words realizin
g
a lexeme. On the other hand,
w
ord-
f
ormation allows one to deduce the
p
ro
p
erties of one lexeme from those of one
o
r m
o
r
eo
th
e
r l
e
x
e
m
es.
The grammatical properties expressed b
y
a language’s inflectional morphology
(p
ro
p
erties such as ‘
p
lural’, ‘
p
ast’, and ‘superlative’) are generally referred to as
m
orphosyntactic properties
;
these fall into various
i
nflectional categories
(
such as
n
umber, tense, and degree). As Booij (1996) shows, it is useful to distinguish two
s
orts of inflection on semantic grounds:
inhe
r
ent
inflection expresses
t
m
orphosyntactic properties that embody independent semantic information about the
r
eferent of the inflected word
,
while
contextual
inflection expresses morphosyntactic
l
properties that do not embod
y
such information, but are associated with the inflected
word purel
y
as an effect of its s
y
ntactic context; for instance, a noun’s numbe
r
i
nflection is one sort of inherent inflection, while an agreeing adjective’s numbe
r
i
nfl
ec
ti
o
n i
s
in
s
t
e
a
dco
nt
e
xt
u
al
.
2. THE INFLECTIONAL CATEGORIES OF ENGLISH
Languages vary with respect to both the inflectional categories to which thei
r
m
orphology is sensitive and the morphosyntactic properties which those categories
c
omprise. The inflectional categories to which English morphology is sensitive
i
nclude those summarized in Table 1. Pro
p
erties of number are inherent in nouns as
well as demonstrative,
p
ersonal and r
e
flexive pronouns, and are contextuall
y
a
ssoc
iat
ed w
ith
de
m
o
n
s
trati
ve de
t
e
rmin
er
s
a
s
th
ee
ff
ec
t
o
f a r
e
lati
o
n
o
f n
u
m
ber
agreement between nouns and their determiners. Properties of person are inherent in
personal and reflexive pronouns. Togethe
r
,
properties of person and number are
c
ontextually associated with finit
eve
r
b
f
o
rm
s
a
s
an
e
f
f
ect of subject agreement, but
ff
n
ot all person/number combinations receive
o
vert expression in a
ve
r
b
’
s
infl
ec
ti
o
nal
m
orphology; indeed, most verbs only distinguish person and number in the present
i
ndicative, where third-person sin
g
ular forms are distin
g
uished b
y
the suffix -
s
.
Exceptionall
y
, the verb
BE
also distin
g
uishes the first person sin
g
ular in the present
i
ndicative and distin
g
uishes sin
g
ular from plural in the past indicative; but neithe
r
v
erbs nor pronouns other than the reflexives ever exhibit number contrasts among
t
heir second-
p
erson forms.
W
ORD
-
FORMATION AND INFLECTIONAL MORPHOLOGY
5
1
Le
xi
c
al
c
ategor
y
I
nfl
ec
ti
o
nal
c
ategory
Infl
ec
ti
o
nal
p
ro
p
erties
P
e
r
so
n 3
rd
1
d
st
other
t
e
.g
.
she is
I
am
you are
V
er
b
she sees
I
see, you see
Number Singular Plural
e
.
g
.
she sees
the
y
se
e
she was
the
y
wer
e
Tense Past Non
p
ast
e.g.
she walked
she walks
Mood Indicative Sub
j
unctive
e.g.
that she is
that she be
i
f she was
i
f she wer
e
Finit
e
n
ess
Finit
e
N
o
nfinit
e
e.g.
she sees
to see
Participiality Present Past
e
.
g
.
s
eein
g
seen
N
oun Number Singular Plural
e.g.
d
og
d
ogs
alumnus
alumni
N
oun
p
hrase Case Genitiv
e
o
th
er
e.g.
someone else
’
s
someone else
P
e
r
so
nal P
e
r
so
n1
st
2
t
nd
3
d
rd
pronoun
e
.
g
.
I
you
she
Number Singular Plural
e
.g
.
Iwe
Case Nominative Accusative Genitive
e
.g
.
I
me m
y
/
mine
/
R
e
fl
e
xi
ve
P
e
r
so
n 1
st
2
t
nd
3
d
rd
p
ronou
n
e
.
g.
my
sel
fy
oursel
f
hersel
f
Number Singular Plural
e
.g
.
m
yself ourselves
D
e
m
o
n
s
trati
ve
N
u
m
ber
Sin
g
ula
r
Pl
u
ral
p
ronoun o
r
de
t
e
rmin
er
e
.g
.
this these
Relative or Case Nominative Accusative Genitive
i
nterrogative
p
ronou
n
e
.g
.
who whom whose
Adjective Degree Positive Comparative Superlative
e
.
g.
tall talle
r
tallest
Adverb Degree Positive Comparative Superlative
e
.g
.
soon soone
r
soonest
Ta
b
l
e1
Categories of inflection in English
52
G
REGORY
T
.
ST
U
MP
B
esides inflecting for person/number agreeme
n
t,
finite verbs a
r
e
a
ssoc
iat
ed w
ith
properties of tense and mood; inflection fo
r
tense and mood is generally inherent
(though the sequence-of-tense phenomenon might
be argued to involve contextual
t
t
ense inflection). En
g
lish verb inflection distin
g
uishes past from nonpast (‘present’)
and indicative from sub
j
unctive; present
s
ub
j
unctive forms
g
enerall
y
lack overt
exponents of tense or mood and past sub
j
unctives are
g
enerall
y
identical to thei
r
i
ndicative counterparts; the neutralization of all agreement distinctions in the
sub
j
unctive does, however, cause (if) she were (past sub
j
unctive) to contrast with (if)
she was
(past indicative). Imperatives are morphologically indistinguishable fro
m
present subjunctives.
I
n the inflection of English verbs, properties of person, number and mood
c
oincide with
p
ro
p
erties of tense. A verbal lexeme’s tense-inflected forms contrast
w
ith its tenseless forms with respect to a cate
g
or
y
of finiteness; modal verbs are
d
efective in that the
y
lack tenseless (nonfinite) forms. A nonmodal verb’s nonfinite
forms ordinarily include an infinitive (which is devoid of overt inflectional marking,
h
ence identical to the verb’s stem) and two participles. The latter are traditionally
l
abelled as ‘present participle’ and ‘past participle’; this terminology is somewhat
m
isleading, since participles are themsel
v
es uninflected for tense (hence present
participles may enter into the formation of past progressives and past participles may
enter into the formation of present perfects).
I
n the contextual inflection of personal, interro
g
ative and relative pronouns, three
properties of case are distin
g
uished: nomi
n
ative
,
accusative and
g
enitive. In the
g
enitive case, personal pronouns have two distinct forms (e.
g
.
my
an
d
mine
)
, one of
which serves as a determiner and the other of which heads its own noun
p
hrase. In
t
he contextual inflection of full noun phrases, two cases are distinguished by the
presence or absence of the genitive marke
r
-
’s
; unlike the other English inflectional
m
arkings, -
’s
is situated at the periphery of the phrase whose properties its helps
e
n
code.
2
G
radable ad
j
ectives and adverbs inhere
n
t
ly inflect for degree by means of the
c
om
p
arative suffix -
er
and the superlative suffix
r
-
est
. Both suffixes
,
however
,
are
h
i
g
hl
y
restricted in their use, as the followin
g
decline in acceptabilit
y
reveals:
talle
r
,
friendlier
,?
womanlie
r
,
?
?
r
ighter
,*
co
rr
ecte
r
,*
outlandishe
r
,*
d
e
p
endenter
.
Thi
s
ha
s
s
ometimes been taken as evidence that degree morphology is derivational (by the
c
riterion
(
B
)
discussed in section 3 below
)
; but these limits on the use of -
er
and
r
-est
are compensated for by the use of
mo
r
e
an
d
most
in periphrastic expressions of
t
degree such as more dependen
t
,
mo
r
e outlandish
,
and so on
.
Such compensatory periphrasis raises a
n
important issue for the analysis o
f
i
nflection: in the definition of a lexeme’s inflectional paradi
g
m b
y
rules o
f
m
orpholo
gy
, is periphrasis simpl
y
another mode of morpholo
g
ical expression
c
omparable to affixation or stem
g
radation, or do periphrases instead arise purel
y
t
hrough the operation of ordinary rules of syntax, outside of the domain of
m
orphology? Syntactic theories have tended to favor the latter assumption, but the
2
See Lapointe (1990), Miller (1991) and Halpern (1992) for discussi
o
n of the properties of such
“
edge inflections”
.
W
ORD
-
FORMATION AND INFLECTIONAL MORPHOLOGY
53
e
vidence motivatin
g
the for
m
er assumption is compellin
g
(Bör
j
ars, Vincent &
C
hapman 1997, Sadler & Spencer 2001, Stump 2002, Ackerman & Stump 2004).
O
n this view, En
g
lish verb inflection
i
n
volves two inherent inflectional cate
g
ories
beyond those listed in Table 1, namely the categories of aspect and voice: both the
perfect and the progressive aspects are expressed periphrastically (e.g. have gon
e
,
am going), as is the passive voice (e.g.
was seen
). Since the categories of aspect and
v
oice crosscut the categories of verb inflection listed in Table 1, the notion that
i
nflectional paradigms incorporate periphrases entails a signifi
c
ant in
c
r
e
a
se
in th
e
size assumed for verbal paradigms in English, which will, on this assumption,
i
nclude present and past perfects, pro
g
r
e
ssives, passives, perfect pro
g
ressives,
perfect passives, pro
g
ressive passives, p
e
r
fect pro
g
ressive passives, and so on.
A
lthough the conceptual distinction between inflection and word-formation is
c
lear enough, the postulation of this distinction raises some non-trivial questions.
W
hat are the criteria that allow one to classify a particular morphological marking as
an expression of inflection or of word-formation? What sorts of properties do the
t
wo types of morphology have in common? In what ways do they interact? What do
t
hese facts imply for the architecture of morphological theory?
3. PRA
C
TI
C
AL
C
RITERIA F
O
R DI
S
TIN
GU
I
S
HIN
G
INFLE
C
TI
O
N FR
O
M
W
ORD-FORMATION
Inflectional operations are often claimed to be distinguishable from word-formation
o
perations by a range of practical criteria,
3
but none of the operative criteria is
u
n
p
roblematic. Consider first criterion
(
A
)
.
(A) An operation of word-formation may impose membership in a
particular part-of-speech class, but
an operation of inflection cannot.
t
For this reason, the part of speech of an expression arising as the
e
ffect of an operation of word-for
m
ation may differ from that of the
e
xpression(s) from which it arises, while the part of speech of an
e
xpression arisin
g
as the effect of an inflectional operation cannot.
A
ccording to (A), the operation relating the noun
speaker
to the verb
r
speak
m
us
t
k
be a word-formation o
p
eration rather than an inflectional operation. Notwithstanding
t
he apparent usefulness of criterion (A) in many instances, it is limited in its
u
sefulness to the extent that it fails to distinguish inflection from word-formation in
t
hose instances in which an expression
’
s
part of speech matches that of the
e
xpression from which it arises; that is, (A) identifies a sufficient but not a necessar
y
d
i
s
tin
c
ti
o
n
be
t
wee
n infl
ec
ti
o
n an
dwo
r
d
-f
o
rmati
o
n
.
Moreover, the essential content of
(
A
)
– that inflection never affects an
e
xpression’s part of speech – might be
c
hallenged. Consider, for instance, the
p
resent
p
artici
p
le
d
iscouraging
.
This is ordinarily seen as an infl
ec
t
ed
f
o
rm
o
f th
e
3
For additional discussion of such criteria
,s
ee Anderson
(
1985
)
, Dressler
(
1989
)
, Matthews
(
1991
)
,
Stump (1998), and Booi
j
(2000).
54
GREGORY T
.
ST
U
M
P
ve
r
b
al l
e
x
e
m
e
DISCO
U
RAG
E
; yet, in the phrase the most discouraging news
,
it
appears as an attributive a
d
jective in the superlative degree. One could, of course,
d
dismiss this evidence by postulating a separate word-formation operation converting
present participles into ad
j
ectives; in support of such an anal
y
sis, one mi
g
ht cite the
fact that
p
resent
p
artici
p
les allow bare noun-
p
hrase com
p
lements
(
as in
T
he
y
are
d
iscoura
g
in
g
ever
y
on
e
), which ad
j
ectives
g
enerall
y
do not allow. The stren
g
th of
this counterargument is, however, diminished by evidence from many othe
r
l
anguages, in which present participles never appear without declensional
m
orphology that is unmistakably that of an adjective. In order to maintain (A) as a
v
alid criterion, one would evidently have to abandon the claim that participles arise
as an effect of inflectional operations in such languages.
A
second criterion for distin
g
uishin
g
inflectional operations fro
m
word-formation o
p
erations is that of com
p
leteness
:
(
B
)
Inflectional o
p
erations tend to be com
p
lete; o
p
erations of
wo
r
d
-f
o
rmati
o
n t
e
n
d
n
o
t t
obe.
A
ccordin
g
to this criterion, inflectional operations that appl
y
to expressions of some
c
ate
g
or
y
tend to appl
y
without exception, while word-formation operations that
apply to expressions of some category tend to apply sporadically. For instance, the
ru
l
ew
hi
c
h
su
ffix
es
-s
to a verb’s third-person singular present indicative for
m
applies to nonmodal verbs virtually without exception. By contrast, there are
i
diosyncratic limits on the application of the rule that derives dead
j
ectival inchoative
v
erbs through the suffixation of -
en
; for instance, this rule applies to
white
,
dark
and
k
straigh
t
bu
t n
o
t t
o
t
r
ite
,
sta
r
k
or
late
r
.
The utilit
y
of this criterion hin
g
es on a particular interpretation of the notion of
c
ompleteness. Consider, for illustration, the rule of
-ed
suffixation and that of [
d
i
/
æ
]
s
ubstitution, which apply in the inflection of past-tense verb forms. If we conside
r
these rules in isolation, then clearly neither qualifies as a complete operation on its
o
wn, since only the former rule applies in the inflection of
s
i
p
an
d
s
hip while only
the latter a
pp
lies in the inflection of
sit
and
t
sp
i
t
; this would seem to su
gg
est that the
ru
l
eo
f
-ed
suffixation and that of [
d
i
/
æ
]
substitution are rules of word-formation. This
would, however, be a problematic conclusion, since other criteria suggest that these
r
ules are instead inflectional. But if all of the rules realizing past tense are
c
onsidered together, then, as a set, they are complete: for virtually every verb in the
l
an
g
ua
g
e, there is an operation definin
g
its past-tense form. This interpretation of the
n
otion of completeness suggests that the rules of
-ed
suffixation and [
d
i
/
æ
]
subs
tit
u
ti
o
n ar
e
r
u
l
es o
f infl
ec
ti
o
n – a
co
n
c
l
us
i
o
n m
o
r
eco
n
s
i
s
t
e
nt
w
ith
o
th
e
r
c
rit
e
ria
.
Still, there are inherent limits on the usefulness of criterion
(
B
)
. On one hand,
l
exemes sometimes have defective paradigms – that is, they sometimes fail to inflect
for a set of morphosyntactic properties for which they would be expected to inflect.
For instance
,
the verb
US
E in The
y
used to live here has no
p
resent-tense forms, and
therefore diminishes (if onl
y
minutel
y
) the completeness of rules expressin
g
the
present tense. On the other hand, rules which, b
y
other criteria, are unquestionabl
y
r
ules of word-formation are in some cases full
y
as complete as any rule of inflection.