There is much discussion in morphological theory as to where exactly morphology belongs in the mental representation of grammar. Several grammar models have been developed, each aiming at describing the key concepts of our grammar and the position of morphology in particular. Traditionally, there seems to have been a general consensus that there exists pre-syntactic (lexical) and post-syntactic components, but recently this has become an issue of debate. A key issue in this discussion is the process of word formation. While some linguists argue that word formation takes place in a separate morphological component, some say syntactic rules also play a part and some argue that words actually are formed in the syntax.
Numerous linguists have contributed to this discussion, many proposing new models of morphology and word formation. In this paper, two alternate theories that attempt at describing the position of morphology in the grammar will be outlined. Chapter 2 describes Halle and Marantz’ (1993) model of Distributed Morphology, which presupposes that all word formation takes place in a syntactic module and that there is no such thing as a lexical process. Chapters 3 and 4 give an outline of an alternate view to Distributed Morphology. Chapter 3 describes Booij’s (1993) approach at proving that there are two different types of inflection, and that contrary to former theories, inflection can feed word formation. In chapter 4, Haspelmath (1995) provides much the same view as Booij by showing that inflection also can contribute to changing a word’s part of speech category.
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- Introduction
- Inflection and derivation defined
- Distributed Morphology
- How is the grammar organized in Distributed Morphology?
- A different kind of morpheme
- How are sounds mapped onto morphemes?
- When the Vocabulary is not enough
- Two types of inflection
- Proving that there are two types of inflection
- Lacking forms
- Inflectional split
- Deflection
- Language acquisition
- Making new words with inherent inflection
- Plural nouns
- Infinitives
- Participles
- Split inflection instead of split morphology?
- Word-class-changing inflection
- Inflection and derivation revised
- A formal description
- Conclusion
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This paper explores the complex relationship between morphology and syntax within the mental representation of grammar. It examines two contrasting theoretical approaches to word formation, aiming to elucidate the location and processes involved in the creation of words. The paper analyzes the arguments of various linguists, comparing and contrasting their models of grammar and their placement of morphology within those models.
- The debate regarding the location of morphology within grammatical models (pre-syntactic vs. post-syntactic).
- The definitions and distinctions between inflection and derivation, and their roles in word formation.
- The Distributed Morphology model, proposing that all word formation occurs within a syntactic module.
- Alternative views suggesting the existence of two distinct types of inflection and their contribution to word formation.
- The interaction between inflection, derivation, and word-class changes.
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
Introduction: This introductory chapter sets the stage for the paper by outlining the central debate in morphological theory: the precise location of morphology within the mental representation of grammar. It highlights the differing views on word formation, with some arguing for a separate morphological component and others placing word formation within the syntax. The chapter introduces the two main theoretical frameworks that will be explored in subsequent chapters: Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz, 1993) and the approach advocating for two distinct types of inflection (Booij, 1993; Haspelmath, 1995). The paper's objective is to present and contrast these two approaches.
Inflection and derivation defined: This chapter provides crucial definitions for understanding the subsequent discussion. It clarifies the traditionally accepted meanings of inflection (grammatical form changes within the same lexical unit) and derivation (creation of new words by adding morphemes, often resulting in part-of-speech changes). The chapter highlights the traditional polarization between derivational and inflectional morphemes and their associated properties, establishing a foundation for the contrasting theoretical approaches discussed later.
Distributed Morphology: This chapter details Halle and Marantz's (1993) Distributed Morphology theory. This theory proposes a radically different model of grammar architecture, separating syntax from phonological realization. Word formation happens entirely within the syntax, and the realization of morphemes depends on lexical entries linking morphosyntactic and phonological features. The chapter outlines the grammar's organization into five levels (LF, DS, SS, MS, PF) and explains how the mapping of sounds to grammatical features occurs at the MS level, after syntactic combination. This implies that word structure itself is determined by the syntax, a key departure from traditional models.
Two types of inflection: This chapter presents Booij's (1993) argument for two distinct types of inflection, challenging the traditional view. The chapter explores evidence for this claim, focusing on phenomena like lacking forms, inflectional splits, deflection, and implications for language acquisition. This approach demonstrates how inflection, contrary to previous theories, can actively feed into word formation. It introduces examples and counterarguments to traditional understandings.
Word-class-changing inflection: This chapter builds on the previous one, reinforcing the idea that inflection plays a more significant role in word formation than previously assumed. It focuses on Haspelmath's (1995) work, showing how inflection can lead to changes in a word's part-of-speech category. This chapter provides further evidence against the strict separation of inflection and derivation, suggesting a more integrated view of morphological processes.
Inflection and derivation revised: This chapter offers a revised view on the relationship between inflection and derivation, synthesizing the arguments presented in the preceding chapters. It proposes a more integrated framework where the previously clear boundaries are blurred, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the interaction between inflectional and derivational processes within word formation. A formal description is provided to consolidate the proposed theoretical adjustments.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
Morphology, syntax, word formation, inflection, derivation, Distributed Morphology, grammatical models, lexical processes, mental grammar, morphosyntactic features, phonological features, part-of-speech, word-class change.
Frequently Asked Questions about "Inflection and Derivation"
What is the main topic of this paper?
This paper explores the complex relationship between morphology and syntax in word formation, focusing on the debate about the location of morphology within grammatical models (pre-syntactic vs. post-syntactic). It compares and contrasts two major theoretical approaches: Distributed Morphology and the theory proposing two distinct types of inflection.
What are the key themes explored in the paper?
Key themes include the definitions and distinctions between inflection and derivation; the Distributed Morphology model's placement of word formation within the syntax; alternative views suggesting two types of inflection; and the interaction between inflection, derivation, and word-class changes.
What is Distributed Morphology (DM)?
Distributed Morphology is a theoretical framework that proposes all word formation happens within the syntactic module. It separates syntax from phonological realization, with morpheme realization depending on lexical entries linking morphosyntactic and phonological features. The grammar is organized into several levels (LF, DS, SS, MS, PF), with sound-to-grammar feature mapping occurring at the MS level after syntactic combination.
What is the argument for two types of inflection?
This theory challenges the traditional view by proposing the existence of two distinct types of inflection. Evidence for this includes phenomena like lacking forms, inflectional splits, and deflection, with implications for language acquisition. This approach suggests inflection plays a more active role in word formation than previously thought.
How does this paper define inflection and derivation?
The paper clarifies the traditional definitions: inflection involves grammatical form changes within the same lexical unit, while derivation creates new words by adding morphemes, often resulting in part-of-speech changes. However, the paper challenges the strict separation of these processes, arguing for a more integrated view.
What is the proposed revised view of inflection and derivation?
The paper concludes by proposing a revised framework where the boundaries between inflection and derivation are blurred. This allows for a more nuanced understanding of their interaction in word formation, moving away from a strict separation of derivational and inflectional morphemes and their properties.
What are the main chapters and their contents?
The paper includes chapters on the introduction, definitions of inflection and derivation, a detailed explanation of Distributed Morphology, the arguments for two types of inflection, word-class-changing inflection, a revised view of inflection and derivation, and a conclusion. Each chapter explores different aspects of the theoretical debate and provides evidence from various linguistic sources.
What are the key words associated with this paper?
Key words include Morphology, Syntax, Word Formation, Inflection, Derivation, Distributed Morphology, Grammatical Models, Lexical Processes, Mental Grammar, Morphosyntactic Features, Phonological Features, Part-of-Speech, and Word-Class Change.
- Quote paper
- Magister Artium (M.A.) Silvia Alpers (Author), 2004, Morphology's place in the grammar, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/45159
