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.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 Inflection and derivation defined
2 Distributed Morphology
2.1 How is the grammar organized in Distributed Morphology?
2.1.1 A different kind of morpheme
2.2 Different organization in syntax and morphology
2.2.1 Merger
2.2.2 Fusion
2.2.3 Fission
2.3 How are sounds mapped onto morphemes?
2.3.1 When the Vocabulary is not enough
3 Two types of inflection
3.1 Proving that there are two types of inflection
3.1.1 Lacking forms
3.1.2 Inflectional split
3.1.3 Deflection
3.1.4 Language acquisition
3.2 Making new words with inherent inflection
3.2.1 Plural nouns
3.2.2 Infinitives
3.2.3 Participles
3.3 Split inflection instead of split morphology?
4 Word-class-changing inflection
4.1 Inflection and derivation revised
4.2 A formal description
5 Conclusion
Objectives and Core Topics
This paper examines the theoretical debate regarding the position of morphology within the grammar, focusing on whether morphology functions as a separate lexical component or within the syntax. It evaluates alternative models to the traditional split morphology hypothesis, aiming to determine if inflection can contribute to word formation and part-of-speech categorization.
- Comparison of the Distributed Morphology model versus traditional grammar views.
- Analysis of the split morphology hypothesis and its limitations.
- Examination of inherent versus contextual inflection.
- Investigation into how inflectional processes can feed word formation and compound creation.
- Evaluation of word-class-changing inflectional affixes.
Excerpt from the Book
2.2.2 Fusion
Fusion is a slightly more radical process than merger. In the process of fusion, two terminal sister nodes are fused into a single terminal node. Since this fused node now displays a combination of the features from the original sister nodes, the one Vocabulary item that can be inserted must have the features of both the original terminal nodes. Since fusion actually combines two terminal nodes into one, only one Vocabulary item can be inserted, producing only one resulting morpheme. In many Indo-European languages, a single affix representing number and case is the result of two independent nodes (morphemes) joined in fusion.
Chapter Summaries
1 Introduction: Provides an overview of the debate concerning the location of morphology in the mental grammar and defines key concepts of inflection and derivation.
2 Distributed Morphology: Outlines a syntactic approach where morphology is not a separate component, but a process occurring within the syntax through Vocabulary insertion.
3 Two types of inflection: Discusses arguments against the split morphology hypothesis, distinguishing between inherent and contextual inflection and their respective roles in word formation.
4 Word-class-changing inflection: Examines Haspelmath’s evidence that inflectional affixes can change a word's part-of-speech category, challenging traditional views.
5 Conclusion: Synthesizes the discussed theories, suggesting that morphology and derivation represent points on a continuum rather than disjoint modules.
Keywords
Morphology, Syntax, Distributed Morphology, Inflection, Derivation, Word formation, Inherent inflection, Contextual inflection, Vocabulary insertion, Split morphology, Part-of-speech, Grammar architecture, Morphemes, Lexicon, Linguistic theory.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper investigates the position of morphology within the grammar, specifically examining whether word formation occurs in a separate lexical component or within the syntax.
What are the two main theories discussed?
The paper contrasts the Distributed Morphology model (Halle and Marantz) with the views of Booij and Haspelmath, who argue against the strict split morphology hypothesis.
What is the research goal of this work?
The goal is to determine if traditional boundaries between inflection and derivation are accurate, specifically testing if inflection can feed word formation.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The work employs a theoretical linguistic analysis, comparing grammatical models and evaluating empirical evidence from various languages such as Dutch, German, and Georgian.
What is the core argument of the main chapters?
The central argument is that inherent inflection, unlike contextual inflection, can function as input for word formation and potentially change a word's part-of-speech.
Which terms characterize this paper?
Key terms include Distributed Morphology, inherent versus contextual inflection, and word-class-changing inflection.
How does Distributed Morphology differ from traditional grammar?
Distributed Morphology posits that syntax and morphology are integrated, with terminal nodes having no initial phonological form until processed through Vocabulary insertion.
What is the distinction between merger, fusion, and fission?
These are mechanisms within Distributed Morphology for mapping grammatical features to terminal nodes; merger joins nodes under a head, fusion combines nodes into one, and fission maps one node to multiple Vocabulary items.
How do Booij and Haspelmath challenge the split morphology hypothesis?
They argue that inflection and derivation are not strictly disjoint modules, showing that inflection can be recursive and productive, much like derivation.
- 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
