As one of its most important theories, Functional Typology (FT) is a highly empirical approach to all fields of linguistics. Joseph Greenberg of Stanford University, the classic representative of FT, wrote Language Universals, the seminal work that constituted FT, in 19661. FT is called typology because it classifies languages into types according to their features as opposed to generic classifications that group languages according to their language families. It is called functional because it searches for universal tendencies in languages based on the assumption that these tendencies are brought about by the need to fulfill certain functions in communication. FT is thereby the counter approach to Generative Grammar (Functionalism), which assumes that there is a Universal Grammar every human is born with. As a result of trying to find universal categories of linguistic behavior, functional typologists try to extract valid principles by synchronic empirical testing and generalizations. They call these extracted principles universals. One of these universals is Universal 28:
Universal 28: If both the derivation and inflection follow the root, or they both precede the root, the derivation is always between the root and the inflection.
According to this Greenbergian universal, we should expect never to see a case in which a root is followed first by an inflectional and then by a derivational suffix. It also excludes cases in which a root is directly preceded by an inflectional prefix which is preceded by a derivational prefix in turn. There appear to be a number of such cases in different languages, however. The goal of this paper is to examine in how far Universal 28 can be saved in view of the cases that have been brought forth in the literature to contradict it. Crucial to this examination will be to first clarify the differences between the central terms ‘inflection’ and ‘derivation’, and how the two interact.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Inflection vs. derivation
1. Inflection never changes the syntactic category of a word, derivation may change it.
2. IM is relevant to the syntax, DM is not.
3. Inflection is obligatory; derivation is optional.
4. Inflection does not change the core lexical meaning, derivation does.
5. IM is more abstract than DM.
6. IM is not restricted by arbitrary limitations, DM is. IM is more productive.
7. IM categories may be expressed cumulatively.
8. DM can be semantically irregular, IM is semantically regular.
9. DM is more relevant to the base than IM.
10. DM can be reapplied; IM cannot be reapplied.
11. Derived lexemes are more likely to be stored in the lexicon than inflected forms.
12. Inflection is always peripheral with respect to derivation.
III. Four theories of seeing inflection and derivation interact
1. The dichotomy approach
2. The SLH (Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis)
3. The continuum approach
4. A tripartition
IV. What motivates Universal 28?
V. Counterexamples to Universal 28
1. Of passers-by and hangers-around
2. Suppletive comparative stems
3. Regular comparative stems
4. Productive cases of inflection followed by derivation
5. Kinderchen and other diminutives of plurals
6. Yiddish adverbs – bislexvayz problematic
7. Of Äpfelsäfte and heroesisms
8. Georgian preverbs
9. Tagalog moderative verbs
VI. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper examines the validity of Greenberg's Universal 28, which posits that if derivation and inflection both follow or precede the root, the derivational process must always occur between the root and the inflection. The research aims to evaluate whether this universal remains a robust linguistic constraint when confronted with various counterexamples documented in the literature.
- Theoretical distinctions between Inflectional (IM) and Derivational Morphology (DM)
- Evaluation of four primary theories concerning the interaction of IM and DM
- Analysis of motivations behind Universal 28 and its proposed constraints
- In-depth investigation of empirical counterexamples across multiple languages
- Assessment of the "continuum approach" versus strict dichotomy models
Excerpt from the Book
1. Inflection never changes the syntactic category of a word, derivation may change it.
For English this means that when a noun like bed receives the inflectional plural suffix -s it is still a noun, and when a verb like kick receives the 3rd person singular suffix -s it is still a verb as well. Via DM, verbs can be ‘deverbalized’, however, turning kick into a noun when the derivational suffix -er is added; adjectives can be derived from nouns like geographic from geography and so on. HASPELMATH (2002: 77) claims that this generalization is not correct and he comes up with a number of “inflectional deverbal nouns such as English –ing forms (e.g. my raising (of) this issue).” DRESSLER (1989: 7) also adds in a side note that “participles typically behave like adjectives, infinitives like nouns, both being verb inflections.” On the other hand, SCALISE (1984: 103) strengthens the generalization and mentions (unfortunately only briefly and without any examples to support the claim) that there is evidence that DM “always changes the syntactic category of its base, even when the change is not evident.”
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: Introduces Functional Typology and Joseph Greenberg's Universal 28, setting the stage for an examination of its validity through the lens of morphological interactions.
II. Inflection vs. derivation: Outlines a broad selection of criteria used to distinguish between inflectional and derivational morphology, demonstrating that most criteria are relative rather than absolute.
III. Four theories of seeing inflection and derivation interact: Discusses the dichotomy approach, the Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis, the continuum approach, and a tripartition, evaluating how each accounts for the interaction of morphology types.
IV. What motivates Universal 28?: Explores potential theoretical justifications for the universal, focusing on linear sequencing and the syntactic relevance of inflectional affixes.
V. Counterexamples to Universal 28: Presents a detailed empirical analysis of various cases in different languages that appear to contradict the universal, including comparative stems, reduplication, and complex compounding.
VI. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, suggesting that while numerous counterexamples exist, Universal 28 remains a useful and largely valid linguistic generalization.
Keywords
Functional Typology, Greenberg, Universal 28, Inflectional Morphology, Derivational Morphology, Morphology, Linguistics, Syntax, Affixation, Lexicon, Word-formation, Morphological Productivity, Linguistic Universals, Typology, Morphemes
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
This work fundamentally explores the validity of Greenberg's Universal 28, specifically focusing on whether the linear order of derivational and inflectional morphemes relative to a root constitutes a universal linguistic constraint.
What are the central themes discussed?
The central themes include the distinction between inflection and derivation, the debate over whether these should be treated as separate systems, and how linguistic universals hold up against empirical cross-linguistic data.
What is the main research objective?
The objective is to determine whether Universal 28 is an absolute linguistic rule or merely a tendency, by evaluating it against various identified counterexamples in world languages.
What scientific methodology is utilized?
The author employs a comparative, typological methodology, utilizing synchronic empirical testing and literature reviews to weigh diverse theoretical approaches against specific morphological data.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body systematically contrasts IM and DM, reviews four major theoretical frameworks, examines the structural motivations for Universal 28, and provides a critical analysis of specific linguistic counterexamples.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include Functional Typology, Inflectional Morphology, Derivational Morphology, Universal 28, morphological productivity, and cross-linguistic analysis.
How does the author treat the distinction between inherent and contextual inflection?
In the "A tripartition" section, the author notes that inherent inflectional categories often behave more similarly to derivation than contextual inflection does, which helps account for why some counterexamples to Universal 28 involve inherent inflection.
What does the author conclude about the "continuum approach"?
The author views the continuum approach as a superior alternative to strict dichotomy models because it incorporates exceptions and acknowledges that morphological processes can exist as intermediate forms rather than just clear-cut categories.
- Citation du texte
- Michael Helten (Auteur), 2006, Greenberg's Universal 28 Revisited, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/57023
