A universal theoretical approach to inflection is just as difficult as the definition of inflection per se. Different theories have been provided over the past fifty years arguing and approaching inflection from a lexicalist or functionalist point of view. Other models that explain this linguistic process have been developed, too, as for example Distributed Morphology. In this work two approaches will receive closer attention: the functional head analysis of inflection and the Word-and-Paradigm model – two theoretical views to describe this as we shall see highly debated linguistic phenomena.
The aim is to contrast and discuss only two of the theories in detail, and hence, to argue in favour of a Word-and-Paradigm approach to inflection. Examples in this work will focus on the inflection of verbs only, since in my opinion the examination of verbs from these two angles will provide the most obvious and efficient arguments in preference of the second theoretical approach.
This paper is organized as follows: Section two will introduce the functional head approaches as proposed by Pollock (2006), Rivero (1990), and Speas (1990). The first two parts of this section will introduce the model for Modern English, Albanian and Modern Greek, and show how a tree-structured approach works on explaining inflection. In the third part Speas’ analysis of Navajo will present a strictly argumentative functional head approach. The end of the section will focus on the critics brought forward by Joseph and Smirniotopoulos (1993) on Rivero’s work.
Section three focuses on the Word-and-Paradigm approach to inflection as advanced in an early theoretical approach by Robins (1959) and followed by Matthews (1970, 1972) and Anderson (1977, 1982). The model itself, terms and conditions will be presented in the first part, followed by two examples: homophonous morphs in Latin (Bauer 1999) and cumulation in Georgian (Anderson 1982). These two examples will support a Word-and-Paradigm analysis instead of a functionalist analysis of inflection, by pointing at the weakness of the latter model.
Section four offers an advanced analysis with the Word-and-Paradigm model and will reload Rivero’s examples of Modern Greek verbs and show how Word-and-Paradigm provides a more favourable analysis following the critical answer to her article by Joseph and Smirniotopoulous (1993).
Section five will end with a preliminary conclusion on this paper.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The functional head approach to inflection
2.1 Pollock’s functional analysis of Modern English and French verbs
2.2 Rivero’s analysis of verbs in Modern Greek and Albanian
2.3 Speas’ functional head approach to verbs in Navajo
2.4 Exploded Inflectional Analysis - The rejection of the functional head approach to inflection
3. The Word-and-Paradigm approach to inflection
3.1 Word-and-Paradigm morphology as proposed by Matthews
3.1.1 Homophonous morphs
3.1.2 Cumulation
4. Reanalysing the Modern Greek verb plíθikame
5. Conclusion
Objectives & Themes
This academic paper examines the theoretical debate regarding inflection, contrasting the "functional head analysis" with the "Word-and-Paradigm" model. The primary goal is to evaluate whether inflectional morphology should be treated as a purely syntactic process or as an independent morphological phenomenon, ultimately arguing in favor of the Word-and-Paradigm approach by highlighting the limitations of functionalist models in explaining complex morphological data.
- Comparison of functional head analysis versus Word-and-Paradigm models.
- Critique of tree-structured syntactic approaches to inflection.
- Analysis of morphological phenomena: homophonous morphs and cumulation.
- Case studies on Modern English, French, Albanian, Navajo, Latin, and Modern Greek.
- Argumentation for the necessity of morphological autonomy in linguistic theory.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1.1 Homophonous morphs
A functional approach to inflection as shown in the previous section bears its advantages, yet can be criticized not only in the inefficiency and the mistakes the model has exposed. Certain morphological phenomena such as homophonous morphs and cumulation simply cannot be explained from a functional head approach (Bauer 1999: 152-155). This is where WP reveals its strength, to which the next two sections are shortly devoted.
According to Bauer (1999: 152) a homophonous morph realizes two (or more) distinct morphemes. In (8) several in time differing verb-forms of the Latin amare (to love) are given:
(8)
(a) am-o I love Present
(b) ama-bo I will love Future I
(c) ama-vi I loved Perfect
(d) ama-bam I was loving Imperfect
(e) ama-vero I will have loved Future II
(f) ama-veram I had loved Pluperfect
Bauer argues that the -b- that can be found in Future I and the Imperfect forms is not simply a non-present marker, because other non-present tenses do not show it. There is no reasonable analysis according to which it realises a single morpheme. Rather than say that there is a single morph which realises two distinct morphemes, it seems preferable to say that the -b- is generated by operations in the two partial paradigms, but is not related, that is, it represents two homophonous morphs. (1999: 152)
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the theoretical conflict between functionalist and Word-and-Paradigm models regarding the description of inflectional processes.
2. The functional head approach to inflection: This chapter outlines how generative models (Pollock, Rivero, Speas) explain inflection through syntactic tree structures and head movement.
2.1 Pollock’s functional analysis of Modern English and French verbs: This section details how tense, agreement, and negation are mapped to specific functional projections in English and French.
2.2 Rivero’s analysis of verbs in Modern Greek and Albanian: This section discusses the application of tree-structured head-movement models to voice and inflection in Albanian and Modern Greek.
2.3 Speas’ functional head approach to verbs in Navajo: This section presents an analysis of post-verbal particles in Navajo as support for a syntactic account of inflectional categories.
2.4 Exploded Inflectional Analysis - The rejection of the functional head approach to inflection: This section highlights empirical flaws in Rivero’s syntactic segmentation of Modern Greek affixes.
3. The Word-and-Paradigm approach to inflection: This chapter introduces the WP model, emphasizing its utility in describing inflection without relying solely on syntactic structures.
3.1 Word-and-Paradigm morphology as proposed by Matthews: This section defines the WP framework and demonstrates its superiority over one-to-one correspondence models.
3.1.1 Homophonous morphs: This section explains how the WP model addresses instances where a single form expresses multiple, unrelated morphemic features.
3.1.2 Cumulation: This section examines complex morphological systems where multiple categories are mapped to a single morph, utilizing data from Georgian.
4. Reanalysing the Modern Greek verb plíθikame: This chapter provides a definitive WP-based reanalysis of Modern Greek verbs to counter previous syntactic misinterpretations.
5. Conclusion: This chapter synthesizes the arguments and reaffirms the necessity of treating inflection as a morphological phenomenon.
Keywords
Inflection, Morphology, Syntax, Functional Head Analysis, Word-and-Paradigm, Modern Greek, Homophonous morphs, Cumulation, Tree-structure, Matthews, Pollock, Rivero, Verb inflection, Morphosyntax, Linguistic Theory.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper evaluates the theoretical debate on how inflection should be analyzed, specifically comparing the syntactic "functional head analysis" with the "Word-and-Paradigm" model.
What are the central themes discussed in this work?
The core themes include the limits of syntactic tree-structured models, the necessity of morphological autonomy, and the specific analysis of complex morphological phenomena like cumulation and homophony.
What is the primary objective of the author?
The author aims to argue in favor of the Word-and-Paradigm model by demonstrating that functionalist (syntactic) approaches fail to adequately explain complex morphological processes in languages like Modern Greek.
Which scientific methods does the paper employ?
The paper utilizes a comparative analysis and literature-based review, testing existing theories against specific linguistic examples drawn from languages such as English, Latin, Georgian, and Modern Greek.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main sections contrast the generative functional head approaches (Pollock, Rivero, Speas) with the Word-and-Paradigm model (Matthews, Anderson), providing both theoretical explanations and empirical case studies.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Inflection, Morphology, Syntax, Word-and-Paradigm, Functional Head Analysis, and Morphosyntax.
How does the author evaluate the "functional head approach"?
The author criticizes it for being overly one-sided and prone to empirical errors, especially when applied to complex inflectional systems where markers do not have a clear one-to-one mapping to features.
What specific issue is discussed regarding the Modern Greek verb?
The paper highlights a flaw in Rivero's analysis of the affix -ik-, demonstrating that it is a cumulative marker that cannot be segmented into distinct syntactic functional categories.
Why is the Word-and-Paradigm approach preferred by the author?
It is preferred because it is a stem-based approach that acknowledges the independence of morphological processes and better handles the complexity and ambiguity inherent in language inflection.
- Quote paper
- Carol Szabolcs (Author), 2007, Approaching Inflection: The functional head analysis versus Word-and-Paradigm, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/83489
