Abstract
Competition between alternative ways of realizing a certain category or concept, is a cross-sectional phenomenon and a perennial issue in linguistics. The present outline reviews approaches to competition in morphology across the history of linguistics, from Ancient Indian grammatical doctrines up to present-day morphological theories. After dealing with terminological and conceptual issues, the paper features the different guises in which rivalry of forms, rules, and schemas has been assessed in language theories and grammatical traditions from Greek and Roman antiquity up to the nineteenth century. It then focuses on structuralist and generative viewpoints, the notion of blocking, the organization of the lexicon, e.g., in inheritance-based models and in Optimality Theory, and the regularity-irregularity debate in psycholinguistics and computational linguistics. An overview of the contributions to the volume closes the paper.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Yet another instance of competition in morphology concerns not the realization of a concept (feature value, bundle of features, etc.), but the filling of a position class in languages with templatic morphology. For example, in Murrinhpatha, an Australian language from the Northern Territory, (dual) subject number and object agreement markers share the same slot in the verbal template, viz. position 2. As Nordlinger (2010: 332–333) shows, the incompatibility of the markers has neither a semantic nor a phonological motivation; in other words, they compete for filling a position class. As both markers can only occupy this specific slot, object marking and (dual) subject number marking cannot occur at the same time. The competition is resolved in the following way: the overt realization of object agreement blocks the realization of (dual) subject number. The latter can thus only occur when the object is either not expressed or realized as zero (in the 3rd person singular).
- 2.
Sometimes, the competition in the realization of the comparative is not resolved, yielding to pleonastic formations, such as Middle English more strenger (cf. Gardani 2015: 540).
- 3.
For those who do not believe in autonomous morphology, this question, of course, does not arise, at least not in these terms.
- 4.
An excellent online source, providing a rich apparatus of commentaries and additional resources, is the Pāṇini Research Tool: http://sanskritdictionary.com/panini/.
- 5.
The French synonymists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were concerned with words in general, not specifically with word formation. However, one could argue that their aversion against the superfluous was also responsible, at least in part, for the drastic reduction in the number of approximative suffixes in Modern French (cf. Becker 1974: 65–81). Old French had nine approximative suffixes, an exuberance that still characterizes the other Romance languages and the French dialects. One of these nine suffixes, -âtre, began gaining ground in Middle French and at the end of that period, Cotgrave’s dictionary from 1611 already contained an approximative color adjective in -âtre for eight out of ten colors, though seven were still flanked by one or two doublets formed with a different suffix. In the dictionary of the French Academy (Corneille 1694), by contrast, -âtre is already used to the exclusion of all the other suffixes, except with blond ‘blonde’, for which the approximative formation blondissant is provided.
- 6.
For one example among myriads of similar cases, cf. Bauer (2006: 180): “the period of the rise of -ess corresponds with the period of the fall of -ster in the meaning ‘female’”.
- 7.
In the case of polysemous affixes, competition, of course, takes place at the level of the different senses of the affix; cf. Díaz-Negrillo (2017) on -dom, -hood, and -ship.
- 8.
Ergänzungswesen, by the way, is used in the book as a synonym of Suppletivwesen.
- 9.
Indo-Europeanists do no longer endorse this view (cf. Balles 2005).
- 10.
It is easy to see that a current like Distributed Morphology still stands in this tradition.
- 11.
The term ‘disjunctive’ describes “a situation in which the application of one rule systematically precludes the later application of some other rule whose structural description is in fact met, and which would therefore be expected to apply” (Anderson 1986: 3).
- 12.
- 13.
In a morphomic analysis of the verbal systems of Italo-Romance and Romanian, Maiden (2013: 42) has also spotted scenarios of collaboration: “morphological and phonological conditioning factors seem to coexist and collaborate, not to compete”.
- 14.
The terms used in Rainer (1989) were “token blocking” and “type blocking”. This terminology was somewhat infelicitous, since also in lexical blocking it is a type that blocks another type (lexeme or word form).
- 15.
An account of why some irregulars block effectively while others fail to do so, has been proposed by Goldberg (2011). According to her theory of “statistical pre-emption”, the strength of the blocking effect is determined by the probability with which a certain word form occurs in construction A in a context in which both constructions A and B should in principle be possible, as well as by the absolute frequency with which the word form occurs in construction A. In the context “3rd Ps Sg Past Tense of go”, a child often hears went but never a hypothetical goed, though this form would also express the meaning correctly. The child therefore infers that went is the only legitimate form for expressing the relevant meaning in that context. As is clear from this example, this approach includes the availability of “indirect negative evidence” (the observation that goed never occurs in the input). However, Yang (2016: 171–213) raises principled objections against the use of negative evidence in language acquisition: “Indirect negative evidence […] is too complex to be computationally feasible, and too coarse-grained to produce reliable learnability results in a realistic setting of language acquisition.” (p. 212).
- 16.
A nice illustration of this trend towards complementary distribution is provided by Del Puente (1996). While in Latin the distribution of the diminutive suffixes -ellus and -illus did not seem to follow any clear rationale, their Neapolitan descendants, -iello and -illo, show a complementary distribution determined by the last consonant of the base: -illo dominates after /l/, -iello after /t/, /k/, /r/ and /n/, while for other consonants the struggle is still undecided.
- 17.
An intent to apply Langacker’s conception of competition to selected Spanish examples can be found in Zacarías Ponce de León (2016).
- 18.
- 19.
But see the work of above-mentioned Jean-Pierre Koenig, who was one of the first proponents of an approach to morphology within Construction Grammar (Koenig 1994).
- 20.
While default inheritance is usually associated with impoverished-entry models, Booij (2017: 28) explains its adoption in a full-entry model such as Construction Morphology in terms of motivation of complex words.
- 21.
Among other models that make use of default inheritance, but that for reasons of space, we cannot discuss here, are Word Grammar (Fraser and Hudson 1992; Creider and Hudson 1999; Hudson 2007), Categorial
Unification Grammar (Bouma 1993), and (Generalized) Paradigm Function Morphology (Stump 2001, 2016; Spencer 2013, in particular his notion of Default Cascade).
- 22.
This approach gained support from the declarative/procedural model of memory (cf. Ullman 2004), which also assumes synergetic interaction, not competitive effects, of the two stipulated memory systems in learning: “When the declarative memory system is able to acquire knowledge, it may do so initially, thanks to its rapid learning abilities, while the procedural system gradually learns the same or analogous knowledge.” (Ullman 2004: 243).
- 23.
For a more nuanced view on the role of frequency, cf. Yang (2016: 30, 51, 55, 56, 76).
- 24.
For an application of Analogical Modeling to the competition of -ity and -ness in English, cf. Arndt-Lappe (2014). This author found similarities in the productivity profiles of these two derivational suffixes and irregular vs. regular past tenses in English: “Like -ity, irregular past tense formation exhibits niche productivity in the sense that its productivity is mainly confined to bases that are highly similar to existing irregular bases. Like -ness, regular past tense formation has a status that looks like a default. […] ‘Default’ translates into influence from (relatively) more distant items that are also usually more sparsely distributed over the similarity space. The metaphors ‘niche’ and ‘default’ constitute endpoints on a gradient scale.” (p. 534).
References
Ackema, Peter, and Ad Neeleman. 2005. Word-Formation in Optimality Theory. In Handbook of Word-Formation, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 64, ed. Pavol Štekauer and Rochelle Lieber, 285–313. Dordrecht: Springer.
Adams, Matthew E. 2012. The Comparative Grammaticality of the English Comparative. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
Ambridge, Ben, and Elena V.M. Lieven. 2011. Child Language Acquisition. Contrasting Theoretical Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1969. West Scandinavian Vowel Systems and the Ordering of Phonological Rules. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
———. 1986. Disjunctive Ordering in Inflectional Morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 1–31.
Arndt-Lappe, Sabine. 2014. Analogy in Suffix Rivalry: The Case of English -ity and -ness. English Language and Linguistics 18 (3): 497–548.
———. 2015. Word-Formation and Analogy. In Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, ed. Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, and Franz Rainer, vol. 2, 822–841. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
———. 2016. Competition and the Lexicon. In Livelli di analisi e fenomeni di interfaccia. Atti del XLVII Congresso Internazionale di Studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana (Fasciano, Salerno 26–28 settembre 2013), ed. Annibale Elia, Claudio Iacobini, and Miriam Voghera, 39–51. Roma: Bulzoni.
Ax, Wolfram. 2000. Lexis und Logos. Studien zur antiken Grammatik und Rhetorik, ed. by Farouk Grewing. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Balles, Irene. 2005. Indogermanische Nomina agentis. Probleme und Lösungsansätze. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 83: 5–70.
Bauer, Laurie. 2006. Competition in English Word Formation. In The Handbook of the History of English, ed. Ans van Kemenade and Bettelou Los, 177–198. Malden: Blackwell.
Becker, Hans Ulrich. 1974. Die approximativen Farbbezeichnungen in den romanischen Sprachen. Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität.
Becker, Thomas. 1990. Analogie und morphologische Theorie. München: Fink.
Benveniste, Émile. 1948. Noms d’agent et noms d’action en indo-européen. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve.
Blevins, James P. 2016. Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1984 [1933]. Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Blumenthal, Peter. 2006. Wortprofil im Französischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Bonami, Olivier. 2015. Periphrasis as Collocation. Morphology 25: 63–110.
Booij, Geert E. 1977. Dutch Morphology. A Study of Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Lisse: de Ridder.
———. 2002. The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2010a. Construction Morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass 4 (7): 543–555.
———. 2010b. Construction Morphology. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 2017. Inheritance and Motivation in Construction Morphology. In Defaults in Morphological Theory, ed. Nikolas Gisborne and Andrew Hippisley, 18–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bouma, Gosse. 1993. Nonmonotonicity and Categorial Unification Grammar. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen PhD dissertation.
Brdar, Mario. 2009. Metonymy-Induced Polysemy and the Role of Suffixation in its Resolution in Some Slavic Languages. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7: 58–88.
Bréal, Michel. 1887. L’histoire des mots. Revue des deux mondes 82: 187–212.
———. 1897. Essai de sémantique (science des significations). Paris: Hachette.
Bredenkamp, Andrew, Stella Markantonatou, and Louisa Sadler. 1996. Lexical Rules: What Are They? In Proceedings of COLING 96, 163–168. Copenhagen: Center for Sprogteknologi.
Briscoe, Ted. 1993. Introduction. In Inheritance, Defaults and the Lexicon, Studies in Natural Language Processing, ed. Ted Briscoe, Ann Copestake, and Valeria de Paiva, 1–12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Dunstan. 2016. Defaults and Overrides in Morphological Description. In The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, ed. Andrew Hippisley and Gregory Stump, 272–296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Dunstan, and Andrew Hippisley. 2012. Network Morphology: A Defaults-Based Theory of Word Structure, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brunot, Ferdinand. 1966. Histoire de la langue française des origines à nos jours. Tome III: La formation de la langue classique 1600–1660. Première partie. Paris: Colin.
Butterworth, Brian. 1983. Lexical Representation. In Language Production. Vol. 2: Development, Writing and Other Language Processes, ed. Brian Butterworth, 257–294. San Diego: Academic.
Bybee, Joan L., and Carol Lynn Moder. 1983. Morphological Classes as Natural Categories. Language 59 (2): 251–270.
Cardona, George. 1997. Pāṇini. His Work and its Traditions. Vol. 1: Background and introduction. 2nd enlarged and revised edn. Delhi etc.: Motilal Banarsidass.
Carpenter, Bob. 1992. The Logic of Typed Feature Structures. With Applications to Unification Grammars, Logic Programs and Constraint Resolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on Nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, ed. Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum, 184–221. Waltham: Ginn & Co.
Claes, Jeroen. 2015. Competing Constructions: The Pluralisation of Presentational Haber in Dominican Spanish. Cognitive Linguistics 26 (1): 1–30.
Clahsen, Harald. 1999. Lexical Entries and Rules of Language: A Multidisciplinary Study of German Inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 991–1060.
Corbett, Greville G., and Norman M. Fraser. 1993. Network Morphology: A DATR Account of Russian Nominal Inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29 (1): 113–142.
Corneille, Thomas. 1694. Dictionnaire de l’académie françoise. Paris: Coignard.
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1967 [1952]. Sistema, norma y habla. In id. Teoría del lenguaje y ingüística general, 11–113. Madrid: Gredos.
Cotgrave, Randle. 1611. A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues. London: Adam Islip.
Creider, Chet, and Richard Hudson. 1999. Inflectional Morphology in Word Grammar. Lingua 107 (3–4): 163–187.
Crysmann, Berthold, and Olivier Bonami. 2016. Variable Morphotactics in Information-Based Morphology. Journal of Linguistics 52 (2): 311–374.
Daelemans, Walter. 2002. A Comparison of Analogical Modeling to Memory-Based Language Processing. In Analogical Modeling. An Exemplar-Based Approach to Language, ed. Skousen Deryle Lonsdale Royal and Dilworth B. Parkinson, 157–179. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Daelemans, Walter, Koenraad de Smedt, and Gerald Gazdar. 1992. Inheritance in Natural Language Processing. Computational Linguistics 18 (2): 205–218.
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1968 [1916]. Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par Charles Bally et Albert Sechehaye. Paris: Payot.
Del Puente, Patrizia. 1996. Alternanze suffissali e connessioni lessicali: due suffissi diminutivi napoletani. L’Italia Dialettale 59: 97–103.
Deo, Ashwini. 2007. Derivational Morphology in Inheritance-Based Lexica: Insights from Pāṇini. Lingua 117 (1): 175–201.
———. 2012. Morphology. In The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, ed. Robert I. Binnick, 155–183. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria, and Edwin Williams. 1987. On the Definition of Word, Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 14. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Díaz-Negrillo, Ana. 2017. On the Identification of Competition in English Derivational Morphemes: The Case of -dom, -hood and -ship. In Competing Patterns in English Affixation, ed. Juan Santana-Lario and Salvador Valera, 119–161. Bern: Lang.
Downing, Laura J. 2006. Canonical Forms in Prosodic Morphology. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2003a. Degrees of Grammatical Productivity in Inflectional Morphology. Italian Journal of Linguistics 15 (1): 31–62.
———. 2003b. Latin Static Morphology and Paradigm Families. In Language in Time and Space. A Festschrift for Werner Winter on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday, Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 144, ed. Brigitte L.M. Bauer and Georges-Jean Pinault, 87–100. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Embick, David, and Alec Marantz. 2008. Architecture and Blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39 (1): 1–53.
Evans, Roger, and Gerald Gazdar. 1989. Inference in DATR. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ed. Harold Somers and Mary M. Wood, 66–71. Morristown: Association for Computational Linguistics.
———. 1996. DATR: A Language for Lexical Knowledge Representation. Computational Linguistics 22 (2): 167–216.
Flickinger, Daniel, Carl Pollard, and Thomas Wasow. 1985. Structure-Sharing in Lexical Representation. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ed. William C. Mann, 262–267. Morristown: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Fraser, Norman M., and Richard A. Hudson. 1992. Inheritance in Word Grammar. Computational Linguistics 18 (2): 133–158.
Frauenfelder, Ulrich Hans, and Robert Schreuder. 1992. Constraining Psycholinguistic Models of Morphological Processing and Representation: The Role of Productivity. In Yearbook of Morphology 1991, ed. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 165–183. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gagné, Cristina L., and Thomas L. Spalding. 2015. Noun-Noun Compounds. In Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, ed. Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, and Franz Rainer, vol. 2, 1143–1159. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Gardani, Francesco. 2013. Dynamics of Morphological Productivity. The Evolution of Noun Classes from Latin to Italian, Empirical Approaches to Linguistic Theory 4. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
———. 2015. Affix Pleonasm. In Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, ed. Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, and Franz Rainer, vol. 1, 537–550. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Gauger, Hans-Martin. 1973. Die Anfänge der Synonymik. Girard (1718) und Roubaud (1785). Tübingen: Narr.
Giegerich, Heinz J. 2001. Synonymy Blocking and the Elsewhere Condition: Lexical Morphology and the Speaker. Transactions of the Philological Society 99 (1): 65–98.
Gisborne, Nikolas, and Andrew Hippisley, eds. 2017. Defaults in Morphological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2011. Corpus Evidence of the Viability of Statistical Pre-emption. Cognitive Linguistics 20 (1): 93–127.
Grandi, Nicola. 2002. Morfologie in contatto. Le costruzioni valutative nelle lingue del Mediterraneo. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed Morphology. Impoverishment and Fission. In MIT Working Papers in linguistics, ed. Benjamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang, and Martha McGinnis, 425–449. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Hankamer, Jorge, and Line Mikkelsen. 2018. Structure, Architecture, and Blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 49 (1): 61–84.
Harris, Alice C. 2017. Multiple Exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hippisley, Andrew. 2016. Network Morphology. In The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, ed. Andrew Hippisley and Gregory Stump, 482–510. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hockett, Charles F. 1968. The State of the Art. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.
Hofmann, Th. R. 1982. Lexical Blocking. Journal of the Faculty of Humanities [Toyana University], 5: 239–250.
Hudson, Richard. 2007. Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hüning, Matthias, and Barbara Schlücker. 2009. Compounds and Phrases: A Functional Comparison Between German A+N Compounds and Corresponding Phrases. Italian Journal of Linguistics 21 (1): 209–234.
Janda, Richard D., and María Sandoval. 1984. “Elsewhere” in Morphology. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Joshi, Shivram Dattatray, and Jouthe Anthon Fokko Roodbergen. 1991. The Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini, with Translation and Explanatory Notes, vol. I. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi.
Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kastner, Itamar, and Vera Zu. 2017. Blocking and Paradigm Gaps. Morphology 27 (4): 643–684.
Kielhorn, Franz. 1972 [1887]. Some devices of Indian grammarians. Indian Antiquity 16 (1887) (pp. 244–252). Reprinted in J. F. Staal (ed.), A Reader on Sanskrit Grammarians, 123–134. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. “Elsewhere” in Phonology. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 93–106. New York: Harper & Row.
———. 1982. Lexical Morphology and Phonology. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. Linguistic Society of Korea, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.
———. 1983. Word-formation and the Lexicon. In Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-American Linguistics Conference, ed. Frances A. Ingemann, 3–22. Lawrence: University of Kansas.
Kluge, Friedrich. 1886. Nominale Stammbildungslehre der altgermanischen Dialecte. Halle: Niemeyer.
Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1994. Lexical Underspecification and the Syntax/Semantics Interface. Berkeley: University of California Berkeley PhD dissertation.
———. 1999. Lexical Relations, Stanford Monographs in Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI.
Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Daniel Jurafsky. 1995. Type Underspecification and the On-line Type Construction in the Lexicon. In Proceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Raul Aranovich, William Byrne, Susanne Preuss, and Martha Senturia, 270–285. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Krieger, Hans-Ulrich. 1994. Derivation Without Lexical Rules. In Constraints, Language and Computation, Computation in cognitive science, ed. Christopher J. Rupp, Michael Rosner, and Roderick Johnson, 277–313. London/San Diego: Academic Press.
Krieger, Hans-Ulrich, and John Nerbonne. 1993. Feature-Based Inheritance Networks for Computational Lexicons. In Inheritance, Defaults and the Lexicon, Studies in Natural Language Processing, ed. Ted Briscoe, Ann Copestake, and Valeria de Paiva, 90–136. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2013. Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Law, Vivien. 2003. The History of Linguistics in Europe: From Plato to 1600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Legendre, Géraldine. 2000. Morphological and Prosodic Alignment of Bulgarian Clitics. In Optimality Theory: Syntax, Phonology, and Acquisition, ed. Joost Dekkers, Frank van der Leeuw, and Jeroen van de Weijer, 423–462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levin, Saul. 1972. Non-paradigmatic Forms: Suppletion or Pre-emption. Foundations of Language 8 (3): 767–811.
Lindner, Thomas. 2015. Word-Formation in Historical-Comparative Grammar. In Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, ed. Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, and Franz Rainer, vol. 1, 38–51. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Maiden, Martin. 2013. ‘Semi-autonomous’ Morphology? A Problem in the History of the Italian (and Romanian) Verb. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, ed. Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden, and John Charles Smith, 24–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malicka-Kleparska, Anna. 1985. Parallel Derivation and Lexicalist Morphology: The Case of Polish Diminutivization. In Phono-Morphology. Studies in the Interaction of Phonology and Morphology, ed. Edmund Gussmann, 95–112. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach (Second Completely Revised and Enlarged Edition). München: Beck.
Marcus, Gary, Steven Pinker, Michael T. Ullman, Michelle Hollander, John Rosen, and Fei Xu. 1992. Overregularization in Language Acquisition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Maslen, Robert J.C., Anna L. Theakston, Elena V.M. Lieven, and Michael Tomasello. 2004. A Dense Corpus Study of Past Tense and Plural Overregularization in English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47 (6): 1319–1333.
Matthews, Peter H. 1994. Greek and Latin Linguistics. In History of Linguistics. Vol. 2: Classical and Medieval Linguistics, ed. Giulio Lepschy, 1–133. London/New York: Routledge.
Matthews, Clive A. 2013. On the Analogical Modeling of the English Past-Tense: A Critical Assessment. Lingua 133: 360–373.
McCarthy, John J. 2006. Morphology: Optimality Theory. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, ed. Keith Brown, 2nd ed., 308–316. Oxford: Elsevier.
Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 1890. Italienische Grammatik. Leipzig: Reisland.
———. 1894. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. Vol. 2: Romanische Formenlehre. Leipzig: Fues.
———. 1921. Historische Grammatik der französischen Sprache. Vol. 2: Wortbildungslehre. Heidelberg: Winter.
Mondorf, Britta. 2009. More Support for More-Support. The Role of Processing Constraints on the Choice Between Synthetic and Analytic Comparative Forms. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Morin, Yves-Charles. 1988. Disjunctive Ordering and French Morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 271–282.
Mörth, Karlheinz, and Wolfgang U. Dressler. 2014. German Plural Doublets With and Without Meaning Differentiation. In Morphology and Meaning: Selected Papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2012, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 327, ed. Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Hans Christian Luschützky, and Wolfgang U. Dressler, 249–258. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Myers, James. 2002. Exemplar-Driven Analogy in Optimality Theory. In Analogical Modeling: An Exemplar-Based Approach to Language, Human Cognitive Processing 60, ed. Royal Skousen, Deryle Lonsdale, and Dilworth B. Parkinson, 265–300. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nida, Eugene A. 1976 [1946]. Morphology. The Descriptive Analysis of Words, 2nd edn. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Nordlinger, Rachel. 2010. Verbal Morphology in Murrinh-Patha: Evidence for Templates. Morphology 20 (2): 321–341.
Orgun, Cernii O., and Ronald Sprouse. 2000. Understanding Ungrammaticality. In Lexicon in Focus, ed. Barbara Stiebels and Dieter Wunderlich, 41–54. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Ortmann, Albert. 2004. A Factorial Typology of Number Marking in Noun Phrases: The Tension of Economy and Faithfulness. In Explorations in Nominal Inflection, ed. Gereon Müller, Lutz Gunkel, and Gisela Zifonun, 229–267. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Osthoff, Hermann. 1899. Vom Suppletivwesen der indogermanischen Sprachen. Heidelberg: Hörning.
Paul, Hermann. 1896. Über die Aufgaben der Wortbildungslehre. In Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen Classe der k.b. Akademie zu München, Jahrgang 1896, 692–713. (Reprinted in: Leonhard Lipka & Hartmut Günther (eds.), Wortbildung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1981, 17–35.)
———. 1920 [1880]. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 5th edn. Niemeyer: Tübingen.
Pinker, Steven, and Alan Prince. 1988. On Language and Connectionism: Analysis of a Parallel Distributed Processing Model of Language Acquisition. Cognition 28: 73–193.
Plank, Frans. 1981. Morphologische (Ir-)regularitäten. Tübingen: Narr.
Pollard, Carl, and Ivan Sag. 1987. An Information-Based Approach to Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 1: Fundamentals (CSLI Lecture Notes 13). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Boulder: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science and Computer Science Department, University of Colorado.
Raffelsiefen, Renate. 2015. Word-Formation in Optimality Theory. In Word-formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, ed. Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, and Franz Rainer, vol. 1, 158–187. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Rainer, Franz. 1989. Towards a Theory of Blocking: The Case of Italian and German Quality Nouns. In Yearbook of Morphology 1988, ed. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 155–185. Dordrecht: Foris.
———. 1999. La derivación adjetival. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, vol. 3, 4595–4643. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
———. 2012. Morphological Metaphysics: Virtual, Potential, and Actual Words. Word Structure 5 (2): 165–182.
———. 2016. Blocking. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia, Linguistics. http://linguistics.oxfordre.com.
Riehemann, Susanne Z. 1993. Word Formation in Lexical Type Hierarchies – A Case Study of Bar-Adjectives in German. Tübingen: University of Tübingen MA thesis.
———. 1998. Type-Based Derivational Morphology. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2 (1): 49–77.
Robins, Robert Henry. 1967. A Short History of Linguistics. London: Longman.
Rumelhart, David E., and James L. McClelland. 1986. Parallel Distributed Processing. In Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sadler, Louisa, and Andrew Spencer. 2001. Syntax as an Exponent of Morphological Features. In Yearbook of Morphology 2000, ed. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 71–96. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Sag, Ivan, and Thomas Wasow. 1999. Syntactic Theory. A Formal Introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Sanders, Gerald. 1974. Precedence Relations in Language. Foundations of Language 11 (3): 361–400.
Schaden, Gerhard. 2009. Present Perfects Compete. Linguistics and Philosophy 32: 115–141.
Schindler, Jochem. 1972. Wortbildungsregeln. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 1: 39–52.
Schlücker, Barbara, and Ingo Plag. 2011. Compound or Phrase? Analogy in Naming. Lingua 121: 1539–1551.
Schultink, Hendrik. 1980 [1962]. De morfologische valentie van het ongelede adjectief in modern nederlands. Utrecht: H&S.
Skousen, Royal. 2002. Issues in Analogical Modeling. In Analogical Modeling. An Exemplar-Based Approach to Language, ed. Skousen Deryle Lonsdale Royal and Dilworth B. Parkinson, 27–48. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Skousen, Royal, Deryle Lonsdale, and Dilworth B. Parkinson, eds. 2002. Analogical Modeling. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Spencer, Andrew. 2013. Lexical Relatedness. A Paradigm-Based Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Štekauer, Pavol. 2017. Competition in Natural Languages. In Competing Patterns in English Affixation, ed. Juan Santana-Lario and Salvador Valera, 15–31. Bern: Lang.
Stewart, Thomas W. 2016. Contemporary Morphological Theories. A User’s Guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2005. Word-Formation and Inflectional Morphology. In Handbook of Word-Formation, ed. Pavol Štekauer and Rochelle Lieber, 49–71. Dordrecht: Springer.
———. 2016. Inflectional Paradigms. Content and Form at the Syntax-Morphology Interface, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, Daniel J. 1987. Rethinking the History of Language Science in Classical Antiquity. In The History of Linguistics in the Classical Period, ed. Daniel J. Taylor, 1–16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Thomason, Sarah. 1988. Double Marking in Morphological Change. In ESCOL 87: Proceedings of the Fourth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, ed. Ann Miller and Joyce Powers, 296–305. Columbus: Ohio State University.
Ullman, Michael T. 2004. Contributions of Memory Circuits to Language: The Declarative/Procedural Model. Cognition 92: 231–270.
van Marle, Jaap. 1986. The Domain Hypothesis: The Study of Rival Morphological Processes. Linguistics 24: 601–627.
von Bahder, Karl. 1880. Die Verbalabstracta in den germanischen Sprachen, ihrer Bildung nach dargestellt. Halle: Niemeyer.
von der Gabelentz, Georg. 2016 [1891/1901]. Die Sprachwissenschaft: Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse, ed. Manfred Ringmacher and James McElvenny (Classics in Linguistics 4). Berlin: Language Science Press.
Williams, Edwin. 2007. Dumping Lexicalism. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, ed. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 353–381. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wunderlich, Dieter. 2001. How Gaps and Substitutions can Become Optimal: The Pronominal Affix Paradigms of Yimas. Transactions of the Philological Society 99 (2): 315–366.
Xu, Zheng. 2016. The Role of Morphology in Optimality Theory. In The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, ed. Andrew Hippisley and Gregory Stump, 550–587. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Xu, Zheng, and Mark Aronoff. 2011a. A Realization Optimality Theory Approach to Blocking and Extended Morphological Exponence. Journal of Linguistics 47 (3): 673–707.
———. 2011b. A Realization Optimality Theory Approach to Full and Partial Identity of Forms. In Morphological Autonomy. Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology, ed. Martin Maiden, John C. Smith, Maria Goldbach, and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, 257–286. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yang, Charles. 2016. The Price of Linguistic Productivity. How Children Learn to Break the Rules of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zacarías Ponce de León, Ramón. 2016. Rivalidad entre esquemas de formación de palabras. México: UNAM.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gardani, F., Rainer, F., Luschützky, H.C. (2019). Competition in Morphology: A Historical Outline. In: Rainer, F., Gardani, F., Dressler, W., Luschützky, H. (eds) Competition in Inflection and Word-Formation . Studies in Morphology, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02550-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02550-2_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02549-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02550-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)