Abstract
A common trait of many approaches to morphology is that a distinction is made between ‘derivation’ on the one hand and ‘inflection’ on the other, the former dealing with words the latter with word forms. As is well-known, however, it is extremely hard to characterize this distinction in objective terms. In Bybee (1985: 81) the stand is taken that it may well be that the criterion of ‘obligatoriness’ is the only criterion which provides a discrete division between derivational and inflectional processes. According to this view, inflectional morphemes are those whose appearance in a particular syntactic position is compulsory. It seems to me, however, that even this criterion is not as clear as Bybee suggests. The fact is, that particularly many categories of so-called inherent inflection are not compulsory in the above sense. In many languages, categories such as nominal plurals or comparatives and superlatives of adjectives are not dictated by sentence structure as, for instance, person or number marking on verbs is. Nonetheless, these categories have traditionally always been considered instances of inflection. Why is that so? The answer to this question, it seems to me, is that these categories, somehow or other, ‘participate’ in the syntactic structure that they form part of, something which prototypical derivational categories never do.1 In many languages the category of nominal plurals, for instance, dictates plural marking on the verb. Put differently, in a language like Dutch nominal plurals take part in the concord system, a fact which renders these forms a status which is fundamentally different from purely derivational categories
Notes
This paper was prepared for the 6th International Morphology Meeting in Szombathely, Hungary in September 1994. Due to personal circumstances, the author could not attend that meeting. Consequently, the views expressed in this paper were arrived at independently of the papers read at that conference.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Anderson, S.R. 1982. “Where’s Morphology?” Linguistic Inquiry 13, 571–612.
Anderson, S.R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beard R. 1982. “The Plural as a Lexical Derivation”. Glossa 16, 133–148.
Booij, G.E. 1993. “Against Split Morphology”. In G.E. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 27–49.
Booij, G.E. 1995. “Inherent versus Contextual Inflection and the Split Morphology Hypothesis”. In G.E. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1–16.
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dressler, W.U. 1989. “Prototypical Differences between Inflection and Derivation”. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42, 3–10.
Haspelmath, M. 1995. “Wordclass-Changing Inflection and Morphological Theory”. In G.E. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 43–66.
Hymes, D. 1972. “On Communicative Competence”. In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Koefoed, G.A.T. and J. van Marle 1987. “Prerequisites for Reinterpretation”. In W. Koopman et al. (eds.), Explanation and Linguistic Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 121–150.
Koelmans, L. and E. Franssens-Rammeloo. 1979. “Uit de geschiedenis van de Nederlandse achtervoegsels II: het suffix -dom”. De Nieuwe Taalgids 72, 37–44.
Kruisinga, E. 1924. A Grammar of Modern Dutch. London: Allen & Unwin.
Marle, J. van 1985. On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris.
Marle, J. van 1986. [ 1992 ] “Lexical Mechanisms versus Morphological Structure”. Acta Linguistica 36, 121–133.
Marle, J. van 1987. `Ben mythe over het -s meervoud“. Forum der Letteren 28, 103–108.
Marie, J. van 1993. “Morphological adaptation”. In G.E. Booij and J. van Marie (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 255–265.
Marie, J. van in prep. “De contextgevoeligheid van het -s meervoud”.
Marie, J. van and G.A.T. Koefoed. 1988. “Herinterpretatie: Voorwaarden en effecten”. Spektator 17, 488–511.
Marie, J. van and C. Smits. 1992. “The Inflectional Systems of Overseas Dutch”. In H. Aertsen and R.J. Jeffers (eds.), Historical Linguistics 1989. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 313–328.
Royen, G. 1948. Buigingsverschijnselen in het Nederlands. Deel II. (VKNAW, afd. Letterkunde; Nieuwe Reeks 52 ). Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.
Sassen, A. 1992. “Meervoudloosheid en indeling van Nederlandse zelfstandige naamwoorden”. In H. Bennis and J.W. de Vries (eds.), De Binnenbouw van het Nederlands. Een Bundel Artikelen voor Piet Paardekooper. Dordrecht: ICG Publications, 329–341.
Schultink, H. 1962. De morfologische valentie van het ongelede adjectief in modern Nederlands. The Hague: Van Goor.
Vries, W. de 1921. lets over woordvorming. Zutphen: Thieme, undated reprint cum registers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1996 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Van Marle, J. (1996). The unity of morphology: on the interwovenness of the derivational and inflectional dimension of the word. In: Booij, G., van Marle, J. (eds) Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Yearbook of Morphology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3716-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3716-6_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4687-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-3716-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive