Inflectional And/versus Derivational Morphology: Clear-Cut Types or Continua?
Year: 2003
Type: article
Abstract: ABSTRACT Some colleagues of younger generation may accuse me of being too faithful to traditionalism in observing linguistic phenomena. May I argue, frankly indeed, I do appreciate the contemporary modern computerising trends in collecting and analysing language data; yet I still believe in a peaceful meditation as a counter-balance to technical-like approaches, finding the results fairly efficient and, hopefully, significant enough for both theoretical and applied linguistics. One of my little ideas is to show that the traditionally as well as newly established categories, however much useful notions these may be, are not clear-cut ones but rather represent cardinal, i.e. supporting, even extreme points in a spectrum. (1) All kinds of transitions are observed, the properties of respective categories oscillating around the hopefully well-defined points and merging into one another. Examples can be found in all spheres of language analysis, from phonetics to semantics, and so also in morphology. Any reader linguistically oriented will have noticed that there have been scholars who zeroed in on morphology as well as those who doubted, as it were, the place of this discipline in the overall organisation of grammar. The question reads whether there is any need for a truly morphological component in language at all. Does anything like a morphological component exist, in the sense of a parallel to what everybody generally acknowledges as a phonological and a syntactic component--this is the question that some linguists tackle. TG grammar proponents, for example, are those who dispute the existence of morphology, claiming that all the work of assembling words can be performed by principles of semantics, syntax and phonology. Representatives of so-called lexical hypothesis, or, on the other hand, those who believe in omnipotence of syntax in word-formative issues, they all seem to be convinced that they got rid of the problems involved, the problems which exist objectively all the same, irrespective of the satisfaction-giving oversight. I have been looking for a resolution of some of the many remaining issues, believing, of course, in the existence of morphological component in grammar description. To my knowledge, the discussions are still far from being finished: even the recent Optimality Theory seems to fail in bringing a satisfactory agreement on how the morphological component interacts with the other components. Following Russell (1998: 128-30), for example, one of the unresolved questions, which depend largely on the overall approach to grammar and to morphology in particular, is the difference between inflection and derivation (or word-formation). In other words, the issue reads whether inflectional morphology and derivational morphology operate on different principles, namely, whether the two types of morphology, as distinguished traditionally, are fundamentally different. Or do we only look for problems where there are none? In the following I am going to opt in favour of keeping inflectional and derivational morphology apart, although, as I will try to argue, these cannot well be viewed as clear-cut categories, or types. The reader will, hopefully, understand that the feasibility of one type being drifted over to another is not the same as considering the whole morphology to be either fully inflectional or fully derivational, i.e. lexical. As a matter of fact, what I take into account is the functional characteristic of formatives, or morphemes, these being referred to as inflectional or derivational, respectively. Yet it would be wrong, as I argue, to assume that there are languages (English included) the morphemes of which are exclusively inflectional or exclusively derivational: there are, no doubt, morphemes that are endowed with either function, in dependence on the type of operations they enter. Here the interaction of the morphological component with the components of syntax and even semantics must be taken into account and explained in a satisfactory way. …
Author: Stanislav Kavka
Language: English
Subfield: Language and Linguistics
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W12671680