Principal parts and morphological typology
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Like the numbers in a sudoku puzzle, a lexeme’s principal parts provide enough information–but only enough–to deduce all of the remaining forms in its paradigm. Because principal parts are a distillation of the implicative relations that exist among the members of a lexeme’s paradigm, they afford an important (but heretofore neglected) basis for typological classification. We recognize three logically distinct sorts of principal-part systems that might be postulated for a given language: static, adaptive, and dynamic. Focussing for present purposes on dynamic systems, we propose five crosscutting criteria for the typological classification of principal-part systems. These criteria relate to (i) how many principal parts are needed to determine a lexeme’s paradigm; (ii) whether distinct lexemes possess parallel sets of principal parts; (iii) how many principal parts are needed to determine a given word in a lexeme’s paradigm; (iv) what sort of morphological relation exists between a principal part and the forms that it is used to deduce; and (v) whether lexemes’ nonprincipal parts are inferred from their principal parts in the same way from one inflection class to another. Drawing on these criteria, we propose a novel classification of a range of typologically diverse languages.
- Ackerman, Farrell, & James Blevins. (2006). Paradigms and predictability, paper presented at the Workshop on WP morphology, Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
- Anderson Stephen R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
- Bhaskararao Peri. (1980). Koṇekor: A Dravidian language. Deccan College Postgraduate & Research Institute, Pune
- Blevins James. (2006). Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42: 531–573 CrossRef
- De Vries, James A., & Sandra A. De Vries. (1997). An overview of Kwerba verb morphology. Papers in Papuan Linguistics 3 (Pacific Linguistics, A-87), 1–35.
- Finkel, Raphael, & Gregory Stump. (2007). Principal parts and degrees of paradigmatic transparency. Technical Report No. TR 470-07, Department of Computer Science, University of Kentucky.
- Jakobi Angelika. (1990). A Fur grammar. Helmut Buske Verlag, Hamburg
- Kimball Geoffrey D. (1991). Koasati Grammar. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London
- Kutsch Lojenga Constance. (1994). Ngiti: A central-sudanic language of Zaire [Nilo-Saharan Linguistic Analyses and Documentation, vol. 9]. Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, Köln
- Lanman Charles Rockwell. (1884). Sanskrit reader. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
- Matthews P.H. (1972). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
- Stump Gregory T. (2001). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
- Stump Gregory T. (2006). Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82: 279–322 CrossRef
- Stump, Gregory, T. (2007). A non-canonical pattern of deponency and its implications, to appear In Matthew Baerman, Greville Corbett, Dunstan Brown & Andrew Hippisley (Eds.), Extended deponency. British Academy and Oxford University Press.
- Wurzel Wolfgang Ullrich. (1989). Inflectional morphology and naturalness (tr. by Manfred Schentke). Kluwer, Dordrecht
- Zwicky Arnold M. (1985). How to describe inflection. In : Niepokuj M., VanClay M., Nikiforidou V., Feder D. (eds) Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, CA, pp 372-86
- Principal parts and morphological typology
Volume 17, Issue 1 , pp 39-75
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- principal parts