Morphology

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 39–75

Principal parts and morphological typology

Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

paradigm inflection principal parts typology conjugation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson Stephen R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhaskararao Peri. (1980). Koṇekor: A Dravidian language. Deccan College Postgraduate & Research Institute, PuneGoogle Scholar
  4. Blevins James. (2006). Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42: 531–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Jakobi Angelika. (1990). A Fur grammar. Helmut Buske Verlag, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  8. Kimball Geoffrey D. (1991). Koasati Grammar. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Kutsch Lojenga Constance. (1994). Ngiti: A central-sudanic language of Zaire [Nilo-Saharan Linguistic Analyses and Documentation, vol. 9]. Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, KölnGoogle Scholar
  10. Lanman Charles Rockwell. (1884). Sanskrit reader. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  11. Matthews P.H. (1972). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Stump Gregory T. (2001). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Stump Gregory T. (2006). Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82: 279–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Wurzel Wolfgang Ullrich. (1989). Inflectional morphology and naturalness (tr. by Manfred Schentke). Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 372-86Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of EnglishUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations