The present paper provides a new approach to the form-function relation in Latin declension. First, inflections are discussed from a functional point of view with special consideration to questions of syncretism. A case hierarchy is justified for Latin that conforms to general observations on case systems. The analysis leads to a markedness scale that provides a ranking of case-number-combinations from unmarked to most marked. Systematic syncretism always applies to contiguous sections of the case-number-scale (‘syncretism fields’). Second, inflections are analysed from a formal point of view taking into account partial identities and differences among noun endings. Theme vowels being factored out, endings are classified on the basis of their make-up, e.g., as sigmatic endings; as containing desinential (non-thematic) vowels; as containing long vowels; and so on. The analysis leads to a view of endings as involving more basic elements or ‘markers’. Endings of the various declensions instantiate a small number of types, and these can be put into a ranked order (a formal scale) that applies transparadigmatically. Third, the relationship between the independently substantiated functional and formal hierarchies is examined. In any declension, the form-function-relationship is established by aligning the relevant formal and functional scales (or ‘sequences’). Some types of endings are in one-to-one correspondence with bundles of morphosyntactic properties as they should be according to a classical morphemic approach, but others are not. Nevertheless, endings can be assigned a uniform role if the form-function-relationship is understood to be based on an alignment of formal and functional sequences. A diagrammatical form-function relationship is revealed that could not be captured in classical or refined morphemic approaches.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Alexiadou, A., & Müller, G. (2008). Class features as probes. In A. Bachrach & A. Nevins (Eds.), Inflectional identity (pp. 101–155). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baerman, M., Brown, D., & Corbett, G. G. (2005). The syntax-morphology interface: a study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baldi, P. (1983). On some recent claims in morphological theory. General Linguistics, 23, 171–190.
Bierwisch, M. (1967). Syntactic features in morphology: general problems of so-called pronominal inflection in German. In To honor Roman Jakobson. Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (Vol. I, pp. 239–270). The Hague: Mouton.
Blake, B. J. (2001). Case (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bühler, K. (1990). Theory of language. The representational function of language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [(1934): Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: G. Fischer.]
Carstairs, A. (1984). Paradigm economy in the Latin third declension. Transactions of the Philological Society, 1984, 117–137.
Carstairs, A. (1987). Allomorphy in inflexion. London: Croom Helm.
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1991). Inflection classes: two questions with one answer. In F. Plank (Ed.) (1991c) (pp. 213–253).
Dressler, W. U. (2002). Latin inflection classes. In A. M. Bolkestein et al. (Eds.), Theory and description in Latin linguistics. Selected papers from the XIth international colloquium on Latin linguistics, Amsterdam, June 24–29, 2001 (pp. 91–110). Amsterdam: Gieben.
Gamkrelidze, T. V., & Ivanov, V. V. (1995). Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. Part I. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Gasperini, L. (1999). Diachrony and synchrony of the Latin ablative: concerning certain semantic roles. Diachronica, 16(1), 37–66.
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Language universals. With special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.
Halle, M., & Vaux, B. (1998). Theoretical aspects of Indo-European nominal morphology: the nominal declensions of Latin and Armenian. In J. Jasonoff, H.C. Melchert, & L. Oliver (Eds.), Mír curad. Studies in honor of Calvert Watkins (pp. 223–240). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
Householder, F. W. (1947). Descriptive analysis of Latin declension. Word, 3, 48–58.
Jakobson, R. (1965). Quest for the essence of language. Diogenes, 51, 21–37. [Repr. in: R. Jakobson (1971): Selected writings II. Word and language. The Hague: Mouton].
Jakobson, R. (1984). Structure of the Russian verb. In R. Jakobson, Russian and Slavic grammar. Studies 1931–1981 (pp. 1–14). Berlin: Mouton.
Janson, T. (1971). The Latin third declension. Glotta, 49(1/2), 111–142.
Johnston, J. (1997). Systematic homonymy and the structure of morphological categories: some lessons from paradigm geometry. Diss, University of Sydney.
Joseph, B. D., & Wallace, R. (1984). Latin morphology: another look. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 319–328.
Kiparsky, P. (2000). Analogy as optimization: ‘exceptions’ to Sievers’ law in Gothic. In A. Lahiri (Ed.), Analogy, levelling, markedness. Principles of change in phonology and morphology (pp. 15–46). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kulikov, L. (2006). Case systems in a diachronic perspective. A typological sketch. In L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov, & P. de Swart (Eds.), Case, valency and transitivity (pp. 23–47). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Leumann, M. (1977). Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. Neuausgabe. München: Beck.
Matthews, P. H. (1991). Morphology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Müller, G. (2004). On decomposing inflection class features: syncretism in Russian noun inflection. In Müller et al. (Eds.) (2004) (pp. 189–227).
Müller, G., Gunkel, L., & Zifonun, G. (Eds.) (2004). Explorations in nominal inflection. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Müller, G., & Trommer, J. (Eds.) (2006). Subanalysis of argument encoding in distributed morphology. Leipzig: Universität. (Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, Leipzig 84).
Nyman, M. (1987). Is the paradigm economy principle relevant? Journal of Linguistics, 23, 251–267.
Pike, K. (1965). Non-linear order and anti-redundancy in German morphological matrices. Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung, 32, 193–221.
Plank, F. (1991a). Of abundance and scantiness in inflection: a typological prelude. In F. Plank (Ed.) (1991c) (pp. 1–39).
Plank, F. (1991b). Rasmus Rask’s dilemma. In F. Plank (Ed.) (1991c) (pp. 161–196).
Plank, F. (Ed.) (1991c). Paradigms. The economy of inflection. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Primus, B. (1993). Syntactic relations. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, & T. Vennemann (Eds.), Syntax. An international handbook of contemporary research (Vol. 1, pp. 686–705). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Risch, E. (1977). Das System der lateinischen Deklinationen. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure, 3, 229–245.
de Saussure, F. (1976). Cours de linguistique générale. Édition critique préparée par Tullio de Mauro. Paris: Payot.
Stump, G. T. (2001). Inflectional morphology. A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiese, B. (2004). Categories and paradigms. On underspecification in Russian declension. In Müller et al. (Eds.) (2004) (pp. 321–372).
Wiese, B. (2011). Optimal specifications: on case marking in Polish. In A. Nolda & O. Teuber (Eds.), Syntax and morphology multi-dimensional (pp. 101–127). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Williams, E. (1981). On the notions ‘Lexically related’ and ‘Head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 245–274.
Wunderlich, D. (2004). Is there any need for the concept of directional syncretism? In Müller et al. (Eds.) (2004) (pp. 373–395).
Wurzel, W. U. (1984). Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Ein Beitrag zur morphologischen Theoriebildung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
About this article
Cite this article
Wiese, B. On Latin nominal inflection: the form-function relationship. Morphology 23, 179–200 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-013-9223-7
- Inflectional morphology