Template morphology and inflectional morphology

  • Gregory T. Stump
Chapter
Part of the Yearbook of Morphology book series (YOMO)

Abstract

In recent years, attention has been drawn to the possibility that morphology might be of two radically different types; these two types have been labelled — infelicitously, in my view — as layered morphology and template morphology. Intuitively, a morphological expression exhibits template morphology if the ordering of its affixes follows not from the properties of the individual affixes themselves (or of the rules introducing them) but from an independent stipulation about the ordering of these affixes (or rules). By contrast, a morphological expression exhibits layered morphology if the ordering of its affixes is simply an effect of the properties of the individual affixes themselves (or of the rules introducing them). Here, I shall address two fundamental questions about the distinction between template and layered morphology, namely (1) and (2):
  1. (1)

    How does the distinction between template and layered morphology relate to the distinction between inflectional and derivational morphology?

     
  2. (2)

    What form should templates take in an adequate theory of morphology?

     

Keywords

Layered Morphology Object Agreement Adjacency Constraint Inflectional Morphology Significative Absence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, Margaret Reece 1978. Morphological Investigations. University of Connecticut doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnott, D.W. 1970. The Nominal and Verbal Systems of Fula. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aronoff, Mark 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ashton, E.O. 1947. Swahili Grammar ( 2nd edition ). Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
  6. Ashton, E.O., E.M.K. Mulira, E.G.M. Ndawula and A.N. Tucker 1954. A Luganda Grammar. London: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar
  7. Bresnan, Joan and Sam A. Mchombo 1995. “The Lexical Integrity Principle: Evidence from Bantu.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 181–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  9. Carstairs, Andrew 1987. Allomorphy in Inflexion. London: Croom Helm. Google Scholar
  10. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew 1992. Current Morphology. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook, Eung-Do 1984. A Sarcee Grammar. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  12. Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria and Edwin Williams 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dzokanga, Adolphe 1979. Dictionnaire Lingala-Français suivie d’une grammaire lingala. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie Leipzig. Google Scholar
  14. Hoeksema, Jacob 1984. Categorial Morphology, University of Groningen dissertation [New York: Garland, 1985 ].Google Scholar
  15. Janda, Richard D. 1983. “Morphemes Aren’t Something That Grows on Trees: Morphology as More the Phonology Than the Syntax of Words.” In J.F. Richardson, M. Marks and A. Chukerman, (eds), Papers from the Parasession on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 79–95.Google Scholar
  16. Janda, Richard and David Kathman 1992. Shielding Morphology from Exploded INFL. In J.M. Denton, G.P. Chan and C.P. Canakis, (eds), Papers from the 28th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Volume 2: The Cycle in Linguistic Theory. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 141–157.Google Scholar
  17. Joseph, Brian D. and Jane C. Smirniotopoulos 1993. “The Morphosyntax of the Modern Greek Verb as Morphology and Not Syntax.” Linguistic Inquiry 24, 388–98. Google Scholar
  18. Lieber, Rochelle 1992. Deconstructing Morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  19. Matthews, P.H. 1972. Inflectional Morphology: A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Mitchell, Erika 1991. “Evidence from Finnish for Pollock’s Theory of IP.” Linguistic Inquiry 22, 373–79. Google Scholar
  21. Muysken, Pieter 1986. “Approaches to Affix Order.” Linguistics 24, 629–643. Google Scholar
  22. Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1996. “Headed Morphological Derivatives Arising from Diachronic Fusion of Auxiliary Verbs: English To-Contraction as Morphology” (Linguistics Research Center publication LRC-96–01). Santa Cruz: Linguistics Research Center, Stevenson College, University of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  23. Rivero, Maria Luisa 1990. “The Location of Nonactive Voice in Albanian and Modern Greek.” Linguistic Inquiry 21, 135–46.Google Scholar
  24. Sampson, John 1926. The Dialect of the Gypsies of Wales [1968 reprint]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Schadeberg, Thilo C. 1984. A Sketch of Swahili Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  26. Scatton, Ernest A. 1983. A Reference Grammar of Modern Bulgarian. Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
  27. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Siegel, Dorothy 1978. “The Adjacency Constraint and the Theory of Morphology.” In M. Stein, (ed), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, 189–197.Google Scholar
  29. Simpson, Jane and Meg Withgott 1986. “Pronominal Clitic Clusters and Templates.” In H. Borer (ed), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 19: The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 149–74.Google Scholar
  30. Speas, Margaret J. 1990. Phrase Structure in Natural Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  31. Stump, Gregory T. 1992. “On the Theoretical Status of Position Class Restrictions on Inflectional Affixes.” In G. Booij and J. van Marie (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1991. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 211–241.Google Scholar
  32. Stump, Gregory T. 1993. “Position Classes and Morphological Theory.” In G. Booij and J. van Marie (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1992. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 129–180.Google Scholar
  33. Stump, Gregory T. 1995. “The Uniformity of Head Marking in Inflectional Morphology.” In G. Booij and J. van Marie (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1994. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 245296.Google Scholar
  34. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. “How to Describe Inflection.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 11, 37 2386.Google Scholar
  35. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1994. “Morphological Metageneralizations: Morphology, Phonology, and Morphonology.” Paper presented at the 47th Annual Kentucky Foreign Language Conference, University of Kentucky, April 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory T. Stump
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EnglishUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations