Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

On the double nature of productivity in inflectional morphology

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Morphology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Inflection is generally considered to be more productive than derivation. To justify such an assumption, the syntactic function of inflectional morphology is contrasted with the mainly lexical function of derivational morphology. In this paper, the whole question will be carefully discussed with the help of recently developed quantitative approaches to productivity. On the basis of data taken from Italian, it will be shown that a quantitative approach to productivity can shed light on this intricate question by revealing the double nature of inflectional morphology, which on the one hand sides with derivational morphology because of its lexically conditioned inflectional classes. On the other, it scores very high productivity rates for the single inflectional categories in accordance with its syntactic function. Furthermore, the productivity rates of the inflectional categories considered are shown to be not uniform: several factors may influence their productivity, as for instance the substitutive usage of periphrases with modals, even in a language like Italian in which the latter are far less grammaticalized than in others.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albright A. (2002). Islands of reliability for regular morphology: Evidence from Italian. Language 78(4): 684–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronoff M., Anshen F. (1998). Morphology and the lexicon: Lexicalization and productivity. In: Spencer A., Zwicky A.M. (eds) The handbook of morphology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 237-247

    Google Scholar 

  • Baayen, H. (1989). A corpus-based approach to morphological productivity. Statistical analysis and psycholinguistic interpretation. PhD. Diss., Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

  • Baayen H. (1992). Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In: Booij G., van Marle J. (eds) Yearbook of morphology 1991. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 109-149

    Google Scholar 

  • Baayen H. (1993). On frequency, transparency and productivity. In: Booij G., van Marle J. (eds) Yearbook of morphology 1992. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 181-208

    Google Scholar 

  • Baayen H. (1994). Productivity in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 9(3): 447–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baayen H. (2001). Word-frequency distributions. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Baayen H., Lieber R. (1991). Productivity and English word-formations: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29(4): 801–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baayen H., Renouf A. (1996). Chronicling the times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72(1): 69–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer L. (1988). Introducing linguistic morphology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer L. (1994). Productivity. In: Asher R.E. (eds) The encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 3354-3357

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer L. (2001). Morphological productivity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertinetto P.M. (1986). Tempo, aspetto e azione nel verbo italiano. Accademia della Crusca, Firenze

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertinetto P.M. (2003). Tempi verbali e narrativa italiana dell’Otto/Novecento. Edizioni dell’Orso, Alessandria

    Google Scholar 

  • Booij G. (1996). Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In: Booij G., van Marle J. (eds) Yearbook of morphology 1996. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1-16

    Google Scholar 

  • Booij, G. (2000). Inflection and derivation. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann, J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphology. An international handbook on inflection und word-formation (Vol. 1, pp. 361–369). Berlin—New York: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Börjars K., Vincent N., Chapman C. (1997). Paradigms, periphrases and pronominal inflection: A feature-based account. In: Booij G., van Marle J. (eds) Yearbook of morphology 1996. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 155-180

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee J. (1985). Morphology. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee J. (2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In: Joseph B.D., Janda R.J. (eds) The handbook of historical linguistics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 602-623

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Corbett G.G. (2000). Number. Cambridge University Pressm, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressler W.U. (1989). Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42(1): 3–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressler W.U. (2001). Extragrammatical versus marginal morphology. In: Doleschal U., Thornton A.M. (eds) Extragrammatical and marginal morphology. Lincom, München, pp 1-10

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressler W.U. (2003). Degrees of grammatical productivity in inflectional morphology. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 15(1): 31–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressler W.U., Thornton A.M. (1991). Doppie basi e binarismo nella morfologia italiana. Rivista di Linguistica 3(1): 3–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg P. (1999). Grundriβ der deutschen Grammatik. Band 2: Der Satz. Metzler, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaeta L. (2002). Quando i verbi compaiono come nomi. Un saggio di morfologia naturale. Franco Angeli, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaeta L. (2003). Produttività morfologica verificata su corpora: il suffisso -issimo. In: Rainer F., Stein A. (eds) I nuovi media come strumenti per la ricerca linguistica. Peter Lang, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 43-60

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaeta L. (2005). Thoughts on cognitive morphology. In: Fenk-Oczlon G., Winkler C. (eds) Sprache und Natürlichkeit. Gedenkband für Willi Mayerthaler. Gunter Narr, Tübingen, pp 107-128

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaeta L., Ricca D. (2002). Corpora testuali e produttività morfologica: i nomi d’azione italiani in due annate della Stampa. In: Bauer R., Goebl H. (eds) Parallela IX. Testo variazione informatica/Text Variation Informatik. Egert, Wilhelmsfeld, pp 223-249

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaeta L., Ricca D. (2003). Italian prefixes and productivity: A quantitative approach. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50(1–2): 93–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaeta L., Ricca D. (2006). Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics 44(1): 57–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haspelmath M. (1996). Word-class-changing inflection and morphological theory. In: Booij G., van Marle J. (eds) Yearbook of morphology 1995. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 43-66

    Google Scholar 

  • Haspelmath M. (2002). Understanding morphology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff R. (1997). The Architecture of the language faculty. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass and London

    Google Scholar 

  • Koefoed, G., & van Marle, J. (2000). Productivity. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann, J.Mugdan (Eds.), Morphology. An international handbook on inflection und word-formation (Vol. 1, pp. 303–311). Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.

  • Lepschy A.L., Lepschy G.C. (1994). La lingua italiana (2nd ed). Bompiani, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews P. (1991). Morphology 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Orsolini M., Marslen-Wilson W. (1997). Universals in morphological representation: Evidence from Italian. Language and Cognitive Process 12(1): 1–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer F.R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirrelli V., Battista M. (2000). The paradigmatic dimension of stem allomorphy in Italian verb inflection. Rivista di Linguistica 12(2): 307–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Plag I., Dalton-Puffer C., Baayen H. (1999). Morphological productivity across speech and writing. English language and linguistics 3(2): 209–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plank F. (1981), Morphologische (Ir-)Regularitäten. Gunter Narr, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Plank F. (1994). Inflection and derivation. In: Asher R.E. (eds) The encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 1671-1678

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainer, F. (2000). Produktivitä tsbeschrä nkungen. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann, J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphology. An international handbook on inflection und word-formation (Vol. 1, pp. 877– 885). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Rainer F. (2003). Studying restrictions on patterns of word-formation by means of the Internet. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 15(1): 131–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricca D. (1998). La morfologia avverbiale tra flessione e derivazione. In: Bernini G., Cuzzolin P., Molinelli P.(eds) Ars linguistica. studi offerti da colleghi ed allievi a Paolo Ramat in occasione del suo 60° compleanno. Bulzoni, Roma, pp 447-466

    Google Scholar 

  • Scalise S. (1984). Generative morphology. Foris, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer A. (1991). Morphological theory. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Squartini M. (2004). La relazione semantica tra Futuro e Condizionale nelle lingue romanze. Revue Romane 39(1): 68–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stump G.T. (1998). Inflection. In: Spencer A., Zwicky A.M. (eds) The handbook of morphology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 13-43

    Google Scholar 

  • van Marle J. (1992). The relationship between morphological productivity and frequency: A comment on Baayen’s performance-oriented conception of morphological productivity. In: Booij G., van Marle J. (eds) Yearbook of morphology 1991. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 151-163

    Google Scholar 

  • Wurzel W.U. (1984). Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Wurzel W.U. (1996). On the similarities and differences between inflectional and derivational morphology. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49(3): 267–279

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Filologia Moderna “S. Battaglia”, Università di Napoli “Federico II”, via Porta di Massa 1, Napoli, 80133, Italy

    Livio Gaeta

Authors
  1. Livio Gaeta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Livio Gaeta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gaeta, L. On the double nature of productivity in inflectional morphology. Morphology 17, 181–205 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-007-9117-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-007-9117-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation