Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:43:56.295Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Two-Level Approach to Morphological Structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2008

Richard Wiese
Richard Wiese*
Affiliation:
Philipps-Universität Marburg
*
Institut für Germanistische Sprachwissenschaft, Philipps-Universität Marburg, 35032 Marburg, Germany, [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In morphological theory, various models have been developed with respect to the appropriate levels of abstraction for stating morphological generalizations. This paper addresses a class of seemingly marginal and/or problematic phenomena in morphology and proposes that morphological descriptions regularly refer to two distinct levels of description. One is the level of “morphosyntax,” and one is the level of “morphophonology.” Furthermore, morphology is considered to be marginal if and only if the degree of isomorphy between representations on these two levels is reduced. This basic proposal is illustrated and tested with several central phenomena of morphology found in German: synthetic compounds, conversion, empty morphs, and trun-cation. The analysis proposed here argues for the necessity of a two-level model of morphology as an approach in which both abstract morphosyntax as well as more concrete morphophonology have a place.*

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 243 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 22.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bat-El, Outi. 2000. The grammaticality of “extragrammatical” morphology. Extragrammatical and marginal morphology, ed. by Doleschal, Ursula & Thornton, Anna M., 61–84. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, & Valera, Salvador (eds.). 2005. Approaches to conversion/zero-derivation. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Becker, Thomas. 1990. Analogie und morphologische Theorie. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Becker, Thomas. 1993. Back-formation, cross-formation, and “bracketing paradoxes” in paradigmatic morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 1–25.Google Scholar
Bergenholtz, Henning, & Mugdan, Joachim. 2000. Nullelemente in der Morphologie. Morphologie. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, ed. by Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian, & Mugdan, Joachim, 435–450. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42.531–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2005. The grammar of words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam A. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam A., & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
di Sciullo, Anna Maria, & Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 1998. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Band 1: Das Wort. Stuttgart: Verlag J.B. Metzler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David, & Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32.555–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eschenlohr, Stefanie. 1999. Vom Nomen zum Verb: Konversion, Präfigierung und Rückbildung im Deutschen. (Germanistische Linguistik, vol. 3) Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 1997. Uni und Studis: die besten Wörter des Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 172.461–489.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Wolfgang, & Barz, Irmhild. 1995. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Fuhrhop, Nanna. 1998. Grenzfälle morphologischer Einheiten. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Golston, Chris, & Wiese, Richard. 1996. Zero morphology and constraint interaction: Subtraction and epenthesis in German dialects. Yearbook of Morphology 1995, ed. by Booij, Geert E. & Marle, Jaap van, 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris, & Marantz, Alex. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. The view from building 20, ed. by Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding morphology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1954. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10.210–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N. 1982. Über Komposition und Derivation: Zur Konstituentenstruktur von Wortbildungsprodukten im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 1.76–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko, & Mester, Armin. 1997. Sympathy theory and German truncations. Selected phonology papers from the Hopkins Optimality Workshop/University of Maryland Mayfest 1997, ed. by Miglio, Viola & Morén, Bruce, 117–138. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskenniemi, Kimmo. 1983. Two-level morphology: A general computational model for word-form recognition and production. Doctoral dissertation. Helsinki: Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leser, Martin. 1990. Das Problem der “Zusammenbildungen.” Eine lexikalische Studie. (FOKUS Linguistisch-Philologische Studien.) Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1983. Argument linking and compounding in English. Linguistic Inquiry 14.251–286.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology. Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., & Prince, Alan S.. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 24.333–379, Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., & Prince, Alan S.. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. Papers in Optimality Theory (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18), ed. by Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh, & Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 249–384. Amherst, Mass: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Neef, Martin. 1996a. Wortdesign: Das Lexembildungsmuster Gehopse und die Kopflosigkeit von “Ableitungen.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 15.61–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neef, Martin. 1996b. Wortdesign. Eine deklarative Analyse der deutschen Verbflexion. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik.) Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Neef, Martin. 1998. A declarative approach to conversion into verbs in German. Yearbook of Morphology 1998.199–224.Google Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 1986. Wortbildung im Deutschen. Eine Einführung in die Theorie der Wortstruktur. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag.Google Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 1991. Ge-Präfigierungen im heutigen Deutsch. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 113.333–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramers, Karl Heinz. 1997. Die Kunst der Fuge: Zum morphologischen Status von Verbindungselementen in Nominalkomposita. Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Dürscheid, Christa, Ramers, Karl Heinz, & Schwarz, Monika, 33–45. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1983. Gegen die Kompositionstheorie der Affigierung. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 2.110–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1982. The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1988. Bracketing paradoxes and the English lexicon. Language 64.663–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sproat, Richard. 1985. On deriving the lexicon. Doctoral dissertation. Boston, MA: Department of Linguistics, MIT.Google Scholar
Stump, Geoffrey T. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 2004. Pizzas und Pizzen—die Pluralformen (un)assimilierter Fremdworter im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 23.47–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996. The phonology of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 2001. Regular morphology vs. prosodic morphology? The case of truncations in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 13.131–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 2002. A model of conversion in German. In More than words. A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich, ed. by Kaufmann, Ingrid & Stiebels, Barbara, 47–67. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions “lexically related” and “head of the word.” Linguistic Inquiry 12.245–274.Google Scholar