Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:52:39.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The inflectional component of a word-and-paradigm grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

P. H. Matthews
P. H. Matthews
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistic Science, The University, Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The term word-and-paradigm grammar (Hockett, 1954; Robins, 1959) may be used of any grammar which preserves the traditional distinction between morphology and syntax. This distinction is usually drawn as follows. Following the classical formulation (Dionysius Thrax in Uhlig, 1883:22, line 4; Priscian in Keil, 1855: 53, line 8), any sentence is said to have as its minimal elements a set of [grammatical] words. Such words are of two main types. Some are invariable: examples are the Latin conjunctions et and atque or the prepositions per and in. Others, for example the verb amo or the noun dominus, are variable: they appear in a variety of forms (amo, amabas, amatus, ….; dominus, domino, dominorum, ….) with different syntactic properties. The ‘function’ and distribution of these variants, in relation to each other and to the invariables, is handled by the syntactic sections of the grammar; their phonological or graphological ‘shape’, on the other hand, is stated by the morphology. It is, for instance, a syntactic rule which states that the preposition per must govern a noun in the ACC [usative]2 case, but it is a subject of morphology that dominum, terram, etc. are ACC forms of their respective nouns. The field of grammar, as opposed to phonology, semantics, etc., is thus divided into two separate but interconnected sub-fields: one dealing with what may be called the ‘external’, the other with the ‘internal’ characteristics of grammatical words.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , October 1965 , pp. 139 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

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

Allen, W. S. (1962). Sandhi. (Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 17.)'s-Gravenhage: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazell, C. E. (1953). Linguistic Form. Istanbul: Istanbul Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazell, C. E. (1958). Linguistic Typology. (Inaugural Lecture.) London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
Bloch, B. (1947). English verb inflection. Lg. 23. 399–418.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1961). Some methodological remarks on generative grammar. Word 17. 217–239.Google Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. (1951). Studies in Vietnamese (Annamese) Syntax. (UCPL, 8.) Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
Halle, M. (1959). The Sound Pattern of Russian. 's-Gravenhage: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halle, M. (1962). Phonology in a generative grammar. Word 18. 54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1942). Morpheme alternants in linguistic analysis. Lg. 18. 169–180.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1951). Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1947). Problems of morphemic analysis. Lg. 23. 321–343.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1954). Two models of grammatical description. Word 10. 210–231.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1961). Linguistic elements and their relations. Lg. 37. 29–53.Google Scholar
Householder, F. W. Jr., (1959). On linguistic primes. Word 15. 223–239.Google Scholar
Householder, F. W. Jr., (1965). Linguistic Analysis of English. (Final Report to N.S.F. under Grant GS-108.) Bloomington: Linguistics Project, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Keil, H. (1855). Grammatici Latini, vol. 2. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Koutsoudas, A. (1964). The handling of morphophonemic processes in transformational grammars. In R. Austerlitz (Ed.) Papers in Memory of George C. Pappageotes. (Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York, 5.) 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, S. M. (1964). On alternation, transformation, realization and stratification. Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 17. 105–22. (Edited by C. I. J. M. Stuart.) Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1962). Phonemic and non-phonemic phonology: some typological reflections. IJAL. 28. 127–133.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1963). Structural Semantics. (Philological Society Publications, 20.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. (1937). Introduction à l'étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. 8th ed.Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Mitchell, T. F. (1962). Colloquial Arabic. (Teach Yourself Series.) London: English Universities Press.Google Scholar
Nida, E. A. (1948). The identification of morphemes. Lg. 24. 414–441.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1958). Linguistic hierarchy. Lingua 7. 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1964). Grammatical categories and their phonetic exponents. Lunt, H. G. (Ed.). Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. The Hague: Mouton. 338–344.Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. (1959). In defence of WP. TPhS. 116–144.Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. (1964). General Linguistics: An Introductory Survey. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1921). Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Staal, J. F. (1965). Context-sensitive rules in Pāṇini. Foundations of Language 1. 63–72.Google Scholar
Uhlenbeck, E. M. (1962). Limitations of morphological processes. Lingua 11. 426–432.Google Scholar
Uhlig, G. (1883). Dionysii Thracis Ars Grammatica. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar