Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:52:42.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Irregularity as a determinant of morphological change1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Martin Maiden
Martin Maiden
Affiliation:
Downing College, CambridgeCB2 IDQ, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In morphology, as in other branches of scientific endeavour, apparent disorder and irregularity tend to be re-analysed as underlying order. Asymmetries between form and meaning, such as allomorphy, tend accordingly to be factored into basic invariance,2 sames of meaning being interpreted, where possible, as sames of form. Alternatively, as in some of Bybee's (1985) analyses of fusional allomorphy, differences in form may be viewed as diagrammatic of differences in meaning. Allomorphic variants which cannot be made to yield to such re-analyses are commonly relegated to a kind of marginal synchronie ‘junkpile’, and are assumed to be a synchronically ‘inert’ residue of historical (usually phonological) changes. That such an approach to allomorphy can often be illuminating is not in question, but it bespeaks an essentially negative view of morphological irregularity. I wish to propose that there is room for a complementary perspective, in which the ‘irregularity’ inherent in allomorphy can be appreciated not as basically ‘inert’ deviation from a natural isomorphic relationship between meaning and form, but as an active, abstract structural property of morphological systems.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , September 1992 , pp. 285 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Battaglia, S. (1961–). Grande dizionario della lingua italiana. Turin: UTET.Google Scholar
Bittner, A. (1988). Reguläre Irregularitäten. Zur Suppletion im Konzept der natürlichen Morphologie. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommuniksationsforschung 41. 416–425.Google Scholar
Bortolini, U., Tagliavini, C. & Zampolli, A. (1971). Lessico di frequenza della lingua italiana contemporanea. Milan: Garzanti.Google Scholar
Bottiglioni, G. (1935). Atlante linguistico etnografico della Corsica. Pisa: L'Italia dialettale.Google Scholar
Brunot, F. (1905–1927). Histoire de la langue française. Vols, I, II, III. Paris:Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: a study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, A. (1987). Allomorphy in inflexion. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. (1985a). Morphonology: the dynamics of derivation. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. (1985b). Typological aspects of natural morphology. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 35. 51–70.Google Scholar
Fogarasi, M. (1983). Grammatica italiana del Novecento. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Fouché, P. (1976). Morphologie historique du français. Le verbe. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Freund, I. (1933). Beiträge zur Mundart von Ischia. Dissertation, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Grevisse, M. (1964). Le Bon Usage, 8th edn.Paris: Duculot.Google Scholar
Harnisch, R. (1988). Natürliche Morphologie und morphologische ökonomie. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 41. 426–437.Google Scholar
Hirsch, L. (1886). Laut- und Formenlehre des Dialekts von Siena, VIII: Verb. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 10. 411–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaberg, K. & Jud, J. (1928–1940). Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz. Zofingen: Ringier.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1990). How to do things with junk: exaptation in language evolution. JL 26. 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, M. (1988). On the dynamics of low mid vowel diphthongization in Tuscan and Gallo-Italian. Canadian Journal of Italian Studies 36. 1–37.Google Scholar
Maiden, M. (1991a). Interactive morphonology. Metaphony in Italy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maiden, M. (1991b). On the phonological vulnerability of complex paradigms: beyond analogy in Italo- and Ibero-Romance. Romance Philology 44. 284–305.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Y. (1974). New problems in Romance interfixation (1): the velar insert in the present tense. Romance Philology 27. 304–355.Google Scholar
Mańczak, W. (1958). Tendances générales des changements analogiques. Lingua 7. 298–325, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mańczak, W. (1976). Fonetica e morfologia storica italiana. Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagiellonski.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. (1981). Present stem alternations in Italian. In Logos semantikos: studia linguistica in honorem Eugenio Coseriu, Tübingen: Niemeyer. 4. 57–76.Google Scholar
Menéndez, Pidal R. (1941). Manual de gramática histórica española. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Meyer-Luebke, W. (1972). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei dialetti toscani. Turin: Loescher.Google Scholar
Meyer-Luebke, W. (1968). Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Pope, M. (1952). From Latin to Modern French. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, G. (1966 & 1968). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, vol. 1: Fonetica; vol. 11: Morfologia. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, E. (1980). Sprachverwendung – Sprachsystem. Ökonomie und Wandel. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, E. (1988). Entstehung von Suppletion und Natürlichkeit. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 41. 453–462.Google Scholar
Santamarina, A. (1974). El verbo gallego. Verba anexo 4. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1921). Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Schürr, F. (1980). La dittongazione romanza. Ravenna: Girasole.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, E. (1947). An introduction to linguistic science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tekavčić, P. (1980). Grammatica storica dell'italiano, vol. 1: Fonematica, vol. 11: Morfosintassi. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. (1978). Towards an explanation of some analogies in perfect and past participle stems in Latin and Italian. Semasia. Beiträge zur germanisch–romanischen Sprachforschung 5. 47–64.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. (1980). Words versus morphemes in morphological change: the case of Italian -iamo. In Fisiak, J. (ed.) Historical Morphology, The Hague: Mouton. 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, O. (1987). The aim of morphological change is a good mixture – not a uniform language type. In Giacalone Ramat, A., Carruba, O. & Bernini, G. (eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on historical linguistics.Amsterdam:Benjamins, 591–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, O. (1989). Sprachökonomie und Natürlichkeit im Bereich der Morphologie. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42. 34–47.Google Scholar
Wiese, B. (1928). Altitalienisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1962). From Latin to Portuguese. Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, W. (1987). System-dependent morphological naturalness in inflection. In Dressler, W., Mayerthaler, W., Panagl, O. & Wurzel, W. (eds.), Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 59–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, W. (1989). Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer. (Translation of Wurzel (1984) Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin. Akademie-Verlag.)Google Scholar