See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304040867

Inflection and Derivation

Article · December 2006

DOI: 10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00115-2

CITATIONS READS

18 215

1 author:

Geert Booij
Leiden University
139 PUBLICATIONS 2,844 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The architecture of grammar View project

I am now working on further elaboration of the model of Construction Morphology. Next year I will edit a volume on 'The construction of
words. Advances in Construction Morphology, to be published by Springer. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Geert Booij on 03 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Morphologie
Morphology
Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und
Wortbildung
An International Handbook on Inflection and
Word-Formation

-
Herausgegeben von / Edited by
Geert Booij ' Christian Lehmann ' Joachim Mugdan
in collaboration with Wolfgang Kesselheim '
Stavros Skopeteas
1. Halbband / Volume 1

Sonderdruck / Offprint

Walter de Gruyter ' Berlin ' New York

2000
 360 V. Die Rollc dcr Morphologie in Grarln-ratik und Lexikon
irleischcr'. WolÍgang & Bar.z, Ir.n.rhild (]19()5), Wort_ Malchancl. Flans (r1969), The Cutegr:,rics tmcl T1.,pes.
h iI lu n g d e r. tl e u Í..t r: lt e n t,s: p r uclie. Tiibi ngen :
Ge g c n t, tt r o.f Prcsent-day En.gIi.rh Worcl-/brnuttion. Miinchen:
Nien'reycr' Ir 1 992] Bcck lrl9r.rtl
(ireenberg. .Ioseph Il. (196-3). ..Some LJniversals ol-
(irantntiLr lvith Particr-rlar ReÍcrence to Matthews. Peter H. (1974). fuIorphr.,/og_r,. Cam-
the Order. briclgc: Cambr-idge University press
ol Meani:rgÍul Elen-rcnts". In: (ircenberg, .Ioseph
Nrdiq Eugene A. (r1949), Morplnlog!. Ann Arbor/
ïj. §t ). U n i t, c r.s uI s o f Ltt ng tu t g e. Carr.rbrirl-ec/MA :
M[: Univelsity ol Michig:rn ercss 1i.i9461
NIIT Press. 73-113
Ilackerr. Pius Len (lr994). Dc/ining Morpholo.ql- A C)rtner. Hanspetcr & Ortner. Lorelies (19g4). Zu.r
Prírrt ilt/t:d Appt.out'It to DcIerrttíning the Bourtiíd.ríc.s Theorie urul Pru,rís dcr Kontpo.sitiot.t.slor,tihung.
ty' Cotttpounding, DerittttÍiot.t, and lriílection. Hildes_ Tiibin-uen: Narr
lrcirrr: Olnts Roepcr. Thomas & Siegel. Mully (197g), ..A Leri-
Ilacken. Pir-rs ren (1999), .'Motir.,atecl Tests Íbr cal Transformation lor Verbal Compouncls',. Lrz_
C-ornpounding". At:tu Lin.gui,stit,tr Ht/hi.en.titr 31, guisrit: Int1u.ir1 9, 199-260
27 - -58 Scalise. Sergio ( t984) , CiencruÍittg Morpholog y-.

Hockcrt. Char.les F (1954).',Trvo Moclels of Gr.am_ Doldrccht: For.is

matical Descriptior.r". Witr.tt lO.2.10-23 I Schmrdt, Giinlher Dietrich (19g7). ..Das Allixoicl:
Hijhlc, "lihran N. (19t4). ',On Conposition trnd Zur Notr,vcndigkeit urd Brtruchbarkcit eines be_
Dct'ivation: The Constitr-rcnt Strllcture of Seconcl- liebten Zu,ischenbe-erilÍs der. Wortbilclung,,. ln:
ar1' \Vords in (ler-ntan". In: Tomur. Jinclr.ich (ed ). Hoppe. Gabliele & Kirkness. AIan & Linkl Elisa_
Stttlie.s in Gerrrrun Grunntttt.r. Dorclrecht: Forii. bctlr & \ortmc)er'. l.olde & Rcrrig. Wollg:rrr-r &
tl9 .tJ1r
Schnridt, Gtinther (.1981). Deur,sche Lchntrorlhil-
Tlibingen: Nan." 53 I0l
r/zar.q.
Jespersen. Otto (19:12). A [[ot.lern. Engli.sh C]rutrtnttu.
,,tt lIi'r,trir.,rl Selkirk. Elisabeth O. (1982). Tltc St,nÍu-r oí Wortls.
Pt.irt, i1,1,.,. t,,1. l/t. Iut ulte,lt,cr. Camblidge /MA: MIT pr.ess
C.rPen Ir:r gerr : M rrrr k s:.:lIr r-rl
Kirhnhold, In-rebr-rrg & putzer. Oskar & Wellmann. Siegel, Dorothl, (1979), Tiryic,s in English Morphol_
Hals (197E). Dct.tt.tt'he Iforthildt.tng, htl. 1il. o,9,. Neu, York: Garland press
Du,s [or.ig. 1974. Éh.D.
,4 dI a l; t it,. Diisseldor.f. Schrvar.ur
ctiss.. MITI
Szyn-ranek. Bogd:ur (1988), C'aicgrl rie.g unt.l Ccrleso_
Lees. Robert B (1960), Tlte Gruntnur o/ En.glish ri:trtiort. ín À,Iorphologt. Lublin: Redakcja Wyclaw
Bloontington/I N : Indiana Univer._
N o n t irr a l i : ct ti ons.
sitv Presst Dcn Llaag: Mouton nrctw Katolickiego UniwersyterLr Lubelikiegà

Lcvi. Jr:dith N. (197E). Tlrc St,ttÍct.. Whitney. William Dwight (lg:,9'), Sanslrt"it Grcun_
crt.ttl Sen.LrutÍitt ruur.. Leipzig:
,tt \,,ntitt,tl,. \crr \trr.k. Aclrtlcrnir. pr.c:s
(.,,1111t1s1 Breitkopf und Hàrtel [reprint t9(r2.
Dclhi: Motilal Banarsiclass]
Lervis. Geollrey L (1967). T.rrki,sh Grutttntt.r. Ox-
Íblcl: Clarenclon Press Williams. E,drvin (1981). "Or.r rhe Notions [,c.ricul]t,
Rclrr^tc,l r1r_d. H, rrrl nl tt lf,,r,l". Littgrri,tit lrr,ltritl.r
Liebcr. Rochelle (.1992). Deconstnt(,tin,q Morphol_ 12.245-214
og.t': LIhrtl Fot.nlalion irt St:ntut,tir. 7hr:on,. Chiiaso:
LJnivcrsit)i ol C|tcago Prcss
Pius ten Httcken, Btrsel (Switzerlancl)

38. Inflection and derivation

l. DiÍïcrences beLwecn inllection ancl

iexemes, whereais inflection serves to create
clerit,ation
2. Split morpholo-ey?
diÍÍerent Íbrms of the same lexeme. There-
Í-ore. it is also said that clerivation. Llnlike in-
.1. ReÍcrences
Ílection, creirtes words Íbr new collccpt;.
However, one shoLtld fealize that clerivat'ion
has a setorrrlilr) hlnetiun in that it is also
l. DiÍ-Èrcnces betrvcen u\ed to lnilke 5t) listie \iu.ialion ptrrriblc l-or
inÍlection itnd clerivation Insllulcc. ol- tl)e Ibllor,r irrg ttJ alternalire
phrtrsings ol a rclerring cipression, the se_
Tire rnair.r distinction bctrvcen inflection and cond makes use ol derivàtion (oi[ reatktr
clerivation is a Íirnctional one: clerivation (i.e. frot:n reotl):
rd-1brnla tion except con.lllo u ncl in-q) is th at
\\,o
(l') (a) He r)ho rauLls thi,t book
kind oÍ-morphology that scrvcs to create new (b) Tha reacler of rhi."r boolt

l
38. hrflection ancl derivation
Derivation diÍlers from compounding, an-
other type of lexeme Íbrmation, in that in
compounding (at lcast) tlvo lercmes are in-
volvecl, ancl conlbined into a complcx word,
rvhereas the ir.rput to clerivation is a single lcx-
er.r.re (cf. A'1. 37).
The formal means by which inÍlection and
clerivation are exprcssed are often the sat.ne.
ln both. tl.rc processes of allhatiott. r,or'vel
cl.range. reduplication etc. may be used. For
insti,rnce, in many Indo-European languages
inÍlection is expressed prinrnrily b,v suÍÏx-
ation. which is also a kind of morphological
upcrilti()ll tt:ctl irt det'irlttirrtt.
Whether a sharp demarcation ol inflection
r,vith respect to derivation is possible, is a
classical problem in tnorpl.rological theorl-'.
Whereas some lin.euists claim tl.rat therc is no
sharp dernarcation betu'een the tr'vo^ ancl that
thcrc is a cline tiorn pr:ototypical clerivation
to prototypical inÍlection (tsybee l9E5; Dress-
ler 1989; Plank 1994). others do make it shnrl-r
distinction which is reÍlectecl by their ol:gan-
izational model ol the grammar (Perhnr-rtter
1988; Arderson 1982; 1992).
In order to come to -qrips with this clcmar-
cation probler.r"r. I lvill revierv thc dillèrent ar-
guments and criteria proposecl ir-r the litera-
ture Íor clistinguishing bctween the two (see
also Scalise 1986 ancl Dressler 1989).
I .1. Change ol word class
The Ílrst critcrion is that clerivation. urrlike
inflection. r.nay change the rvold class clf the
inpr-rt worc1. That is. derivation may caLlse
transposition of rvord class. This rnay be seen
as a conseqLrence ol tl-re lexical enlichment
and stylistic variation functions of deriva-
tion, rvhich do not apply to inÍlection. How-
ever. since derivtrtion does not necessarily
change rvord class. the Íirct that :r morpho-
logical process cloes not cl.range wor:c1 class,
is no proof of its inÍlectional nature. First.
a categor-v-cleternrining aÍÏix ntay happcn to
attach to a worcl ol the san.re catcgory. An
example is the Dutch nomir.ralizin-s suÍl'ir -cr'
that may be aflixed to nominal bases^ e.g.
veten,rchup'science' - v'ett'rt,st'h.crll2cr'scien-
tist'. Seconcl. languages may have evaluative
morphology that is^ like inflection. trarspar-
ent Íbr the syntactic category and the gencler
of the base^ but that is l-elt as clerivation as
lar as the semantic char.rge involvecl is cotr-
ccrned. Fol ilrstance. the Italian dimir.rutive
suffix -itt,linu can be attacl.recl to nouns to
lbrm nouns. and to adjectives to fonn acljec-
361
tives: roguzzo 'boy' - roguzz,itttt 'little boy',
rugo.z(l'gir1' - rugct.ziuu 'little gill'. glrll/o
'1,ellow' - gialLínr.t 'yellorvish'. This sl.ror'vs
that thc lttrliar.r din-rinutive suÍÏx is trallspar-
ent Íbr the syntactic czrtc-uorv and genclcr: ol
its stem. On the other har.rcl. Dr-rtch clin.rinu-
tive snÍllxes are categor-v-deter-n.riniug. ancl al-
ways create nouns, e.g. blontl 'bloncl'
blontlje'girl u,ith blond hzrir'. Moreovcr, the
Dutch dir.r.rir.rutives are always neuter, unlihc
their basc words: tle ,stctel 'the chair (t-ton-nen-
tcr)' versus ltet :'tocltjc 'thc little chair (ncr-r-
ter)'. Thirs. Dutch diminutives are a clearer
case of clcrivation than the Italian oncs.
A problem lbr the demarcation criterion
cliscussecl here is that inllection clru change
thc syntactic catcgory of its inputs too (Has-
pelmath l996). For instance, inii'ritives dcr
not only exhibit vcr:ba1 propertics, but also
nominal or.res. This is illustratcd by the Dutch
inÍinitival phrase hel boelccrL kLtp-t'tt 'the
books buy-rNr (the buying of books)'. The
syntactic distribution ol the inlinitivc is that
of a noun. since it occLlrs r'r,ith the clcleruriner
àcl 'thc'. On the othcr hancl. it bchaves as a
verb with respect to its colt.rplcmcnt. since it
allows [or: a prcverbal preposition-less noun
phrase complcment. boekcrL. Other eriin-rplcs
a
ol Dutch inlinitives. plccecled by cleter-
miner and a preposition are:
(2) (a) Ik ben uun lrat .fict.sen
I am at the cYcle-lrp
'I am c-vcling.'
(b) Ili zattc het op ccn lopen
I put it on a u,alk-tNt'
'l startecl ruutring.'
ln Rorlance langrLages, inlinitives also func-
tion as nollns, as in Frencl-r le purle r'the clia-
lect'.
InÍ'initives also lèed nominlll word Íbnn:r-
tion. In Dr-rtch, as in manv Germanic lan-
gua ges, verbal compo tLncling i s tt r1pfocl uctive.
rvhcrctrs non.ri nal compo und in g is procl uctive.
lnfinitives behzrve like nouns in this respect:
Dutch has many compounds ol the type
.school_srvirn_tNr_ (school-
st,hLtoL_ztyent.nten
swirr-rming)' which do not have finite Íbrms.
and thus carlnot be interpreted as the infiniti-
val lbrms of verbal compounds (Boott 1989).
ln many languages. participlcs behave like
adjectives in that the1, can bc used attribu-
tively and as predicates, ancl agt:ee in genclcr,
nnmber zrncl case rvith the noun tl.rat the,v
modify. On the other hanc1. par:ticiples sri11
have verbal potential in thi'rt they case-rn:rrk
 362
nominal phrasc argunlents. as in the Íbllow-
ing cxample Íl'om Gelman (Haspclmath
r 996):
(3) ein den Riclttct' íiberra,st'lrcntle.s Faktunt
a tlie juclge sur:prising fact
'a fact tl.rat sr-trprises the judge'
Here. the participle iiherrttscltentle.l'surplis-
ing' a-9rees in nurrber. case anc'l gender rvith
its heacl FaliÍunr'fact'; yct it has an accllsa-
tive-rrarkecl verbal complement tlen Rich.ter
'DLr::ACc.sG.\'r judge'.
Participles also feecl cleacljectivzrl u,ord for-
mation. as irr Elrglish spoilatlnes.r and its
Dutch ccltriviient bctloryeuhaítl. They lexi-
calize qr-rite oÍien as acljectives with nn idio-
synclatic meaning. e.g. Dutch gasloÍen (.past
participle)'closed'. but also'close-moLrthecl',
and vot:dcnd (plesent participle) 'raging', but
also 'angrv'.
ln Biblical Hebrcu,. participles rnay have
the distribution ol nouns. For instance, they
can be prcceclecl by a dctelr.r.riner. nnd tlrey
can be inflcctccl for numbcr. gender, and state
(construct state r.vhen Íbllowed by a specifier
or complement. absolute state if there is no
spcciÍier or complcment). Yet. they are sti1l
in that they allorv for verbal colr.rple-
r''erbal
ments markcd with the accusative particle el
(D,vk 1994).
Geruncls arc another casc ol transposi-
tional inflection: tl-rey are r,erbzrl forms with
(zl) mojeho
1.sc;-ltasc.sc.cBN hr-rsband's
'n'rv husbancl's sister'
h-r this example, the posscssive pronolln /r?o-
.fcfio agrees in gencler with the nominal stem
rrrrr:. rvhereas tnulotr.'u. rvith tl-re adjectii,al
sullix -olr'. agrees rvith thc head noun .rotra in
gendcr and case.
1.2. Obligatoriness
The scconcl criterion founcl in the literature is
that clerivation is optior.ral. whercas inflection
is obligatory. Fol instancc. given that Latin
noLrns are inÍlected fcrr nnmber and case.
each Latin noun must be inflectecl Íbr these
tr'vo categorics. ancl has an cnclir.rg indicating
nlrnrber ancl case. Whethcr this applies to all
and/or al1 langr-rages. depends on one's
"vords
an:rlysis. For instance . the Englisir noun boctk
may be clain-rcd to lack a speciÍication for
numbcr. rvhich is an inflectional catcgory Íbr
English nouns. or consicierecl as speciÍied as
Dre Rolle der Morphologie in Crammatik rLncl Lexikon
rronrinal properties. For instance, in John's
reutli.n.g the puparsthc gerund reuding behaves
erternlrlll ils it noun sirree it llsrigns gcnitire
case to Jolm. wltereas it behaves as a verb
with respect to its nomir.ral" prepositionless
cor.nplement I lte pultars.
An exnmple Íl-om tr non-Indo-E,r-rropean
language is the Austronesian languagc Kam-
bera. In t1'ris language the relative markers on
verbs, -p.7 and -mtt. which are inflectional ele-
ments. also have a nominalizing fr-rnction
(Klamer 1994: 320-326).
Other cases ol category-changing n.ror-
phology that might be interpreted as cate-
gory-changing inflection are deadjectival itd-
verbs such as lruppih: $rom lnppy). sllbstan-
tivized adjectives iike Dilch ( tle ) long-e '(Íhe1
tall (person)', ancl deverbnl adverbs (con-
yerbs. c1'. Haspelmatl'r & König 1995, eds.)
sucl.l as Kannada lteal .f ,-atlc I t,r,, 'say-NEG.aDV
(without telling)'. The fact that these mor-
phological operzrtions are possible for each
relevant word, and are also reqr-rired by the
syntactic environment sLrggest that they be-
long to inflection (cf. section 1.3 and Art. 62).
A particr-rlar telling example of this is the
category of possessivc acljectives in Sorbian.
In tl.ris language. denominal adjectives exhibit
transparency as to gender of their nontinal
bases. a krnd of transparency that is typically
expectcd froln inflection, not fron'r deriva-
tion. The Iollou,ing example illustrates this
transparency (Corbett l9E7: 303):
mr-rZ]x -ow]A -a sotra
r.EN,{.sG.N()M sister
singular by mcans ol a zero-morpheme. In
the Í-irst analysis. the rvorcl book is not spcci-
lied for number. and thus contrtrdicts the ob-
ligator:iness claim. Therelbre. the cr:iterion ol
obligatoriness is not always he1plïl as a cle-
marcation criterion.
1.3. Paradigms
A characteristic diÍIerence between inflection
and derivation is that inÍlection is often orga-
nized in tenls of paradi-ems. Each cell in the
paradign-r specifies the Íbn.r.r of tr word Íbr a
particular valr-re (property) of thc relevant in-
llectional categories, such as nulnber, persolt,
tense. and case. A consequence ol this view
is the assun.rption of zero-mar:kers in case
tirerc is no erplicit n.rarking for a particular
inflectional property; thus a singular noun as
hooli ts given the morpholo-eical analysis
38. lnflectron and derivation
book-o because book fi]rls the cell Íbr nouu
singr.rlar. The same applies to thc expression
of present tense in l'or'lr.r which is analyzed
as l,or/r-r,r-.1' t t'or'/c-t'trs-3.sc;'.
This cliÍference betrveen inflection ancl der-
ivation seems, horvever. to be relativized by
n-rorphologists r.vho assu[le zero-morpheme
in derivation. Givcn data such as tl-rc follorv-
ing Íiorn Dutch:
(5) vally'1a11' valls 'fa11'
v:rng]y'ctitch' vang]1-st]5'catch'
belooll,'promise' belofly'te]1'prot.r.rise'
we trlay reasoll tl-rat cach verb has a cotre-
sponding deverbal event noun with a nomi-
nalizing marker that is expressecl as -.il in the
case of l)ctt1g. -te in the casc of baloof, and zrs
zero in the case of lal. Tl.ris rcasoning seems
to presuppose that each verb has a paraclig-
matic cell lor a c'lcverbal event noun. How-
evcr. there is a cliflerence with inflectional
zero-morphemes. becarttse clerivational zero-
morphemcs are onl1, assumed iÍ there are also
non-zero morphemes for the t'clevant mor-
phological categol'y. Where:rs we may assume
a zcro-morpheme Íbr the English singular
nour.rs without there being an overl cotlntcr-
part, in dcrivatior.r:rl morpl-rology at least one
overl markcr lbr tl-re morphological category
involvecl is usually recltLired, thc overt ana-
logue criterion. This criterion then distingu-
ishes derivation Íiom inflection (cf. Sanders
I 988).
Reiatecl to the paradigmatic structurc ol
inÍlection. we often Ílncl that tl.rere is no olte-
to-one correspotrdence between inflcctional
properties ancl their lormal expressiou: twcr
or more properties may be expressed by the
same form. or vice vcrsa (Matthews 1991; cf.
also Art. 64. 65). An inÍlectional property will
be expressecl in morc than or.rc rvay if thc 1an-
guage involved has inflection classes (declen-
sions Íbr nollns. and conjugations Íbr verbs);
each class lnety have its owr.r lormal expres-
sion for a particular array ol inflectional
propertics. Where:rs in Latin rrlcrr.ra 'table' the
properties'NoN,IINATIvE' and'stNcut-AR' are
expressecl b-v the sufÍ'ix -rr. the samc proper-
ties are erpressed by -us in the noun rlorrr-
'house'. On the other hand. u'c also Ílnd
zr,r
syncretism (Art. 66) i.e. certain cells in the
paradigr.r.r are filled with the same word-Íbrm:
met'ts-i.tis both the dative and the ablative
plur:al Íor nlcn.\(1.
A characteristic of inflectional paracligms
in many lnnguages is that the Íbrmation ol
tl.re intlectional forms involr,es more than one
363
stem Íbrm. Latin. for instauce. uses three
stem forms Íbr each r.'erb, one Íbr the present
tense. one for the perÍèct, and one for the
past participle. Thus, the verb ponerc'to pltt'
has the stem Íbrms pale-, pos'Lt-^ and posil-.
as irt ltone-o'I put'. posu-i 'I have put'. 2osil-
as 'put (past participle)' (cl. Art. 62).
This type of stem allomorph.v is ncverthe-
less no exclnsive charactcristic ol inllection:
wc aiso Ílnd cases where different stet'u foltl-ts
of a base word have to be r-rsecl in derivation.
For instance, in Gern'ranic languagcs man1,
non-native r'vorcls have two stcm Í-orms. one
Íbr tratiye deriyational morpholo-ey, and an-
other one for non-uative clclir"atiott. A r'vorcl
llke tlruntu has trvo stet'u fot-t.t.ts. drumtt- ts in
tlre plural forn't drantus, zrn<l tlrutrttl-. as in
dranta Í- i.r' (Booii 1997).
of an inflectiot'tal para-
Since the words
digm are more closcly conuccted to cach
otl.rer than derivationally relatecl wolcls. anal-
ogy applics more lrequently witliin inflection.
For instiu.tcc. wherezrs Lalin lnnos 'honor'
changed ro honor because of thc ger.ritivc
fontl lu»tor-l.r (Íiom underlying hono.s-i.t,
through a rnle that turns intervocalic s into
[r]). a czrse of analo-ey. the clerivecl acljective
hr»rc.sÍut^'honcst' kept its s .
1.4. Generality :rnd prodLrctivit-v
A number of propertics of ir.rÍ-lcction reflect
the basic generalizations concerning the clif--
Í'erences between inÍ'lcction ar-rd clerivation
discussed above.
First. if inflection is obligatory in the sense
that for each word tl'rcre is a paradigr.n ol
rvhich the cells have to be filled ( 1.2), rve ex-
pcct tl.rat all rvords o[ the relevant catcgory
undergo the pertinent inÍlectior.ral ru1es. That
is. inÍlectionai rules tencl to be general (npply
to all relevant u,ords) and are productive (that
is. new worcl-Íbr-ms can be ln:rde in accord-
with the rule). This is the main reason
ar.rce
for considerirlg ccrtain t.vpcs ol class-chang-
ing morphology discussed in l.l as inÍlcction.
Productivity of inÍlecrional patterns is cer-
tainly a uni.,,ersal tendency. but r.rot rvithout
exceptior.rs: we do fincl paradigmatic gaps. i.e.
words for which cer:tain inllectiot'r:rl Í-orms
rure not a",ailable. Dr-Llch has a numbcr of
colnplex verbs that only cxist in thc inflnitivc.
and do not havc linite forms, Íbr instance
hloentlczen 'to make an antl"rology'. Frcncl.l
has a nurnber of verbs for which not all tense
forms catn be fomed. The verb li'iru' 'to fry',
for exnmple, has no plural lorms for the prc-
scnt indictrtive (Morin l995). Moreovcr. the
364
property of generality docs r.rot always hold.
In English many nouns clo not have a plurali
Íbrrn irt zrll (t'otu'uge, .fctotl, grut'e. LIurt:lt, ct.r-
,yuretlness. etc.). alrd many English adjectives
do not have comparative or superlative lbnr.rs
(instead. onc has to use nlorclmosÍ I utljet:-
/n'c). Conversel1,. languages may also have
pluralia tantum, i.e. nouns that only occur in
the plurzrl. srlch as DtÍch Alpan'Alps', nr.rla-
/crz'minutes' and ltm'ken'har-rnches'.
1.5. Ser.nantic traltsparency
Anotl.rer corollary ol the more genernl ancl
procluctive natLlrc of inÍlection is that it is sc-
mantictrlly more transparent thtrn derivation.
Whereas derived words often havc a n.reaning
that is not purely a coilpositional function
oL thc meaning of its n.rorphological constitu-
ents. this is very rarely tl.re casc r,vitl.r inflec-
tion. Exceptior-rs are some plurtrl nour.rs:
brethren l.ras the special meaning 'members ol
a leligioi-rs conrmunity' that brotlrcrs does not
have necessarily, and whereas t'lotlt means
'woven matcrial', the plr-rral cloÍlrcs l.ras the
meaning 'garrncnts'. Such inÍlectional forms
erhibit the phenomenon of lexical split: the
ser.nantic rclation between tr,vo Lormally re-
latccl words is no longer transparent. lt is a
perlasive phenomcnon in cleriv:rtion. and rcl-
atively rare in inflection.
Tl.re criterion of semantic r:egularity is also
involvecl in the issue whether the systen.r of
conjr-rgaticrnal classes in Hcbrew (.the hinya-
nim) and other Serlitic languages is a matter
ol inÍlection or ol derivation. Since the dif-
lerent binyunint of a ver:bal root oÍïen have
ur.rpredictable meaning aspects. one is in-
clined to consider l-his system as derivation.
Fol instance. the verbal root qÍ1. has the
following acÍive binytutint (the Íbrms given
are tl.re 3.sg.masc.perf. Íbrms (Aronoff 1994:
t24)'):
(6') tlttatul 'to kill'^ nicluol 'to kill oneself'^ 4ir-
le1 'to massacre', hitltil 'to cause to kill'.
h i Íclutrttcl'to kill oneself'
On the otl.rer: hand. the Íàct that the bínyoni.nr
of a verbal root such as (ltl 'Lo kill' form a
kind ol paradigm r:eminds us ol inflection.
The best interpretation appears to be that
bin.yunim are inllectional classes. ar.rd that
Hcbrew derives new verbs by changing the
inflectional class (bhtyun) of a verb. That is,
transposition of conjugational class is a Íbrm
of derivation (Aronoff 1994).
Die Rolle dcr Morphologic in Glamrnatik uncl Lexjkon
1.6. Psycholinguistic dilïerences
The difÍèrences between derivation ar.rd in-
flection outlinecl in the prcceciir.rg sections
may also hu.',e a psycholingr-ristic refler in
tl-rat prodr-Lcts of clerivation rvill morc readily
be stored in the mental lexicon. rvhereas in-
Ílectional forms, being mostly regular ancl
lormed according to prodr-Lctive rules, ivill
often be m:rcle 'orr the spot' (cf. Alt i 65). This
will in particular be the case Í-or liurguages
with rich inÍlectional systems, Íbr which it is
simply impossible to store all thc possible il-
flectional foms ol a lexcme.
The distinction between stol'age and rule
does not completely coincicle. liowever, witl.r
that bctr,veen inllection and derivation. Irrcg-
ular inlfectional Íirrms, and regulal forms
a high token fteclucncy appear to be
rvitl.r
stored, ."vhereas rcgular inflectional forn-rs
with a 1ow fi'equency are prodr-rcecl by r:u1e
(Sten.rberger & MacWhinncy 1988). On rl-re
other hand, there itre very pl'oductive and
regular derivational categories that can easily
be extendcd by rule, and for which it is there-
fore implausible that a11 its members are
stored the mental lexicon. This is in partic-
ir.r
ular: the case for languagcs with agglutinating
morphology like Turkish where rvitir one root
we may l.rave millions of different word lornts
which car.rnot possibly be stored (Hankamer
1989). A related observation reported in thc
Iiterature is that in speecl.r errors inflectional
morphemes arc much morc easily put in the
wrong place than clcrivational morphemes.
The distinction between inflection and cler-
ivation has also been investigated in studies
ol aphasia, with unclear conclusions. Ba-
decker & Caramazza (1989) investigated the
lar.rgua-ue ol an Itaiian aphatic who made
many inflectional errors. but almost no deri-
vational ones. Tl.rey therefore conclr-rdcd tl.rat
the grlrmmar must distinguish inflection and
derivation, although, as they point out, this
clocs not imply that inÍlection and derivation
belong to two dilfcrent components ol the
grammar (as in the split morphology hypothe-
sis, cf. 2). On the other h:rncl, there are also
speakers with agrammatism (Broca aphatics
with poor syntax ancl almost no function
words) wl.rose inflectior.ral morpl-rology is not
affected. and as well preserved as their deri-
vational n'rorphology (De Bleser: & Bayer
1988). A survey of possible psycholinguistic
dil'Íerences between inÍ-lection and derivation
is given in Bertinetto (1995).
38. lnflcction and derivzrtiou
1.7. Recursivit),
A conseqnence of the iunctional dif-fcrences
between clerivation and inflection is that.
r'vhereas an inÍlectior.ral process is appliecl
only once to a worcl in orclct' to create a r'vorcl
fcx'm thttt fills a cell of the paraclign-r. dcriva-
tional morpl.rology may apply recursively be-
cailse each derivational step may add some
additional meaning. For instancc. in the
Dutch aclj ec tiv c u' k e - l oo.i-/rcrrli- 1oo.i' bei g
: r'
witl.rout unemployt.nent'" tl'rc sLrfÍix -loos
'withor-rt' occurs tr'vice. Rccursive application
of derivational n-rorpl-rology is also founcl lor
:r number ollanguagcs in the dor.r-rain o1 eval-
uative morphology. For instance. rvc lincl two
consecutive climinutive (endearment) sullixes
in Polish koteczck, underlying lorm kot-ek-
ek | 'dear little cat', '"vith trvo insl-ances of tl-re
diminr-rtive suÍïx -clr. and in Af rikaans /lrrls-
it,-tlic 'dear little house' (-ic ancl -liic ar:e a1lo-
morphs of thc diminr-rtive sufÍix).
The possibility oÍ- recursivity in clerivatior.r
reflects tirc lact that clerivational morphologl,
oÍien consists of the linear concatenation ol
morphcmes. sin.rilar to corlpouncling. r'vhere-
as inflection is oÍten of the I'usional. tron-trg-
glutinative type.
1.8. Syntactic rclevance
An important den-rarctrtion criterion often
proposecl in tl.rc literature is tl.rat inflection is
that part ol morphology that is rclevant to
syntax (e.g. Anclerson 19E2: 587). Particular
inÍlectional forms of worcls mzr1, be required
by the syntactic context. i.e. they are deter-
minecl by agreement or rection (i.e. govern-
ment). This is what is called contextual inflec-
tion in Booij (1994). Tl,pical examples are
agreement in number and pcrson betweett
sLrbject and tlnite verb, ancl thc selection ol
particular case forms of nouns b1' verbs ar.rd
prepositions. Note. hou,evcr. that not all in-
flection is dependent on slrntax. For instance,
the number ,rf ii noun in subject position is
not determincd by syntactic contcxt. br-rt is a
matter of fiee choice by tl.re speaker. That is.
there is also inherent inÍlection (e.g. number
of nouns, tense. aspect. compiiratives, and
sr-rperlatives), r'vhich is closer to derivntion
than contextual inflection. The clistinction
between inhercnt and contextuaI inflection is
reÍlectecl by the lact that inl'rcrent inflection
tends to be more idiosyncrirtic than contex-
tual inflection (lexical split. clefective para-
dign-rs. forms without basc words. etc..
Booij 1994).
365
This diÍ-ferencc between inhcrcnt and
contextual inllection has also been observcd
b1, Kuryloivicz who distinguishecl between in-
flcctional categories rvith a primarily syntac-
tic Íunction such as case and inllectional cate-
golies ir itlr lr primalily setttrutlie or autono-
mor-rs firnction. He pointed out that number
is "a sernantic trait of the noun" (KLrrylowicz
1964: 31). and that "degrees ol compiLrison
r.r
[...] represcnt the autonomous inflection of
the adjective. This inflection is intrinsically
semantic :rnd never assumcs a special synt:tc-
tic Íunctior.r" (Kurylowicz 1964: 34).
The criterion that syntactically rclcvant
rrrolphtrlogl is irrllectiorr i: u()t \o eil\y lo itl)-
ply in all cases. Note that derivation is also
relevant to syntax ir.r that it olten determines
the syntactic catcgory and the syntactic va-
lency of the words it creates. For instance,
tl.re Dutch prelix óc- creates transitive verbs
from verbs and nouns. The transitivity eÍÈct
shows that óc-preÍix:rtion is syntacticitlly rele-
vant. Yet, we consider óe-prcfixation cleriva-
tion. because of its potentral Íbr word class
tr:ansposition. and the oÍten unpredictable
rrrelning rrl- the /tr'-r et b.
We meet a similar problem rvhen we want
to determine whether the formatictn oJ' ad-
verbs in -/.1.' in English is inÍlection or deriva-
tion. Tlrc use of tl.re advcrb(ial form) ltappily
in Tlrcy song lruppill,is requirecl by the syn-
tactic context. This cloes not necessarily im-
ply that -{r, suflixation is a t't-tiittcr of inÍlec-
tion: one might also say that the syr.rt:rctic
context recluires an adverb, ancl that suÍÏx-
ation with -/y is thc rnorphological answer to
tl-ris nccd. i.e. n.rorphology creates adverbs.
Similarly. the r-rse of a thttn ,VP phrase re-
quires the use of an ndjective, as tn Joltn i.s'
higger íhan Petcr, bu-Í we can aiso use the
comparative forn-r withoul a tltut-phrasc. On
the other h:rnd, in the noun phrase type
somcÍhfug i adjective, e.g. .sonrctltíng gootl,
tl.re Drrtch ecluivalent is the phrase iats goed-
,s in which the class-changing nominalizing
suflix -s is obligatorily added to the zrdjective
goerl'good'. That is. what we meet witl.r herc
is syntactical[y reqr-rired word class changing
derivntion. Thus. the criterion ol syntnctic
relevance docs not always distinguish be-
twcen derivation and inÍlection (cl. van
Marle 1996).
1.9. Order olmorphemes
In a complcx word with botl'r derivation atrd
cf. inflection. inflection is r-rsually peripheral
with respect to derivation. For instance, ir.t
366
the D utch clirr-rin r-rtive m o e de r t.j e
crs', the diminutive sul1ix -lie precedes the
plnral suffix -.r. ancl a form like *ntLtetlcrsÍ.jc is
i1l forrnccl. This is one ol the most important
fonnal reasons for distinguishing between in-
Ílection ancl derivation: clerivational suÍïixes
are not attached to words in the concrete
sense. but to stcms. i.e. u,ords minus their in-
Ílectior.ral endings (in the lt:riian example
giver-r in I.1. the diminlrtir,'e sulÍlx -àro is not
attirchcd Ío rtryu:zo'boy'. bLrt to the stem ra-
g0::.-).
The periphcriility of inÍlection has been
statcd as a universal by Greenberg
(l)
" Ltníyct'sal 28. ll both the derivation and
the inÍlection lbllorv the root" or they
both prcccdc the loot, the derivation is
alwal,s betr'veen the root anci the inflec-
tion."
Somc morphologists have claimed
Cicrlnan diminutives such as Kindcrchen
'srnall chiidren' are coLrnterexanrples to the
cizrim that inÍlection is alrvays pcriplieral with
respect to derivation. because the plural mor-
phcmc -ci' prececles the diminutivc sr-rÍïix
-cÍr:n. However. it is not so certain that the
rnorpheme -cr in tl-ris example has a pl-rral
Í'unction. it can also be reinterpreted as an
cxtensiolr of the stern ol' thc lexeme
'child'; this implics that the plurality is ex-
pressed b,v zero. jr-rst as is the c:rse for all
other worcls in -chen such as Mtitlt'ltcn'girl'.
As u'e sar,r, ir.r 1.8. inherent inflcctior.r ap-
peals to share a lot of propcrties with deriva-
tion; this is in linc u,ith the generalization
that contcrtual inÍlection tends to be periph-
cral with respect to inhercnt inflection. For
inslance, in Dutch finite .n,erbs. the (contextu-
ally cleterrninecl) nr-rmber sufÍlx is peripherai
rvith respect to the (inherent) tense-sLrlïx,
c. g. .',er lt- t e-n'work-past-pL'.
Morphologists r,vho do not accept a rigid
clistinction between i n Í'l ection ancl der-ivation "
have tried to establish prírciplcs Íor tl.re or-
clering ol aÍïlxes rvithin a cornplex r,vord. The
best knowlr proposal is that of Bybec (1985).
According to her, the ordcr of aÍïxes is deter-
mined by thc de-9ree ol relevance of nn alfix
lbr the meaning of the worcl. Since deriva-
tional allixes such as tl.re causatii,e suffix.
have a consiclerable and specilic elfect on the
rneanir.rg of the r.vorcl. and tl-rus have a higher:
semantic relevancc. they occur close to the
stem. rvhereas aÍllres Íbr aspcct, tense and
the like are morc peripheral: they have more
general. hence vaguer mennings. Moreover,
V. Die Rolle der Morphologic rn Grarnmatik und Lexikon
s'little moth- inflectional markers oÍ-ten do not pcrtain to
the meaning ol tl'rc complex rvord itselÍ', but
cxpress the relatior.r of a word to situation
ancl context. Tense, for example. expresses
the time relation between tl.re event or sitr-rzr-
tion expressed by the verb and thc moment
of speaking. and case cxpresses the relation
ol a noun to other par:ts of the sentcnce.
Bybee (1985: 35) established the Íbllowing
tendcncies in the ordering of verbal inÍlec-
tional markers with respect to the stem:
(8) stem-aspect-tense-mood-nun.rber/person
( 1963: 93): This scheme rcflccts that contextual inflcc-
tion tends to be peripheral with respect to in-
helent inÍlection (Boor.1 1994). To put it clif-
lcrently, syntactically relevant morphemes
tend to occur at thc pcriphely, in or:der to
be visible fol the syntax (Williams 1981). For
instance, as Greenberg pointcd out, there is a
thzrt strong universal tendcncy for case affixes to
be periphcral u,ith respect to number affixes.
This is in line with the observation that inher-
ent inflection is more like derivation thar.r
contextual inflection (Greenbcrg 1963: 95):
(L)) " Unit,ersal J9. Where morphemes of both
number and case are present and both
follow or plecede the noun base, the ex-
pression ol number almost :rlways comes
Kr.nrl
between thc noun base and the exprcs-
sion of case."
In sur. the Íbllorving universal tcndency
appeaÍs to occur: contextr.Lal inÍlection is pe-
r:ipheral with respect to inherent inflection,
ancl inherent inÍlection is peripheral r.vith re-
spect to der:ivation. This generalization there-
Íbre sr-rpports t1're inÍlection-derivation dis-
tinction.
2. Split rnolphology?
The differences between inflection and deri-
vation cliscussed above have led some lin-
guists to assllme an organizational model of
the grammar-in r,vhich there is a strict separa-
tion of derivation and inflection. Derivatiolr
is located ir.r a pre-syntactic morpl.rological
component and functions to enrich the lexi-
con. lnllection. on the other hand. is located
in a post-slrntactic componcnt of morpholog-
ical speil-out rr-Lies, since the correct inllec-
tional forn-r of a u''ord depencls on its position
in syntactic structure. This moclel is called the
model of split morphology (Per'lmLLtter 1988).
and is also advocated in Anderson (1982;
1992). An :rdditional reason lbr this scpara-
38. [nÍlection atid derivalion
tion is th:Lt. whereas in derivatior.ral morphol-
ogy there is irsuall,v a one-to-one reiation be-
tr'veen lbrm ancl mcaning, tl-ris is diÍÍerent lor
inÍlection. since more than one inÍlectional
category n-ray be erpressccl by or.re morpheme
(e.g. numbcr and casc in Latin), or one it.t-
Ílectional category by more than one t.nor-
pheme (e.g. the Greck perfect is expressed
both by reduplication. a particul:rr suÍÏlx.
and a speciÍic endin-s: 1,t,o le-ly-li-11 'T have
looscned'). Therclbre. inflection rules zrle
seen as realizittional rules or spell-out rules
that specify the [or-r.r.ralcrpression of each ar-
rlrltrl' irrllecti,'llal l)ropcl lics.
A variant ol this olganizational model is
proposed in Beard (1994): derivation is pre-
synt:rctic as fal as set.nantic trncl sYutactic
properties are conccl'ned, inflection is post-
sl,ntactical. Both derivational propertics (e. g.
agent, action), and inflcctional oncs are
spclled out by the same realizational compo-
nent. The reason Íor: this cor-rÍ'lation of tl.re
Íbrr.nal expression of dcrivational ancl inÍlec-
tional cate-eories is that derivzrtion and inÍlcc-
tior.r olten make usc ol the san.rc alÍlxes. For
instancc. the Dutch suflix -s exprcsses botl.r
'3.s<;-pnr,s' lor verbs. 'pLURAL' Ibr nour-rs. and
dcacljectir,'al nominalization as in gocr.1-s 'the
good'. ancl English -r:i is both lhe cot.npara-
tive and thc deverbal agentive suÍÏx.
It shor,rlcl be r:ealized. however, tl'rat the
lact that tl.re cl'roice of a particr-r1ar inflec-
tional Íbrm is determined b1r syntax cloes not
necessalily imply that inflection is post-syn-
tactic. Or.re can also assllmc thzit irrÍlection
applics pre-syntacticnlly, ancl that rules such
as subject-verb agrecment only have n check-
ing Ír.rnction: they check whether the relcvant
ilorphos,vntactic properties of q,orcls in :t
specrl'ic s) ntectie uon5tnlutiott at'c eotttpttti-
ble. For instance, since thc English nouns
peoplc and ltooks are markecl as plural. the
second clue to an inflectional process, the1,
both require a plural Ílnite verb if thcy are
the head of a subject t'toun phrase. That is,
the presence ol a singular finite verb will
qualify such a sentencc its ungralr'nr-ratical.
The position that all morphology is pre-
syntactic is callcd strong lexicalism. ancl the
position that only word-lorn.ration is pre-syn-
tactic is called lveak lexicalism.
An acl«litional argument 1or the split mor-
phology hypothesis is that it preclicts that in-
flection does not lecd clerivatior.r. i.e. that we
never Ílncl inflectional morphemes inside cler-
ivntional morphcmes. Thus, this model c1i-
)61
rectly accor-rnts Íbr the pcripherality of inflcc-
tion r,i ith |esfeLt lo tlcrir lrtrolt.
Another organizational variant in which
derivation and inÍlection are not completcly
separated. but clistinguished within the lexical
component, is the h,vpothesis of level-ordered
morphology (Kiparsky 1985). ln this model.
a variant o1 strong lexicalism. morpl-rological
processes are :rssigned to ditferent, orderecl
strata or levels in the lexicon. The idea then
is that derivation is located :rt an earlier level
(or e arlier levels. if more than one clcrivatior.r
level is assr-Lmecl) than (rcgular) inflection.
This ordering prcdicts that inflection cttnrlot
feed derivation. On the other hand. such an
organizational model maintains the possi-
bility that derivational and inÍlectior.ral pro-
cesses induce the same phonological pro-
cesscs. which is oftcn. but r.rot always. the
case (cf. 41. 35).
The basic problem Íbr the split morphol-
ogy hypothesis is that inÍlection sometimes
does 1èed dcrivation (BooU 1994; 1996). For
instance, plural nouns occur in Dutch de-
rived r,vorcls rvith tl.re collective suÍÏx -rlorl
such as st'lnliereudon z 'set of pupils'. In most
Eulopetrn Iilnguages past participlcs feecl de-
adjectival word Íbrn.ration. as in Dr-rtch
gevrct,si-ltcitl'Íèared-ness'. Similar observa-
tions on Romance languages can be found in
Rainer (1996). ln Breton, thc climinutive suf-
Ílx is not only attached to singular nouns. bnt
also to plural nouns such as Örrgor) 'boats'
(Stump 1990: 104):
(10) sg. dim. pl. pl.dim.
hag bug-ig bug-ot) bag-oit-ig-oit
Breton plural nouns also feecl two other cleri-
vational processcs. the lbnration of denon-ri-
nal verbs and of cleverbal adjectives (Stump
1990: 108):
(11) uwl 'apple' ut,ul-oit 'pr' at,ul-oi-a 'Lo
look for apples'
Tn sum. both the split morphology hypoth-
csis and tl.re level ordering hypothesis havc
problcms with the types oÍ- ir.rteraction of in-
llection and r.vord Íbrmation presented above.
Tlre discussiort in this seetion un to Ito\À
presupposed that derivation is always pre-
:) r)tactie . Ercn thnt pt'estrpposition is not
shared by all linguists. Certain types of deri-
vational rr-rorpholog1, can be analysecl as syn-
tactic incorporation. For instance. in 1au-
guage u,ith deverbal cttlLsative verb forma-
tion, the causative sLrÍÏix might be analysed
as the verbal heacl ol zL ciause that is moved
368 V. Die Rolle der Molpholo-eic in Grammatik und Lcxikon

to a higher clause, and is ndjoined to the verb Corbett. Creville (1987). "The Morphology/Syntax
of that higher clause, a case of Head Nlove- Interface: Evidence lrom Possessir,e Acljectrves rn
ment (Baker 198E). The movcment is obliga- Slavonic". Lunguugt' 63. 299-345
tory because the cause-verb is specified ns a Dlessler. Wollgang U. (1989), "Prototl,prcal DiÍ'-
bound morpheme that l.ras to be attached to tèrences bctween Inflection trnd Derivation".
another word in surlnce structure. In such Zeitst'hri/ï .ftir Phonetil<. Sprutlnr.,i,s"s'en,s'thuIt urul
annlyses the diÍïerence between derivntion Kont mlm iko Íionsf or st'lru ng 42. 3 - 10
and inflection cannot coir.rcide with the dis- Dyk, Janet (1994), Purritiplc.s in Bihlitul Ht,hret; A
tinctior.r between prc-syntactic and post-syn- C or n pu Í c r - a,s'.t i,y t e d S ttLcl.t, o / O I d' lës t run en Í H c b rc : y.
tactic morphology. Amsterclau'r: VU Univclsity Press
Greenberg, .Ioseph H. (1963), "Some Universals ol
Grammar. witl-r Ptrrticular ReÍèrencc to the Order
3. References ol MeaningÍïl Elements". In: Crccnbcrg, Joseph
H. (ect.), Uniler,sal.s ty' Lutguage. Cambndge/MA:
Andersor.r" Stephcn R. (1982). "Whcrc's Morphol- MIT Pless. 73 - 1 11
ogy')" . Lingui,sÍit lntluiry 13. 57 t-612 Hammond. Michael & Noonan. Michael (19E8.
Anderson. Stepl-ren R. (1992). 1-rnu'pltous Mor- ecls.1. Tlteoretictt.I Mnrp|to|og.),. San Die-qo/CA ctc.:
pholotv. Ctrmbridge: Cambriclge Univelsity Press Acadcnric Press
AtonoÍÏ Mark (19921), MorphLtlogy h), It.sell. Ctntt- I{trnkamer, Jolge (1989), "Morphological Ptusing
bridge/MA: MÍT Press and lhe Lexicon". In: Miirslen-Wi1son. Willianr
Badecker'. Wrllianr &
Cararntrzza. Altbnso (I9E9). (.er1.)" Le.rica.l RepresentuÍion unl Proce.s.s. Cam-
"A Lerical Distinction betrveen lnflection and Der- bridge/MA, London: MIT Press. 392-408
ivatior-r". I-irtguisric lnquirt: 20, 108 ll6 Htrspelmath. Martin (1996). "Category-chirnging
-Baker. Mark (lr988). Inc'orporuÍiot.t: A Theory o/ Inllectron". In: Booij & r,an Marle (eds.), 5'1 66
G r tt.m n u I i<' u I Ftut c Í io n C I on gittg. Chicago : Cihicago
t t Haspclmath, Martin & König. E.kkehald (199-5.
Unrvelsity Press ecls.), ('onyerb,s in
Cros.s-lit'tgui.sÍic Per.sltecÍitc;
Beard, Robert (1994)^ I-erune-trtrtrltlrcme-buse- Slrru:Ítu'c tmcl Meaning oJ AtlrcrhitLl L/erb Fonn.t
nrtrlth.ologt. Albany/NY: Statc ol Nerv York LJni- (Gerutcls, AclverhcLl PdrtiL:iple,s). Berln: Mouton
versity Press de Gluyter

Bertinetto. Pier Marco (1995). "Compositionality Kiparskl,, Paul (1985), "Sone Clonsecluenccs ol
and Non-corrpositionirlity in Molphology,". ln: Lexical Pl'ronology". PhLtnolog.t' Yettrboolc 2. 85
f)resslcr. Wollgang U. & Burani. Cristina (eds.), 138
C ro s cl i.s t: i.p I in r 1, A p p ro ttc lta s I o M or p I rc I o g.1.. Wien
s' u : Klan-rer. Marian (1994'1. Kmtberu, u Languuge of
Vcr'lag clel Osterrcicl'rischen Akademic der Wis- Eo.ttern IndLtncsitr. The Hague: Holland Acaclentic
senschallen. 9 36 Glaphics (HIL Disseltations I l)
Bleser. Ria cle & Btryer', .losefl (198E), "On the Role Kurylowicz. Jerz1, (1964'), Tlrc Infletrionul Cutc-
of Inllectronal Morphologl, in Agrammatism". In: Heidelbcrg: Wrntel Uni-
gctri.e.s o.f lndo-Etrlopccr.n.
Hammoncl & Noontrn (eds.), 45-70 versitiitsverlag
Booij. Gccrt (1989). "Complex Verbs and tl.rc Tl.re- Marle. Jaap van (1996), "The Unity ol Morphol-
ory ol Level Orclering". ln: Booij, Geert & Van ogy: On the lnterwovcnness of the Derivattonal
Marlc, Jaap (ecls.)^ Iear'öool< o./ Morpltolog.t, 1t)89. and Inflectional Dimension ol the Word". In:
Dordrecht: troris. 21 30 tsooij & Van Malle (cds.). 67-82
Booij. Geelt E. (1994). "A-oainst Split Molpl.rol- Matthews, Petel H. (']1991). l,[orphologr'. Cl.m-
o-uy". hr: Booij. Geert & Van Malle. .laap (eds.). bridge: Can'rbridge LJniversit-v Press II1974]
Yeo.rbook o.f illorpholog.y 199J. Dordrecht: Kluwer,
21 49 Morin. Yves-Charles (1995), "De l'acquisition de la
n'rolphologic: lc cas des velbes molphologicluer-nent
Booij, Geert E. (1996). "Tnherent versus déÍèctils c'lu frangais". In: Bnt-Zeev Shyldkrot.
Contextual InÍlection and the Split Molphology Hava & Kupfermnn, Lr-Lcien (ecls.), Tendent'e.s llé-
Hypothesis". In: Booij & van Malle (cds.), I l6 cente,\ en Lingui..rtique Frunq'ui,se ct Générale. An-
Booij. Geelt E. (1997), "Autonomous Morphology sterdam: Benjamins, 295 310
and Paladigmatic Reltrtions". In: Booij, Geert & PerlmrLlter, David (l9EE), "The Spht Morphology
van Mtrt'le, Jaap (eds.), Yectrboolt o/ Morphology Hypothesis: Evidcnce h'om Yddish". In: Ham-
199ó. Dorclecl'rt: Klurver. 35 54
mond & Noonan (eds.), 79 100
Booij. Gccrt & van Marle. Jaap (1996, eds.). Iccr-
Plank. Frans (199,1), "InÍlection and Derivation".
book o/ Morpltologt 1995. Doldlecht: Klur,ver
In: Asher, R. E. (ed.). The Encyclopediu o/ Lan-
Bybec, Joan (19E5). Morphologl': The RclaÍictn be- gtruge utd Lin.gu.istic.s, hl llI. Oxlorcl: Perganron
Íteen Mea.ning und Fornt. Amsterdam: Benjamins Press. l67l-1678
38. Lrflection ancl denvatron 369

Rainer, Fr:anz ( I996), "InÍlectron inside Derivation: Stump, GregoL-v T. (1990), "Breton Inflection and
Evidence Ílom Spanish ancl Portuguese". In: the Split Morphology Hypothesis". ln: Flcndrick,
Booij & Van Marlc (cds.), E3 92 Randall (ed.). The Synra,r oJ the l[oclcrn Ccltic
Sanders. Gerzrtd (1988),"Zcro Dcrivation ar-rc1 the Langucr.gcs'. Sirn Dicgo/CA ctc.: Acadcnric Press
Overt Analogue Criterion". In: Hammond & Noo- (Syntax and Semantics 23), 97- I l 9
nan (eds.). I55 I75
Williams. E,dwin (1981). "On the Notions 'Lcxi-
Scalise. Sergio (1986), "lnflcction and Derivation". cally Rclatcd' and 'Head ol a Wold"'. Litgui,sti.c
Lingui,sricl 22. 561 581
Inqttiry 12.245 274
Stembergcr. Joscph Paul & MacWhinnel,. Brian
(1988). "'Are lnflcctccl Forrns Storecl in tl're Lexi-
con?". In: Hamnond & Noonnn (cds.), 101- ll6 Geert Booíj, Ant,sÍodatn (The Netherlunds)

View publication stats