Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:21:00.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inflection and the Paradigm in German Nouns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Amanda Pounder
Amanda Pounder
Affiliation:
University of CalgaryDepartment of Germanic, Slavic, and East Asian Studies2500 University Drive N.W.Calgary, AlbertaCanadaT2N 1N4 [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The paper presents an analysis of noun inflection in Modern Standard German within a process framework. Familiar issues in the description of German inflectional morphology are discussed, such as analysis of weak nouns and of plural formation, and the establishment of inflectional classes, as well as broader theoretical issues such as postulation of identity relations (“zeros”). The elements of a process morphology are elaborated, including some that deviate from well-known models, such as recognition of a dynamic morphological component distinct from the static lexicon, expression of morphological semantics in the morphological component, and formalization of the notion of a paradigm. The paradigm is claimed to be an essential morphological structure, dynamic in nature, responsible for organization of the inflectional system and ensuring, in cooperation with operations applied to stems, correct sequencing and selection of these inflectional operations. It is also concluded that the inflectional class, derivative of the paradigm, may be a useful construct in some languages (including German), but is not a necessary one for all inflecting languages.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Fall 1996 , pp. 219 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1996

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. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonsen, Elmer H. 1991. On the morphological analysis of German: In defense of the category adjective/adverb. In Antonsen and Hock (eds.), 1–26.Google Scholar
Antonsen, Elmer H. and Hock, Hans Henrich (eds.). 1991. Stæfcræft: Studies in Germanic Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1987. Morpheme order in a lexeme/morpheme based morphology. Lingua 72.73–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornschein, Matthias and Butt, Matthias. 1986. Zum Status des s-Plurals im gegenwärtigen Deutsch. Linguistik in Deutschland, ed. by Abraham, Werner and Århammar, Ritva, 135–54. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy and inflexion. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1991. Inflection classes: Two questions with one answer. In Plank, (ed.), 213–53.Google Scholar
Durrell, Martin. 1990. German noun inflections: Synchrony and diachrony. German Life and Letters 43.113–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 1989. Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik. 2nd edn.Stuttgart: Metzler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1990. An approach to morphology. NELS 20.1.150–84.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard. 1983. Morphemes aren't something that grows on trees: Morphology as more the phonology than the syntax of words. Papers from the Parasession on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax, ed. by Richardson, John F., Marks, Mitchell, and Chuckerman, Amy, 79–95. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Köpcke, Klaus-Michael. 1987. Schemas in German plural formation. Lingua 74.303–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korte, Barbara. 1986. Die Pluralbildung als Paradigma linguistischer Theorien. Deutschunterricht 38(2). 15–30.Google Scholar
Leibiger, Carol. 1991. Inflections and paradigms in German nominal declension. In Antonsen, and Hock, (eds.), 115–23.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mel'čuk, Igor A. 1982. Towards a language for linguistics. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 1990. Konversion als ein kombinatorischer Wortbildungsprozeß. Linguistische Berichte 127.185–216.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1991. Rasmus Rask's dilemma. In Plank (ed.), 161–96.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans (ed.) 1991. Paradigms: The economy of inflection. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey and Zwicky, Arnold. 1992. A misconceived approach to morphology. Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Bates, Dawn, 387–98. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Rettig, Wolfgang. 1972. Sprachsystem und Sprachnorm in der deutschen Substantivflexion. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Rowley, Anthony. 1988. Zum Genitiv des ganz besonderen Typ. Muttersprache 98.58–68.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 1991. A paradigm-based approach to morphosemantic mismatches. Language 91.675–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory 1992. On the theoretical status of position class restrictions on inflectional affixes. Yearbook of Morphology 1991.211–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1985. How to describe inflection. Berkeley Linguistics Society 11.372–86.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold 1990. Inflectional morphology as a (sub)component of grammar. Contemporary morphology, ed. by Dressler, Wolfgang et al. , 217–46. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar