Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:29:46.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is the Paradigm Economy Principle relevant?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Martti Nyman
Martti Nyman
Affiliation:
Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper is meant as a contribution to historical morphology, although it takes the form of a critique. What will be criticized is a particular proposal, made by Carstairs (especially, 1984b), to look upon PARADIGM MIXTURE as a cause of morphological change. An issue not unrelated to this proposal is the use of PARADIGM ECONOMY (Carstairs, 1983) as a teleological principle in accounting for morphological change. We will show that paradigm economy is likely to be irrelevant to historical linguistics.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , September 1987 , pp. 251 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

Aitchison, J. (1981). Language change: progress or decay? London: Fontana Books.Google Scholar
Andersen, H. (1980). Morphological change: towards a typology. In Fisiak, J. (ed.) Historical morphology. The Hague: Mouton. 1–50.Google Scholar
Anttila, R. (1977). Analogy. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldi, P. (1977). Morpho-syntax and the Latin genitive. FLin 11. 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldi, P. (1978). The influence of speech perception on inflectional morphology in Latin. GL 18. 61–89.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1962). Pour l'analyse des fonctions casuelles: le génitif latin. Lingua 11. 10–18. (Also in Strunk (ed. 1973). 292–301.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology. A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. & Slobin, D. (1982). Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Lg. 58. 265–289.Google Scholar
Carstairs, A. (1983). Paradigm economy. JL 19. 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, A. (1984a). Constraints on allomorphy in inflexion. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Carstairs, A. (1984b). Paradigm economy in the Latin third declension. TPS. 117–137.Google Scholar
Carstairs, A. (1985). Paradigm economy in Latin nouns. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Papers from the 6th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 34.) Poznań: Benjamins. 57–70.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (1985). Morphonology: the dynamics of derivation. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
Ernout, A. (1965). Les noms latins de type sēdēs. In Ernout, A., Philologica III. Paris: Klincksieck. 7–28.Google Scholar
Hale, K. (1973). Deep-surface canonical disparities in relation to analysis and change: An Australian example. In Sebeok, T. S. (ed.), Current trends in linguistics, vol. 11: Diachronic, areal, and typological linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. 401–458.Google Scholar
Hofmann, J. B. & Szantyr, A. (1965). Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa (1982). Short-term and long-term teleology in linguistic change. In Maher, J. P., Bombard, A. R. & Koerner, E. F. K. (eds.), Papers from the 3rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 85–118.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa (1983). Causality in linguistic theory. London & Canberra: Croom Helm; Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F. (1985). Paradigms and word-forms. Studia gramatyczne 7. 135–154.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F. (1986). A paradigm-based morphological analyzer. In Karlsson, F. (ed.), Papers from the Fifth Scandinavian Conference of Computational Linguistics. (University of Helsinki, Department of General Linguistics, Publications, 15.) Helsinki. 95–112.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, K. (1983). Two-level morphology: A general computational model for word-form recognition and production. (University of Helsinki, Department of General Linguistics, Publications, 9.) Helsinki.Google Scholar
Lejeune, M. (1945). Notes sur la déclinaison latine. REL 21/22.87–92. (Page references to Strunk (ed. 1973). 165–171.)Google Scholar
Leumann, M. (1977). Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Mayerthaler, W. (1981). Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.Google Scholar
Monteil, P. (1973). Eléments de phonétique et de morphologie du latin. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Niedermann, M. (1953). Historische Lautlehre des Lateinischen. Dritte, erweiterte Auflage. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Plank, F. (1979). The functional basis of case systems and declension classes; from Latin to Old French. Linguistics 17. 611–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, F. (1980). Encoding grammatical relations: Acceptable and unacceptable non-distinctness. In Fisiak, J. (ed.). Historical morphology. The Hague: Mouton. 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risch, E. (1977). Das System der lateinischen Deklinationen. CFS 31. 229–45.Google Scholar
Strunk, K. (ed.)(1973). Probleme der lateinischen Grammatik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Väänänen, V. (1954). Sur la préposition latine de marquant la notion partitive. Arctos n.s. 1. 192–198.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1972). Phonetic analogy and conceptual analogy. In Vennemann, T. & Wilbur, T. H. (eds.), Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians and the transformational theory of phonological change. Frankfurt: Athenäum. 181–204.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. (1984). Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar