Abstract
The venerable1 issue of whether morphology should be viewed as a single component of grammar or be split into two distinct components, inflection and derivation, has again become a hot topic of theoretical morphology in the wake of Anderson’s (1992) forceful defense of the latter view — “Split Morphology” in Perlmutter’s (1988) terms. One of the main arguments of the dichotomist position has always been that it could account elegantly for the ordering relation derivation inside inflection, which can be observed in so many languages that it has had the honour of being promoted to Universal 28 by Greenberg (1966). And just as often defenders of the opposite view have adduced cases of violation of this (supposed) language universal as evidence against the splitting of morphology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, S. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Booij, G. 1993. Against Split Morphology. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Working Papers in Linguistics No. 41.
Dressler, W. U. 1989. “Prototypical Differences between Inflection and Derivation”. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42, 3–10.
Greenberg, J. 1966. Universals of Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Haspelmath, M. 1993. “The diachronic externalization of inflection”. Linguistics 31, 279–309.
Maurer, Th. Jr. 1969, “Um sufixo de comportamento original: o diminutivo em -zinho”. In Estudos em homagem a Cândido Juck (filho). Rio de Janeiro, 233–246.
Meyer, M. 1897. “Klassensuffixe”. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 22, 548–563.
Paul, H. 1896. “Über die Aufgaben der Wortbildungslehre”. Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen oder der historischen Classe der k.b. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, 692–713 (reprinted in Lipka, L. and H. Günther (eds.) 1981, Wortbildung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 17–35 ).
Perlmutter, D. 1988, “The Split Morphology Hypothesis: Evidence from Yiddish”. In Hammond, M. and M. Noonan (eds.), Theoretical Morphology. Approaches in Modern Linguistics. San Diego: Academic Press, 79–100.
Rainer, F. 1993. Spanische Wortbildungslehre. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Rainer, F. and S. Varela 1992. “Compounding in Spanish”. Rivista di Linguistica 4, 117–142.
Skorge, S. 1957. “Os sufixos diminutivos em português”. Boletim de Filologia 16, 50–90.
Weidenbusch, W. 1992. Funktionen der Präfigierung. Präpositionale Elemente in der Wortbildung des Französischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1996 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rainer, F. (1996). Inflection inside derivation: evidence from Spanish and Portuguese. In: Booij, G., van Marle, J. (eds) Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Yearbook of Morphology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3716-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3716-6_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4687-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-3716-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive