Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-zlvph Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T21:31:48.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stems and paradigms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

James P. Blevins
James P. Blevins*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
*
Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics University of Cambridge Keynes House, Trumpington St. Cambridge CB2 1QA, UK [jpb39@cam.ac.uk]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents an analysis of the conjugational systems of West Germanic that highlights the central role of two basic stem types and suggests some consequences for the description of inflectional systems in general. The analyses distinguish morphomic stems, which underlie morphosyntactically distinct word forms, from inflectional stems, which realize tense and mood features and provide the input to regular agreement rules. It is argued that the recognition of these stem types simplifies the description of West Germanic conjugations, supports a general realization-based approach, and suggests a reinterpretation of current realizational models.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 79 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 737 - 767
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackerman, Farrell, and Stump, Gregory. 2003. Paradigms and periphrastic expression: A study in realization-based lexicalism. Projecting syntax, ed. by Spencer, Andrew and Sadler, Louisa. Stanford: CSLI Publications, to appear.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell, and Webelhuth, Gert. 1998. A theory of predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1985. Phonology in the twentieth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1986. Disjunctive ordering in inflectional morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Avery D. 1990. Unification and morphological blocking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 507–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1988. Categorial grammars as theories of language. Categorial grammars and natural language structures, ed. by Oehrle, Richard T., Bach, Emmon, and Wheeler, Deirdre, 17–34. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-015-6878-4_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1988. A descriptive gap in morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1. 17–28.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-morpheme base morphology: A general theory of inflection and word formation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2000. Markedness and agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society 98.2. 233–62.10.1111/1467-968X.00064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2001a. Paradigmatic derivation. Transactions of the Philological Society 99.2. 211–22.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2001b. Realization-based lexicalism. Journal of Linguistics 37.2. 355–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2003. Inflection classes and economy. Explorations in nominal inflection, ed. by Gunkel, Lutz, Müller, Gereon, and Zinfonun, Gisela. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, to appear.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1999. Lexical storage and regular processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22.6.1016.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2002. The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan. 1998. Stem indexing and morphonological selection in the Russian verb: A network morphology account. Models of inflection, ed. by Fabri, Ray, Ortmann, Albert, and Parodi, Teresa, 196–224. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1999. Use impacts morphological representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22.6. 1016–17.Google Scholar
Cardona, George. 1976. Panini: A survey of research. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.10.1515/9783110800104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1983. Paradigm economy. Journal of Linguistics 19. 115–25.10.1017/S0022226700007477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language 70. 737–88.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1956. Three models for the description of language. Institute of Radio Engineers Transactions on Information Theory 2-2.113-24.10.1109/TIT.1956.1056813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, Harald. 1999. Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22.6. 991–1013.10.1017/S0140525X99002228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, Harald, Eisenbeiss, Sonja; and Sonnenstuhl-Henning, Ingrid. 1997. Morphological structure and the processing of inflected words. Theoretical Linguistics 23.3. 225–55.10.1515/thli.1997.23.3.201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville, and Fraser, Norman M. 1993. Network morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection, determiners and pronouns. Journal of Linguistics 29. 113–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curme, George O. 1935. A grammar of the English language, vol. 1: Parts of speech. Boston: Heath.Google Scholar
Donaldson, Bruce. 1993. A grammar of Afrikaans. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110863154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, Bruce. 1997. Dutch: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Drosdowski, Günther (ed.) 1995. Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Durrell, Martin. 1996. Hammer’s German grammar and usage. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati, Erelt, Tiiu; and Ross, Kristiina. 2000. Eesti keele käsiraamat. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam, and Baayen, R. Harald. 2003. Predicting the unpredictable: Interpreting neutralized segments in Dutch. Language 79. 5–38.10.1353/lan.2003.0076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Roger, and Gazdar, Gerald. 1996. DATR: A language for lexical knowledge representation. Computational Linguistics 22.2. 167–216.Google Scholar
Gildersleeve, B. L., and Lodge, G. 1895. Gildersleeve’s Latin grammar. New York: Macmillan & Co. Reprinted by Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 2000.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. The view from building 20, ed. by Hale, Ken and Keyser, Samuel J., 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. 1942. Morpheme alternants in linguistic analysis. Language 18. 169–80. Reprinted in Joos 1957, 109–15.10.2307/409550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. 1957. Co-occurrence and transformation in linguistic structure. Language 33. 283–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1947. Problems of morphemic analysis. Language 23. 321–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1954. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10. 210–31. Reprinted in Joos 1957, 386–99.10.1080/00437956.1954.11659524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1967. The Yawelmani basic verb. Language 43. 208–22.10.2307/411395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1987. Refurbishing our foundations. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, Michael, and Ackerman, Farrell. 2002. Words and paradigms: Estonian nominal declension. Chicago Linguistics Society 37. 425–36.Google Scholar
Joos, Martin (ed.) 1957. Readings in linguistics 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian, and Smirniotopoulos, Jane. 1993. The morphosyntax of the Modem Greek verbal complex as morphology and not syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 22.4. 388–98.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1966. Über den deutschen Akzent. Studia Grammatica 7: Untersuchungen über Akzent und Intonation im Deutschen, 69–98. New York: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical phonology and morphology. Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. by the Linguistic Society of Korea, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1949. La nature des procès dits ‘analogiques’. Acta Linguistica 121-38. Reprinted in Readings in linguistics 2, ed. by Hamp, Eric P., Householder, Fred W., and Austerlitz, Robert, 158–74. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.Google Scholar
Lieb, Hans-Heinrich. 2003. Notions of paradigm in grammar. Lexikologie/Lexicology (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft), ed. by Cruse, D. Alan. Berlin: de Gruyter, to appear.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1972. Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1991. Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968. Concerning the base component of a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language 4. 243–67.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1881. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Published 1998 with revisions by I. Schröbler, P. Wiehl, and S. Grosse.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and rules. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A. 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolf, Greenbaum, Sydney, Leech, Geoffrey; and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Robins, Robert H. 1959. In defense of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society 116-44. Reprinted in Transactions of the Philological Society 99.2. 1–36, 2001.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, David E., and McClelland, James L. 1986. Learning the past tense. Parallel distributed processing, vol. 2: Psychological and biological models, ed. by McClelland, James L. and Rumelhart, David E., 216–71. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5236.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Ed. by Wade Bally and Albert Séchehaye. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 1992. Analogy and structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-015-8098-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2001. The paradigm-based model of morphosyntax. Transactions of the Philological Society 99.2. 279–313.10.1111/1467-968X.00083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1993a. Position classes and morphological theory. Yearbook of Morphology 1992.129–80.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1993b. On rules of referral. Language 69. 449–79.10.2307/416695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2002. Morphological and syntactic paradigms: Arguments for a theory of paradigm linkage. Yearbook of Morphology 2001. 147–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiersma, Pieter Meijes. 1985. Frisian reference grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Wedel, Andrew. 2004. Self-organization and the development of higher-order phonological patterns. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz dissertation.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1889. Sanskrit grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996. The phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter, and Fabri, Ray. 1995. Minimalist morphology: An approach to inflection. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 14.2. 236–94.10.1515/zfsw.1995.14.2.236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. 1989. Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1985. How to describe inflection. Berkeley Linguistics Society 11. 372–86.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1991. Systematic versus accidental phonological identity. Paradigms: The economy of inflection, ed. by Plank, Frans, 113–32. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar