Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T18:21:43.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inflection Classes, Gender, and the Principle of Contrast

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy
Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy*
Affiliation:
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
*
Department of Linguistics, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand [a.carstairs-mccarthy@ling.canterbury.ac.nz]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Clark's 1987 Principle of Contrast (‘Every two forms contrast in meaning’) seems inconsistent with the widespread synonymy exhibited by inflectional affixes in languages with inflection classes. But if inflection class membership is counted as part of the ‘meaning’ of an inflectional affix under tight conditions—namely if it unambiguously identifies the inflection class of the lexemes to which it attaches—then inflectional affixation is found to comply with the Principle of Contrast after all. A version of the principle extends to covert gender systems too, although apparently not to overt gender systems. Far- reaching implications for morphological theory and grammatical change are suggested. Evidence is drawn in particular from English, German, Icelandic, Latin, Rumanian, Amo, Archi, Andi, Zulu, Georgian, and Afrikaans.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 70 , Issue 4 , December 1994, pp. 737 - 788
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the 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

Anderson, Stephen C. 1980. The noun class system of Amo. Noun classes in the Grassfields Bantu borderland (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 8), ed. by Hyman, Larry M., 155–78. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1992. Stems in Latin verbal morphology. Morphology now, ed. by Aronoff, Mark, 5–32. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronson, Howard I. 1982. Georgian: A reading grammar. Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
Ashton, E. O. 1944. Swahili grammar. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Bittner, Andreas. 1985. Implikative Hierarchien in der Morphologie: das “Stark- Schwach-Kontinuum” der neuhochdeutschen Verben. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 35.31–42.Google Scholar
Bittner, Dagmar. 1988. Motivationsstrukturen im Flexionsverhalten der neuhochdeutschen Substantive—Vorschlag eines Modells. Studien zur Morphologie und Phonologie III, ed. by Wurzel, Wolfgang U., 36–52. (Linguistische Studien, Reihe A: Arbeitsberichte, 188.) Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR.Google Scholar
Bloch, Bernard. 1947. English verb inflection. Lg. 23.399–418. [Reprinted 1966 in Readings in Linguistics I (4th edn.), ed. by Martin Joos, 243-54. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]Google Scholar
Bouman, A. C., and Pienaar, E. C. 1944. Afrikaanse spraakkuns (4th edn.). Stellenbosch: Pro Ecclesia-Drukkery.Google Scholar
Braine, Martin. 1987. What is learned in acquiring word classes—a step toward an acquisition theory. Mechanisms of language acquisition, ed. by MacWhinney, Brian, 65–87. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Braunmüller, K. 1984. Morphologische Undurchsichtigkeit—ein Charakteristikum kleiner Sprachen. Kopenhagener Beiträge zur Germanistischen Linguistik 22.48–68.Google Scholar
Bréal, Michel. 1897. Essai de sémantique. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relationship between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., and Slobin, Dan I. 1982. Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Lg. 58.265–89.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1983. Paradigm economy. Journal of Linguistics 19.115–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1984. Paradigm economy in the Latin third declension. Transactions of the Philological Society 117-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1985. Paradigm economy in Latin nouns. Papers from the 6th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Fisiak, Jacek, 57–70. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1986. Macroclasses and paradigm economy in German nouns. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 39.3–11.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in inflexion. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1988a. Nonconcatenative inflection and paradigm economy. Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, ed. by Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael, 71–77. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1988b. Paradigm economy: A reply to Nyman. Journal of Linguistics 24.489–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1991. Inflection classes: Two questions with one answer. Paradigms: The economy of inflection, ed. by Plank, Frans, 213–53. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 1987. The Principle of Contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. Mechanisms of language acquisition, ed. by MacWhinney, Brian, 1–33. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 1988. On the logic of contrast. Journal of Child Language 15.317–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, Eve V. 1990. On the pragmatics of contrast. Journal of Child Language 17.417–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, Eve V. 1993. The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contini-Morava, Ellen. 1995. ‘Things’ in a noun-class language: Semantic functions of agreement in Swahili. Towards a calculus of meaning: Studies in markedness, distinctive features, and deixis, ed. by Andrews, Edna and Tobin, Yishai. Duke University Press. to appear.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 1983. Hierarchies, targets and controllers: Agreement patterns in Slavic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doke, Clement M. 1973. Textbook of Zulu grammar (6th edn.). Cape Town: Longman.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Mayerthaler, Willi, Panagl, Oswald; and Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1987. Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernout, Alfred. 1953. Morphologie historique du latin (3rd edn.). Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 1986. The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fortune, R. F. 1942. Arapesh. (Publications of the American Ethnological Society, vol. 19.) New York: Augustin. [Republished 1977 by AMS Press, New York.]Google Scholar
Gathercole, Virginia C. 1989. Contrast: A semantic constraint? Journal of Child Language 16.685–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Givón, Talmy. 1971. Some historical changes in the noun-class system of Bantu, their possible causes and wider implications. Papers in African linguistics, ed. by Kim, Chin-Wu and Stahlke, Herbert, 33–54. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. How does a language acquire gender markers? Universais of human language, vol. 3: Word structure, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H., 47–82. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Mohanan, K. P. 1985. Segmental phonology of modern English. Linguistic Inquiry 16.57–116.Google Scholar
Harris, James W. 1991. The exponence of gender in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 22.27–62.Google Scholar
Herbert, Robert K. 1985. Gender systems and semanticity: Two case histories from Bantu. Historical semantics, historical word-formation, ed. by Fisiak, Jacek, 171–97. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1980. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Khaidakov, S. M. 1980. Principy immenoj klassifikacii v dagestanskix jazykax [Principies of noun classification in the Daghestanian languages]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Kibrik, A. E., Kodzasov, S. V., Olovjannikova, I. P.; and Samedov, D. S. 1977. Opyt strukturnogo opisanija arčinskogo jazyka, I: Leksika, fonetika [Attempt at a structural description of the Archi language, I: Lexicon, phonetics]. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
Kilani-Schoch, Marianne. 1988. Introduction à la morphologie naturelle. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1983. Word-formation and the lexicon. Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, ed. by Ingemann, Frances, 3–22. Lawrence: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Köpcke, Klaus-Michael. 1988. Schemas in German plural formation. Lingua 74.303–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1990. How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26.79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leumann, Manu. 1977. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft Abt. 2, Teil 2, Band 1). Munich: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. The organization of the lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [Distributed 1981 by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN.]Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1988. Configurational and nonconfigurational morphology. Morphology and modularity, ed. by Everaert, Martin, Evers, Arnold, Huybregts, Riny, and Trommelen, Mieke, 187–215. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lovera, Roméo, and Jacob, Adolphe. 1912. Grammaire roumaine. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markman, Ellen M. 1991. The whole-object, taxonomic, and mutual exclusivity assumptions as initial constraints on word meanings. Perspectives on language and thought: Interrelations in development, ed. by Gelman, Susan A. and Byrnes, James P., 72–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter. 1991. Morphology (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1986. On form and content in typology. Language typology 1985, ed. by Lehmann, Winfred P., 141–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noyer, Robert Role. 1992. Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Nyman, Martti. 1987. Is the Paradigm Economy Principle relevant? Journal of Linguistics 23.251–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyman, Martti. 1988. Paradigm economy: A rejoinder to Carstairs. Journal of Linguistics 24.501–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1984. Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1992. Possessives and the distinction between determiners and modifiers (with special reference to German). Journal of Linguistics 28.453–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rycroft, D. K., and Ngcobo, A. B. 1979. Say it in Zulu. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
Sommer, Ferdinand. 1948. Handbuch der Lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre (2nd edn.). Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Toporova, I. N. 1987. Korrelacija klassov v jazykax bantu [Correlation of classes in the Bantu languages]. Imennye klassy v jazykax Afriki [Noun classes in the languages of Africa], ed. by Oxotina, N. V., 5–82. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
TscHENKÉLi, Kita. 1958. Einführung in die georgische Sprache. Zürich: Amirani.Google Scholar
Wald, Benji. 1975. Animate concord in Northeast Coastal Bantu: Its linguistic and social implications as a case of grammatical convergence. Studies in African Linguistics 6.267–314.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. [English translation 1989: Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1986. Die wiederholte Klassifikation von Substantiven. Zur Entstehung von Flexionsklassen. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 39.76–96.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1987. Paradigmenstrukturbedingungen: Aufbau und Veränderung von Flexionsparadigmen. Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Ramat, Anna Giacalone, Carruba, Onofrio, and Bernini, Giuliano, 629–44. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, A. A. 1964. K voprosu o grammatičeskix kategorijax roda i oduševlennosti v sovremmenom russkom jazyke [On the question of the grammatical categories of gender and animacy in contemporary Russian]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 4.25–40.Google Scholar
Zawawi, Sharifa M. 1979. Loan words and their effect on the classification of Swahili nominals. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1985. How to describe inflection. Berkeley Linguistics Society 11.372–86.Google Scholar