Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T09:01:45.756Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of derivational morphology in generative grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Theodore M. Lightner
Theodore M. Lightner*
Affiliation:
Université de Paris VII
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The position taken in this paper is that significant progress in the study of semantics and phonology—and probably also of syntax—cannot be made without concomitant study of derivational morphology. Examples are given to support this position, and a proposal for directed research in derivational morphology is outlined. Various types of problems—some real and some apparent—are mentioned.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , September 1975, pp. 617 - 638
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 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, John. 1968. On the status of lexical formatives. FL 4.308–318.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1970. On Grassmann's Law in Sanskrit. LI 1.387–396.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R., and Kiparsky, Paul (eds.) 1973. A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1968. Nouns and noun phrases. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T., 91–122. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon., and Harms, Robert T. 1972. How do languages get crazy rules ? Linguistic change and generative theory, ed. by Stockwell, Robert P. & Macaulay, Ronald K. S., 1–21. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1948. Noms d'agent et noms d'action en indo-européen. Paris.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred, and Heidolph, Karl Erich (eds.) 1970. Progress in linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boons, Jean-Paul. 1974. Acceptabilité, interprétation et connaissance du monde à propos du verbe ‘planter’. In Rohrer & Ruwet, II, 11–39. [English translation in Cognition, International Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2.183–211.].Google Scholar
Brachet, August. 1869. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue française. Paris: J. Hetzel.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. LI 4.275–343.Google Scholar
Chapín, Paul B. 1967. On the syntax of word derivation in English. (Mitre Corporation information system language studies, 16.) Bedford, Mass. [The last chapter has been published separately as On affixation in English, in Bierwisch & Heidolph, 51–63.].Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970a. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. Studies in general and Oriental linguistics, ed. by Jakobson, Roman & Kawamoto, Shigeo, 52–91. Tokyo: TEC Co. [Reprinted in Steinberg & Jakobovits, 183–216, and in Chomsky 1972:62–119.].Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970b. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs & Rosenbaum, 184–221. [Reprinted in Chomsky 1972:11–61].Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Studies on semantics in generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam., and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Coats, Herbert S., and Lightner, Theodore M. 1975. Transitive softening in Russian conjugation. Lg. 51.338–341.Google Scholar
Cohen, Gerald. 1969. How did the English word ‘just’ acquire its different meanings? Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 25–29.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1972. On the syntax and semantics of the atomic predicate ‘cause’. Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 62–74.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1969. Verbs of judging: an exercise in semantic description. Papers in Linguistics 1.91–117. [Reprinted in Fillmore & Langendoen, 273–90.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., and Langendoen, D. Terence (eds.) 1971. Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1970. Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’. LI 1.429–438.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1970. Some remarks on the action nominalization in English. In Jacobs & Rosenbaum, 83–98.Google Scholar
Geis, Michael L. 1970. Time prepositions as underlying verbs. Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 235–249.Google Scholar
Giry, Jacqueline. 1972. Analyse syntaxique des constructions du verbe ‘faire’. Thèse de 3ème cycle, L.A.D.L. et Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Gleitman, Lila R. 1965. Coordinating conjunctions in English. Lg. 41.260–293. [Reprinted in Reibel & Schane, 80–112.].Google Scholar
Gouet, Michel. 1971. Lexical problems raised by some of the ‘foutre’ constructions. In Zwicky et al., 79–85.Google Scholar
Grinder, John, and Postal, Paul M. 1971. Missing antecedents. LI 2.269–312.Google Scholar
Gross, Maurice. 1973. On the relations between syntax and semantics. Paper presented at the Colloquium on Formal Semantics of Natural Languages, Cambridge, England, April 9–12.Google Scholar
Gross, Maurice. MS. Méthodes en syntaxe. [An English translation of this work is now in progress.].Google Scholar
Gross, Maurice., Halle, Morris; and Schützenberger, Marcel-Paul (eds.) 1973. The formal analysis of natural languages. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1963. O pravilax russkogo sprjaženija. In American contributions to the 5th International Congress of Slavists, 113–132. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. LI 4.3–16.Google Scholar
Hamp, Eric P. 1973. North European ‘1000‘. Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 172–178.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Roderick, and Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds.) 1970. Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1948. Russian conjugation. Word 4.155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kac, Michael B. 1972. Reply to McCawley. In Kimball, 151–156.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1973. La logique des constructions anglaises à complément prédicatif. Langages 30.56–80. [This article is a longer version of a paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, July 1970, Columbus, Ohio.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold. 1973. Interpretive semantics meets the zombies. FL 9.549–596.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael, and Kisseberth, Charles. 1973. The multiple application problem in phonology. Studies in generative phonology, ed. by Kisseberth, Charles W., 13–41. Edmonton: Linguistic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
Kimball, John P. 1970. ‘Remind’ remains. LI 1.511–523.Google Scholar
Kimball, John P. (ed.) 1972. Syntax and semantics, I. New York: Seminar Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1971. On generative semantics. In Steinberg & Jakobovits, 232–296.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George., and Ross, John R. 1972. A note on anaphoric islands and causatives. LI 3.121–125.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. Review of Bierwisch & Heidolph 1970. Lg. 49.685–697.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1969. Mirror image rules, II. Lg. 45.844–862.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1961. The phonology of modern standard Turkish. (Uralic and Altaic series, 6.) Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1970. Problems in the grammatical analysis of English nominal compounds. In Bierwisch & Heidolph, 174–186.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1973. Review of English denominal adjectives, by Magnus Ljung. Lg. 49.704–714.Google Scholar
Lightner, Theodore M. 1972. Problems in the theory of phonology. Edmonton: Linguistic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1973. Remarks on universals in phonology. In Gross, Halle & Schützenberger, 13–49.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1974. Preliminary remarks on derivational morphology of French. In Rohrer & Ruwet, 142–164.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. MS. Review of Goals of linguistic theory, ed. by Peters, Stanley. To appear in Language.Google Scholar
Maher, J. Peter. 1973. Neglected reflexes of Proto-Indo-European ∗pet- ‘fly’. Lingua e Stile 8.403–417.Google Scholar
Makkai, Valerie B. 1969. On the correlation of morphemes and lexemes. Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 159–166.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968a. The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968b. Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure. Papers from the 4th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 71–80.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968c. Concerning the base component of a transformational grammar. FL 4.243–269.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1971. Interpretive semantics meets Frankenstein. FL 7.285–296.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1972. Kac and Shibatani on the grammar of killing. In Kimball, 139–149.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1974a. Review of Chomsky & Halle 1968. IJAL 40.50–88.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1974b. Review of Chomsky 1972. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1965. Le slave commun. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine., and Vendryes, J. 1966. Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1970. The derivation of the English action nominalization. Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 408–415.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1971. The source of derived nominals in English. Lg. 47.786–796.Google Scholar
Nilsen, Don L. F. 1972. Semantic theory. (Mimeographed.).Google Scholar
Phelps, Elaine, and Brame, Michael K. 1973. On local ordering of rules in Sanskrit. LI 4.387–400.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1964. Limitations of phrase structure grammars. The structure of language, ed. by Fodor, Jerry & Katz, Jerrold, 137–151. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1968. Aspects of phonological theory. N.Y.: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1970a. On the surface verb ‘remind’. LI 1.37–120. [Reprinted in Fillmore & Langendoen, 181–272.].Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1970b. On coreferential complement subject deletion. LI 1.439–500.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1972a. Some further limitations of interpretive theories of anaphora. LI 3.349–371.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1972b. The best theory. Goals of linguistic theory, ed. by Peters, Stanley, 131–170. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1973. A global constraint on pronominalization. In Gross, Halle & Schützenberger, 100–132.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1974a. On raising. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1974b. On certain ambiguities. LI 5.367–424.Google Scholar
Dong, Quang Phuc. 1971. English sentences without overt grammatical subjects. In Zwicky et al., 3–10. [This paper first appeared as Phrases anglaises sans sujet grammatical apparent, Langages 14.44–51].Google Scholar
Reibel, David A., and Schane, Sanford S. (eds.) 1969. Modern studies in English. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Reich, Peter A. 1969. The finiteness of natural language. Lg. 45.831–843.Google Scholar
Rhyne, James. MS. On nominal compounds in English. [To be submitted as a doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.].Google Scholar
Rohrer, Christian, and Ruwet, Nicolas (eds.) 1974. Actes du colloque franco-allemand de grammaire transformationelle. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1969a. On the cyclic nature of English pronominalization. In Reibel & Schane, 187–200.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1969b. Guess who? Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 252–286.Google Scholar
Saciuk, Bohdan. 1969. The strata division of the lexicon. Papers in Linguistics 1.464–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1877. Exceptions au rhotacisme. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique 3.299. [Reprinted in Recueil des publications scientifiques de Ferdinand de Saussure, 376. Genève: Sonar, 1922.].Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1972. Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’ in Japanese. In Kimball, 125–137.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1972. On causative verbs and derived nominals in English. LI 3.136–138.Google Scholar
Srivastava, R. N. 1969. Review of Studies in Hindi and Urdu, by A. R. Kelkar. Lg. 45.913–927.Google Scholar
Steinberg, Danny D., and Jakobovits, Leon A. (eds.) 1971. Semantics. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1966. Explorations in semantic theory. Current trends in linguistics, ed. by Sebeok, Thomas A. III, 395–477. The Hague: Mouton. [Reprinted in monograph form as Janua linguarum 89. The Hague: Mouton, 1972.].Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1971. In a manner of speaking. LI 2.223–233.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M., et al. (eds.) 1971. Studies out in left field: defamatory essays presented to James D. McCawley on the occasion of his thirty-third or thirty-fourth birthday. Edmonton: Linguistic Research, Inc.Google Scholar