INFLECTION AND DERIVATION

            Inflection is a morphological process that modifies a word’s form in order to mark the grammatical subclass to which it belong. (e.g..sg. wolf---pl. wolves). Instead of creating a new word as derivation or compounding does, inflection modifies a word’s form in order to mark the grammatical subclass to which it belongs. In the case of English nouns, for instance, inflection marks the plural subclass by adding the affix –s.

Plural Inflection:       Singular           Plural

                                    Apple              [[apple]s]

                                    Car                  [[car]s]

                                    Dog                 [[dog[s]

In the case of verb, on the other hand, inflection marks a distinction between past and non-past subclasses—usually by adding the suffix –ed to indicate the past tense.

Tense Inflection:        Present             Past

                                    Work               [[work]ed]

                                    Jump                [[jump]ed]

                                    Hunt                [[hunt]ed]

Because inflection applies after all other word formation rules, the plural affix can be added to the output of derivation and compounding as well as to a simple noun.

Inflection of derived  or compound nouns:

            Derived form  Compund

            [[worker] s]     [[football] s]   

            [[creation] s]    [[outlaw] s]

            [[kingdom] s]  [[blackboard] s]

Similarly, tense affixes can be attached to the output of derivation and compounding as well as to simple verb.

Inflection of derived  or compound nouns:

            Derived form              Compund

            [[hospitalize] d]           [[outwork] ed]

            [[activate] d]               [[underestimate] d]

           

             

The diversity in languages is so great that it would hardly seem possible to say anything at all about the structure of languages in general, yet, while very few features can be found which are common to all languages, a much larger number will be found to be very widespread.

The most generally useful method of describing the structure of words is by analysis into morphemes and the description of the ways in which the morphemes can be combined.

In some instances the number of affixes used in a single paradigm is very large; or a single word may consist of a rather long series of morphemes. It is necessary to have some simple way of stating the complex combinations which can occur. This can often be done by classifying the morphemes into groups known as orders which are most conveniently designated by numbers. Orders are,  therefore, mutually exclusive classes of morphemes occupying definable places in the sequence of morphemes forming a word. Orders are a device to state restrictions rather than rules determining what forms are to be prohibited or allowed.)

The utility of this method can be illustrated by the following brief description of the Turkish verb. Turkish has very few prefixes, but a very extensive series of suffixes. The following list includes only the most important of those used with verbs. As it stands, it illustrates the salient features of Turkish verb structure; to make it complete would add further complications and little of illustrative value.

TURKISH VERB STRUCTURE

Susunan/Urutan 1:      /- il -/               ‘passive’

                                    /- is -/              ‘reciprocal’

                                    /-in-/                ‘reflexive’

Susunan/Urutan 2:      /- tir -/             ‘causative’

Susunan/Urutan 3:      /- ma-/            ‘negative’

Susunan/Urutan 4:      /- ir-/               ‘habitual action’

                                    /-iyor-/            ‘continuous action’

                                    /-ajak-/            ‘future action’

                                    /-mali-/           ‘obligatory action’

Susunan/Urutan 5:      /- di-/               ‘past

Susunan/Urutan 6:      /- lar-/             ‘3rd person plural actor’

Susunan/Urutan 7:      /- sa-/              ‘conditional’

Susunan/Urutan 8:      /- m-/              ‘1st person singular actor’

                                    /- k-/                ‘1st person plural actor’

                                    /-n-/                 ‘2nd person singular actor’

                                    /niz-/               ‘2nd person plural actor’

Susunan/Urutan 9:      /- mi-/             ‘intterrogative’

Susunan/Urutan 10:    /- im/               ‘1st person singular actor’

                                    /-iz/                 ‘1st person plural actor’

                                    /-sin/               ‘2nd person singular actor’

                                    /-siniz/             ‘2nd person plural actor’



The following forms will illustrate the operation of the system just described. The affixes are arranged in columns to show their assignment to orders. At the top a list of the morphemes in each order is given for reference.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10


Kir
Il
Tir
Ma
Ir
di
Lar
Sa
m
mi
im


Calis
Is


Iyor



K

Iz


etc
In


Ajak



N

Sin






mali



niz

siniz
A
Kirdi ‘it broke’
kir




Di





B
Kirilmadilarmi ‘were they not broken?’
Kir
Il

Ma

Di
Lar


Mi

C
Kirajaksan ‘if you are going to break’
Kir



Ajak


sa
n


D
Celisajakdim ‘I was going to work’
Calis



Ajak
Di


M


E
Calistirmalisin ‘you ought to make (somebody) work
Calis

Tir

Mali





sin





            The verbs of Loma (of Liberia) are quite different. The total paradigm includes only four forms, but there are two entirely arbitrary subclasses:
‘tell’
‘count’
‘break’
‘bend’
Base form
Bo
Dodo
Gale
Kava
Continuous
Bosu
Dodosu
Galezu
Kavazu
Recent past
Boga
Dodoga
Galea
Kavaa
Far past
boni
Dodoni
galeni
Kavani



The continuous is formed by the suffix /-su…-zu/, and the recent past by /-ga…-a/. since the stems which take /-su/ also take /-ga/, and those that take /-zu/ also take /a-/, it is possible and useful to set up paradigmatic subclasses.

            The several verb systems just sketched briefly indicate something of the range of variation of types of inflection. Three variables require comment :

First is the number of forms in the paradigm. Turkish stands near one extreme with over three thousand. Cree is not far behind. English and Loma, with five and four respectively, stand near the other extreme. To complete the picture, it must be noticed that some languages have been reported as having no inflection at all. But in most languages there are at least one or two classes of words which are inflected.

Second is the complexity of formation. Turkish stands near one extreme in this matter; with only a few special restrictions, forms can be freely created by combinations of affixes. Loma likewise has a very simple inflectional system, though here the short paradigm may be partly responsible. Near the other extreme is the verbal system of Cree. Here the combinations of affixes are so complex that it is hardly profitable, for practical purposes, to attempt to describe the formations. Fortunately, the division of words into stems and inflectional affix combinations is generally simple, so that a paradigm of one verb will serve readily as a pattern for the inflection of another. English, though it has a short paradigm, shows a relativity high degree of complexity.

Third is the number of inflectional subclasses. Turkish has only one. That is, the inflection of all Turkish verbs can be comprehended under one scheme of affixes and morphophonemic rules. Loma has only two; within each the inflection is quite simple, but it is necessary to know to which subclass any given stem belongs. English and French have more numerous subclasses; these are merely arbitrary divisions, classes of verbs having similar morphology. Cree subclasses are quite different. The verbs described were transitive animate verbs—that is, those which can and must have an object and whose object must be an animate noun. There are also transitive inanimate verbs, which must have an inanimate object; animate intransitive verbs, which have no object and whose subject is animate; and inanimate intransitive verbs, which have no object and whose subject is inanimate. The differences are not a matter of “meaning” but of usage. Frequently English translations will flatly contradict these distinctions and cannot, of course, be used to distinguish the verb classes. The subclasses depend on the syntactic patterns of the language, which are largely arbitrary, and on the two subclasses of nouns, which are also largely arbitrary.

With so much variation in the extent and nature of inflection in various languages, the form of analysis and description used must be suited to the language at hand. There is sometimes a tendency to force the description of a language into the pattern most familiar from past experience. For generations, Latin grammar supplied the pattern. Frequently, the familiar Latin parts of speech were recognized, whether they were there or not. Often the forms were fitted into the paradigmatic framework of Latin. Until quite recently, English and American school children were required  to learn such paradigms as the following, which is given with the Latin model:



Singular           Nominative                 the boy                        puer

                        Genitive                       of the boy                    pueri

                        Dative                          to the boy                    puero

                        Accusative                   the boy                        puerum

                        Ablative                       from the boy               puero

                        Vocative                      O boy!                         puer

and similarly through the plural.



The result of this sort of grammar is twofold. It gives the students the impression that grammar is essentially a specialized type of formalized nonsense, of no practical value, though traditionally part of the educational process. A direct consequence is the popularity of foreign language courses that promise “no grammar”. This is, of course, ridiculous. A language is a systematic structure; to learn a language is to learn this structure. Any description of this structure is grammar.

A second result is to blind the observer to many features of the language which are properly the concern of grammar, but which are not usually treated in the traditional Latin grammar. In making the grammar if English as nearly like that of Latin as possible, resort must be had to conflation as seen in the paradigm above, to some measure of distortion, and also to the complete neglect of features which cannot be made to conform. Because of the dominance of basically Latin concepts, the grammar of English has been until very recently much less well known than that of many much less used languages. The latter owe their superior descriptions to the fact that the first approach had been made by linguists with fewer prejudgments about grammar.

It is , however, a safe generalization to say that all languages are approximately equally adequate for the needs of the culture of which they are a part.

The evaluative comparison of languages can be a gross form of ethnocentrism and is usually utterly sterile. That some African language might be an inadequate medium to describe a World Series game is to be expected. Incidentally, Shakespeare’s English would do little better. Nor, of course, is English satisfactory as a vehicle for the description of some intricate facet of African culture. Even with the highly developed special terminology of the anthropologist, difficulty is experienced; English must be eked out with numerous technical terms from the language of the community under scrutiny. But this proves little, since the most obvious deficiencies are in vocabulary, and new words can be created rapidly in any language as the need arises.