Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:23:03.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 10 - Inflectional Morphology

Nouns

from Part II - Morphology and Agreement Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
Damaris Nübling
Edited by
Michael T. Putnam  and
B. Richard Page
Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

The article examines the history of noun inflection from Proto-Germanic to the modern Germanic languages which simplified the former system to different degrees. Icelandic preserved the most complex structures whereas English lost declension classes as well as gender and case. Interestingly, languages with three genders use them for the organization of their noun inflection, whereas those with two genders tend to dissociate them from declension. Most languages formalized their plural expression, i.e., morphological, phonological, or prosodic features of the stem determine the plural allomorph. The article shows that German developed a rather complex noun class system, which is based on semantics, gender, and form. Zero inflection can only be found in languages with distinct singular and plural articles. If these articles are homophonous, overt plural inflection is obligatory. These interrelations show that the noun is integrated into the NP and that its components contribute to the expression of the nominal categories.

Keywords

declensionnoun inflectionumlautbreakinggrammaticalizationdefiniteness‘grammatical’ gendercasedouble determinationzero inflection
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 214 - 237
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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.)

References

ANS = Haeseryn, W. et al. (eds.) 2 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Leiden: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 1996. “Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis,” Yearbook of Morphology 1995: 1–16.Google Scholar
Börjars, K. 2003. “Morphological status and (de)grammaticalisation: The Swedish possessive,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26: 133–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. 1994. “Morphological universals and change.” In Asher, R. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. V. Oxford: Pergamon Press: 2557–2562.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 2004. “Definite articles in Scandinavian: Competing grammaticalization processes in standard and non-standard varieties.” In Kortmann, B. (ed.), Dialectology meets Typology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 147–180.Google Scholar
Dammel, A. 2018. “Warum eigentlich nicht Worter? Ein Beitrag zur Ökumene des Umlauts.” In Kazzazi, K., Luttermann, K., Wahl, S., and Fritz, T. (eds.), Worte über Wörter. Tübingen: Stauffenburg: 65–98.Google Scholar
Dammel, A. and Gillmann, M. 2014. “Relevanzgesteuerter Umbau der Substantivflexion im Deutschen. Spiegelt Diachronie Typologie?” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 136.2: 173–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dammel, A and Kürschner, S. 2008. “Complexity in nominal plural morphology: A contrastive survey of ten Germanic languages.” In Miestamo, M., Kaius, S., and Karlsson, F. (eds.), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 243–262.Google Scholar
Dammel, A., Kürschner, S., and Nübling, D. 2010. “Pluralallomorphie in den germanischen Sprachen: Konvergenzen und Divergenzen in Ausdrucksverfahren und Konditionierung.” In Dammel, A., Kürschner, S., and Nübling, D. (eds.), Kontrastive germanistische Linguistik. Hildesheim: Olms: 587–642.Google Scholar
Donaldson, B. 1993. A Grammar of Afrikaans. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, B. 1994. “Afrikaans.” In König, E. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Germanic Languages. London: Routledge 478–504.Google Scholar
De Graaf, T. and Tiersma, P. 1980. “Some phonetic aspects of breaking in West Frisian,” Phonetica 37: 109–120.Google Scholar
Enger, H-O. 2004. “On the relation between gender and declension: A diachronic perspective from Norwegian,” Studies in Language 28.1: 51–82.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, J. and Tiersma, P. 1994. “Frisian.” In König, E. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Germanic Languages. London: Routledge: 505–531.Google Scholar
Köpcke, K-M. 1988. “Schemas in German plural formation,” Lingua 74: 303–335.Google Scholar
Köpcke, K-M. 1993. Schemata bei der Pluralbildung im Deutschen. Versuch einer kognitiven Morphologie. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Köpcke, K-M.1994. “Zur Rolle von Schemata bei der Pluralbildung monosyllabischer Maskulina.” In Köpcke, K-M. (ed.), Funktionale Untersuchungen zur deutschen Nominal- und Verbalflexion. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 81–95.Google Scholar
Köpcke, K-M. 1995. “Die Klassifikation der schwachen Maskulina in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache,” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 14.2: 159–180.Google Scholar
Köpcke, K-M. 2000. “Starkes, Schwaches und Gemischtes in der Substantivflexion des Deutschen. Was weiß der Sprecher über die Deklinationsparadigmen?” In Thieroff, R., Tamrat, M., Fuhrhop, N., and Teuber, O. (eds.), Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 155–170.Google Scholar
Krahe, H. 1969. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, Vol. II: Formenlehre. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kürschner, S. 2006. “De Nederlandse meervoudsallomorfie tussen Duitse complexiteit en Engelse eenvoud.” In Hüning, M., Matthias, V., Vogl, U., van der Wouden, T., and Verhagen, A. (eds.), Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden: 103–122.Google Scholar
Kürschner, S. 2008. Deklinationsklassenwandel. Eine diachron-kontrastive Studie zur Entwicklung der Pluralallomorphie im Deutschen, Niederländischen, Schwedischen und Dänischen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kürschner, S. and Dammel, A. 2013. “Flexionsklassenwandel im Vergleich. Nominale und verbale Entwicklungen in vier germanischen Sprachen.” In Fleischer, J. and Simon, H. (eds.), Sprachwandelvergleich – Comparing Diachronies. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 43–71.Google Scholar
Marynissen, A. 1994. “Het -s-meervoud in het vroegste ambtelijke Middelnederlands,” Amsterdamer Beiträge zur Älteren Germanistik 40: 63–105.Google Scholar
Neef, M. 2000a. “Phonologische Konditionierung.” In Booij, G., Jehmann, C., Mudgan, J., and Skopetas, S. (eds.), Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. I. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 463–473.Google Scholar
Neef, M. 2000b. “Morphologische und syntaktische Konditionierung.” In Booij, G., Jehmann, C., Mudgan, J., and Skopetas, S. (eds.), Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. I. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 473–484.Google Scholar
Norde, M. 1997. The History of the Genitive in Swedish. A Case Study in Degrammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Norde, M. 2006. “Demarcating degrammaticalization: The Swedish s-genitive revisited,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29.2: 201–238.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. 2006. “Zur Entstehung und Struktur ungebändigter Allomorphie: Pluralbildungsverfahren im Luxemburgischen.” In Moulin, C. and Nübling, D. (eds.), Perspektiven einer linguistischen Luxemburgistik. Heidelberg: Winter: 107–128.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. 2008. “Was tun mit Flexionsklassen? Deklinationsklassen und ihr Wandel im Deutschen und seinen Dialekten,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 75 3: 282–330.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. 2012. “Auf dem Wege zu Nicht-Flektierbaren: Die Deflexion der deutschen Eigennamen diachron und synchron.” In Rothstein, B. (ed.), Nicht-flektierende Wortarten. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 224–246.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. 2013. “Zwischen Konservierung, Eliminierung und Funktionalisierung: Der Umlaut in den germanischen Sprachen.” In Fleischer, J. and Simon, H. (eds.), Comparing Diachronies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 15–42.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. 2018. “Worte versus Wörter: Zur Genese und zur semantischen Differenzierung einer Pluraldublette.” In Kazzazi, K., Luttermann, K., Wahl, S., and Fritz, T. (eds.), Worte über Wörter. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 385–407.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. and Schmuck, M. 2010. “Die Entstehung des s-Plurals bei Eigennamen als Reanalyse vom Kasus- zum Numerusmarker. Evidenzen aus der deutschen und niederländischen Dialektologie,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 77.2: 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramat, P. 1981. Einführung in das Germanische. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Schmuck, M. 2011. “Vom Genitiv- zum Pluralmarker: Der s-Plural im Spiegel der Familiennamengeographie.” In Heuser, R., Nübling, D., and Schmuck, M. (eds.), Familiennamengeographie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter: 285–304.Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. 1982. “Local and general markedness,” Language 58.4: 832–849.Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. 1983. “The nature of phonological representation: evidence from breaking in Frisian,” Journal of Linguistics 19: 59–78.Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. 2 1999. Frisian Reference Grammar. Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy Ljouwert.Google Scholar
Weissberg, J. 1988. Jiddisch. Eine Einführung. Berlin: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×