grammar - Is "-ed" an inflectional or derivational morpheme in "the stressed syllables"?


In the word "stressed" in the following sentence, is the -ed an Inflectional or a Derivational suffix? Would you please explain to me why?


The sentence is:



This is one of the stressed syllables.



Thank you so much!



Answer



(Partial answer) It's not clear to me. This seems like a rather advanced question. I think the distinction between "derivational" and "inflectional" suffixes is not used by all grammatical frameworks. I hope you will get an answer from one of the linguists on this site.


Here are some things to consider, however.


"Stressed" is an adjective in your sentence (evidence: the word "unstressed" can be used in exactly the same circumstances, and the prefix "un-" that denotes a sense of simple negation doesn't attach to verbs in English: we can't say things like "I unstress the last syllable in Monday" to mean "I don't stress the last syllable in Monday"). It's clear that English adjectives do not take "-ed" as an inflectional suffix.


So it seems there is an argument for calling "-ed" a derivational suffix here (the adjective stressed is derived from the verb stress via the addition of a derivational suffix -ed).


But I suppose you could say that the word is derived via zero-conversion from the verb form stressed (an inflected form of the verb stress), and therefore -ed is not a derivational suffix, because it was already present before the process of derivation.



Using Google, I found a paper that mentions some further references from the second half of the 20th century; I unfortunately am not aware of the state of current literature about this problem and I don't know whether linguists have reached a consensus in more recent decades.



the problem of the status of {ed} morpheme has received a good deal of attention (see Matthews :1974; Beard: 1976;Allen: 1978; Lieber: 1980; Scalise; 1984;). The problem of –ed adjectives is well-known and has been a bone of contempt for years among scholars who proposed different explanations for the phenomenon in question. Some suggested that adjectival –ed and participle –ed cannot be regarded as one suffix the first being formative (marking the change of a verb into a participial adjective) and the second inflectional (marking the past participle form of a verb, see Marchand:1960; Beard:1976). Others argued that it is the same suffix just changing its role (Nesfield:1956; Partridge: 1963; Hirtle:1970; Firth:1951).


In the corpus that was studied for this purpose morpheme {ed} proved to be highly productive, though quite surprisingly less productive than morphemes {s} and {ing}. The number of examples which belong to –ed formations is 403 and they are classified in six subtypes. In four subtypes the suffix –ed is added to verbal bases. Unsurprisingly, the results of combination V+-ed are adjectives (subtype 8)), but quite surprisingly, adverbs in the subtype 11), nouns in the subtype 12) and conjunctions in the subtype 13). In all those subtypes the morpheme –ed has the features [+inflectional, +derivational]. Some may argue that in these subtypes the nouns, adverbs and conjunctions are converted from corresponding forms of past participles, in which case the nature of the morpheme {ed} remains inflectional.



("How Can Inflectional Suffixes Act as the Word-Formation Ones: A Case Study", by Jelena VUJIC)


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

verbs - "Baby is creeping" vs. "baby is crawling" in AmE

Years and years ago, I remember reading in a book on AmE usage that the phrasal turn a baby creeps before it walks was to some extent more common to AmE than to BrE, which preferred exclusively the "crawl" version. And so, I just recently checked on the accuracy of that information on NGram Viewer , and it actually was fact... more than a century ago! What I would like you to tell is if it would sound sort of weird to hear someone say today in the US that a child "creeps" before walking and running (see Synonyms ) rather than it crawls. Also, what's the story to those terms? How did "to crawl" come to prevail and supersede "to creep" to describe the way a baby moves around? As with a plant, so with a child. His mind grows by natural stages. A child creeps before he walks , sits before he stands, cries before he laughs, babbles before he talks, draws a circle before he draws a square, lies before he tells the truth, and is selfish before he
Read more

commas - Does this sentence have too many subjunctives?

Does this sentence have too many subjunctives? If it please the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed, and I will pay 10,000 talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king's business, that they may put it into the king's treasuries. I am stumped by this sentence construction. First, there is "Let it be," which is a common English idiomatic phrase, but then it follows another subjunctive. Is that to say you can actually have a subjunctive followed by another subjunctive? Also, why does the sentence use "please"? If that's the subjunctive tense there, then why is it followed by another subjunctive instead of a conditional, or maybe "Let it be" is the conditional? Lastly, I wish to know how the that is used in the sentence. Perhaps, the simplified sentence can be restated like so: Let it be decreed that they be destroyed and that they may put it into the king's treasuries. If not, maybe the simplified sent
Read more

grammatical number - Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

I've been reading William Manchester's book "American Caesar", which is about Douglas MacArthur, and I found that he uses a strange convention for pluralizing the family name. When talking about the MacArthurs as a whole, he writes MacArthur' with an apostrophe, as in "After the war, the MacArthur' lived in Tokyo while the general was proconsul" (yes, he uses that term to describe him). I have never seen or heard of a rule that would prescribe this. Manchester is a bit old-timey in his style: for example, he also writes "in behalf of" instead of "on behalf of", which is the only one I have ever seen. So perhaps this is similar. Where does he get this apostrophe from? Edit: There seems to be some difficulty finding examples, which is odd. Here is a direct link to a page from Google Books that shows the apostrophe.
Read more

etymology - Where does the phrase "doctored" originate?

This is a phrase I’m particularly confused about, because it’s used often when something is manipulated or changed. For example, sometimes images surface online that are clearly Photoshopped, but people refer to them as “doctored” images. Why use the word “doctored” here? Answer The earliest Google Books match for an instance of doctored in a transitional (or perhaps post-transitional) sense between "amended" and "adulterated" appears in William Marshall, The Rural Economy of Glocestershire; Including Its Dairy: Together with the Dairy Management of North Wiltshire, and the Management of Orchards and Fruit Liquor, in Herefordshire , volume 2 (1789): Men in general, however, whose palates are set to rough cider, consider the common sweet sort as an effeminate beverage; and rough cider, properly manufactured, is probably the most generous liquor; being deemed more wholesome, to habits in general, than sweet cider:—even when genuine. That which is drank, in the kingd
Read more

phrases - Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey

I heard this phrase when I was watching Battleship. An old man said, "Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey." I do not know what it means, I only heard it in a movie. What is this phrase mean? In Addition: I think it was Rihanna who said "Saddle Ridge will be in weapons range in five minutes," then the old man stated the phrase. Answer It is a confused attempt at a play on (for example) "kiss my ass," or, some similar phrase. It is quite common in English today that idioms get mangled.
Read more

typography - When a dagger is used to indicate a note, must it come after an asterisk?

The typographical symbol dagger (†) has several meanings. Possibly its most common use is as a footnote marker. According to You Have a Point There: A Guide to Punctuation and Its Allies ( Partridge , 1953), when it is used for this purpose, it must be used for second footnotes only; the first footnote should be indicated by an asterisk (*), the third a double dagger (‡) and further footnotes other symbols or numbers. Where does Patridge's rule fall on a scale of one to ten, where one is "this is just one guy's random opinion" and ten is "this is a widely accepted rule of English and any deviation from it is unarguably incorrect"? This question was inspired by this Meta Stack Overflow question about the use of daggers on Stack Exchange site FAQ pages . Answer The dagger (also known as an obelisk ) is properly used for the second footnote. The asterisk is for the first, and the double dagger is for the third. This is supported by several websites: And so
Read more

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"

What is the origin of the phrase shit eating grin ? How did it come to mean showing smugness or self-satisfaction of an individual's actions? Answer From the Urban Dictionary: ...these uses are documented in the Oxford English Dictionary no earlier than 1957 There have been similar expressions used quite far back: In Book XXI of his History of Rome, Livy describes a Carthaginian sect of coprophages, the risus faecivorus, or shit-eating grin, being commonly displayed by its adherents. Although, its origin is undetermined, they may have been incidents which caused the invention of this phrase. Below is an excerpt: "1944 Jrnl. Nerv. & Mental Dis. XCIX. 959 Among demented patients in advanced stages of their illness,..it is not rare to see some of them grasp their own feces, chew them and eat them often with great pleasure and satisfaction (coprophagia).
Read more