In defence of morphomic analyses

Abstract

In defence of morphomic analyses There has been some debate over the notion of 'morphomes', i.e. patterns of inflection without complete motivation outside of morphology. Morphomes are evidence for some autonomy of morphology. It has been claimed that there is "very little evidence for change which operates on morphology alone", in other words that morphology does not change independently-and this has been used against the 'morphomic' approach. This paper presents evidence of inflection classes arising or being 'strengthened' in Scandinavian, classes that do not have any function outside of morphology. This is evidence of change, operating on morphology alone. One of the case studies also shows affixes being changed in order to align better with non-affixal inflection. This goes against the claim that non-affixal inflection be epiphenomenal. The paper also counters some other arguments against the morphomic approach. Notably, the "diagnostic problem" suggested for morphomes is hardly more severe than that involved in many other approaches to morphology. The paper also shows a (perhaps unexpected) convergence between the morphomic approach and strands of functionalism. While morphomic patterns may seem redundant and local, this is not unique to them. Many generalisations made by language users may seem redundant and local to linguists.