Dutch morphology: evidence for the righthand head rule

Abstract

One of the most intriguing areas of recent morphology is the study of morphological heads in Williams (1981), Lieber (1981), and Selkirk (1982), a study that involves research into the internal organization -of the morphological component and parametric options of morphological universals. In particular, Williams and Selkirk attempt to generalize over compositional and derivational morphology toward an asymmetric theory of heads formulated as the Right-hand Head Rule (RHHR), whereas Lieber assumes asymmetry for compounds and a symmetrical system for derivational affixes. Williams and Selkirk in turn differ with regard to the specific formalization of the RHHR itself. In this article we will test these three theories by examining the head properties displayed by Standard Dutch, a language we select for reasons to be clarified below. The organization of this article is as follows. In section 1 we elaborate upon the morphological characteristics of Dutch that make it such a suitable object for research into heads. Dutch distinguishes two classes of nouns by morphological gender, neuter and nonneuter. This distinction is most prominent in the choice of definite article made by each class: het for neuters, de for nonneuters. Nonderived words are relatively free in this choice (that is, gender is largely lexical, not semantic), but in derived words, we will claim, the choice is consistently governed by individual suffixes, and in compounds it is governed by the rightmost noun. In section 2 we briefly summarize the properties of morphological heads proposed mainly on the basis of English by Williams, Selkirk, and Lieber, pointing out a number of similarities in their proposals but also, and more crucially, a number of differences. In sections 3, 4, and 5 we delve more deeply into the properties of Dutch morphological heads, attacking the three major categories N, A, and V, in that order. The nature of our discussion automatically defines the first (N) as our main focus, although we use the other two (A, V) to comment on general characteristics of the Dutch morphological system, comparing it to English at various points. In section 6 we discuss our main testing-ground for the adequacy of the three existing theories of morphological heads: Dutch derivational prefixation. We claim that although the Dutch prefixational system might at first suggest proposing headhood for prefixes (as Lieber (1981) does for German, for instance), when it is embedded into a more

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.