Chapter 1: Competition in derivational
paradigms
1.1 Introduction
The notion of paradigm in morphology has been often described as a defining
feature of inflection, in which, prototypically, the paradigm of a lexeme is a
closed system where the filling of the cells is obligatory and where both form
and content are related by means of one- to- one relations. Nevertheless, as Stump
(2001: 65) notes, ‘[…] many of the arguments that motivate the postulation of
paradigms in the inflectional domain have straightforward analogues in the
domain of derivation’. This is the case of competition. To put it simply, competition
is the situation in which two or more forms ‘[…] share some domain between
them, producing outputs which, if acceptable, might fill the same functional slot
in a paradigm’ (Bauer et al. 2013: 568) either inflectional (e.g., curriculum.sg >
curricula.pl/ curriculums.pl, Quirk et al. 1985: 311) or derivational (e.g., discrim-
inative/ discriminatory, Kaunisto 2009: 74).
It is important to highlight, however, that although similarities exist, there are
also differences in how competition operates in each morphological category.
Such differences have important implications for the study of competition as nei-
ther the factors nor the variables behind the resolution of competition are neces-
sarily the same for inflection and derivation. Specifically, Aronoff (2019: 55– 56)
notices two important differences in the competition between inflection and
derivation. Because inflection is determined by morphosyntax, the number of
forms that may occupy the same cell is usually limited. In contrast, since der-
ivation is not obligatory, it is impossible to set a fixed number of potential
competitors. Similarly, the factors that intervene in the resolution of competition
may also vary. While differentiation between inflectional competitors can only
be grounded on phonological or morphological reasons, these and other factors,
including semantic and pragmatic ones, are at play in derivation, thus leading to
a variety of profiles and outcomes of competition.
While previous research into the resolution of competition has usually
focused on the study of the rival forms, the ways in which such co- existence
may end and in which conditions are also in some way influenced by the rest
of the members of the paradigm in which they are allocated. As several studies
on standardization (Mal’ceva 1966; Gawełko 1977; Schupbach 1984, reviewed in
Pounder 2000: 83) suggest, the resolution of competition may be partly a conse-
quence of the relations among the forms derived from a certain base.
This book is an attempt to shed light on the profile and resolution of compe-
tition in the derivational paradigms of English verbs. Before moving on to the
empirical analysis and results, this chapter outlines the main findings of previous
research.
1.2 Competition across history
The first references to competition can be found in the grammatical descrip-
tion of Sanskrit, in particular, in Pāṇini’s Astadhyayi. The Astadhyayi consists
of approximately 4,000 sutras (‘aphorisms’) ordered in a cyclic manner in which
the application of a rule depends on its degree of specification, such that specific
rules apply before general rules (Deo 2007: 187). Although Pāṇini did not directly
address the concept of competition, the fact that grammar was rule- governed
resulted in the formulation of grammatical exceptions also in terms of rules.
Therefore, exceptions are not viewed as violations of rules but the result of the
overlap of competing rules in a certain domain of application. This underlying
principle was later explicitly formulated by Patañjali as the Pāṇini’s Principle,
which would set the bases for modern generativist approaches to morphology
in the 20th century, such as the Elsewhere Condition (Anderson 1969; Kiparsky
1973), whereby the application of a general rule is overridden by the application
of a more specific one, i.e., a specific rule blocks a general rule.
From a semantic perspective, competition has been seen as a necessary
language condition to avoid synonymy. Bréal’s (1897: 30) loi de répartition (‘dis-
tribution law’) states that ‘[…] les synonymes n’existent pas longtemps: ou bien
ils se différencient, ou bien l’un des deux terms disparaît’ (‘synonyms do not exist
for long: either they specialize or one of the two terms disappear’, my transla-
tion). However, competition was not expected to reach an end immediately, as it
takes time to be resolved. In this ‘period of fluctuation’ (Bréal 1897: 311), one of
the competitors gradually replaces the other by restricting it to specific uses or, in
some cases, forcing it out of the system and causing it to disappear as an available
word (Bréal 1897: 311).
Research into word formation carried out by the Neogrammarians also con-
tributed to the study of morphological competition. The diachronic development
Russian
French
Spanish
Portuguese
Deutsch
Turkish
Dutch
Italiano
Arabic
Romaian
Portuguese (Brazil)
Greek
