A Typology of Word Categoriesnon-finite element to are to be analysed as of the same category. While this makes
perfect sense for modals and to, as these are words which appear to occupy the same
position in the clause, it seems somewhat odd to claim that the finite inflections belong
to this category. For a start, finite inflections are inflections that appear on the verb,
not independent words themselves. However, there are things which seem to form part
of other things in sentences, but which we might want to claim that at some deeper
level of analysis are independent from them. Consider the status of n’t in negated
auxiliaries such as can’t, won’t, couldn’t, etc. In one sense this element is part of the
auxiliary, but in another sense it is an independent element expressing negation in
exactly the same way that its non-contracted counterpart not does. It would seem
reasonable to suggest that the contracted negative is an independent lexical item, with
its own lexical entry (perhaps even the same one as the non-contracted negation) and
that as such it enters the sentence as a word. Then there are syntactic processes which
combine the auxiliary and negation into a single element:
(145) he will n’t listen Æ he – won’t – listen
It could be argued that the same thing is true of finite inflections: they enter a
sentence as an independent word, but are joined with the verb by some syntactic
process. If this is true, then there would be nothing wrong with treating finite
inflections as the same kind of thing as modal auxiliaries as they could occupy the
same underlying position:
(146) he –d smile Æ he – smile-d –
One argument in support of this treatment of finite inflections concerns the
difference between inflectional morphemes and derivational morphemes, discussed
above. A derivational morpheme forms a new word from an existent one in the
lexicon. This new word has lexical properties of its own and may even differ in its
meaning from the original word. Furthermore, the process tends to be limited, applying
to a selection of lexical elements rather than to whole classes. Inflectional morphology,
on the other hand, does not change the lexical element, it just provides another form of
that word. Often, it adds some element of meaning (such as tense or plural) to the
meaning of the original word rather than changing the meaning to something else. This
all suggests that the two processes are very different and that derivational morphology
is something that goes on in the lexicon to expand the number of available words.
Inflectional morphology is, on the other hand, too regular to be a lexical process,
applying to whole categories. This would seem to be the hallmark of a syntactic
process not a lexical one. We will assume therefore that verbal morphemes expressing
tense and agreement are independent words inserted into a sentence in their own
position and undergo a subsequent syntactic process which combines them with the
verb that they are attached to.
We, therefore, have a functional category with three main members: modal
auxiliaries, the non-finite to and finite inflections. This category has been called
inflection, sometimes abbreviated to INFL or more usually these days I.