Paradigms of paradigms

This paper is concerned with inflectional morphology. Its point of departure is
the old insight that paradigms of content categories are typically nested inside
other paradigms forming hierarchical structures, e.g., case paradigms are included
in number paradigms: case] number]. Similarly, say, in the Latin verb, person]
number] tense] aspect] mood] voice] (Section 1). As for exponence, paradigms
(selectional sets) of inflectional classes (declensions, conjugations) are more
often flat (linear) and asymmetrical with respect to one or more characteristics, e.g.,
meaning, stem shape, or productivity. But they may include selectional sets of
allomorphs at a lower level, say, in individual cases or tenses, presenting paradigms
in paradigms within paradigms (...) (Section 1.1). A third dimension in inflectional
systems is the typological paradigm of morphological techniques commonly
reflected in synchronic variation; English verb morphology, for instance, comprises
analytic (will call, got arrested), agglutinative (waded, jogged), fusional (kept, built),
and introflective (sang, hung) formations (Section 2.1). As additional examples of
typological paradigms the conjugations of French, Latin, and Russian are
examined (Sections 2.1–2.4). It is shown that such typological variation may reflect the
historicity of an inflectional system. Since this variation is part of speakers’
competence, it should be recognized as an inomissible part of synchronic description
(Section 3).