Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Foundations of Morphological Theory
- Part II Issues in Morphological Theory
- 5 Alternations: Stems and Allomorphy
- 6 Morphological Semantics
- 7 Affix Ordering: Motivation and Interpretation
- 8 A Fox Knows Many Things but a Hedgehog One Big Thing
- 9 The Status of Paradigms
- Part III Morphological Principles
- Part IV Morphological Frameworks
- Part V The Role of Morphology in Theories of Phonology and Syntax
- Part VI Domains for the Evaluation of Morphological Theories
- Index of languages
- Index of names
- Index of subjects
- References
6 - Morphological Semantics
from Part II - Issues in Morphological Theory
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 January 2017
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Foundations of Morphological Theory
- Part II Issues in Morphological Theory
- 5 Alternations: Stems and Allomorphy
- 6 Morphological Semantics
- 7 Affix Ordering: Motivation and Interpretation
- 8 A Fox Knows Many Things but a Hedgehog One Big Thing
- 9 The Status of Paradigms
- Part III Morphological Principles
- Part IV Morphological Frameworks
- Part V The Role of Morphology in Theories of Phonology and Syntax
- Part VI Domains for the Evaluation of Morphological Theories
- Index of languages
- Index of names
- Index of subjects
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology , pp. 117 - 148Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Acquaviva, Paolo. 2008. Lexical Plurals: A Morphosemantic Approach. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acquaviva, Paolo. 2009. Roots, categories, and nominal concepts. Lingue e linguaggio 8.1, 25–51.Google Scholar
Acquaviva, Paolo. 2014a. Roots, concepts, and word structure: On the atoms of lexical semantics. In Rainer, Franz, Gardani, Francesco, Luschütsky, Hans Christian, and Dressler, Wolfgang (eds.), Morphology and Meaning, 49–70. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acquaviva, Paolo. 2014b. The categories of modern Irish verbal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 50, 537–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acquaviva, Paolo, and Panagiotidis, Phoevos. 2012. Lexical decomposition meets conceptual atomism. Lingue e Linguaggio 11.2, 165–80.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2011. Plural mass nouns and the morpho-syntax of number. In Washburn, M. Byram, McKinney-Bock, K., Varis, E., Sawyer, A., and Tomaszewicz, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 33–41. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Available at www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/28/paper2433.pdf (accessed March 16, 2016).Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Rathert, Monika (eds.) 2010. The Syntax of Nominalizations Across Languages and Frameworks. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arad, Maya. 2003a. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 737–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas. 2011. Lexical Meaning in Context: A Web of Words. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1985 The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 373–416.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beard, Robert, and Volpe, Mark. 2005. Lexeme-morpheme base morphology. In Štekauer, Pavol and Lieber, Rochelle (eds.), Handbook of Word-formation, 189–206. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42, 531–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, Maria, and Plag, Ingo. 2003. How transparent is creole morphology? A study of early Sranan word-formation. Yearbook of Morphology 2002, 81–104.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6, 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2010. Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 174, 99–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2000. On reference to kinds in Indonesian. Natural Language Semantics 8.2, 157–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2012. Are lexical categories universal? The view from Chamorro. Theoretical Linguistics 38.1–2, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, and Mofu, Surial. 2012. Plural semantics, reduplication and numeral modification in Indonesian. Journal of Semantics 29: 229–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Déprez, Viviane. 2005. Morphological number, semantic number and bare nouns. Lingua 115: 857–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Barbaresi, Lavinia Merlini. 1994. Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and Other Languages. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in Latin. Linguistic Inquiry 35, 355–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio, and Scalise, Sergio. 2012. Morphology: From Data to Theories. Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 1998. Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, and Harley, Heidi. 2007. Causation, obligation and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38.2, 197–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fradin, Bernard, and Kerleroux, Françoise. 2009. L’identité lexémique. In Fradin, Bernard, Kerleroux, Françoise, and Plénat, Marc (eds.), Aperçus de morphologie du français, 83–102. Paris: Presses universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
Fradin, Bernard, and Montermini, Fabio. 2009. La morphologie évaluative. In Fradin, Bernard, Kerleroux, Françoise, and Plénat, Marc (eds.), Aperçus de morphologie du français, 231–66. Paris: Presses universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
Gaeta, Livio. 2004. Nomi d’azione. In Grossmann, Maria and Rainer, Franz (eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano, 314–50. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Gerner, Matthias. 2014. Noncompositional scopal morphology in Yi. Morphology 24, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Ken and Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The View from Building 20, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2011a. Valence and atomic number. Linguistic Inquiry 42, 561–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2011b. Descriptive and explanatory markedness. Morphology 21, 223–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2014. Paucity, abundance, and the theory of number. Language 90, 185–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2009. The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP . In Rathert, Monika and Giannadikou, Anastasia (eds.), Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization, 320–42. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2012. Semantics in Distributed Morphology. In Maienborn, Claudia, von Heusinger, Klaus, and Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 3 (HSK 33.3), 2151–72. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40, 3.4, 225–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 2003. Suffix ordering in Bantu: A morphocentric approach. Yearbook of Morphology 2002, 245–81.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 231–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 1993. Nimboran position class morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 559–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2010. Meaning and the Lexicon: The Parallel Architecture 1975–2010. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2011. Conceptual semantics. In von Heusinger, Klaus, Maienborn, Claudia, and Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 1, 688–709. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2005. On the typology of state/change of state alternations. Yearbook of Morphology 2005, 83–117.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2009. Anticausativization. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27, 77–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2010. Only Some Lexical Semantic Roots Are Morphological Roots. Handout, LAGB conference, Leeds.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2011. The roots of change of state verbs. Paper presented at the conference Approaches to the lexicon (Roots III), Jerusalem. Available at http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/andrewkg/cos-roots-jerusalem-final.pdf (accessed March 16, 2016).Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2012a. The monotonicity hypothesis. In McNally, Louise and Demonte, Violeta (eds.), Telicity, Change, and State: A Cross-categorial View of Event Structure, 139–61. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2012b. The universality of lexical categories: Comments on Chung. Theoretical Linguistics 38.1–2, 103–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurence, Stephen, and Margolis, Eric (eds.) 1999. Concepts: Core Readings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 2009. Lexical semantics of verbs II: The structure of event structure. Lecture handout. Available at www.stanford.edu/~bclevin/lsa09event.pdf (accessed March 16, 2016).Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 2011. Lexical conceptual structure. In von Heusinger, Klaus, Maienborn, Claudia, and Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 1, 418–38. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Libben, Gary, and Weber, Silke. 2014. Semantic transparency, compounding, and the nature of independent variables. In Rainer, Franz, Gardani, Francesco, Luschütsky, Hans Christian, and Dressler, Wolfgang (eds.), Morphology and Meaning, 205–22. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1998. Quantity and number. In Algebraic Semantics in Language and Philosophy, 213–29. Stanford: Centre for the Study of Language and Information. Reprinted from Zaefferer, Dietmar (ed.), Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics, 133–149. Dordrecht: Foris, 1991.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. How comparative is semantics? A unified parametric theory of bare nouns and proper names. Natural Language Semantics 9.4, 335–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luís, Ana, and Bermudez-Otero, Ricardo (eds.) In press. Perspectives on the Morphome. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2004. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2005, 137–75.Google Scholar
Manova, Stela, and Aronoff, Mark. 2010. Modeling affix ordering. Morphology 20, 109–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2007. Phrases and words. In Choe, S.-H. (ed.), Phases in the Theory of Grammar, 196–226. Seoul: Dong In.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane (ed.) 2012. Count and Mass Across Languages. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1972. Inflectional Morphology: A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 2010. Verbal morphology in Murrinh-Patha: Evidence for templates. Morphology 20.2, 321–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1997. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Paul. 2014. The morphome in constructive and abstractive theories of morphology. Morphology 24, 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ojeda, Almerindo. 1998. The semantics of collectives and distributives in Papago. Natural Language Semantics 6, 245–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouhalla, Jamal. 2012. Lexical change and the architecture of the lexicon. In Torrego, Esther (ed.), Of Grammar, Words, and Verses: Essays in Honor of Carlos Piera, 41–66. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Packard, Jerome. 2000. The Morphology of Chinese: A Linguistic and Cognitive Approach. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1988. The split-morphology hypothesis: Evidence from Yiddish. In Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, 79–90. Orlando: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainer, Franz; Gardani, Francesco, Luschütsky, Hans Christian, and Dressler, Wolfgang. 2014. Morphology and meaning: An overview. In Rainer, Franz, Gardani, Francesco, Luschütsky, Hans Christian, and Dressler, Wolfgang (eds.), Morphology and Meaning, 3–46. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-phase Syntax. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Levin, Beth. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Butt, Miriam and Geuder, Willi (eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, 97–134. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Remberger, Eva-Maria. 2012. Participles and nominal aspect. In Gaglia, Sascha and Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier (eds.), Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages, 271–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope: Word Formation in the Athapaskan Verb. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2009. On the (un)suitability of semantic categories. Linguistic Typology 13, 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawada, Osamu 2013. The meanings of diminutive shifts in Japanese. In Keine, Stefan and Sloggett, Shayne (eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 163–76. Amherst: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Schwarze, Christoph, and Schepping, Marie-Therese. 1995. Polysemy in a two-level semantics. In Egli, Urs, Pause, Peter E., Schwarze, Christoph, von Stechow, Arnim, and Wienold, Götz (eds.), Lexical Knowledge and the Organization of the Language, 275–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Soare, Elena 2007. Romanian participle: 3 items with 1 morphological unit. In On-line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM5). Fréjus, September 15–18, 2005.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, 57–149. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilhelm, Andrea. 2008. Bare nouns and number in Dëne Sųliné. Natural Language Semantics 16.1, 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26.3, 639–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2012. Decomposing the mass/count distinction: Evidence from languages that lack it. In Massam, Diane (ed.), Count and Mass Across Languages, 146–71. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Xu, Zheng; Aronoff, Mark, and Anshen, Frank. 2007. Deponency in Latin. In Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville G., Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew (eds.), Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, 127–43. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zombolou, Katerina, and Alexiadou, Artemis. 2014. The canonical functions of the deponent verbs in modern Greek. In Rainer, Franz, Gardani, Francesco, Luschütsky, Hans Christian, and Dressler, Wolfgang (eds.), Morphology and Meaning, 331–43. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by