Introduction: Advances in Morphology
A Summary
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2020
Summary
In many domains of linguistics, theoretical differences have led to entrenchment and a certain degree of fragmentation. Morphology seems to be different. Theoretical positions differ substantially, but the differences never get in the way of informing oneself about the reasons for adhering to a different framework, making use of it. In this volume, the following frameworks are discussed: a-morphous morphology (Anderson 1992), word and paradigm morphology (Blevins 2016), paradigm function morphology (Stump 2001, 2016), onomasiological approaches (Dokulil 1962, Štekauer 1998), construction morphology (Booij 2010), lexical semantic framework (Lieber 2004, 2016), and neo-constructionist approaches (Hale & Keyser 2002) such as distributed morphology (Embick 2015). This volume thus contains a wealth of theoretical approaches, methodologies, and descriptive issues: a fitting tribute to a linguist who made it his hallmark to serve the linguistic community with a broad range of textbooks, monographs, and research articles.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Complex WordsAdvances in Morphology, pp. 1 - 16Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. and Schäfer, F. (2015). External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1990). The grammar of Icelandic verbs in –st. In Maling, J. and Zaenen, A., eds., Icelandic Syntax, Vol. 24, Syntax & Semantics, New York: Academic Press, pp. 235–273.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1992). A‑Morphous Morphology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. (2016). Competition and the lexicon. In Elia, A., Iacobino, C. and Voghera, M., eds., Livelli di Analisi e Fenomeni di Interfaccia. Atti del XLVII Congresso Internazionale della Società di Linguistica Italiana. Roma: Bulzoni Editore, pp. 39–52.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Chuang, Y.-Y. and Blevins, J. P. (2018). Inflectional morphology with linear mappings. The Mental Lexicon, 13(2), 230–268.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1988). A descriptive gap in morphology. In Booij, G. and van Marle, J., eds., Yearbook of Morphology 1, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 17–27.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1997). Evaluative morphology: a search for universals. Studies in Language, 21, 533–575.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2003). English prefixation. A typological shift? Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 50, 33–40.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2005). The borderline between derivation and compounding. In Dressler, W., Kastovsky, D., Pfeiffer, O. and Rainer, F., eds., Morphology and Its Demarcations, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 97–108.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R. and Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P. (2008). Declension classes in Estonian. Linguistica Uralica, 44(4), 241–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P. (2016). Word and Paradigm Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. (2018). Advances in Proto-Basque Reconstruction with Evidence for the Proto-Indo-European-Euskarian Hypothesis, New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Coseriu, E. (1978). Einführung in die strukturelle Betrachtung der Wortschatzes (Introduction into the Structural Study of the Lexicon). In Geckeler, H., ed., Strukturelle Bedeutungslehre, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Dirven, R. (1999). Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In Panther, K.-U. and Radden, G., eds., Metonyomy in Language and Thought, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 275–287.Google Scholar
Dokulil, M. (1962). Tvoření slov v češtině. Teorie odvozování slov (Word-Formation in Czech. A Theory of Derivation), Praha: Nakladatelství československé akademie věd.Google Scholar
Embick, D. (2015). The Morpheme: A Theoretical Introduction, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grzegorczykowa, R. and Puzynina, J. (1998). Rzeczownik. In Grzegorczykowa, R., Laskowski, R. and Wróbel, H., eds., Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Morfologia, 2nd ed., Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, pp. 389–468.Google Scholar
Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (2009). Astronaut, astrology, astrophysics: about combining forms, classical compounds and affixoids. In McConchie, R. W., Honkapohja, A. and Tyrkkö, J., eds., Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX 2), Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Kenesei, I. (2007). Semiwords and affixoids: the territory between word and affix. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 54(3), 263–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Körtvélyessy, L. (2020). Onomatopoeia – a unique species? Studia Linguistica. https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1987). Some Observations on the Foundation of Linguistics. Unpublished, available at: www.ling.upenn.edu/~wlabov/Papers/Foundations.htmlGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1, Theoretical Prerequisites, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and Lexical Semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (2016). English Nouns: The Ecology of Nominalization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (2011). Grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 438–449.Google Scholar
Olsen, S. (2014). Delineating derivation and compounding. In Lieber, R. and Štekauer, P., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 26–49.Google Scholar
Pross, T. (2019). What about lexical semantics if syntax is the only generative component of the grammar? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 37(1), 215–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainer, F. (2011). The agent-instrument-place “polysemy” of the suffix -tor in Romance. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 64(1), 8−32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, P. (1998). An Onomasiological Theory of English Word-Formation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stevens, C. (2005). Revisiting the affixoid debate: on the grammaticalization of the word. In Leuschner, T., Mortelmans, T. and De Groodt, S., eds., Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 71–83.Google Scholar