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
- 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
1 - Introduction
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
- 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. 1 - 24Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Ackerman, Farrell, and Malouf, Robert. 2013. Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language 89, 429–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 1993. On frequency, transparency, and productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 181–208.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Luedeling, A. and Kyto, M. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, 900–19. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, and Renouf, Antoinette. 1996. Chronicling the Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72.1, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42, 531–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network Morphology: A Defaults-based Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan; Chumakina, Marina, and Corbett, Greville G. (eds.) 2013. Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2005. The canonical approach in typology. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Hodges, Adam, and Rood, David S. (eds.), Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories (Studies in Language Companion Series 72), 25–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2009. Canonical inflectional classes. In Montermini, Fabio, Boyé, Gilles, and Tseng, Jesse (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes, 1–11. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Crysmann, Berthold, and Bonami, Olivier. 2016. Variable morphotactics in Information-based Morphology. Journal of Linguistics 52, 311–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U.; Mayerthaler, Willi, Panagl, Oswald, and Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1987. Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1980. Hua: A Papuan Language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Linguistic Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. 1942. Morpheme alternants in linguistic analysis. Language 18, 169–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 2004, Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1947. Problems of morphemic analysis. Language 23, 321–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humboldt, Wilhelm von. 1836, Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: F. Dümmler.Google Scholar
Jaeger, Jeri J.; Lockwood, Alan H., Kemmerer, David L., van Valin, Robert D. Jr., Murphy, Brian W., and Khalak, Hanif G.. 1996. A positron emission tomographic study of regular and irregular verb morphology in English. Language 72, 451–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard D. 1983. “Morphemes” aren’t something that grows on trees: Morphology as more the phonology than the syntax of words. In Richardson, J. F., Marks, M., and Chukerman, A. (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax, 79–95. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2005. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 137–75.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti; Sinnemäki, Kaius, and Karlsson, Fred (eds.) 2008. Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven, and Prince, Alan. 1988. On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 28, 73–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, Steven, and Prince, Alan. 1991. Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 17, 230–51.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
Schlegel, Friedrich von. 1808. Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier: Ein Beitrag zur Begründung der Alterthumskunde. Heidelberg: Mohr & Zimmer.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2011. Language universals and linguistic complexity: Three case studies in core argument marking. University of Helsinki doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Tumbahang, Govinda Bahadur. 2007. A descriptive grammar of Chhatthare Limbu. Doctoral dissertation, Tribhuvan University.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by