Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:33:43.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on order

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Rodney Huddleston
Rodney Huddleston
Affiliation:
Department of English, University of Queensland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. In a recent historical survey of work in morphology, Matthews claims that in the 1940s and early 1950s the question ‘What are the basic units of morphological structure, and what are the relations which obtain between them?’ received a comparatively simple answer, namely that the units were morphemes and the relation between them one of linear succession (1970: 97–98). This seems to me inaccurate in two respects. Firstly, some linguists (notably Harris) recognized ‘morphemic components’ as well as morphemes; secondly, and more generally, explicit provision was made (following Bloomfield) for a statement of the order of elements in a grammatical construction – and simple succession, with X preceding (or following) Y was not the only order relation recognized. Allowance was also made, implicitly or explicitly, for (a) simultaneity, with X and Y occurring at the same time; and (b) discontinuity, with Y interrupting X. It will be convenient to discuss morphemic components in the larger context of simultaneous ordering; I shall then return to discontinuity in 3.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , September 1973 , pp. 251 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Chomsky, N. A. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. A. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. (1961). An introduction to descriptive linguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1942). Morpheme alternants in linguistic analysis. Lg 18. 169–80.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1948). Componential analysis of a Hebrew paradigm. Lg 24. 87–91.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1951). Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1934). Two models of grammatical description. Word 10. 210–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1961). Linguistic elements and their relations. Lg 37. 29–53.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1971). A program for logic. In Davidson, D. & Harman, G. (eds.), Semantics of natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1965). The inflectional component of a word-and-paradigm grammar. JL 1. 139–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1970). Recent developments in morphology. In Lyons, J. (ed.), New horizons in linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Nida, E. A. (1960). A synopsis of English syntax. Norman, Oklahoma: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1964). ‘Sequence’ and ‘order’. MSLL 17. 123–130.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1964). Constituent structure. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1968). Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar