Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:47:40.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Be-heading the word1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Laurie Bauer
Laurie Bauer
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Notions of ‘head’ and ‘modifier’ have a long and respectable history in syntax, although they have changed considerably in recent years. But the application of similar notions to morphology is relatively new. The extension of these notions to morphology has been prompted by two developments:

(i) Intimations from dependency grammarians that their approach to language ought to be generalizable to morphology (Andersen, 1980); and, far more importantly

(ii) The development of lexicalist theories of word-formation using an X-bar notation.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 1 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Allan, K. (1986a). Linguistic meaning. 2 vols. London & New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Allan, K. (1986b). Review of J. Rusiecki, Adjectives and comparison in English: a semantic study. Lg 62. 716.Google Scholar
Allen, M. (1978). Morphological investigations. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1971). The grammar of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1980). Towards dependency morphology: the structure of the Basque verb. In Anderson, J. & Ewen, C. J., (eds) Studies in dependency phonology, Ludwigsburg. 227–71.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. & Ewen, C. (1987). Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (1988). A descriptive gap in morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1. 17–27.Google Scholar
Beard, R. (1982). The plural as a lexical derivation. Glossa 16. 133–148.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1935). Language. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. & Roeper, T. (1981). Morphology and subcategorization: case and the unmarked complex verb. In Hoekstra, T., van der Hulst, H. & Moortgat, M. (eds) Lexical grammar, Dordrecht: Foris. 123–164.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P. (eds) Readings in English transformational grammar, Waltham, Mass.: Ginn. 184–221.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cresswell, M. (1976). The semantics of degree. In Partee, B., (ed.), Montague grammar, New York: Academic Press. 261–292.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., Hawkins, J. & Gilligan, G. (1985). The suffixing preference: a processing explanation. Linguistics 23. 723–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. & Gilligan, G. (1988). Prefixing and suffixing universals in relation to basic word order. Lingua 74. 219–259.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1980). Constituency and dependency. Linguistics 18. 179–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1987). Zwicky on heads. JL 13. 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, R. (1981). On the organization of the lexicon. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. München: C. H. Beck. Second edition.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1972). Inflectional morphology: a theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1981). Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plank, F. (1981). Morphologische (Ir-)Regularitäten. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. J. (1970). Dependency structure and transformational rules. Lg 46. 259–285.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. & Siegel, M. (1978). A lexical transformation for verbal compounds. LIn 9. 199–260.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stechow, A. von (1984). Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3. 1–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. (1981a). On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. LIn 12. 245–274.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1981b). Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review 1. 81–114.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1985). Heads. JL 21. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar