In this contribution we acknowledge that morphology interacts with, and is intimately related to, semantics, syntax, and phonology, but we maintain that it has an existence independent to these systems and is not conceptually irreducible to them. This fact underlies the claim of the autonomy of morphology: that morphology possesses its own laws, principles, and methodology which are not simply deducible from or reducible to those of other disciplines. We provide a brief overview of the origins of the concept of autonomous morphology, the main ways that it has been applied to the Romance languages, and how it is related to the concept of the morphome. We then provide a typological overview of the canonical cases of linguistic structures which support the autonomy of morphology and note the magnitude of evidence from the Romance languages. We conclude with some theoretical observations and reflections as to why purely morphological phenomena have so often been reduced to syntactic or phonological explanations. We suggest that the answer lies in ingrained assumptions about the basic units of mental storage, morphology being conceived as a concatenative constructive process and a theoretical reductionist tendency to relate phenomena to a single coherent system and organizing principle.

How would you go about identifying and then setting up a successful STEM learning space in a school? Some teachers hold the view that STEM education is complex, difficult and requires a range of expensive resources to be used in a particularly designed STEM learning space. In the first section, we explore the research related to STEM learning environments and the history and design of makerspaces.The chapter then identifies key aspects of STEM learning spaces, and looks at those materials/resources that are essential and those that are optional for supporting STEM activities. The chapter then examines the views of experienced teachers regarding STEM education and considers the mindset required by STEM teachers.