Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures and Diagrams
- Tables
- Maps
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction: Linguistic Typology – Setting the Scene
- Part I Domains of Linguistic Typology
- Part II Typology of Grammatical Categories
- 11 The Typology of Morphological Processes: Form and Function
- 12 A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices
- 13 Negation
- 14 Number
- 15 A Typology of Frustrative Marking in Amazonian Languages
- 16 Logophoricity
- 17 A Typology of Switch Reference
- 18 Approaches to Motion Event Typology
- Part III Typological Profiles of Linguistic Areas and Language Families
- Index of Authors
- Index of Languages, Language Families and Linguistic Areas
- Index of Subjects
- References
11 - The Typology of Morphological Processes: Form and Function
from Part II - Typology of Grammatical Categories
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 April 2017
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures and Diagrams
- Tables
- Maps
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction: Linguistic Typology – Setting the Scene
- Part I Domains of Linguistic Typology
- Part II Typology of Grammatical Categories
- 11 The Typology of Morphological Processes: Form and Function
- 12 A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices
- 13 Negation
- 14 Number
- 15 A Typology of Frustrative Marking in Amazonian Languages
- 16 Logophoricity
- 17 A Typology of Switch Reference
- 18 Approaches to Motion Event Typology
- Part III Typological Profiles of Linguistic Areas and Language Families
- Index of Authors
- Index of Languages, Language Families and Linguistic Areas
- 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 Linguistic Typology , pp. 325 - 360Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1999. The Arawak language family. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), The Amazonian Languages, pp. 65–106. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2007. Typological distinction in word formation. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, pp. 1–65. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Akinlabi, Akinbiyi. 2011. Featural affixes. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth and Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, pp. 1945–71. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1990. Sapir’s approach to typology and current issues in morphology. In Dressler, Wolfgang U., Lushützky, Hans C., Pfeiffer, Oskar E. and Remison, John R. (eds.), Contemporary morphology, pp. 277–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2003. Introducing linguistic morphology, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie and Valera, Salvador. 2005. Approaches to conversion/Zero derivation. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-morpheme based morphology: A general theory of inflection and word formation. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Beck, David. 2011. Lexical, quasi-inflectional, and inflectional compounding in Upper Necaxa Totonac. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Muysken, Pieter (eds.), Multi-verb constructions: A view from the Americas, pp. 63–106. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Beck, David and Mel’čuk, Igor A.. 2011. Morphological phrasemes and Totonacan verbal morphology. Linguistics 49: 175–228.Google Scholar
Bendor-Samuel, John. 1961. An outline of the grammatical and phonological structure of Terêna, Parts 1 and 2. Brasilia: Summer Institute of Lingusitics.Google Scholar
Bergenholtz, Henning and Mugdan, Joachim. 1979. Einführung in die Morphologie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth and Seroussi, Batia. 2011. Derived nouns in Modern Hebrew: Structural and psycholinguistic perspectives. Rivista di Linguistica 23: 105–25.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar and Nichols, Johanna. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, pp. 169–240. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biggs, Bruce G. 1959. Rotuman vowels and their history. Te Reo Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of New Zealand 2: 24–6.Google Scholar
Buckley, Eugene. 2003. Emergent vowels in Tigrinya templates. In Lecarme, Jacqueline (ed.), Research in Afroasiatic grammar II: Selected papers from the Fifth Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Paris, 2000, pp. 105–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantineau, Jean. 1950a. Racines et schèmes. In Marçais, William (ed.), Mélanges offerts à William Marçais, pp. 119–24. Paris: G.-P. Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Cantineau, Jean. 1950b. La notion de schème et son altération dans diverses langues sémitiques. Semitica 3: 73–83.Google Scholar
Childs, G. Tucker. 1995. A grammar of Kisi, a Southern Atlantic language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. and Clark, Herbert H.. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55: 767–811.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language 83: 9–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa and Kinkade, M. Dale. 1998. Salish languages and linguistics. In Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa and Kinkade, M. Dale (eds.), Salish languages and linguistics: Theoretical and descriptive perspectives, pp. 1–68. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1996. The bipartite stem belt: Disentangling areal and genetic correspondences. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special session on historical issues in Native American languages, pp. 37–54. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1999. Lexical prefixes and the bipartite stem construction in Klamath. International Journal of American Linguistics 65: 56–83.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2014. Making new words: Morphological derivation in English. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.. 2002. Word: A typological framework. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology, pp. 1–41. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985. Suppletion in word-formation. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Historical semantics, historical word formation, pp. 97–112. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1987. Word formation as a part of natural morphology. In Dressler, Wolfgang U., Mayerthaler, Willi, Panagl, Oswald and Wurzel, Wolfgang U. (eds.), Leitmotifs in natural morphology, pp. 99–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Prefixing vs. suffixing in inflectional morphology. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at: http://wals.info/chapter/26 [Accessed 01.07.2014].Google Scholar
Eastlack, Charles L. 1968. Terêna (Arawakan) pronouns. International Journal of American Linguistics 34: 1–8.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2003. Bininj Gun-wok: A pan dialectal grammar of Mayali, Kunwinjku, and Kune, Vol. I. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Foris, David Paul. 2000. A grammar of Sochiapan Chinantec. (Studies in Chinantec Languages, 6). Dallas, TX: SIL International.Google Scholar
Gerdts, Donna B. 2003. The morphosyntax of Halkomelem lexical suffixes. International Journal of American Linguistics 69: 345–561.Google Scholar
Gómez, Gale Goodwin and van der Voort, Hein (eds.). 2014. Reduplication in indigenous languages of South America. (Brill Studies in the Indigenous Languages of the Americas 7). Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guirardello-Damian, Raquel. 2014. Reduplication and Ideophones in Trumai. In Gómez, and van der Voort, (eds.), pp. 217–46.Google Scholar
Hardy, Heather K. and Montler, Timothy R.. 1988. Alabama radical morphology: H-infix and disfixation. In Shipley, William (ed.), In honor of Mary Haas: From the Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics, pp. 377–409. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin and Sims, Andrea D.. 2010. Understanding morphology, 2nd edn. London: Hodder.Google Scholar
Hess, Thom. 1998. Lushootseed reader with intermediate grammar, Vol. II: Four stories from Martha Lamont. Tulalip Tribes.Google Scholar
Holton, Gary. 2000. The phonology and morphology of the Tanacross Athapaskan language. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Hurch, Bernhardt (ed.). 2005. Studies on reduplication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurch, Bernhard and Mattes, Veronika. 2009. Typology of reduplication: The Graz database. In Everaert, Martin, Musgrave, Simon and Dimitriadis, Alexis (eds.), Use of databases in cross-linguistic studies, pp. 301–28. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jacobson, William H. Jr. 1980. Washo bipartite stems. In Klar, Kathryn, Langdon, Margaret and Silver, Shirley (eds.), American Indian and Indo-European studies: Papers in honor of Madison S. Beeler, pp. 85–99. Mouton: Hague.Google Scholar
Kanu, Sullay Mohamed. 2012. Valency-increasing morphology in Temne. PhD dissertation, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1997. Ierarxii, roli, nuli, markirovannost’ i ‘anomal’naja’ upakovka gram matičeskoj semantiki [Hierarchies, roles, zeroes, markedness and ‘anomalous’ wrapping of grammatical semantics]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 4: 27–57.Google Scholar
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1911. Incorporation as a linguistic process. American Anthropologist 13: 577–84.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1958. Esquisse d’une théorie de l’apophonie en sémitique. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 53: 1–38.Google Scholar
Leslau, Wolf. 1941. Documents tigrigna (éthiopien septenetrional): Grammaire et textes. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1987. An integrated theory of autosegmental processes. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Lupardus, Karen Jacque. 1982. The language of the Alabama Indians. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Monica. 1996. A grammar of Chalcatongo Mixtec. (University of California Publications in Linguistics, Vol. 127). San Francisco: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Majewicz, Alfred and Pogonowski, Jerzy. 1984. On categorial marking in natural languages. Lingua Posnaniensus 26: 56–68.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1974. Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 6). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Stephen and Yip, Virginia. 1994. Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1981. A prosodic theory of non-concatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 373–418.Google Scholar
McQuown, Norman A. 1990. Gramática de la lengua totonaca (Coatepec, Sierra Norte de Puebla). Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor A. 1963. O ‘vnutrennei fleksii’ v indoevropeiskikh i semitskikh yazykakh [On ‘internal inflection’ in Indo-European and Semitic languages]. Voprosy yazykoznaniya [Problems in linguistics] 4: 27–40.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor A. 1993–2000. Cours de morphologie générale, Vol. I–V. Paris: Presses de l’Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor A. 1994. Suppletion: Towards a logical analysis of the concept. Studies in Language 18: 399–410.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor A. 2000. Morphological Processes. In Booij, Geert E., Lehmann, Christian, Mugdan, Joachim and Skopeteas, Stavros (eds.), Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, pp. 523–35. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor A. 2006. Aspects of the theory of morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1994. Word-formation: Incorporation. In Asher, Ronald E. and Simpson, J. M. Y. (eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, Vol. IX, pp. 5024–6. Oxford: Pergamom Press.Google Scholar
Moravscik, Edith. 1978. Reduplicative constructions. In Greenberg, Joseph (ed.), Universals of human language: Vol. III: Word structure, pp. 297–334. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Nater, Hank F. 2006. A concise Nuxalk-English dictionary. (Canadian Ethnology Service Mercury Series Paper 115). Hull, QC: National Museum of Civilization.Google Scholar
Newmark, Leonard, Hubbard, Philip and Prifti, Peter. 1982. Standard Albanian: A reference grammar for students. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene. 1961. Morphology: The descriptive analysis of words. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Okrand, Marc. 1979. Metathesis in Costanoan grammar. International Journal of American Linguistics 45: 123–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panov, Mixail V. 1959. O grammaticheskoi forme [On grammatical forms]. In Vasilenko, I. A. (ed.), Uchenye zapiski moskovskogo gorodskogo pedagogicheskogo instituta im. V. P. Potemkina [Scientific papers of the Moscow Municipal Pedagogical Institute V. P. Potemkin] 73(6): 5–39.Google Scholar
de Reuse, Willem J. 1994. Noun incorporation. In Asher, Ronald E. and Simpson, J. M. Y. (eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, Vol. IX, pp. 2842–7. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
de Reuse, Willem J. 2009. Polysynthesis as a typological feature: An attempt at a characterization from Eskimo and Athabascan perspectives. In Mahieu, Marc-Antoine and Tersis, Nicole (eds.), Variations on polysynthesis: The Eskaleut languages, pp. 19–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rose, Françoise. 2014. When vowel deletion blurs reduplication in Mojeño Trinitario. In Gómez, Gale Goodwin and van der Voort, Hein (eds.), Reduplication in Indigenous languages of South America, pp. 375–99. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Rubino, Carl. 2005. Reduplication: Form, function, and distribution. In Hurch, Bernhard (ed.), Studies on reduplication, pp. 11–29. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rubino, Carl. 2006. Intensive Tausug: A pedagogical grammar of the language of Jolo, Phillipines. Springfield, VA: Dunwoody Press.Google Scholar
Rupp, James E. 1989. Lealao Chinantec Syntax. (Studies in Chinantec Languages, 2). Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1980. Noun incorporation in Greenlandic: A case of syntactic word formation. Language 56: 300–19.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1911. The problem of noun incorporation in American languages. American Anthropologist 13: 250–82.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. [1921] 2004. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1960. Course in general linguistics, trans. Baskin, Wade. London: Peter Owen.Google Scholar
Shimron, Joseph (ed.). 2003. Language processing and acquisition in languages of Semitic, root-based morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Štekauer, Pavel. 1996. A theory of conversion in English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Thompson, Laurence C. and Kinkade, M. Dale. 1990. Languages. In Suttles, Wayne (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. VII: Northwest coast, pp. 30–51. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
Thompson, Laurence C. and Thompson, M. Terry. 1969. Metathesis as a grammatical device. International Journal of American Linguistics 35: 213–19.Google Scholar
Tucker, A. N. and Mpaayei, J. Tompo Ole. 1955. A Maasai grammar with vocabulary. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Tyron, D. T. 1986. Stem-initial consonant alternation in the languages of Epi, Vanuatu: A case of assimilation? In Geraghty, Paul, Carrington, Lois and Wurm, Stephen A. (eds.), Focal II: Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, pp. 239–58. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
van Eijk, Jan. 2004. Locus and ordering in Lillooet morphology. In Gerdts, Donna B. and Matthewson, Lisa (eds.), Studies in Salish linguistics in honor of M. Dale Kinkade, pp. 454–67. Missoula: University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Velupillai, Viveka. 2012. An introduction to linguistic typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Veselinova, Ljuba N. 2006. Suppletion in verb paradigms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watahomigie, Lucille J., Bender, Jorigine, Watahomigie, Philbert Sr. and Yamamoto, Akira Y.. 2001. Hualapai reference grammar. (Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim A2–003). Kyoto: Nakanishi.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Honoré. 2003. A morphological description of Sliammon, Mainland Comox Salish with a sketch of syntax. (Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim A2–040). Kyoto: Nakanishi.Google Scholar