Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:20:55.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Introduction: Advances in Morphology

A Summary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2020

By
Jan Don  and
Martin Everaert
Edited by
Lívia Körtvélyessy  and
Pavol Štekauer
Lívia Körtvélyessy
Affiliation:
P. J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia
Pavol Štekauer
Affiliation:
P. J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia
Get access

Summary

In many domains of linguistics, theoretical differences have led to entrenchment and a certain degree of fragmentation. Morphology seems to be different. Theoretical positions differ substantially, but the differences never get in the way of informing oneself about the reasons for adhering to a different framework, making use of it. In this volume, the following frameworks are discussed: a-morphous morphology (Anderson 1992), word and paradigm morphology (Blevins 2016), paradigm function morphology (Stump 2001, 2016), onomasiological approaches (Dokulil 1962, Štekauer 1998), construction morphology (Booij 2010), lexical semantic framework (Lieber 2004, 2016), and neo-constructionist approaches (Hale & Keyser 2002) such as distributed morphology (Embick 2015). This volume thus contains a wealth of theoretical approaches, methodologies, and descriptive issues: a fitting tribute to a linguist who made it his hallmark to serve the linguistic community with a broad range of textbooks, monographs, and research articles.

Keywords

morphologyoverviewcontributionsthemesperspectives
Type
Chapter
Information
Complex Words
Advances in Morphology
 , pp. 1 - 16
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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

Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. and Schäfer, F. (2015). External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1990). The grammar of Icelandic verbs in –st. In Maling, J. and Zaenen, A., eds., Icelandic Syntax, Vol. 24, Syntax & Semantics, New York: Academic Press, pp. 235–273.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1992). A‑Morphous Morphology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. (2016). Competition and the lexicon. In Elia, A., Iacobino, C. and Voghera, M., eds., Livelli di Analisi e Fenomeni di Interfaccia. Atti del XLVII Congresso Internazionale della Società di Linguistica Italiana. Roma: Bulzoni Editore, pp. 39–52.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Chuang, Y.-Y. and Blevins, J. P. (2018). Inflectional morphology with linear mappings. The Mental Lexicon, 13(2), 230–268.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1983/1993). English Word-Formation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1988). A descriptive gap in morphology. In Booij, G. and van Marle, J., eds., Yearbook of Morphology 1, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 17–27.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1997). Evaluative morphology: a search for universals. Studies in Language, 21, 533–575.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological Productivity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2003). English prefixation. A typological shift? Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 50, 33–40.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2005). The borderline between derivation and compounding. In Dressler, W., Kastovsky, D., Pfeiffer, O. and Rainer, F., eds., Morphology and Its Demarcations, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 97–108.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2008). Dvandva. Word Structure, 1, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (2017). Compounds and Compounding, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2018). Conversion as metonymy. Word Structure, 11(2), 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R. and Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P. (2008). Declension classes in Estonian. Linguistica Uralica, 44(4), 241–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P. (2016). Word and Paradigm Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. (2018). Advances in Proto-Basque Reconstruction with Evidence for the Proto-Indo-European-Euskarian Hypothesis, New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Channell, J. (1994). Vague Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coseriu, E. (1978). Einführung in die strukturelle Betrachtung der Wortschatzes (Introduction into the Structural Study of the Lexicon). In Geckeler, H., ed., Strukturelle Bedeutungslehre, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Dirven, R. (1999). Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In Panther, K.-U. and Radden, G., eds., Metonyomy in Language and Thought, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 275–287.Google Scholar
Dokulil, M. (1962). Tvoření slov v češtině. Teorie odvozování slov (Word-Formation in Czech. A Theory of Derivation), Praha: Nakladatelství československé akademie věd.Google Scholar
Embick, D. (2015). The Morpheme: A Theoretical Introduction, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grzegorczykowa, R. and Puzynina, J. (1998). Rzeczownik. In Grzegorczykowa, R., Laskowski, R. and Wróbel, H., eds., Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Morfologia, 2nd ed., Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, pp. 389–468.Google Scholar
Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (2009). Astronaut, astrology, astrophysics: about combining forms, classical compounds and affixoids. In McConchie, R. W., Honkapohja, A. and Tyrkkö, J., eds., Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX 2), Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Kenesei, I. (2007). Semiwords and affixoids: the territory between word and affix. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 54(3), 263–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Körtvélyessy, L. (2020). Onomatopoeia – a unique species? Studia Linguistica. https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1987). Some Observations on the Foundation of Linguistics. Unpublished, available at: www.ling.upenn.edu/~wlabov/Papers/Foundations.htmlGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1, Theoretical Prerequisites, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and Lexical Semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (2016). English Nouns: The Ecology of Nominalization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (2011). Grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 438–449.Google Scholar
Olsen, S. (2014). Delineating derivation and compounding. In Lieber, R. and Štekauer, P., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 26–49.Google Scholar
Pross, T. (2019). What about lexical semantics if syntax is the only generative component of the grammar? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 37(1), 215–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainer, F. (2011). The agent-instrument-place “polysemy” of the suffix -tor in Romance. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 64(1), 8−32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, P. (1998). An Onomasiological Theory of English Word-Formation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stevens, C. (2005). Revisiting the affixoid debate: on the grammaticalization of the word. In Leuschner, T., Mortelmans, T. and De Groodt, S., eds., Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 71–83.Google Scholar
Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional Morphology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, G. (2016). Inflectional Paradigms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szymanek, B. (2010). A Panorama of Polish Word-Formation, Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×