Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:31:39.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stephen R. Anderson, A-Morphous Morphology. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 62.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Pp. xiv+434.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Bogdan Szymanek
Bogdan Szymanek
Affiliation:
Catholic University of Lublin.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract 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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 210 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1988). Introducing linguistic morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1992). Current morphology. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1975). Morphological and semantic regulatories in the lexicon. Lg 51. 639–671.Google Scholar
Jensen, J. T. (1990). Morphology: word structure in generative grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1942). A modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. VI. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Strauss, S. L. (1979). Against boundary distinctions in English morphology. Linguistic Analysis 4. 387–419.Google Scholar