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-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T17:48:29.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Two Morphologies or One?

Inflection versus Word-formation

from Part I - Foundations of Morphological Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2017

By
Andrew Spencer
Edited by
Andrew Hippisley  and
Gregory Stump
Andrew Hippisley
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Gregory Stump
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology , pp. 27 - 49
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

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

Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology By Itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie; Lieber, Rochelle, and Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1981. The Indo-European Lexicon: A Full Synchronic Theory. North-Holland Linguistic Series, 44. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1988. The relation between inheritance and argument linking: deverbal nouns in Dutch. In Everaert, Martin, Evers, Arnold, Huybrechts, Riny, and Trommelen, Mieke (eds.), Morphology and Modularity, 57–74. In Honour of Henk Schultink. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 1–16.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 2012. The Grammar of Words, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2013. Structuring Sense, Volume 3: Taking Form. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network Morphology: A Defaults-based Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan; Chumakina, Marina, Corbett, Greville G., Popova, Gergana D., and Spencer, Andrew. 2012. Defining “periphrasis”: key notions. Morphology 22, 233–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2010. Canonical derivational morphology. Word Structure 3, 141–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downing, Pamela 1977. On the creation and use of English nominal compounds. Language 55, 810–42.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 3–16.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays Presented to Silvain Bromberger on his 50th Birthday, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1996. Word-class-changing inflection and morphological theory. Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 43–66.Google Scholar
Helimski, Eugene. 1998. Selkup. In Abondolo, Daniel (ed.), The Uralic Languages, 548–9. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István 2007. Semiwords and affixoids: The territory between word and affix. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 54, 263–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou; Blom, Corrien, Booij, Geert, Elenbaas, Marion, and van Kemenade, Ans. 2012. Morphosyntactic Change: A Comparative Study of Particles and Prefixes. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, Janet. 1989. Morphological Structure and Language Acquisition: PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. New York: Garland Publishers.Google Scholar
Randall, Janet 2010. Linking: The Geometry of Argument Structure. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren D. 2000. Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope: Word Formation in the Athabaskan Verb. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims, Andrea. 2015. Inflectional Defectiveness. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1995. Incorporation in Chukchi. Language 71, 439–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1999. Transpositions and argument structure. Yearbook of Morphology 1998, 73–102.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2005. Towards a typology of “mixed categories.” In Orhan Orgun, C. and Sells, Peter (eds.), Morphology and the Web of Grammar: Essays in Memory of Steven G. Lapointe, 95–138. Stanford University Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2013. Lexical Relatedness: A Paradigm-based Model. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1993. How peculiar is evaluative morphology? Journal of Lingustics 29, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2005. Some criticisms of Carstairs-McCarthy’s conclusions. Yearbook of Morphology 2005, 283–303.Google Scholar
Vajda, Edward J. 2004. Ket. Languages of the World/Materials 204. Munich: LINCOM EUROPA.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word,” Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245–74.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter, and Fabri, Ray. 1995. Minimalist Morphology: An Approach to Inflection. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 14, 236–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1985. How to describe inflection. In Niepokuj, Mary, Van Clay, Mary, Nikiforidou, Vassiliki and Feder, Deborah (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 372–86. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org 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
×