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-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T21:59:37.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - The Minimal Sign

from Part I - Foundations of Morphological Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2017

By
James P. Blevins
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. 50 - 69
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

Ackerman, F., and Malouf, R. 2013. Morphological organization: The Low Conditional Entropy Conjecture. Language 89, 429–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 1986. Disjunctive ordering in inflectional morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 2015. The morpheme: Its nature and use. In Baerman, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Inflection, 11–34. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Andrews, A. D. 1990. Unification and morphological blocking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 507–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H.; McQueen, J. M., Dijkstra, T., and Schreuder, R.. 2003. Frequency effects in regular inflectional morphology: Revisiting Dutch plurals. In Baayen, R. H. and Schreuder, R. (eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Processing, 355–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H.; Milin, P., Đurđević, D. Filipović, Hendrix, P., and Marelli, M.. 2011. An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review 118, 438–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baayen, R. H.; Shaoul, C., Willits, J., and Ramscar, M.. 2016. Comprehension without segmentation: A proof of concept with naïve discrimination learning. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience 31.1, 106–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazell, C. E. 1949. On the problem of the morpheme. Archivum Linguisticum 1, 1–15. Reprinted in E. Hamp, F. W. Householder, and R. Austerlitz (eds.), Readings in Linguistics II, 216–26. University of Chicago Press, 1966.Google Scholar
Beard, R. 1995. Lexeme-morpheme Base Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. P. 1995. Syncretism and paradigmatic opposition. Linguistics and Philosophy 18, 113–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42, 531–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P. 2007. Conjugation classes in Estonian. Linguistica Uralica 43.4, 250–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P. 2008. Declension classes in Estonian. Linguistica Uralica 44.4, 241–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P. 2016. Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1926. A set of postulates for the science of language. Language 2, 153–64. Reprinted in Joos (1957), 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. 1948. On defining the morpheme. Word 4, 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davis, M.; Marslen-Wilson, W. D., and Gaskell, M.. 2002. Leading up the lexical garden-path: Segmentation and ambiguity in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 28, 218–44.Google Scholar
Drager, K. K. 2011. Sociophonetic variation and the lemma. Journal of Phonetics 39, 694–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gahl, S. 2008. “Thyme” and “Time” are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84.3, 474–96.Google Scholar
Halle, M., and Marantz, A.. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. 1942. Morpheme alternants in linguistic analysis. Language 18, 169–80. Reprinted in Joos (1957), 109–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1942. A system of descriptive phonology. Language 18, 3–21. Reprinted in Joos (1957), 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1947. Problems of morphemic analysis. Language 23, 321–43. Reprinted in Joos (1957), 229–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1954. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10, 210–31. Reprinted in Joos (1957), 386–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1987. Refurbishing our Foundations: Elementary Linguistics from an Advanced Point of View. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joos, M. (ed.) 1957. Readings in Linguistics I. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kemps, J. J. K. R.; Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R., and Baayen, R. H.. 2005. Prosodic cues for morphological complexity: The case of Dutch plural nouns. Memory and Cognition 33.3, 430–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lounsbury, F. 1953. Oneida Verb Morphology. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 48. New Haven: Yale University Press. Chapter 1 reprinted in Joos (1957), 379–85.Google Scholar
Maiden, M. 2005. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 137–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. 2013. No escape from morphemes in morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28.7, 905–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 1965. The inflectional component of a word-and-paradigm grammar. Journal of Linguistics 1, 139–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 1972. Inflectional Morphology: A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 1991. Morphology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, I.; Homann, J., and Kunter, G. 2015. Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics (http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022226715000183).Google Scholar
Ramscar, M.; Dye, M., and McCauley, S. M.. 2013. Error and expectation in language learning: The curious absence of mouses in adult speech. Language 89.4, 760–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramscar, M.; Yarlett, D., Dye, M., Denny, K., and Thorpe, K.. 2010. The effects of feature-label-order and their implications for symbolic learning. Cognititive Science 34, 909–57.Google ScholarPubMed
Rescorla, R. A. 1988. Pavlovian conditioning: It’s not what you think it is. American Psychologist 43.3, 151–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, R. A., and Wagner, A. R.. 1972. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Black, A. H. and Prokasy, W. F. (eds.), Classical Conditioning II, 64–99. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. 1959. In defence of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society 58, 116–44. Reprinted in Transactions of the Philological Society 99, 2001, 116–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, F. d. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot, critical edition edited by T. de Mauro, 2005 edition.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. d. 1959. Cours de linguistique générale. New York: Philosophical Press. Translated by Baskin, W..Google Scholar
Spencer, A. J. 2012. Identifying stems. Word Structure 5, 88–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tschenkeli, K. 1958. Einführung in die georgische Sprache. Zurich: Amirani Verlag.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
×