Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Foundations of Morphological Theory
- Part II Issues in Morphological Theory
- 5 Alternations: Stems and Allomorphy
- 6 Morphological Semantics
- 7 Affix Ordering: Motivation and Interpretation
- 8 A Fox Knows Many Things but a Hedgehog One Big Thing
- 9 The Status of Paradigms
- Part III Morphological Principles
- Part IV Morphological Frameworks
- Part V The Role of Morphology in Theories of Phonology and Syntax
- Part VI Domains for the Evaluation of Morphological Theories
- Index of languages
- Index of names
- Index of subjects
- References
5 - Alternations: Stems and Allomorphy
from Part II - Issues in Morphological Theory
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 January 2017
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Foundations of Morphological Theory
- Part II Issues in Morphological Theory
- 5 Alternations: Stems and Allomorphy
- 6 Morphological Semantics
- 7 Affix Ordering: Motivation and Interpretation
- 8 A Fox Knows Many Things but a Hedgehog One Big Thing
- 9 The Status of Paradigms
- Part III Morphological Principles
- Part IV Morphological Frameworks
- Part V The Role of Morphology in Theories of Phonology and Syntax
- Part VI Domains for the Evaluation of Morphological Theories
- Index of languages
- Index of names
- 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 Morphology , pp. 93 - 116Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Aranovich, Raúl; Inkelas, Sharon, Orgun, Orhan, and Sprouse, Ronald. 2005. Opacity in phonologically conditioned suppletion. Paper presented at the 13th Manchester Phonology Meeting.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan; Chumakina, Marina, Corbett, Greville G., and Hippisley, Andrew. 2004. The Surrey Suppletion Database. [Available online at www.smg.surrey.ac.uk.]Google Scholar
Bye, Patrik, 2007. Allomorphy: selection, not optimization. In Blaho, Sylvia, Bye, Patrik, and Krämer, Martin (eds.), Freedom of Analysis? Studies in Generative Grammar 95, 63–91. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, Gabriela, and Inkelas, Sharon. 2013. Word construction: Tracing an optimal path through the lexicon. Morphology 23.2, 103–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahill, Michael C. 2007. Aspects of the Morphology and Phonology of Kɾnni. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, Robert, Peregrín Otero, Carlos, and Luisa Zubizarreta, Maria (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chumakina, Marina. 2004. The notion ‘possible word’ and its limits: A typology of suppletion. An annotated bibliography. [Available online at www.surrey.ac.uk/LIS/SMG/Suppletion_BIB/WebBibliography.htm (accessed March 14, 2016).]Google Scholar
Coleman, John. 1998. Phonological Representations: Their Names, Forms and Powers. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, number 85. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion and possible words. Language 83.1, 8–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Da Tos, Martina 2013. The Italian FINIRE-type verbs: A case of morphomic attraction. In Cruschina, Silvio, Maiden, Martin, and Smith, John Charles (eds.), The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, 45–67. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiFabio, Elvira G. 1990. The Morphology of the Verbal Infix isc in Italian and Romance. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 60. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David, and Marantz, Alec. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39.1, 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golla, Victor. 1970. Hupa Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California–Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A. 1948. Descriptive Italian Grammar. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press and Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, Jason D., and Siddiqi, Daniel. 2013. Roots and the derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 44.4, 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, K. C., and Black, M. E.. 1998. A sketch of Hopi grammar. In The Hopi Dictionary Project (eds.), Hopi Dictionary: Hopìikwa Lavàytutuveni: A Hopi-English Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect, 861–900. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Hippisley, Andrew. 1998. Indexed stems and Russian word formation: A Network Morphology account of Russian personal nouns. Linguistics 36, 1039–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 1990. Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1996. Base-Identity and Uniform Exponence: Alternatives to cyclicity. In Durand, J. and Laks, B. (eds.), Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods, vol. 1, 363–93. Salford: ESRI.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Word-formation and the lexicon. In Ingemann, Frances (ed.), 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference Papers, 1–29. Lawrence: Department of Linguistics, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1996. Allomorphy or morphophonology? In Singh, Rajendra, ed., Trubetzkoy’s Orphan: Proceedings of the Montreal Roundtable ‘Morphophonology: Contemporary Responses,’ 13–31. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2004. When lexemes become allomorphs: On the genesis of suppletion. Folia Linguistica 38.3–4, 227–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan. 1993a. Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993, 79–153.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan. 1993b. Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1996. Sign-Based Morphology and Phonology with Special Attention to Optimality Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California–Berkeley.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary. 2005. Subcategorization vs. output optimization in syllable-counting allomorphy. In Alderete, John et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 326–33. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary 2006. Phonological Conditions on Affixation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California–Berkeley.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary 2009. Explaining phonological conditions on affixation: Evidence from suppletive allomorphy and affix ordering. Word Structure 2.1, 18–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paster, Mary 2014. Allomorphy. In Lieber, Rochelle and Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, 219–34. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary. 2015. Phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy: Cross-linguistic results and theoretical consequences. In Bonet, Eulàlia, Lloret, Maria-Rosa, and Mascaró, Joan (eds.), Understanding Allomorphy: Perspectives from Optimality Theory, 218–53. Advances in Optimality Theory series. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary (to appear). Diachronic sources of allomorphy. In Gribanova, Vera and Shih, Stephanie (eds.), The Morphosyntax-Phonology Connection: Locality and Directionality at the Interface. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy, and Booij, Geert E.. 2001. Allomorphy in Optimality Theory: Polish iotation. Language 77.1, 26–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarze, Christoph. 1999. Inflectional classes in Lexical Functional Morphology: Latin -sk- and its evolution. In Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG ’99 Conference. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Sezer, Engin. 1981. The k/Ø alternation in Turkish. In Clements, G. N. (ed.), Harvard Studies in Phonology, 354–82. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert, and Minkova, Donka. 2001. English Words: History and Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, Anna. 2007. Is there a partition in the present indicative of Italian regular verbs? Online Annali di Ferrara: Lettere 2, 43–61.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew A. 2008. Optimal Interleaving: Serial Phonology-Morphology Interaction in a Constraint-Based Model. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew A. 2013. Candidate chains, unfaithful spell-out, and outwards-looking phonologically-conditioned allomorphy. Morphology 23.2, 145–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Zheng. 2007. Inflectional Morphology in Optimality Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. 2003. The Morphology and Phonology of Infixation. Ph.D. dissertation, UC Berkeley.Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. 2007. A Natural History of Infixation. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5
- Cited by