Cargando…
The morphome debate /
This volume surveys the current debate on the morphome, bringing together experts from different linguistic fields-morphology, phonology, semantics, typology, historical linguistics-and from different theoretical backgrounds, including both proponents and critics of autonomous morphology. The concep...
| Clasificación: | Libro Electrónico |
|---|---|
| Otros Autores: | , |
| Formato: | Electrónico eBook |
| Idioma: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
Oxford, United Kingdom :
Oxford University Press,
2016.
|
| Edición: | First edition. |
| Colección: | Oxford linguistics
|
| Temas: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Texto completo |
Tabla de Contenidos:
- Cover ; The Morphome Debate; Copyright; Contents; Notes on Contributors; Acknowledgements; List of Abbreviations; 1: Introduction; Part I Morphomic or not? Diagnosing morphomicity; 2: Unnatural kinds; 2.1 Natural kinds and natural language; 2.1.1 Natural kinds; 2.1.2 Natural languages; 2.1.3 Natural syntax; 2.1.4 Natural phonology and binary phonological features; 2.2 Embodied categories; 2.2.1 P(erson), N(umber), and G(ender); 2.2.2 Gender assignment and semantics; 2.2.3 Using PNG; 2.2.4 PNG and natural kinds; 2.3 Culture and unnatural acts.
- 2.3.1 Inflectional classes and other purely morphological kinds2.3.2 Morphomes; 2.4 Some sign language categories; 2.4.1 Sign language verb agreement; 2.4.2 Object vs handling; 2.5 Conclusion; Acknowledgements; 3: Some lessons from history: Morphomes in diachrony; 3.1 Introduction; 3.2 Diachrony can provide evidence for the psychological reality of putative morphomes; 3.3 Diachrony can be used as a diagnostic of the synchronically morphomic nature of some alternation; 3.4 Typological comparison can serve to falsify the putatively morphomic status of some pattern of alternation.
- 3.5 Speakers do not especially prefer `non-morphomic ́over `morphomic ́patterns3.6 An alternation pattern can be morphomic even when it appears to be phonologically conditioned; 3.7 Conclusions; 4: Morphomic splits; 4.1 Introduction; 4.1.1 Recognizing motivated and morphomic splits; 4.1.2 Distinctions between motivated and morphomic splits; 4.2 A morphomic split can be nested within a motivated one, but not vice versa; 4.2.1 Definitions of nesting; 4.2.2 Nesting and Pirrelli and Battistaś `Schema Transition Hypothesis;́ 4.2.3 Nesting and Stumpś `Privileged Category Restrictioń
- 4.2.4 A further example (dependent on singletons)4.2.5 No nesting; 4.3 Interaction with semantic splits; 4.4 Optionality: the diachronic conjecture; 4.5 Relevance: internal vs external splits; 4.5.1 Gaelic; 4.5.2 Marsalese; 4.6 Reprise: definitions; 4.6.1 Motivation; 4.6.2 Regularity; 4.7 Conclusion; Acknowledgements; 5: Thoughts on diagnosing morphomicity: A case study from Ulwa; 5.1 Introduction; 5.2 Diachronic evidence that the distribution of ka is not accidental; 5.3 Does ka realize a morphome?; 5.4 Cross-linguistic considerations; 5.4.1 The `have ́strategy.
- 5.4.2 Existential constructionsPrepositional strategy 1: Hausa; Prepositional strategy 2: Hausa; Possessive NP pivot: Bisa; 5.4.3 Interim summary; 5.5 Syntactic/Semantic considerations and the morphomic analysis of Ulwa ka; 5.6 Concluding remarks: Ulwa ka and morphomic analysis; Acknowledgements; 6: The morphome vs similarity-based syncretism: Latin t-stem derivatives; 6.1 Introduction; 6.2 The Latin syncretism: t-stem derivatives; 6.2.1 Overview of the Latin syncretism; 6.2.2 Morphomes; 6.2.3 Latin verbal bases; 6.2.4 Shared exponence properties of t-participles and agent nouns.