Book contents
- Complex Words
- Complex Words
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction: Advances in Morphology
- Part I Lexico-Semantic Aspects of Complex Words
- Part II Structure of Complex Words
- 7 Estonian Case Inflection Made Simple
- 8 Uninflectedness
- 9 Complex Exponents
- 10 Derivational Patterns in Proto-Basque Word Structure
- 11 The Complexity of Greek Verbal Morphology
- 12 Affixoids
- Part III Corpus-Based Case Studies
- Index
- References
9 - Complex Exponents
from Part II - Structure of Complex Words
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2020
Book contents
- Complex Words
- Complex Words
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction: Advances in Morphology
- Part I Lexico-Semantic Aspects of Complex Words
- Part II Structure of Complex Words
- 7 Estonian Case Inflection Made Simple
- 8 Uninflectedness
- 9 Complex Exponents
- 10 Derivational Patterns in Proto-Basque Word Structure
- 11 The Complexity of Greek Verbal Morphology
- 12 Affixoids
- Part III Corpus-Based Case Studies
- Index
- References
Summary
Much of contemporary linguistics presumes that affixes are monomorphemic. I discuss the opposite perspective, according to which complex affixes may themselves arise through the conflation of simpler affixes. The evidence in favor of this perspective is extensive and varied. As I show, this includes evidence of the following sorts: an affix may be paradigmatically opposed to a combination of affixes; two affixes may overlap in both their form and the content that they express; an affix’s alignment may vary according to whether it is alone or accompanied by some other affix; the content expressed by a combination of affixes may not be directly deducible from the content of those individual affixes; and the appearance of an affix in some word form may depend on the presence of a more peripheral affix in that word form. I explain the theoretical significance of this evidence with particular attention to its implications for developing an inferential-realizational theory of inflectional morphology.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Complex WordsAdvances in Morphology, pp. 159 - 174Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Anderson, S. R. (1992). A‑Morphous Morphology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnott, D. W. (1970). The Nominal and Verbal Systems of Fula, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1988). A descriptive gap in morphology. In Booij, G. and van Marle, J., eds., Yearbook of Morphology 1, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 17–27.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (2014). Making New Words: Morphological Derivation in English, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Favereau, F. (1997). Grammaire du breton contemporain /Yezhadur ar brezhoneg a‑vremañ, Morlaix: Skol Vreizh.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1995). The growth of affixes in morphological reanalysis. In Booij, G. and van Marle, J., eds., Yearbook of Morphology 1994, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Luís, A. and Spencer, A. (2005). A paradigm function account of ‘mesoclisis’ in European Portuguese. In Booij, G. and van Marle, J., eds., Yearbook of Morphology 2004, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 177–228.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1960). The Categories and Types of Present‑Day English Word‑Formation, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Stump, G. (2017a). Polyfunctionality and the variety of inflectional exponence relations. In Kiefer, F., Blevins, J. P. and Bartos, H., eds., Perspectives on Morphological Organization: Data and Analyses, Leiden: Brill, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar
Stump, G. (2017b). Rule conflation in an inferential‑realizational theory of morphotactics. Acta Linguistica Academica, 64(1), 79–124. http://akademiai.com/loi/2062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. (2017c). Rules and blocks. In Bowern, C., Horn, L. and Zanuttini, R., eds., On Looking into Words (and Beyond), Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 421–440.Google Scholar
Stump, G. (2019a). An apparently noncanonical pattern of morphotactic competition. In Rainer, F., Gardani, F., Dressler, W. and Luschützky, H. Ch., eds., Competition in Inflection and Word-Formation, Berlin: Springer, pp. 259–278.Google Scholar
Stump, G. (2019b). Some sources of apparent gaps in derivational paradigms. Morphology, 29(2), 271−292.Google Scholar
Stump, G. (to appear). Rule conflation, potentiation, affix telescoping. In Sims, A. et al., eds., Morphological Typology and Linguistic Cognition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trépos, P. (n.d.). Grammaire bretonne, Rennes: Ouest France.Google Scholar
Whitney, W. D. (1889). Sanskrit Grammar, 2nd ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1981). On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 245–274.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.