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-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T00:29:06.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Defaults and Overrides in Morphological Description

from Part III - Morphological Principles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2017

By
Dunstan Brown
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. 272 - 296
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

Albright, Adam. 2002. Islands of reliability for regular morphology: Evidence from Italian. Language 78, 684–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1969. West Scandinavian Vowel Systems and the Ordering of Phonological Rules. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where’s morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13, 571–612.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1992. Noun classes in Arapesh. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 21–32.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 109–49.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2012. Paradigmatic chaos in Nuer. Language 88, 467–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew; Brown, Dunstan, and Corbett, Greville G.. 2005. The Syntax-morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1988. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1977. Dutch Morphology: A Study of Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, and Chumakina, Marina. 2013. An introduction to canonical typology. In Brown, D., Chumakina, M., and Corbett, G. G. (eds.), Canonical Morphology and Syntax, 1–19. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, and Evans, Roger. 2012. Morphological complexity and unsupervised learning: Validating Russian inflectional classes using high frequency data. In Kiefer, F., Ladányi, M., and Siptár, P. (eds.), Current Issues in Morphological Theory: (Ir)regularity, Analogy and Frequency. Selected Papers from the 14th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, 13–16 May 2010, 135–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network Morphology: A Defaults-based Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan; Corbett, Greville G., Fraser, Norman M., Hippisley, Andrew, and Timberlake, Alan. 1996. Russian noun stress and network morphology. Linguistics 34, 53–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan; Tiberius, Carole, and Corbett, Greville G.. 2007. The alignment of form and function: Corpus-based evidence from Russian. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12, 511–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Clahsen, Harald. 1999. Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 991–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, Harald. 2006. Dual-mechanism morphology. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 1–5. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Collier, Scott. 2013. The Evolution of Complexity in Greek Noun Inflection. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Surrey.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2009. Canonical inflectional classes. In Montermini, F., Boyé, G., and Tseng, J. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux, 1–11. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G., and Fraser, Norman M.. 1993. Network Morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29, 113–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G., and Fraser, Norman M.. 2000. Default genders. In Unterbeck, B., Rissanen, M., Nevalainen, T., and Saari, M. (eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition, Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 124, 55–97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2001. Learning a morphological system without a default: The Polish genitive. Journal of Child Language 28.3, 545–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donohue, Mark. 2001. Animacy, class and gender in Burmeso. In Pawley, A., Ross, M., and Tryon, D. (eds.), The Boy from Bundaberg: Studies in Melanesian Linguistics in Honour of Tom Dutton, Pacific Linguistics 514. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Evans, Roger, and Gazdar, Gerald. 1996. DATR: A language for lexical knowledge representation. Computational Linguistics 22, 167–216.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas; Brown, Dunstan, and Corbett, Greville G.. 2002. The semantics of gender in Mayali: Partially parallel systems and formal implementation. Language 78, 111–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortune, Reo Franklin. 1942. Arapesh. Publications of the American Ethnological Society 19. New York: Augustin.Google Scholar
Fraser, Norman M., and Corbett, Greville G.. 1995. Gender, animacy and declensional class assignment: A unified account for Russian. Yearbook of Morphology 1994, 123–50.Google Scholar
Fraser, Norman M., and Corbett, Greville G.. 1997. Defaults in Arapesh. Lingua 103, 25–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1990. An introduction to DATR: The DATR papers. In Evans, R. and Gazdar, G. (eds.), Cognitive Science Research Paper CSRP 139, 1–14. Guildford: School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Surrey.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42, 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hippisley, Andrew. 2010. Paradigmatic realignment and morphological change: Diachronic deponency in Network Morphology. In Rainer, F. (ed.), Variation and Change in Morphology, 107–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. “Elsewhere” in phonology. In Anderson, S. R. and Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 93–106. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Marcus, Gary F.; Brinkmann, Ursula, Clahsen, Harald, Wiese, Richard, and Pinker, Steven. 1995. German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology 29, 189–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, John J. 2002. A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2004. On decomposing inflection class features: Syncretism in Russian noun inflection. In Müller, G., Gunkel, L., and Zifonun, G. (eds.), Explorations in Nominal Inflection, 189–227. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, Richard 1996. Prosodies in Finnish. In Local, J. and Warner, A. (eds.), York Papers in Linguistics 17, 191–239. Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1994. Inflection and derivation. In Asher, R. E. and Simpson, J. M. Y. (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 3, 1671–8. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Poser, William J. 1992. Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In Sag, I. and Szabolcsi, A. (eds.), Lexical Matters, 111–30. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Robert A. 1993. Polish. In Comrie, B. and Corbett, G. G. (eds.), The Slavonic Languages, 686–758. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 2011. Blocking and the architecture of grammar. In Bender, E. M., and Arnold, J. E. (eds.), Language from a Cognitive Perspective, 81–97. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Sharoff, Serge. 2006. Methods and tools for development of the Russian Reference Corpus. In Wilson, A., Archer, D., and Rayson, P. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics Around the World, 167–80. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Sitchinava, Dmitriy 2002. K zadače sozdanija korpusov russkogo jazyka. Available online at: www.mccme.ru/ling/mitrius/article.html (accessed on April 4, 2016).Google Scholar
Sonnenstuhl, Ingrid; Eisenbeiss, Sonja, and Clahsen, Harald. 1999. Morphological priming in the German mental lexicon. Cognition 72, 203–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stump, Gregory. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory, and Finkel, Raphael. 2013. Morphological Typology: From Word to Paradigm. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suomi, Kari; Toivanen, Juhani, and Ylitalo, Riikka. 2008. Finnish Sound Structure: Phonetics, Phonology, Phonotactics and Prosody. University of Oulu.Google Scholar
Touretzky, David S. 1986. The Mathematics of Inheritance Systems. London: Pitman.Google Scholar
Veríssimo, João, and Clahsen, Harald. 2014. Variables and similarity in linguistic generalization: Evidence from inflectional classes in Portuguese. Journal of Memory and Language 76, 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zasorina, L. N. 1977. Častotnyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Russkij jazyk.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. How to describe inflection. In Niepokuj, M., van Clay, M.; Nikiforidou, V., and Feder, D. (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
×