Phonology/phonetics and morphology interact in such a way as to render difficult any clear-cut dividing line between these subfields. Romanists have long observed that phonetics play a crucial role in language change. From this point of view there is nothing exceptional in the fact that phonetics/phonology may provide the system with the very substance of morphological oppositions. The number and the extension of the morphological processes amenable to phonetic principles in the Romance domain are so wide that only a few typical phenomena are treated in this chapter. Furthermore, it is not always evident how one can establish the extent to which a given morphological alternation is phonologically driven, whether we are dealing with a purely phonological phenomenon or whether we should recognize some lexical conditioning in the choice of the allomorphs. The examples discussed (allomorphy in the definite article, subject clitics and affixes, possessives, and the nominal, verbal, and adjectival stems) show that the phonetic impulse for a morphological alternation may no longer be transparent ; in other cases, the trigger of a given pattern is no longer available or can only be identified following a process of diachronic reconstruction.

This chapter elaborates on two case studies in structural variation to illustrate how the comparison of closely related grammatical systems fuels research questions on general theoretical issues. Our first case study regards subject clitics in central Romance dialects. Subject clitics have been studied extensively over recent decades, but they still raise several questions concerning the nature of null subject languages. Analogously, there is a huge literature on the selection of perfective auxiliaries – the second case study in our chapter – and, as in the case of subject clitics, lesser-known non-standard dialects display a kaleidoscope of auxiliation options whose rationalization poses fascinating analytical challenges and yields insights into basic issues of linguistic theory. The core question raised by our case studies concerns the modelling of linguistic diversity: do the above phenomena result from a finite set of discrete parameters or emerge from random language-specific options? We argue that the otherwise ‘hyperastronomical’ number of possible grammars is aptly constrained by syntactic factors, although inflexional morphology – which syntax cannot control entirely – may have a role in the realization of specific auxiliary or subject clitic forms in each dialect and for each person.

This chapter uses data from a range of Romance languages to illustrate the different definitions of the notion of suppletion in the linguistic literature, and to offer a typology of suppletion (notable the difference between ‘incursive’ and phonologically induced suppletion). Suppletion may be most usefully viewed simply as an extreme contrast between unity of meaning, on the one hand, and disunity of the forms expressing that meaning, on the other. The typology and distribution of Romance suppletions is described, for example, from the numeral system, from the system of marking comparatives in adjectives, from the inflexional morphology of personal pronouns, from the inflexional morphology or verbs, nouns, and adjectives. While the Romance languages provide cross-linguistically typical illustrations of suppletion in its different manifestations, the Romance data are particularly thought-provoking with regard to, among other things, (i) the particular role of synonymy between lexemes in determining the emergence of incursive suppletion in diachrony; (ii) the role of existing abstract patterns of alternation in providing ‘templates’ for the paradigmatic distribution of suppletive alternants; and (iii) the role of phonological resemblance as a determinant of incursive suppletion.

This paper synthesizes evidence for the origin and spread of the Indo-European languages from three disciplines – genomic research, archaeology, and, especially, linguistics – to reassess the validity of the Anatolian and Steppe Hypotheses. Research on ancient DNA reveals a massive migration off the steppe c. 2500 BCE, providing exceptionally strong support for the Steppe hypothesis. However, intriguing questions remain, such as why ancient Greek and Indo-Iranian populations had a smaller proportion of steppe ancestry, and Anatolian apparently had none at all. Lexical and archaeological evidence for wheels and looms provides essential clues about the early separation of Anatolian from the Indo-European community and the late entrance of Greek into the Aegean area. Evidence from the morphologies of the Indo-European languages supports these findings: the morphological patterns of the Anatolian languages show clear archaism, implying earlier separation, while the morphologies of Indo-Iranian and Greek display an array of similarities pointing to relatively late areal contact. Both the lexical and the morphological evidence, then, alongside the genomic and archaeological record, suggests that the Steppe hypothesis offers a preferable solution. Ultimately, these conclusions demonstrate the need for more dynamic models of change, including considerations of contact, stratification, and cross-disciplinary approaches.

Are the dimensions of morphological diversity dependent on the cognitive pathways for processing, storage, and learning of word structure, and if so, how? Conversely, are languages that differ in their morphological structure processed and learned in different ways? This volume examines the relationship between linguistic cognition and the morphological diversity found in the world’s languages. As the idea that domain-general cognitive processes and morphological typology are inextricably linked has moved into the mainstream of linguistics, the field has diversified conceptually and methodologically. This introduction to the volume offers an overview of conceptual issues that underpin the volume’s papers and some of the methodological trends they reflect. It thus serves as a roadmap for the papers that follow.

The morphology of quaggas, their taxonomy, habitats, and behaviors are described. Photographs, illustrations, and taxidermy specimens are employed to examine representations and descriptions critically, for example, did quaggas have horse-like tails, and were Daniell and Harris correct in their illustrations of body striping? My analysis of taxidermy specimens shows sexual dimorphism: stallions were slightly smaller than mares, which is unlike the situation in other subspecies of plains zebras. Quaggas, named Equus quagga by both Boddaert and Gmelin, lived in a variety of habitats in the Cape Colony and Orange Free State (areas that are now part of the Western Cape, Eastern Cape, Northern Cape, and the Free State provinces) including: the nama Karoo, succulent Karoo, fynbos, Albany thicket, savanna, and grassland biomes. A quagga breeding group consisting of a stallion, several mares, and their foals often joined other breeding groups to form a herd. Quaggas often grazed with wildebeests (gnus) and ostriches, and all three species probably benefitted from this association; these animals often migrated together in large numbers seeking grazing and water.

It is true that most teachers have limited knowledge of how words work in English. Linguistics hasn’t been a feature of their own schooling or their teacher education, and you can’t teach what you don’t know. The good news is that it isn’t hard to build the knowledge – in fact, it’s fun. In this chapter we look more closely at the linguistic threads that contribute to the rich tapestry of each word: etymology, orthography, phonology and morphology.

Chapter 3 outlined four key principles for teaching spelling: start with meaning; teach spelling explicitly; teach a repertoire of spelling knowledge; and integrate spelling instruction into all subject areas. This chapter introduces a 10-step process for planning and implementing a spelling program that is grounded in those four principles. Interspersed among the steps in the planning process are some of the questions teachers and parents frequently ask as they embark on the implementation process. What would your answers be? My responses are posted at the end of the chapter.

This chapter is focused on getting spelling assessment right, and expands upon steps 9 and 10 in the program planning process, introduced in chapter 4: assessing spelling in use, and keeping records of teaching and learning.

Chapter 2 described how words work in English, and provided guidance on what to teach in spelling. Just as important as knowing what to teach is knowing how to teach, and that is the focus of this chapter. Many teachers simply teach spelling the way they were taught – through a list of words to be learned for an end-of-week assessment. However, research shows that this is an ineffective way to learn to spell. This chapter outlines four key principles for teaching spelling, each based on what the research tells us about how we learn to spell. 1 Start with meaning. 2 Teach spelling explicitly. 3 Teach a repertoire of spelling knowledge. 4 Integrate spelling instruction across all subject areas.