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
- Part III Morphological Principles
- 10 Lexicalism, the Principle of Morphology-free Syntax and the Principle of Syntax-free Morphology
- 11 Defaults and Overrides in Morphological Description
- 12 Implicative Relations in Word-based Morphological Systems
- 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
12 - Implicative Relations in Word-based Morphological Systems
from Part III - Morphological Principles
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 January 2017
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
- Part III Morphological Principles
- 10 Lexicalism, the Principle of Morphology-free Syntax and the Principle of Syntax-free Morphology
- 11 Defaults and Overrides in Morphological Description
- 12 Implicative Relations in Word-based Morphological Systems
- 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. 297 - 328Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Ackerman, F., and Blevins, J. P.. 2008. Syntax: The state of the art. In van Sterkenberg, P. (ed.), Unity and Diversity of Languages, 215–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F., and Bonami, O.. In press. Systemic polyfunctionality and morphology-syntax interdependencies. In Hippisley, A. and Gisborne, N. (eds.), Defaults in Morphological Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F., and Malouf, R.. 2013. Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language 89, 429–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, F., and Malouf, R.. 2015. The No Blur Principle effects as an emergent property of language. In Jurgensen, A. E., Sande, H., Lamoureux, S., Baclawski, K., and Zerbe, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 41st meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F., and Stump, G.. 2004. Paradigms and periphrasis: A study in realization-based lexicalism. In Sadler, L. and Spencer, A. (eds.), Projecting Morphology, 111–57. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F.; Blevins, J. P., and Malouf, R.. 2009. Parts and wholes: Patterns of relatedness in complex morphological systems and why they matter. In Blevins, J. P. and Blevins, J. (eds.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, 54–82. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albright, A., and Hayes, B.. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90, 119–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersen, T. 2014. Number in Dinka. In Storch, A. and Dimmendaal, G. J. (eds.), Number: Constructions and Semantics, 221–64. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Anttila, R. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., and Ramscar, M.. 2015. Abstraction, storage, and naive discriminative learning. In Dabrowska, E. and Divjak, D. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baerman, M. 2014a. Covert systematicity in a distributionally complex system. Journal of Linguistics 50, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, M. 2014b. Floating morphological paradigms in Seri. Paper presented at the Sixteenth International Morphology Meeting, Budapest.Google Scholar
Baerman, M. In press. Seri verb classes: morphosyntactic motivation and morphological autonomy. Language.Google Scholar
Baerman, M.; Brown, D., and Corbett, G.. 2015. Understanding and measuring morphological complexity: An introduction. In Baerman, M., Brown, D., and Corbett, G. (eds.), Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity, 3–10. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, P., and Gluckman, P.. 2011. Plasticity, Robustness, Development and Evolution. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beard, R. 1995. Lexeme-morpheme Base Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Beltrame, G. 1880. Grammatica e vocabularia della lingua denka. Rome: Guiseppe Civelli.Google Scholar
Benítez-Burraco, A., and Longa, V. M.. 2010. Evo-devo: Of course, but which one? Some comments on Chomsky’s analogies between the biolinguistic approach and evo-devo. Biolinguistics 4, 308–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, B., and Nichols, J.. 2013a. Exponence of selected inflectional formatives. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/21 (accessed April 4, 2016).Google Scholar
Bickel, B., and Nichols, J.. 2013b. Fusion of selected inflectional formatives. In Dryer, M. S., and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/20 (accessed April 4, 2016).Google Scholar
Blazej, L. J., and Cohen-Goldberg, A. M.. 2015. Can we hear morphological complexity before words are complex? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 41, 50–68.Google ScholarPubMed
Blevins, J. P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42, 531–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bochner, H. 1993. Simplicity in Generative Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonami, O. 2014. La Structure fine des paradigmes de flexion. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Paris Diderot.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., and Beniamine, S.. 2015. Implicative structure and joint predictiveness. In Pirelli, V., Marzi, C., and Ferro, M. (eds.), Word Structure and Word Usage: Proceedings of the Networds Final Conference.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., and Boyé, G.. 2014. De formes en thèmes. In Villoing, F., Leroy, S., and David, S. (eds.), Foisonnements morphologiques: Études en hommage à Françoise Kerleroux, 17–45. Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., and Henri, F.. 2010. Assessing empirically the inflectional complexity of Mauritian Creole. Paper presented at workshop on Formal Aspects of Creole Studies, Berlin. Available online at www.llf.cnrs.fr/Gens/Bonami/presentations/BoHen-FACS-10.pdf.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., and Luís, A. R.. 2014. Sur la morphologie implicative dans la conjugaison du portugais: Une étude quantitative. In Léonard, J.-L. (ed.), Morphologie flexionnelle et dialectologie romane: Typologie(s) et modélisation(s), Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 22, 111–51. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camazine, S.; Deneubourg, J.-L., Franks, N.R., Sneyd, J., Theraulaz, G., and Bonabeau, E.. 2001. Self-Organization in Biological Systems. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. 2013. The unique challenge of the Archi paradigm. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Languages of the Caucasus, 52–67. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Cover, T. M., and Thomas, J. A. 2006. Elements of Information Theory, 2nd edn. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Cruschina, S.; Maiden, M., and Smith, J. C. (eds.) 2013. The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A. M. 1998. History of Linguistics, vol. 4: Nineteenth-Century Linguistics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Davison, A. C., and Hinkley, D. V.. 1997. Bootstrap Methods and Their Application. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. L.; Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., and Plunkett, 1996. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Esper, E. A. 1925. A Technique for the Experiment Investigation of Associative Interference in Artificial Linguistic Material. Language monographs.Google Scholar
Esper, E. A. 1966. Social transmission of an artificial language. Language 42, 575–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esper, E. A. 1973. Analogy and Association in Linguistics and Psychology. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Fertig, D. 2013. Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabbard, K. 2015. South Saami Vowel Alternations. Master’s thesis, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Gentner, D.; Holyoak, K. J., and Kokinov, B. N.. 2001. The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, S. F., and Epel, D.. 2008. Ecological Developmental Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S. F., and Sarkar, S.. 2000. Embracing complexity: Organicism for the 21st century. Developmental Dynamics 219, 1–9.3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottlieb, G. 1997. Synthesizing Nature-nurture: The Prenatal Roots of Instinctive Behavior. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gurevich, O. I. 2006. Constructional Morphology: The Georgian Version. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hay, J., and Baayen, R. H.. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Science 9, 342–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofstadter, D., and Sander, E.. 2014. Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hood, K. E.; Halpern, C. T., Greenberg, G., and Lerner, R. M. (eds.) 2010. Handbook of Developmental Science, Behavior, and Genetics. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jablonka, E., and Lamb, M. J. 2006. Four Dimensions of Evolution: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. 1994. Precis of beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17, 693–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemps, R. J. J. K.; Wurm, L. H.; Ernestus, M.; Schreuder, R., and Baayen, R. H.. 2005. Prosodic cues for morphological complexity in Dutch and English. Language and Cognitive Processes 20, 43–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, A. E. 1991. Organising principles for nominal paradigms in Daghestanian languages: Comparative and typological observations. In Plank, F. (ed.), Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection, 255–274, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. R.; Remijsen, B., and Manyang, A.. 2009. On the distinction between regular and irregular inflectional morphology: Evidence from Dinka. Language 85, 659–70.Google Scholar
Laland, K. N.; Odling-Smee, J., and Myles, S. 2010. How culture shaped the human genome: Bringing genetics and the human sciences together. Nature Reviews Genetics 11, 137–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, L. 2013. Event structure and grammatical patterns: resultative constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. 1972. The timing of utterances and linguistic boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51, 2018–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrman, D. S. 1953. A critique of Konrad Lorenz’s theory of instinctive behavior. Quarterly Review of Biology 28, 337–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehrman, D. S. 1970. Semantic and conceptual issues in the nature-nurture problem. In Aronson, L. R. and Schneirla, T. C. (eds.), Development and Evolution of Behavior, 17–52. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
Lepic, R. 2015. Motivation in morphology: lexical patterns in ASL and English. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, F. 1953. Oneida verb morphology. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 48. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 2013. No escape from morphemes in morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 28, 905–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marlett, S. A. 2009. A grammar of Seri. Available online at http://arts-sciences.und.edu/summer-institute-of-linguistics/faculty/marlett-steve/marlett-seri-grammar-latest-draft.pdf.Google Scholar
Miestamo, M.; Sinnemäki, K., and Karlsson, F. (eds.) 2008. Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitterutzner, J. C. 1866. Die Dinka-Sprache in Central-Africa: Kurze grammatik, text und wörterbuch. Brixen: Verlag von A. Weger’s Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, I. 2015. On the expression of TAM on nouns: Evidence from Tundra Nenets. Lingua 166, 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oudeyer, P.-Y. 2006. Self-Organization in the Evolution of Speech. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overton, W. F. 2010. Life-span development: Concepts and issues. Handbook of Life-span Development 1, 1–29.Google Scholar
Oyama, S.; Gray, R. D., and Griffiths, P. E. 2001. Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems Theory and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Paul, H. 1891. Principles of the History of Language, translated from the 2nd edition into English by Strong, H. A.. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Paunonen, H. 1976. Allomorfien dynamiikkaa [The dynamics of allomorphs]. Virittäjä 79, 82–107.Google Scholar
Peirce, J. R. 1980. An Introduction to Information Theory: Symbols, Signals and Noise. Mineola, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Plag, I.; Hormann, J., and Kunter, G.. 2015. Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramscar, M.; Dye, M., Blevins, J. P., and Baayen, R. H. 2015. Morphological development. In Bar On, A., and Rabvit, D. (eds.), Handbook of Communication Disorders. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. 1959. In defense of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society 116–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, G. B., Gil, D., and Trudgill, P. (eds.) 2010. Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, S., and Myslin, M.. 2014. Discriminative learning predicts human recognition of English blend sources. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, S.; Ackerman, F., and Malouf, R.. 2015. Acoustic differences in morphologically-distinct homophones. Presentation at American International Morphology Meeting, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, S.; Garellek, M., Gillingham, G., Ackerman, F., and Malouf, R.. 2016. Acoustic differences in morphologically distinct homophones. Ms. UCSD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, C. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379–423, 623–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims, A., and Parker, J.. 2016. How inflection class systems work: On the informativity of implicative structure. Ackerman, F. and Malouf, R.. Special volume of Word Structure 9.2: 215–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, J. P.; Blumberg, M. S., McMurray, B., Robinson, S. R., Samuelson, L. K., and Tomblin, J. B.. 2009. Short arms and talking eggs: Why we should no longer abide the nativist-empiricist debate. Child Development Perspectives 3, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stiles, J. 2008. The Fundamentals of Brain Development: Integrating Nature and Nurture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, G., and Finkel, R.. 2009. Principal parts and degrees of paradigmatic transparency. In Blevins, J. P., and Blevins, J. (eds.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, 13–54. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, G., and Finkel, R.. 2013. Morphological Typology: From Word to Paradigm. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, G., and Finkel, R.. 2015. Contrasting modes of representation for inflectional systems: Some implications for computing morphological complexity. In Baerman, M.; Brown, D., and Corbett, G. G. (eds.), Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity, 119–40. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thymé, A. 1993. Connectionist Approach to Nominal Inflection: Paradigm Patterning and Analogy in Finnish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
von Bertalanffy, L. 1973. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, revised edn. New York: Braziller.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. 1986. Die wiederholte Klassifikation von Substantiven. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 39, 76–96.Google Scholar
- 4
- Cited by