The morphome debate /edited by Ana Luís and Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero.

Includes bibliographies and index.

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 concept of the morphome is one of the most influential but contentious ideas in contemporary morphology. The term is typically used to denote a pattern of exponence lacking phonological, syntactic, or semantic motivation, and putative examples of morphomicity are frequently put forward as evidence for the existence of a purely morphological level of linguistic representation. Central to the volume is the need to attain a deeper understanding of morphomic patterns, developing stringent diagnostics of their existence, exploring the formal grammatical devices required to characterize them adequately, and assessing their implications for language acquisition and change. The extensive empirical evidence is drawn from a wide range of languages, including Archi, German, Kayardild, Latin and its descendants, Russian, Sanskrit, Selkup, Ulwa, and American Sign Language.

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

COPYRIGHT NOT covered - Click this link to request copyright permission:

https://lib.ciu.edu/copyright-request-form