000			05556cam a2200433Ii 4500
001			ocn944211435
003			OCoLC
005			20240726105040.0
008			160309t20162016enka ob 001 0 eng d
040			_aYDXCP _beng _epn _erda _cYDXCP _dYDX _dOCLCO _dOCLCQ _dVLB _dOCLCQ _dQCL _dOCLCQ _dUKOUP _dOH1 _dIOG _dOTZ _dDGU _dNT _dEBLCP
020			_a9780191771804 _q((electronic)l(electronic)ctronic)
020			_a9780191006647
050	0	4	_aP242 _b.M677 2016
049			_aMAIN
245	1	0	_aThe morphome debate /edited by Ana Luís and Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero.
250			_aFirst edition.
260			_aOxford, United Kingdom : _bOxford University Press, _c(c)2016.
300			_a1 online resource (xii, 376 pages) : _billustrations
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
347			_adata file _2rda
504			_a2
520	8		_aThis 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.
505	0	0	_aCover ; 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
505	0	0	_a2.3.1 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
505	0	0	_a3.5 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
505	0	0	_a4.2.4 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
505	0	0	_a5.4.2 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
530			_a2 _ub
650		0	_aMorphemics.
655		1	_aElectronic Books.
700	1		_aLuís, Ana R., _e5
700	1		_aBermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, _d1970- _e5
856	4	0	_uhttps://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1506244&site=eds-live&custid=s3260518 _zClick to access digital title | log in using your CIU ID number and my.ciu.edu password
942			_cOB _D _eEB _hP _m2016 _QOL _R _x _8NFIC _2LOC
994			_a92 _bNT
999			_c87264 _d87264
902			_a1 _bCynthia Snell _c1 _dCynthia Snell