Prolegomena to a typology of morphological features

Corbett, Greville G.; Baerman, Matthew

doi:10.1007/s11525-006-9105-3

Cited by 38 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Introduction The Chinantecan languages (Oto-Manguean) of Mexico have started to awaken interest in word-and-paradigm approaches to morphology. This can be seen in a number of recent publications, such as for example Baerman (2013b), Baerman and Palancar (forthcoming); Baerman (2014a); Brown and Evans (2013); Corbett and Baerman (2006); Stump (2007, 2009); Palancar 2014); Stump and Finkel (2013), etc.…”

mentioning

confidence: 81%

A mixed system of agreement in the suffix classes of Lealao Chinantec

Palancar

2014

Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceIn Lealao Chinantec, an Oto-Manguean language of Mexico, verbs receive a set of suffixes which index person and number of the subject. There are various sets of such affixes producing the sort of allomorphy that is typical of inflectional classes. In this paper, I study the distribution of such suffixes in a large sample of verbs from Rupp and Rupp's (1996) dictionary and show that the allomorphy is largely morphosyntactically motivated for a group of verbs that have two paradigms, animate and inanimate. For many other verbs this morphosyntactic mapping fails and the allomorphy we observe is essentially morphological in nature. This allomorphy reflects the interaction of what I treat as two competing systems of agreement. One such system is a more canonical agreement system based on subject (S/A), the other is based on animacy agreement with the absolutive argument (S/O) (also found in other Chinantecan languages). These two systems and the way they talk to each other has important consequences for the morphology-syntax interface of Lealao Chinantec

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 81%

A mixed system of agreement in the suffix classes of Lealao Chinantec

Palancar

2014

Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This distinction recalls the distinction between s-features and m-features (drawn bySadler & Spencer 2001), between morphosyntactic and morphological features (drawn byCorbett & Baerman 2006), and between morphosyntactic and morphomic features (drawn byBonami & Boyé 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

Morphosyntactic property sets at the interface of inflectional morphology, syntax and semantics

Stump

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The morphosyntactic property set associated with the syntactic node occupied by a word form is not invariably identical to the property set determining that word form’s inflection, as evidence from Bhojpuri, Turkish, Sanskrit and Hua shows. The difference between syntactic property sets and their corresponding morphological property sets may be represented as a property mapping relating two different kinds of paradigm: a lexeme L’s content paradigm specifies the range of property sets with which L may be associated in syntax ; its form paradigm specifies the (sometimes distinct) property sets that determine L’s inflectional realization. Thus, a language’s inflectional morphology doesn’t merely specify the realization of paradigm cells: it also specifies the sometimes nontrivial linkage of content with form at the interface of syntax and semantics with morphology.

show abstract

“…(Aronoff 1994: 65). In this sense, inflectional class is equivalent to 'morphological feature', as for instance in Corbett & Baerman (2006). Yet on close examination the notion bears further clarification.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%