Chapter published in:All Things Morphology: Its independence and its interfaces
Edited by Sedigheh Moradi, Marcia Haag, Janie Rees-Miller and Andrija Petrovic
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 353] 2021
► pp. 239–254
Morphomes all the way down!
Taking Stump’s (2016) PFM2 C(ontent)/F(orm)/R(ealized) paradigm distinction I argue that the F/R-paradigm features are conceptually different from C-paradigm features. C-paradigm features interface with syntax/semantics, hence are ‘interpretable’. F-paradigm features, by contrast, induce purely formal (morphomic) partitionings (cf. Boyé & Schalchli 2019), even for canonical systems (one:one Content-Form correspondence), a reflection of the true autonomy of inflectional morphology, ‘morphology-by-itself’. The C-paradigm features are a subset of Sadler & Spencer’s (2001) ‘s(yntactic)-features’. Canonical Content-Form correspondence is achieved by typing features as m- and s-features.
Keywords: content paradigm, form paradigm, inflectional paradigm, m-feature, morphology-by-itself, morphome, morphomic feature, Paradigm Function Morphology, s-feature
Allan, Robin, Philip Holmes & Tom Lundskær-Nielsen
Arkadjev, Peter M.
Bonami, Olivier, Robert D. Borsley & Maggie Tallerman
Bonami, Olivier & Gilles Boyé
2008 Paradigm shape is morphomic in Nepali. Paper presented at the 13th Internation Morphology Meeting, Vienna.
2010 Opaque paradigms, transparent forms in Nepali conjugation. Paper presented at the Workshop on Theoretical Morphology 5, Lutherstadt, Wittenberg.
Bonami, Olivier & Gregory Stump
Boyé, Gilles & Gauvain Schalchli
Crysmann, Berthold & Olivier Bonami
Sadler, Louisa & Andrew Spencer