Cover not available
Part of
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

Chapter 13
Morphomes all the way down!

ORCID logo | University of Essex
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
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Two types of paradigm
  • 3.Morphomic features in form paradigms
  • 4.All form paradigm features are morphomic
  • 5.Two types of feature
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.353.13spe
References (22)
References
Allan, Robin, Philip Holmes & Tom Lundskær-Nielsen. 2000. Danish: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Arkadjev, Peter M. 2009. Poor (two-term) case systems: Limits of neutralization. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 686–699. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2019. Feature duality. In Matthew Baerman, Oliver Bond & Andrew Hippisley (eds.), Morphological perspectives. Papers in honour of Greville G. Corbett, 124–137. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier, Robert D. Borsley & Maggie Tallerman. 2016. On pseudo-non-finite clauses in Welsh. In Doug Arnold, Miriam Butt, Berthold Crysmann, Tracy Holloway King & Stefan Müller (eds.), Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar, 104–124. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
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. 2016. Paradigm Function Morphology. In Andrew Hippisley & Gregory Stump (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology, 449–481. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1995, 1–16. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyé, Gilles & Gauvain Schalchli. 2019. Realistic data and paradigms: The paradigm cell finding problem. Morphology 19. 199–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crysmann, Berthold & Olivier Bonami. 2016. Variable morphotactics in Information-based Morphology. Journal of Linguistics 52. 311–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Round, Erich. 2015. Rhizomorphomes, meromorphomes and metamorphomes. In Matthew Baerman, Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Understanding and measuring morphological complexity, 29–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadler, Louisa & Andrew Spencer. 2001. Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2000, 71–96. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2008. Does Hungarian have a case system? In Greville G. Corbett & Michael Noonan (eds.), Case and grammatical relations, 322–340. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Realization-based morphosyntax: The German genitive. In Patrick O. Steinkrüger & Manfred Krifka (eds.), On inflection, 173–218. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2013. Lexical relatedness: A paradigm-based model. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Stems, the morphome, and meaning-bearing inflection. In Ana R. Luís & Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero (eds.), The morphome debate: Diagnosing and analysing morphomic patterns, 207–227. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Inflection and derivation. In Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie & Gergana Popova (eds.), Oxford Handbook of English Grammar, 243–261. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Morphological and syntactic paradigms: Arguments for a theory of paradigm linkage. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2001, 147–180. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. A theory of heteroclite inflectional paradigms. Language 82. 279–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Inflectional paradigms. Content and form at the syntax-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar