The interface of a language’s syntax and semantics with its inflectional morphology is quite constrained: canonically, the morphosyntactic property set that determines a word form’s use and interpretation in a particular syntactic context also determines its inflectional shape in that context. There are, however, frequent deviations from this canonical congruence. Deviations of this sort favor a theory of morphology in which the definition of a word form’s syntactico-semantic content is in principle separate from that of its morphological realization. Such a theory necessitates the postulation of two sorts of paradigms: content paradigms constitute the interface of word forms’ inflectional morphology with their syntax and semantics; form paradigms determine the definition of word forms’ morphological realizations. In a theory of this sort, a language’s inflectional morphology must not only define patterns of inflectional exponence; it must also define the linkage between the cells of a lexeme’s content paradigm and the cells of the form paradigm through whose mediation they are realized morphologically. The Old English conjugational system provides a rich basis for exemplifying a theory of this sort.
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 22]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Brook, George L. 1955. An Introduction to Old English. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina & Corbett, Greville G. (eds). 2013. Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Oxford: OUP.
Corbett, Greville G. 2005. The canonical approach in typology. In Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories [Studies in Language Companion Series 72], Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges & David S. Rood (eds), 25–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Corbett, Greville G. 2009. Canonical inflectional classes. In Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes, Fabio Montermini, Gilles Boyé & Jesse Tseng (eds), 1–11. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Gazdar, Gerald, Pullum, Geoffrey K., Carpenter, Robert, Klein, Ewan, Hukari, Thomas E. & Levine, Robert D. 1988. Category structures. Computational Linguistics 14: 1–19.
Kasper, Robert T. & Rounds, William C. 1986. A logical semantics for feature structures. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 257–266.
Lass, Roger. 1994. Old English: A Historical Linguistic Companion. Cambridge: CUP.
Matthews, Peter H. 1972. Inflectional Morphology: A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation. Cambridge: CUP.
O’Neill, Paul. 2013a. The morphome and morphosyntactic/semantic features. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 221–246. Oxford: OUP.
O’Neill, Paul. 2013b. The notion of the morphome. In Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology, Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds), 70–94. Oxford: OUP.
Quirk, Randolph & Wrenn, Charles L. 1955. An Old English Grammar. London: Methuen & Co.
Round, Erich R. 2013. Kayardild Morphology and Syntax. Oxford: OUP.
Sievers, Eduard & Cook, Albert S. 1903. An Old English Grammar, 3rd edn. Boston MA: Ginn.
Stewart, Tom & Stump, Gregory. 2007. Paradigm function morphology and the morphology/syntax interface. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds), 383–421. Oxford: OUP.
Stump, Gregory. 1993. On rules of referral. Language 69: 449–479. Reprinted in Morphology: Critical Concepts in Linguistics, Francis Katamba (ed.). London: Routledge, 2003.
Stump, Gregory. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: CUP.
Stump, Gregory. 2002. Morphological and syntactic paradigms: Arguments for a theory of paradigm linkage. In Yearbook of Morphology 2001, G. Booij & J. van Marle (eds), 147–80. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Stump, Gregory. 2006. Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82: 279–322.
Stump, Gregory. 2012. The formal and functional architecture of inflectional morphology. In Morphology and the Architecture of Grammar: On-line Proceedings of the Eighth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM8), Cagliari, Italy, 14–17 September 2011, Angela Ralli, Geert Booij, Sergio Scalise & Athanasios Karasimos (eds), 254–270. <[URL]>
Stump, Gregory. 2016. Inflectional Paradigms: Content and Form at the Syntax-Morphology Interface. Cambridge: CUP.
Thornton, Anna M. 2012. Reduction and maintenance of overabundance: A case study on Italian verb paradigms. Word Structure 5(2): 183–207.
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. How to describe inflection. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Mary Niepokuj, Mary Van Clay, Vassiliki Nikiforidou & Deborah Feder (eds), 372–386. Berkeley CA: BLS.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Grestenberger, Laura
2023. Deponency. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff.
Goldstein, D. M.
2020. Homeric ‐phi(n)is an oblique case marker1. Transactions of the Philological Society 118:3 ► pp. 343 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.