Cover not available
Part of
Morphological Variation: Theoretical and empirical perspectives
Edited by Antje Dammel and Oliver Schallert
[Studies in Language Companion Series 207] 2019
► pp. 159–196

Thoughts on morphomes, on a Scandinavian background

| University of Oslo
Since Aronoff (1994), the notion of morphomic patterns, i.e. inflectional patterns without complete motivation from outside of morphology, has gained popularity, especially in works on Romance (e.g. Maiden 2016a). However, the approach has also been criticized. Bowern (2015) suggests that there is very little evidence for autonomously morphological patterns arising. This paper presents a number of Scandinavian counter-examples to her claim. Bermúdez-Otero & Luís (2016) present a number of meta-theoretical objections against the notion of morphomic patterns. Arguments are presented to the effect that a number of these objections are less significant than they appear; some are even misguided.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Explicating the morphome
    • 2.1Outlining the morphome
    • 2.2Not useless after all: Intra-morphological meaning
    • 2.3Why emphasize morphomes?
  • 3.On some recent objections against morphomic patterns
    • 3.1The sociological argument
    • 3.2The Savognin argument and a preliminary conclusion
    • 3.3Stability and change: And clarification of a hypothesis
  • 4.Some examples from Scandinavian
    • 4.1A new inflection class in Norwegian, Swedish and Faroese
    • 4.2Trying to copy your new neighbor
    • 4.3Meat from shoulders in Meldal
    • 4.4Strengthening of inflection class in Swedish and in Østfold
      • 4.4.1Swedish
      • 4.4.2Østfold Norwegian: Trøgstad, Askim, Spydeberg
      • 4.4.3Theoretical implications of the TAS strengthening and the Meldal change
    • 4.5Neuters in transition
      • 4.5.1A new inflection class for neuters in East Norwegian
      • 4.5.2A new class of neuters in Swedish
      • 4.5.3Inflectional parsimony
    • 4.6Body part nouns
      • 4.6.1Ears and eyes
      • 4.6.2Teeth and hands
    • 4.7Summing up Section 4
  • 5.Some meta-objections and how to deal with them
    • 5.1On white and black swans
    • 5.2Learnability
    • 5.3“Taking morphology seriously”
      • 5.3.1Reducing the heat by pouring oil on the fire?
      • 5.3.2Is the alternative really so promising?
      • 5.3.3Morphomic patterns need not be the end-point of analysis
    • 5.4Form-form relations
    • 5.5What is autonomy?
  • 6.Concluding remarks
    • 6.1Independently morphological innovations
    • 6.2Some other lessons to take away
    • 6.3Envoi
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.207.06eng
References (123)
References
Ackerman, Farrell & Malouf, Robert. 2013. Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language 89(3): 429–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2010. From morphologization to de-morphologization. In The Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics, Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds), 117–146. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 62]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Stress-conditioned allomorphy in Surmiran (Rumantsch). In Morphological Autonomy, Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds), 13–34. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2013. Stem alternations in Swiss Rumantsch. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 8–23. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Words and paradigms. Transactions of the Philological Society 115(1): 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 22]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. Morphological stems: What William of Ockham really said. Word Structure 5(1): 28–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Face the facts. In Foisonnements morphologiques: études en homage à Francoise Kerleroux, Florence Villoing & Sophie David (eds), 307–324. Paris: PUPO.Google Scholar
. 2016. Unnatural kinds. In The Morphome Debate, Ana R. Luís & Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero (eds), 11–32. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2015. Chapter 1: Introduction. In The Oxford Handbook of Inflection, Matthew Baerman (ed.), 1–11. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2016. Seri verb classes: Morphosyntactic motivation and morphological autonomy. Language 92(4): 792–823. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth & MacWhinney, Brian. 1989. Functionalism and the competition model. In The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing, Brian MacWhinney & Elizabeth Bates (eds), 3–76. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-morpheme-base Morphology. Albany NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Beito, Olav Toreson. 1954. Genusskifte i nynorsk (Gender Change in New Norwegian). Oslo: Jacob Dybwad.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2013. The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features. Probus 25(1): 3–103.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo & Luís, Ana. 2016. A view of the morphome debate. In The Morphome Debate, Ana Luís & Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero (eds), 309–340. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2003. Stems and paradigms. Language 79(2): 737–767. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette & Blevins, James P. 2009. Analogy: An introduction. In Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, Juliette Blevins & James P. Blevins (eds), 1–12. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Beniamine, Sarah. 2016. Joint predictiveness in inflectional paradigms. Word Structure 9(2): 156–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2015. Diachrony. In The Oxford Handbook of Inflection, Matthew Baerman (ed.), 233–250. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2001. Phonology and Language Use [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bye, Patrik & Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Non-concatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. In The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, Jochen Trommer (ed.), 427–495. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in Inflexion. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. Inflection classes, Gender and the principle of contrast. Language 70(4): 737–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Umlaut as signans and signatum: Synchronic and diachronic aspects. In Yearbook of Morphology 1999, Geert E. Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 1–23. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. How stems and affixes interact. In Morphology 2000 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 218], Sabrina Bendjaballah, Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & Maria D. Voeikova (eds), 49–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Basic terminology. In Handbook of Word-Formation , Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber (eds), 5–25. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. System-congruity and violable constraints in German weak declension. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26(4): 775–793. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. The Evolution of Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve E. 1993. The Lexicon in Acquisition [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 65]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1995. Autonomy and functionalist linguistics. Language 71(3): 490–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dabrowska, Ewa. 2004. Language, Mind and Brain. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
. 2006. Low-level schemas or general rules? Language Sciences 28(1): 120–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity [Studies in Language Companion Series 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dammel, Antje. 2011. Konjugationsklassenwandel (Change in Verb Inflection Classes) [Studia Linguistica Germanica 103]. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Demske, Ulrike. 2008. Von morphomischen Stämmen und morphologischen Paradigmen (Of morphomic stems and morphological paradigms). In Studien zu Literatur, Sprache und Geschichte, Albrecht Greule, Hans-Walter Herrmann, Klaus Ridder & Andreas Schor (eds), 247–260. St. Ingbert: Röhrig Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2015. Edible Gender, Mother-in-Law Style and Other Grammatical Wonders. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang Ullrich. 2003. Naturalness and morphological change. In Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard Janda (eds), 461–472. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Endresen, Rolf Theil. 1990. Vikværsk. In Den store dialektboka (The Big Dialect Book), Ernst Håkon Jahr (ed.), 89–99. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2009. The role of core and non-core semantic rules in gender assignment. Lingua 119(9): 1281–1299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Gender and contact: A natural morphology perspective on Scandinavian examples. In Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, Peter Siemund (ed.), 171–203. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Fire kroppsdelssubstantiver og en sammensvergelse (Four body part nouns and a conspiracy). In Germansk filologi og norske ord: Festskrift til Harald Bjorvand, John Ole Askedal, Tom Schmidt & Rolf Theil (eds), 94–108. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
. 2013. Inflectional change, ‘sound laws’ and the autonomy of morphology. Diachronica 30(1): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Reinforcement in inflection classes. Word Structure 7(2): 153–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Esher, Louise. 2015a. Morphomes and predictability in the history of Romance perfects. Diachronica 32(4): 494–529. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015b. Formal asymmetries between the Romance synthetic future and conditional in the Occitan varieties of the western Languedoc. Transactions of the Philological Society 113(2): 249–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen C. 2009. The myth of language universals. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32: 429–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic universals. In The Limits of Syntactic Variation [Linguistics Today 132], Theresa Biberauer (ed.), 75–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Tor Arne. 2014. Adjectival predicators and approaches to complement realisation. Lingua 140: 83–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of Historical Linguistics, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoff, Ingeborg. 1946. Skjetvemålet (The Dialect of Skiptvet). Oslo: Jacob Dybwad.Google Scholar
. 1965. Bygdemålet i Heggen og Frøland (The Dialect of Heggen and Frøland). Askim. (No publisher given).Google Scholar
. 1968. Målet i Aurskog og Blaker (The Dialect of Aurskog and Blaker). Oslo. (No publisher given).Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1996. Sociolinguistics, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. An Introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2011. A localistic approach to universals and variation. In Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, Peter Siemund (ed.), 404–424. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kågerman, Elisabeth. 1985. Plural av neutral på obetonat –e (Plural of neuters ending in unstressed –e) [Lundastudier i nordisk språkvetenskap A 36]. Malmö: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, Gjert. 1992. Kvantitet i norsk. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 10: 187–208.Google Scholar
. 2000. The Phonology of Norwegian. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kürschner, Sebastian. 2008. Deklinationsklassenwandel (Change in Noun Inflection Classes) [Studia Linguistica Germanica 92]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2016. Die Interaktion von Deklinationsklasse und Genus in oberdeutschen Dialekten. In Formen und Funktionen, Andreas Bittner & Constanze Spieß (eds), 35–60. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen, Amund B. 1907. Kristiania bymaal (The Urban Dialect of Kristiania). Kristiania [= Oslo]: Cammermeyer.Google Scholar
1917. “Nabo-opposition – knot.” (Neighbour opposition). Reprinted 1993 in Historisk språkvitenskap/Historical Linguistics, Ernst Håkon Jahr & Ove Lorentz (eds), 97–110. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1984. Phonology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 1997. Synkretismus und Natürlichkeit. Folia Linguistica XXXI (31): 133–160.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 2013. Morphomes in Sardinian verb inflection. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 137–160. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 1991. Interactive Morphonology: Metaphony in Italian. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
. 1992. Irregularity as a determinant of morphological change. Journal of Linguistics 28(2): 285–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. What sort of thing is a derivational affix? In Yearbook of Morphology 1999, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 25–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. In Yearbook of Morphology 2004, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 137–175. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Where does heteroclisis come from? Evidence from Romanian dialects. Morphology 19(1): 59–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011a. Allomorphy, autonomous morphology and phonological conditioning in the history of the Daco-Romance present and subjunctive. Transactions of the Philological Society 109(1): 59–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. Morphomes and ‘stress-conditioned’ allomorphy in Romansh. In Morphological Autonomy, Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds), 36–50. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2013a. The Latin ‘third stem’ and its Romance descendants. Diachronica 30(4): 492–530. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. ‘Semi-autonomous’ morphology. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 24–45. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. Some lessons from history: Morphomes in diachrony. In The Morphome Debate, Ana R. Luís & Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero (eds), 33–63. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. Chapter 3: Morphomes. In The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds), 708–722. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Romansh allomorphy (again!) In On Looking into Words (and Beyond): Structures, Relations, Analyses, Claire Bowern, Laurence Horn & Raffaella Zanuttini (eds), 169–188. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
. 2018. The Romance Verb: Morphomic Structure and Diachrony. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1993. Grammatical Theory in the United States from Bloomfield to Chomsky [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 67]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. A Short History of Structural Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayerthaler, Willi. 1981. Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.Google Scholar
Meul, Claire. 2013. The fate of the -ID(I)- morpheme in the Central Dolomitic Ladin varieties of Northern Italy. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 68–95. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mugdan, Joachim. 1986. Was ist eigentlich ein Morphem? [What is a morpheme, really?] Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 39(1): 29–42.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1983. Grammatical Theory. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Peter Juul. 2016. Functional Structure in Morphology and the Case of Nonfinite Verbs Theoretical Issues and the Description of the Danish Verb System. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Nilsen, Marianne B. 2012. Sterke verb og semantiske fellestrekk (Strong Verbs and Semantic Common Features). MA thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 2000. Prinzipien der Irregularisierung (Principles of Irregularisation) [Linguistische Arbeiten 415]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Was tun mit Flexionsklassen? (What to do with inflection classes?) Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik LXXV(3): 282–331.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Paul. 2013. The morphome and morphosyntactic/semantic features. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 221–247. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odden, Oda R. 2013. Om bøyingsklassers liv som en følge av generelle kognitive prosesser (On the life of inflection classes in consequence of general cognitive processes). Student paper, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Papazian, Eric. 2002. Flertall av intetkjønnsord i bokmål og østlandske dialekter – noen utviklingstendenser (Plural of neuters in Bokmål and East Norwegian dialects – some tendencies). In MONS 9. Utvalgte artikler fra Det niende møtet om norsk språk i Oslo 2001, Inger Moen, Hanne Gram Simonsen, Arne Torp & Kjell Ivar Vannebo (eds), 156–166. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1880. Principien der Sprachgeschichte (Principles of Language History). Halle (Saale): Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pinker, Stephen. 1994. The Language Instinct. London: Penguin Books. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plaster, Keith & Polinsky, Maria. 2007. Women are not dangerous things. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 1–44.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1972. The Logic of Scientific Discoveries. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Ragnhildstveit, Silje. 2016. Genus og transfer når norsk er andrespråk (Gender and Transfer when Norwegian is L2). PhD dissertation, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Round, Erich. 2016. Kayardild inflectional morphotactics is morphomic. In The Morphome Debate, Ricardo Bermudez-Otero & Ana R. Luis (eds), 228–247. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Røyneland, Unn. 2009. Dialects in Norway: Catching up with the rest of Europe? International Journal of the Sociology of Language 196-197, 7–30.Google Scholar
Sameien, Marianne B., Spilling, Eivor F. & Enger, Hans-Olav. 2018. Reorganising grammatical variation in Norwegian. In Reorganising Grammatical Variation [Studies in Language Companion Series 203], Antje Dammel, Mattias Eitelmann & Mirjam Schmuck (eds), 209–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 2013. A counterexample to homonymy avoidance. Diachronica 30(4): 579–591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sims, Andrea D. & Parker, Jeff. 2016. How inflection class systems work: On the informativity of implicational structure. Word Structure 9(2): 215–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sims-Williams, Helen. 2016. Analogical levelling and optimization: The treatment of pointless lexical allomorphy in Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society 114(3): 315–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skjekkeland, Martin. 2005. Dialektar i Noreg: Tradisjon og fornying (Dialects in Norway: Tradition and renewal). Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget.Google Scholar
Smith, John Charles. 2011. Variable analyses of a verbal inflection in (mainly) Canadian French. In Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology , Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds), 311–326. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The morphome as a gradient phenomenon. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 247–262. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold M. 1998. Introduction. In Handbook of Morphology, Andrew Spencer & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds), 1–10. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1993. On rules of referral. Language 69(3): 449–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 93]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82(2): 279–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiersma, Pieter Meijes. 1982. Local and general markedness. Language 58(4): 832–849. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 2013. Compositionality and change in conditionals and counterfactuals. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 116–136. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1980. Ways of morphologizing phonological rules. In Historical Morphology, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 443–463. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. (English translation 1989. Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer).Google Scholar
. 1989. Von der Inadäquatheit einer Affixmorphologie (On the inadequacy of an affixal morphology). Linguistische Studien Series A 194: 277–298.Google Scholar
Zingler, Tim. 2017. Evidence against the morpheme: The history of English phonaesthemes. Language Sciences 62: 76–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Enger, Hans-Olav
2023. Meta-morphomic patterns in North Germanic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 46:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 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.