16.1352, Review: Morphology: Katamba (2003) -- Part 2

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-1352. Wed Apr 27 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.1352, Review: Morphology: Katamba (2003) -- Part 2

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org)
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomi at linguistlist.org>
================================================================

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at collberg at linguistlist.org.

===========================Directory==============================

1)
Date: 27-Apr-2005
From: Kalyanamalini Sahoo < kalyanamalini at yahoo.com >
Subject: Morphology: Critical Concepts in Linguistics

	
-------------------------Message 1 ----------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:39:28
From: Kalyanamalini Sahoo < kalyanamalini at yahoo.com >
Subject: Morphology: Critical Concepts in Linguistics


EDITOR: Katamba, Francis X.
TITLE: Morphology
SUBTITLE: Critical Concepts in Linguistics
SERIES: Critical Concepts in Linguistics
YEAR: 2003
PUBLISHER: Routledge (Taylor and Francis)
ISBN: 0415270782 (for the six-volume set)
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-1129.html


Kalyanamalini Sahoo, language consultant

[This is the second part of the review, containing the Synopses of Volumes
IV-VI, the Critical Evaluation, and the References.
Part I:           -- Eds.]

VOLUME IV -- MORPHOLOGY: ITS RELATION TO SYNTAX

A major theme running through many of the papers in this volume is how
similar or different is morphology to syntax?  Many linguists have argued
for an intimate relationship between syntactic operations and word
formation.  In this context, chapters discuss topics concerning
inflectional morphology, incorporation, compounds, clitics, causatives and
headedness of words.

The opening contribution 'The mirror principle and morpho-syntactic
explanation' (Source: Linguistic Inquiry 16(3) (1985): 373-415.) by Mark
Baker (ch 42), advocates the Mirror Principle which claims that there are
processes in the languages of the world that have both a syntactic as well
as a morphological component.  Hence, "Morphological derivations must
directly reflect syntactic derivations (and vice versa)".  The Mirror
Principle ties morphology and syntax together in such a way that any
constraint discovered in one system will automatically constitute a
constraint on the other system.  Baker focuses on the interaction between
syntactic rules that change grammatical functions and the corresponding
affixation phenomena in the morphological component that are induced by
the changes of grammatical function.  He claims that the Mirror Principle
or the structure of the grammar that derives it plays an important role in
explanatory generative grammar, supported by both theoretical necessity
and empirical fact.

In chapter 43 'The agreement hierarchy'(Source: Journal of Linguistics 15
(1979): 203-224.), G. C. Corbett focuses on agreement phenomena, another
area of inflectional morphology where there is a clear relatedness of
morphology to syntax.  Considering alternative agreement forms of certain
items, he postulates a hierarchy of agreement positions and justifies the
hierarchy by data from a variety of languages.  He discusses the status of
the hierarchy and the type of predictions it makes.  He advocates that
agreement is not a discrete phenomenon, rather that some items 'agree
more' than others.  The further an element stands from its controller in
terms of syntactic distance, the more likely is semantic agreement, and
the agreement hierarchy provides the primary measure for this distance.

In chapter 44 'Walpiri and the grammar of non-configurational
languages'(Source: Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1 (1983): 5-
47.), Ken Hale asks the question whether there are clearly defined
typological differences between configurational languages (e.g. English)
and non-configurational languages like Warlpiri, which are characterized
by free word order, use of syntactically discontinuous expressions and
extensive use of null anaphora.  He discusses the important role played by
case in the dependent-marking non-configurational languages.  Free word
order is made possible by rich inflectional morphology.

In chapter 45 'The evolution of noun incorporation' (Source: Language 60
(4) (1984): 847-894.), examining noun incorporation across a large number
of geographically and genetically diverse languages, Marianne Mithun
identifies the phenomenon as a device as it derives lexical items, not
sentences. Hence, noun incorporation falls in the domain of morphology
rather than syntax, and in the process of evolution can possibly revive as
a productive system of affixation.

The next two studies treat compounds.

In chapter 46 'Be-heading the word'(Source: Journal of Linguistics 26
(1990):1-31.), Laurie Bauer takes a highly skeptical view of the analysis
of a syntactic, X-bar theoretic analysis of compounds that assumes that
they have heads analogous to the heads of syntactic constituents.
Considering the morphological structure of English, she argues that the
criteria usually used for deciding headedness in syntax do not apply well
in morphology, and provide conflicting results. She finds William's (cf.
next chapter) 'Righthand Head Rule' internally inconsistent and argues
that heads have no place in morphology.

In chapter 47, On the notions "lexically related" and "head of a word"
(Source: Linguistic Inquiry 12(2) (1981): 245-274.), Edwin Williams
proposes a full-fledged syntactic treatment of compounds in terms of heads
and maximal projections (cf. Selkirk, ch. 13 and Lieber ch. 27).  He
presents a theory of inflection whereby the inflectional system of
languages will consist of two inventories, a set of syntactic features and
a set of morphological subcategories, along with a mapping between them.
He stipulates that the set of morphological subcategories must form a
connected constellation where each arc meets the definition
of "relatedness", based on the notion "head of a word".  The definition
of "relatedness" solves the paradoxes involving inflection inside of
compounds and predicts that inflectional endings will not occur between a
stem and a derivational affix.  He provides a unified theory of
affixational morphology, in which derivational affixes and inflectional
affixes need not be separated in the rules of formation.

Chapter 48 'Functional heads and inflectional morphemes' (Source:
Linguistic Review 8 (1984): 389-417.), written in the principles and
parameters model of generative grammar, also deals with heads in
morphology. Margaret Speas examines the relationship between syntactic
structure and inflectional morphology in Navajo.  She shows that although
Navajo inflectional morphology seems to obey the Mirror Principle (ch 42)
to some extent, it fails to confirm to syntactic head-to-head movement.
She claims that morpheme order is constrained by head-to-head movement,
but is not completely determined by principles of syntax.  Considering
syntactic derivations involving lowering and long head movement, she shows
that although both the derivations can capture the facts, still both have
properties to add undesirable power to the grammar.  So, to avoid such
problems, she proposes that inflected forms can be base-generated as such
and then move to accomplish feature checking.  Of course it weakens the
predictions about the correlation between morpheme order and syntactic
structure in that it allows the agreement morphology to get attached to
some other head, but not project its own structure, but that is the
desirable result.

Heads in morphology are further explored in chapter 49 'Verb movement,
universal grammar, and the structure of IP'(Source: Linguistic Inquiry 20
(3) (1989): 365-424.) by Jean-Yves Pollock.  Making a contrastive study of
English and French syntactic constructions like sentence negation,
question, adverbs, floating quantifiers, and quantification at a distance,
he proposes morphology at the heart of syntax.  Of course, such a proposal
depends crucially on Chomsky's (1955) claim that tense and agreement
morphemes should be treated as separate syntactic entities at an abstract
level of representation.

The close relationship between morphology and syntax is also examined in
chapter 50 'A typology of causatives: form, syntax and meaning' (Source:
R. M. W.Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), Changing Valency,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 30-83.) by R. M. W.
Dixon.  Dixon surveys causatives typologically with respect to three
parameters: their meanings, syntax, morphological marking; and the inter-
relation between the three parameters.  In the languages he has studied,
he suggests that if a language has two or more different causative
mechanisms the mechanisms will contrast semantically.

In chapter 51 'The best clitic: constraint conflict in
morphosyntax'(Source: Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar,
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1997, pp. 169-196.), Jane Grimshaw's
contribution uses Optimality Theory (OT) in the domain of morphosyntax.
Considering Romance languages, she exemplifies the employment of OT in
syntax to resolve morphosyntactic conflict in "opaque clitics": cases
where the realization of clitics in a given context is not what would be
expected given the choice of clitics in isolation.

VOLUME V -- MORPHOLOGY: ITS RELATION TO SEMANTICS AND THE LEXICON

The volume starts with an article dealing with the interplay between form
and meaning in morphology, followed by five articles dealing with
productivity in word-formation, and 4 articles dealing with the nature of
the lexicon and lexical representations.

In chapter 52 'Form and Meaning - their interplay in morphology' (Source:
Travaux linguistiques de Prague 4 (1971): 157-187.), Ivan Poldauf explores
the interplay between form and meaning in morphology.  Considering
morphological units of the Czech declension, he illustrates that with
reference to the form and/or the meaning, linguistic units take part in
the formation of a sentence, and this reference enables the speaker to
make proper use of the units in his performance irrespective of the
characteristic of each unit separately.

The next five contributions deal with different issues to do with
productivity in word-formation.

In chapter 53, 'Producing morphologically complex words'(Source:
Linguistics 26 (1988): 641-655.), Frank Anshen and Mark Aronoff use
psychological, historical and statistical evidence to support the
hypothesis that certain morphologically complex words are stored fully-
formed in the lexicon while others are manufactured as needed.

In chapter 54 'On the role of semantics in productivity change'(Source:
Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology, Dordrecht,
Holland: Foris Publications, 1988, pp. 139-154.), Jaap van Marle
investigates the role of semantics in productivity change diachronically.
Considering Dutch deverbal adjectives, he discusses the questions that in
the diachronic dimension of morphological productivity, how the change
from productive to non-productive and the vice-versa takes place.

In chapter 55 'Productivity and English derivation: a corpus-based study'
(Source: Linguistics 29 (1991): 801-843.), Harald Baayen and Rochelle
Lieber review definition and criteria for productivity available in the
literature before going on to establish empirically in a corpus-based
study, the relative degree of productivity of a number of English
derivational suffixes.  They propose a number of statistical measures of
productivity which focus on the quantitative weight of linguistic
restrictions on word-formation rules.

In chapter 56 'The polysemy of -ize derivatives: on the role of semantics
in word formation' (Source: Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds), Yearbook
of Morphology 1997, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988, pp. 219-
242.), Ingo Plag puts forward a unifying analysis of the suffix -ize in
English.  He teases out the various meanings of the -ize suffix and argues
that all the meanings of -ize are derived from one single semantic
representation, which is claimed to be the underspecified Lexical
Conceptual Structure (LCS) of possible -ize derivatives.  He claims that
the semantic interpretation of a given derivative can be construed by
mapping the different participants and the base onto the semantic
representation as expressed in the LCS.  This provides a springboard for a
discussion of the status of word-formation rules in the lexicon as well as
the role of semantic and pragmatic factors in word-formation.

In chapter 57 'When nouns surface as verbs'(Source: Language 55(4) (1979):
767-811.), Eve V. Clark and Herbert H. Clark explore zero derivation
resulting in nouns surfacing as verbs in English.  They argue that
although denominal verbs belong to a unified morphological family, they do
not allow a unified semantic description. They propose that pragmatic as
well as syntactic considerations play an important role in the creation of
verbs from nouns by conversion.  Such derivations make use of notions such
as kinds of situations, rationality, ready computability, uniqueness, the
speaker's and listener's mutual knowledge, and certain syntactic
constraints.

The next group of articles deals with the nature of the lexicon and
lexical representations.

In chapter 58 'Theory of the lexicon' (Source: Jack Hoeksma, Categorial
Morphology, New York: Garland, 1985, pp. 1-31.), Jack Hoeksma outlines a
theory of the lexicon in a lexicalist approach.  Contrary to Bloomfield's
(Bloomfield 1933:274) assertion that the lexicon is the appendix to the
grammar that contains all the irregularities, Hoeksma prefers for a
lexicon that is seen as a part of the grammar that contains the vocabulary
and rules of word-formation belonging to a particular language.  Hoeksma
disputes the claim made by advocates of word-based theories of morphology
(e.g. Aronoff 1976) that regular word-formation processes are word-based.
After drawing the familiar distinction between potential lexicon (the set
of possible words) and actual lexicon (the set of existing words), Hoeksma
outlines a formal model of the potential lexicon (with word-formation
rules formulated) using categorial grammar.  The potential lexicon
contains a set of lexical entries based on a set of word-formation rules.
Lexical entries are defined consisting of three components: a
phonological, a categorial, and a semantic component.  The word-formation
rules are characterized by the number of arguments they take.
Phonological subcategorization and the interaction between morphology and
syntax have been considered.

In ch. 59 'Morphology is in the lexicon!'(Source: Linguistic Inquiry 15(3)
(1984): 474-498.), in answer to Anderson's "where is morphology?" (ch.12),
John Jensen and Margaret Stong-Jensen argue for a Strong Lexicalist
Hypothesis where all morphology is placed unequivocally in the lexicon.
The lexicon is the locus of all types of word formation and of the
phonological processes that interact with word formation.  The lexical
model is justified over Anderson's interpretive model in the following
ways:
i) Lexical morphology allows derivational morphology to have access to
inflectional forms as a parameter of universal grammar.
ii) Lexical morphology accounts for inflections in terms of independently
needed principles such as feature percolation without having to resort to
new devices such as Anderson's stipulated disjunctivity.
iii) A lexical morphology formulated with a morphemic approach allows
compounding, derivation, and inflection to be unified under a single type
of operation, that of attaching a morpheme in accordance with its
subcategorization frame.

A different perspective on the lexicon, also endorsing a lexicalist
stance, is provided in chapter 60 'Lexical entries and lexical rules'
(Source: Stephen Pinker, Language Learnability and Language Development,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984, pp. 291-347.), in which
Steven Pinker considers the issue of lexical entries and lexical rules
from the point of view of learnability in language acquisition.  He shows
that by using several types of learning mechanisms the child can acquire a
domain of grammatical rules by exploiting certain linguistic
regularities.  He proposes a theory in which the child can learn lexical
entries by using some mechanisms in such a way that the mechanisms should
refrain from overgeneration.

Unlike most of the studies of the lexicon considered in the last few
paragraphs, which are concerned with the nature of the grammatical aspect
of lexical entries and how they are represented by rules in the lexicon,
in chapter 61 'Approaches to lexical semantic representation'(Source: D.
Walker, A. Zampolli and N. Calzorari (eds), Automating the Lexicon,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994, pp. 53-91.), Beth Levin deals with
the representation of semantic information in the lexicon.  For lexical
semantic representation, she gives preference to the predicate
decomposition approach (Carter 1976, Jackendoff 1976, 1983) over the
semantic role list (Fillmore, 1968).  She claims that the predicate
decomposition approach is the most successful at allowing the
identification of the natural classes of verbs and classes of arguments
that figure in the generalizations involving the syntactic properties and
entailment of verbs.  Notions like agency, causation, location, and motion
play an important role too.  Gruber's (1965) and Jackendoff's (1976, 1983)
notion of field for lexical organization provides taking advantage of
economies inherent in the lexicon.

VOLUME VI -- MORPHOLOGY: ITS PLACE IN THE WIDER CONTEXT

Along with two articles on computational morphology and three articles
dealing with historical linguistics, this volume contains a series of
articles addressing psycholinguistic issues including 4 articles on
lexical storage, retrieval and production as well as acquisition, 2
articles dealing with the storage of words with inflectional morphemes, 3
articles dealing with the acquisition of morphology, and 3 articles
concerned with the disintegration of morphology in language disorders.

In chapter 62 'Lexical Representation' (Source: B. Butterworth (ed.),
Language Production. Vol.2, London: Academic Press, 1983, pp.257-294.), B.
Butterworth gives an account of how words are represented in the mind.  He
suggests that all forms of words including base forms as well as compounds
have their own lexical representation in the mind.

In chapter 63 'Regular morphology and the lexicon' (Source: Language and
Cognitive Processes 10(5) (1995): 425-455.), Joan Bybee examines three
models of lexical storage and processing: the dual-processing model of
Pinker, Marcus and others, the connectionist model of Marchman, Plunkett,
Seidenberg and others and the network model of Bybee and Langacker.  She
discusses that according to the connectionist model and network model the
type frequency of a morphological pattern plays an important role in
determining productivity.  Considering the nature of source-oriented and
product-oriented lexical schemas in the network model, she claims that the
interaction of phonological properties of lexical patterns with frequency
and the interaction of type and token frequency influence the degree of
productivity.

In chapter 64 'Derivational Rules and the internal lexicon'(Source:
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 17 (1978): 61-71.), in a
study of derivational morphology, Donald G. MacKay, contrasts two
approaches to lexical storage and word production, one where complex
derived nouns are formed by rules for combining stems and affixes
separately stored in the lexicon and the other where mono-morphemic words
are stored whole.  Retrieval experiments showed slower retrieval times for
complex nouns than simple nouns, which suggests that complex nouns are not
stored as wholes but are formed by rule.  He proposes a model of lexical
retrieval processes incorporating derivational processes.

Chapters 65 and 66 deal with the storage of words with inflectional
morphemes.

In chapter 65 'Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected
forms' (Source: Memory & Cognition 14(1) (1986): 17-26.), Joseph Paul
Stemberger and Brian MacWhinney show that naturally occurring speech
errors indicate that high frequency inflected forms are entered as
separate entries in the mental lexicon and not manufactured as needed.

In chapter 66 'Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon?' (Source:
Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan (eds), Theoretical Morphology:
approaches in modern linguistics, London: Academic Press, 1988, pp. 101-
116.), Stemberger and MacWhinney revisit the question of lexical storage.
The second study confirms that irregular forms as well as high-frequency
regular forms appear to be stored in the lexicon.  However, low-frequency
regular inflected forms are not stored in the lexicon.  So, performance
factors like frequency are shown to influence lexical storage.

In chapter 67 'A Spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence
production' (Source: Psychological Review 93(3)(1986): 283-321.), Gary S.
Dell presents a theory of production called the spreading-activation
theory, which is designed to account for lexical retrieval in sentence
production with special emphasis on the phonological form of words.  The
theory is motivated by an investigation of errors in speech production.
It combines what Dell calls a spreading-activation retrieval mechanism
with assumptions about linguistic structure and levels of analysis,
including morphology.  The model envisages lexical entries as a tagged
network of ordered semantic, syntactic, phonological and morphological
properties of a lexical item.  Errors arise if the retrieval of all the
various tags is not perfectly synchronized in speech production. Speech
errors, however, in the theory are seen not as malfunctions, but rather as
the consequence of the need for language production to be productive,
coupled with some assumptions about the way that linguistic knowledge is
represented and retrieved.

The following three articles are concerned with the acquisition of
morphology.  In chapter 68 'The child's learning of English morphology'
(Source: Word 14(1958): 150-177.), Jean Berko investigates how children,
ranging from four to seven years in age, acquire English morphology.

In ch. 69 and 70, the focus shifts to cross-linguistic generalizations
about the order of morpheme acquisition in second language learning.  To
what extent does the learning of the morphology of a second language
reflect Universal Grammar?  Is it analogous to the acquisition of the
morphology of a first language?

In chapter 69 'Functional categories and acquisition orders' (Source:
Language Learning 44(1) (1994): 159-180.), Helmut Zobl and Juana Liceras
examine the functional category acquisition by L1 and L2 learners and make
a principled explanation of salient differences between the L1 and L2
morpheme orders.  The study does not make specific predictions about order
of acquisition, but shows interesting syntactic parallels between bound
and free morphemes within and across categories.  It gives insights on the
category-specific development of functional projections in L1 acquisition;
and cross-categorial development of functional projections in L2
acquisition.

In chapter 70 'Implications of the morpheme studies for second language
acquisition' (Source: Review of Applied Linguistics 39-40 (1978): 93-
102.), considering the order of acquisition of morphemes by the second
language learners, Diane Larsen-Freeman discusses how second language
learners regularly produce certain morphemes more accurately than others.
She suggests that non-native speakers learn to insert the appropriate
morphemes in their speech in an attempt to match the gestalt of the native-
speaker input to which they are exposed.  Rather than treating the
morphemes analytically and holding to the rules of the morpheme, the
learner attempts to have his speech product conform to the contour of the
input, and the morphemes function as filler syllables which aid him to
sound more native-like.

The next three articles are concerned with the disintegration of
morphology in language disorders.

In chapter 71 'Aphasics' attention to grammatical morphemes' (Source:
Language and Speech 20 (1977): 11-19.), Cheryl Goodenough, Edgar B. Zurif
and Sandra Weintraub show that agramatism in aphasics results in a failure
to attend to normally semantically empty morphemes.  Thus, aphasic
patients with anterior brain damage register only those words that are not
semantically empty.

This finding is further elaborated by Elizabeth Bates, Angela Friederici
and Beverly Wulfeck in chapter 72 'Grammatical morphology in aphasia:
evidence from three languages' (Source: Cortex 23 (1987): 545-574.).  In
an experimental study of the inflectional morphology of English, Italian
and German aphasics, Bates et al. suggest that the
agrammatism/paragrammatism distinction does not work well for richly-
inflected languages.

In chapter 73 'Morphological Composition in the lexical output system'
(Source: Cognitive Neuropsychology 8(5) (1991): 335-367.), William
Badecker and Alfonso Caramazza  investigate acquired lexical impairments
that result in morphological errors.  They have argued that these errors
result from an output impairment, and that the paraphrastic morphological
forms are the result of compositional errors rather than whole-word
lexical substitutions.

The next two articles present two models of computational morphology. In
chapter 74 'Lexical knowledge representation and natural language
processing' (Source: Artificial Intelligence 63(1993): 193-223.), James
Pustejovsky and Branimir Boguraev defend a rich theory of lexical
semantics making use of a knowledge representation framework.  They
propose that the lexicon can be seen as a generative system, where word
senses are related by logical operations defined by the well-formedness
rules of the semantics. They claim that such an approach of the lexicon
can be used to improve the overall robustness of automatic natural
language processing - both in terms of lexicon acquisition and language
learnability.

In chapter 75 'Network morphology: a DATR account of Russian nominal
inflection' (Source: Journal of Linguistics 29 (1993): 113-142.), Greville
G.Corbett and Norman M. Fraser argue for an analysis of Russian
inflectional morphology using the monostratal declarative theory called
Network Morphology, which uses the lexical representation language DATR.

The volume concludes with three articles dealing with historical
linguistics.

In chapter 76 'Morphological change: towards a typology' (Source: Jacek
Fisiak (ed.), Historical Morphology, Trends in Linguistics. Studies and
Monographs 29, Berlin: Mouton, 1980, pp. 1-50.), Henning Andersen
discusses a wide-ranging typological study of morphological change.

In chapter 77 'Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic
change' (Source: Lingua e Stile 20(3)(1985): 308-318.), Christian Lehmann
examines grammaticalization, a diachronic process that turns lexemes into
grammatical affixes.  He argues that synchronically, grammaticalization
helps to identify the subcategories of a given grammatical category.

In chapter 78 'La nature des process dits <<analogiques>>' (Source: Acta
Linguistica 5(1)(1949): 15-37.), Jerzy Kurylowicz considers the role of
analogy diachronically in morphological change.

The set ends with an index of terminologies used in all the volumes.

CRITICAL EVALUATION

This set of volumes is an unique attempt to offer critical concepts of
morphology and its stance in different branches of linguistics, written by
leading scholars in the field (although it does not contain any article by
the distinguished morphologists Andrew Spencer, or Francis Katamba; and
for this, of course the editor mentions that "the inclusion of articles
that are not readily available was prioritized").  Personally, I feel, the
inclusion of some articles by the above-said morphologists, and even the
inclusion of some articles concerning how morphology is treated in the
contemporary lexicalist theories like Head Driven Phrase-Structure Grammar
(HPSG) and/or Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) would have made the set
more complete.  This set is like an encyclopaedia in morphology. It can
satisfy all its readers across theoretical approaches and across
linguistic disciplines: beginning with various approaches to word
structure and morphological primes - from inflectional and derivational
morphology like compounding, reduplication, etc. to phonological
explanation like prosodic morphology; morphosyntactic explanation like
incorporation, cliticization, headedness of the word; semantic explanation
like polysemy, complex words, zero-derivations, and lexical semantic
representations; pragmatic explanations like derivational rules,
grammaticalization, diachronic change and synchronic variations; and even
applications like natural language processing and psycholinguistic issues
like second language acquisition.

In addition to the wealth of language data covered, and numerous types of
theoretical approaches taken into consideration, the extensive range of
morphological phenomena on all levels of linguistic structure discussed in
the set is a reflection of the stimulating effect the set can have for
researchers in the field. Providing a critical introduction to the central
concepts and perennial problems of morphology, it equips readers with the
skills to analyze a wealth of classic morphological issues.  The inclusion
of an index of important terms used in the volumes, makes this set very
reader-friendly.

Although the composition of chapters in the volumes is well planned,
somehow, I feel that ch. 47 could have preceded ch. 46 as ch. 46 deals
directly contra ch. 47 William's notion of 'head of a word'. In ch. 46, be-
heading the word Bauer claims that "heads have no place in morphology".
And chapter 60 dealing with psycholinguistic issues should have been
included in volume 6 instead of volume 5.

One more drawback is that the set is not proofread well. It has a number
of misprints, such as, 'dragrams' for 'diagram'(p20), 'linguists'
for 'linguistic' (p10), 'syliable' for 'syllable'(p22), 'categorical
grammar' for 'categorial grammar'(p10), missing punctuation (p11) etc. And
a very sad thing is that even the authors names have been misspelt,
e.g. 'Gleville Corbett and Norma Fraser' for 'Greville Corbett and Norman
Fraser'(p12).  Especially, the name of the author 'Greville G. Corbett'
has been cited as G. C. Corbett (p viii, IV-p48), and as 'Gleville
Corbett' (p8).  If these drawbacks are taken care of, it would
substantially increase the quality of the work.

In conclusion, this set of volumes is invaluable both empirically and
theoretically.  It is highly recommended not only to morphologists, but
also to scholars in all other areas in linguistics (i.e. phonology,
syntax, semantics, typology, computational linguistics, psycholinguistics,
etc. It is not only a rich source of reference for important works in the
field, but is also a thought provoking and inspiring source for much
further research.  It will give an opportunity for everyone to compare
different approaches taken by scholars of different schools of thought.

REFERENCES

Aronoff, M. (1976) Word Formation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.

Bloch, B. (1947) English Verb Inflection. Language 23: 399-418.

Bloomfield, L. (1933) Language. New York:Holt.

Bloomfield, L. (1933) Language. Reprint, Allen & Unwin, London 1976.

Bresnan, J. (1971) "Sentence Stress and Syntactic Transformations,"
Language 47, 257-281.

Bresnan, J. (1972) "Stress and Syntax," Language 48, 326-342.

Carter, R. J. (1976) 'Some Constraints on Possible Words', Semantikos, 1:
27-66.

Chomsky, Noam (1955) The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, Plenum,
New York (1975).

Fillmore, C. J.(1968) 'The Case for Case', in E. Bach and R. T. Harms
(eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston: 1-88.

Gruber, J.S. (1965) 'Studies in Lexical Relations', doctoral dissertation,
MIT Cambridge, Mass.

Halle, M.(1979) "Formal vs Functional Considerations in Phonology", in B.
Brogyany (ed.)  Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic
Science IV, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory Vol. 11. John Benjamins B.
V., Amsterdam.

Harris, Z. (1941) "Linguistic Structure of Hebrew", Journal of the
American Oriental Society 62, 143-167.

Harris, Z. (1951) Methods in Structural Linguistics, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Jackendoff, R. S. (1976) 'Towards an Explanatory Semantic Representation',
Linguistic Inquiry, 7: 89-150.

Jackendoff, R. S. (1983) Semantics and Cognition, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.

Lees, R. B. (1960) The Grammar of English Nominalizations, Mouton, The
Hague.

Lieber, R.(1980) On the Organization of the Lexicon, Doctoral
dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Whitney, W. D.(1889) Sanskrit Grammar. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University
Press.

Williams, E. (1981) "On the notions 'Lexically Related' and 'Head of a
Word'," Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245-274.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Kalyanamalini Sahoo has extensively worked on morphosyntactic
investigations in the South-Asian language Oriya, including applicational
fields like computational morphology. She received her Ph.D. from
Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Trondheim, Norway, in the
year 2001 and is primarily interested in computational morphology and
syntax.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-1352