32.2669, Review: Morphology: Lieber (2021)
The LINGUIST List
linguist at listserv.linguistlist.org
Wed Aug 18 01:11:22 UTC 2021
LINGUIST List: Vol-32-2669. Tue Aug 17 2021. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.
Subject: 32.2669, Review: Morphology: Lieber (2021)
Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn, Lauren Perkins
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Nils Hjortnaes, Joshua Sims, Billy Dickson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 18:02:30
From: Alexandra Galani [algalani at uoi.gr]
Subject: The Oxford Encyclopedia of Morphology (volume 2)
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36724997
Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/32/32-359.html
EDITOR: Rochelle Lieber
TITLE: The Oxford Encyclopedia of Morphology
SUBTITLE: 3-volume set
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2021
REVIEWER: Alexandra Galani, University of Ioannina
SUMMARY
The second volume of “The Oxford Encyclopedia of Morphology”, by Rochelle
Lieber, opens with five articles which conclude the discussion on “Formal
Morphological Means” (volume one).
Thomas W. Stewart in “Stem Change (Apophony, Consonant Mutation) in
Morphology” examines apophony in the Germanic languages, Javanese and Dinka,
consonant mutation in Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and Fula and the role of
morphology/phonology in stem alternations.
In “Combining Forms and Affixoids in Morphology”, Dany Amiot and Edwige Dugas
review the formal and semantic properties of prototypical derivation and
compounding, the properties that distinguish combining form (CF) constituents,
classical/modern CFs, neoclassical compounds, blending, the defining criteria
for affixoids, prototypical affixoids, affixoids corresponding to
prepositions/splinters and the development of affixoids.
Natalia Beliaeva in “Blending in Morphology” explores the formal and semantic
properties of blends, the factors that influence source words’ ordering,
blends’ structure, their phonotactic constraints, the domains in which blends
are used, blending across languages and the relation between blending and
clipping compounds/acronyms.
Renata Szczepaniak looks at the environments in which “Linking Elements in
Morphology” (LE) occur, LEs distribution/productivity, various terms
associated with them, LEs’ presence in compounds (in Slavic, Germanic,
Romance, Baltic languages, Greek, other language families), neoclassical
compounds, LEs in derivatives (in Romance, Slavic, Germanic languages, Greek)
and their development/function.
Stela Manova discusses terminological issues related to “Subtraction in
Morphology”, what is deleted, how subtraction differs from other types of
shortening, the importance of investigating large/small datasets in
well/lesser-studied languages and the characteristics of subtractive
morphology.
Morphological Frameworks
In “American Descriptivist Morphology in the 1950s”, John Goldsmith guides us
through the work of Bloomfield (1933), Hockett (1954), Harris (1946) and Nida
(1949) on the nature of phonemes, morphemes and words. Reference is made to
models of dynamic analysis, constituent structure, the role of morphophonemes
and Martinet’s (1950) criticism.
Pius ten Hacken provides an overview of the “Classical Generative Morphology”
period during which morphology was not seen as a separate component until the
Lexicalist Hypothesis’ development. Research was then focused on the
morphological rules’ nature/shape, verbal compounds, the Level-Ordering
Hypothesis, bracketing paradoxes, productivity, blocking, inflection and
derivation.
Wolfgang U. Dressler discusses the universal preferences of “Natural
Morphology” (NM) (iconicity, indexicality, morphosemantic transparency,
(bi)uniqueness, morphotactic transparency, figure-ground sharpening, binary
relations, morphological units’ optimal shape), the theory of typological
adequacy, productivity/system adequacy for language-specific inflection and
interface theories.
Jonathan David Bobaljik outlines the principles of Distributed Morphology”
(DM) and considers realisation, underspecification, impoverishment, structural
locality/suppletion, morphological operations and issues related to the
spell-out domains, linearisation, case, agreement, roots and the concept of
Encyclopedia.
In “Construction Morphology” (CM), Geert Booij points towards the theory of
Parallel Architecture of Grammar and explores constructional schemas,
affixoids, the paradigmatic relationship of second-order schemas, the
syntax-morphology relation (e.g., multi-word sequences), morphology’s
dependence upon syntactic constructions, how inflection is seen,
constructions’ role in language change, CM and acquisition.
Marios Andreou considers the issues the “Lexical Semantic Framework for
Morphology” (LSF) deals with. He refers to LSF features and architecture, the
major ontological classes, their lexical-semantic properties, derivation,
argumentative/co-ordinate/attributive compounds and how LSF explains form and
meaning mismatches.
Gregory Stump in “Paradigm Function Morphology: Assumptions and Innovations”
(PFM) outlines PFM’s fundamental hypothesis and generalisations. Constructive
and abstractive approaches may co-occur in a theory. Recent PFM innovations
deal with content and form inflectional mismatches and rule conflation.
Reference is made to Stump’s (2001) work in favour of inferential-realisation
models.
Jesús Fernández-Domínguez offers background notes on the emergence of “The
Onomasiological Approach”, presents nine models--divided in three types
(Dokulilean, lexicosemantic, generative)--evaluates the approach and
identifies research areas of interest.
Tore Nesset, in “Morphology in Cognitive Linguistics” (CL), looks at the
properties of construction, product-orientated generalisations represented as
constructional schemas, meaning in morphology (radial category, metaphor,
metonymy), hierarchical relationships between schemas, non-compositionality in
compounds, allomorphy, inflectional paradigms/classes, frequency effects, the
quantitative turn CL took and how this affected morphological approaches.
Andrew Hippisley outlines “Network Morphology” (NM), the main feature of which
is inheritance (by default). Rules of referral explain directional syncretism,
whereas attribute ordering neutralisation syncretism. For NM, morphology is
autonomous, morphological mismatches are interpreted by overriding attribute
paths, derivational morphology is seen as a kind of lexical relatedness,
whereas lexical/inflectional/derivational levels are distinct hierarchies of
the network.
Theoretical Debates
Beata Moskal and Peter W. Smith examine “The Status of Heads in Morphology” by
looking at percolation in X’-theory, category determination, the Right-hand
Head Rule (RHR) and its challenges which led to the Relativised RHR, Feature
Percolation Conventions, mixed systems, issues which arise when the criteria
about headedness are applied and how DM accounts for category determination.
Terje Lohndal reviews claims about the “Categorization of Roots”, presents
evidence which indicates their acategorial status and shows how they get
categorised in DM and in the Exoskeletal Approach.
In “Lexical Integrity in Morphology”, Ignacio Bosque considers phenomena and
structures which challenge the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis (LIH);
nominalisations’ argument structure, phrases inside words, prefixes,
endoclitics, bracketing paradoxes, base coordination, morpheme ellipsis,
pronominalisations and compounds. He shows why LIH “is both relevant and
controversial” (p. 1151).
Víctor Acedo-Matellán highlights the role of acceptability, the lexicon and
grammar on “Exoskeletal Versus Endoskeletal Approaches in Morphology”.
Evidence from morphosyntactic categories in derivation, inflectional class and
gender, the count/mass distinction in nominals and the (a)telic distinction in
verbs favour one of the two approaches.
Franz Rainer examines various morphological phenomena which fall under
“Blocking”, how morphology/the lexicon block syntax and vice-versa, the
blocking “between the lexicon/word formation and patterns of semantic
extension” (p. 1176), how different approaches account for synonymy/homonymy
blocking, lexical/pattern blocking and factors that differentiate them, where
blocking takes place and what prevents it.
Andrew Spencer explores “The Nature of Productivity (including Word Formation
Versus Creative Coining)” by looking at loans, calques, nonce-formation,
outbursts, deictic compounds. In terms of lexical relatedness, form/pattern
productivity, semantic idiosyncrasy and approaches to productivity are
discussed. Productivity relates to semantic relatedness, syntactic
constructions, inflection and compounding. When computing productivity, the
stand one takes on potential, virtual and attested words is of importance.
Realised/expanding productivity and hapax legomena measure productivity.
In “Bracketing Paradoxes in Morphology” (BP), Heather Newell identifies four
types of BP, sketches BP’ theoretical basis (namely, the acceptance of a
hierarchical structure in grammar) and discusses relevant theoretical
treatments.
In “Zero Morphemes” (ZMs), Eystein Dahl and Antonio Fábregas distinguish zero
morphology (ZM) from null phonological marking and morphological
representation, examine the properties theories that (dis)allow ZMs have and
discuss zero derivation and psycholinguistic evidence in favour of ZM.
In “The Nature of Subtractive Processes in Morphology”, Kazutaka Kurisu refers
to truncation phenomena, blends and acronyms, reviews theories which see
subtraction as a process or a consequence of affixation and explores
noncatenative allomorphy, theoretical restrictiveness and parallel/serial
accounts of subtractive morphology.
Psycholinguistic Issues
In “Psycholinguistic Approaches to Morphology: Production”, Benjamin V. Tucker
sketches the main methodologies used in morphological speech production and
speech production models. Morphology occurs in the lexical stage. Research
focuses on the lexical representation/access.
In “Psycholinguistic Approaches to Morphology: Theoretical issues”, Christina
L. Gagné explains how morphology is represented in the systems, the stage at
which morphemes become available -for which empirical evidence is presented-
and how morphemes contribute to complex words’ activation. Complex words’
processing varies (i.e., whole-word representations, dual-route parallel
processing).
In “Morphological Units: A Theoretical and Psycholinguistic Perspective”,
Dominiek Sandra refers to the relation of morphology with phonemes, syntactic
structures and allomorphs and distinctions between morphological concepts
(e.g., roots, semantically opaque/transparent words). Psycholinguistic
research (experimental studies) investigates the morphemes’ role in the mental
lexicon and word representation access.
In “Words Versus Rules (Storage Versus Online Production/Processing) in
Morphology”, Vsevolod Kapatsinski considers word storage/computation in terms
of productivity/morphological regularity, the dual-mechanism model, the
Tolerance Principle, token frequency and its relation to
processing/productivity alongside the interplay between computation and
retrieval (and vice versa).
Robert Fiorentino, in “Issues in Neurolinguistic Studies of Morphology”,
examines morpheme decomposition in derived and inflectional forms, the
processing of novel and complex words “outside priming paradigms”, studies on
the morphosyntactic and morphosemantic decomposition and the early stages of
complex word recognition.
In “First Language Acquisition of Morphology”, Dorit Ravid discusses a
theory-based approach and the usage-based emergentist approach to inflectional
learning, methods and factors which influence language acquisition and the
acquisition of derivational morphology.
In “Learning and Using Morphology and Morphosyntax in a Second Language”,
Laurie Beth Feldman and Judith F. Kroll consider L1/L2 speakers’ performance
in the processing of single words/large morphological families, cognate and
priming effects, evidence from neuroimaging studies and the processing of
morphosyntactic features at sentence level.
Methodology and Resources in Morphology
Daniel Schmidke and Victor Kuperman explore “Psycholinguistic Methods and
Tasks in Morphology”, and more specifically the comprehension/production
processes in written, spoken and sign language.
Niels O. Schiller discusses “Neurolinguistic Approaches in Morphology” for the
processing of complex words in the mental lexicon. Indicatively, reference is
made to full-listing, full-parsing and dual-access models, event-related brain
potential (ERP) studies, research on the morphological processing in language
production --including compounds, newly acquired and existing forms- and the
morphological priming effect.
Emmanuel Keuleers, in “Computational Approaches to Morphology”, sketches
various models (e.g., memory-based language processing, analogical modelling),
studies in which distributional semantics is used for modelling morphology and
computational approaches (i.e., Dual Route Cascaded, triangle model) for the
reading/recognising of short words.
In “Quantitative Methods in Morphology: Corpora and Other “Big Data”
Approaches”, Marco Marelli refers to morphological databases, stemmers,
lemmatisers, automatic systems, corpus-based measures, automatic systems,
morphological-based systems in distributional semantics and models which see
morphology as the result of the form-to-meaning mapping.
Yuni Kim sheds light on the relation between “Morphology and Language
Documentation” by looking at issues related to corpus theorisation (e.g.,
collaborative model, corpus design, ethics), data collection (i.e.,
elicitation, large data sets) and handling (i.e., data management, guides to
language documentation).
The Morphology-Syntax Interface
Jim Wood and Neil Myler refer to verbal (i.e., causatives, applicatives,
desideratives) and deverbal morphology (nominalisations, adjectival passives)
to explore the relation between “Argument Structure and Morphology”.
In “Parts of Speech, Lexical Categories, and Word Classes in Morphology”,
Jaklin Kornfilt refers to the diagnostics which distinguish parts of speech
(POS), POS’ traditional categories, major word classes, the theories of
Chomsky (1970, 1981), Jackendoff (1977) and Baker (2003) and the lexical
categories at the morphology-syntax interface.
Malka Rappaport Hovav explores the relation between “Morphology and Argument
Alternations” by looking at causative and dative alternations, their
morphological cross-linguistic variation, patterns and treatments.
Eulàlia Bonet discusses the properties of “Clitics and Clitic Clusters in
Morphology” (including mesoclisis, simple and special clitics), issues related
to special clitics’ positions/treatments clitic order in clitic clusters and
its restrictions.
Jan-Wouter Zwart in “Head Movement and Morphological Strength” explores the
Rich Agreement Hypothesis (RAH), verb movement patterns mainly in Germanic
languages, the Paradigm-Verb raising correlate, Rich Agreement, empirical
evidence in favour of/against RAH’s weak/strong interpretation and the
correlations between head movement and morphological richness/strength in
light of the syntax-morphology relation.
Olaf Koeneman and Hedde Zeijlstra discuss empirical and theoretical issues
related to “Morphology and Pro Drop” languages, i.e., the relation between
null subjects and rich agreement, radical/partial pro drop languages, pro drop
with expletive/generic null subjects, whether a formal or functional treatment
best accounts for consistent pro drop structures, what licenses pro drop,
radical/partial pro drop treatments.
In “Multi-Word Expressions and Morphology” (MWE), Francesca Masini considers
MWE’s formal/functional properties/types/idiomatic status/function, the parts
of speech in which they belong, MWE and periphrases, MWEs which contribute to
lexical enrichment, word demarcation and competition. Theoretical and
typological issues which highlight MWE’ cross-linguistic features are touched
upon.
The Morphology-Phonetics/Phonology Interface
Maria Gouskova looks at the relation between “Morphology and Phonotactics” by
examining the following topics: phonotactic constraints on morpheme/word
boundaries, phonotactic generalisations in morphosyntactic constructions,
phonotactic differences between morphemes/word categories, lexical variation,
theoretical approaches to the morphology-phonotactics relation (e.g., the
Sound Pattern of English, Prosodic Morphology), treatments to morphologically
derived environment effects, experimental studies and computational models of
the generalisations.
Birgit Alber and Sabine Arndt-Lappe show that as far as “Morphology and
Metrical Structure” is concerned, research has focused on metrical
organisation, morphologically conditioned metrical alternations, metrical
variation’s role on the processing of morphologically complex words and stress
alternation in affixes. Reduplication and truncation are evidence for the role
prosodic categories play in metrical structure, whereas frequency effects,
productivity and semantic compositionality for the relation between stress
alternations and the processing of morphologically complex words.
In “Morphology and Tone”, Irina Monich presents a brief note on the typology
of morphological tone and the nominal (number, case, gender/class,
definiteness) and verbal (person, tense, aspect, mood, transitivity/voice,
polarity, clausal type, derivational/category changing) categories in which
tonal features are expressed. Tone is employed in morphology in various ways,
i.e., in segmental affixes, in affixes containing floating tones, as tonal
templates, as lexically specified and as a morphological boundary. Reference
is made to the melodic tone H in Bantu to illustrate one of the challenges
tonal morphology faces.
In “Phonetic Detail and Gradience in Morphophonological Alternations”,
Patrycja Strycharczuk reviews studies which offer conflicting empirical
evidence as far as incomplete neutralisation and phonetic reflections of
morphological complexity are concerned. She explains that these may be due to
methodological reasons or statistical robustness. It is shown how different
approaches account for incomplete neutralisation.
EVALUATION
Apart from the breadth of the theoretical approaches discussed, the articles
in the volume explore the challenges different treatments face. Contributors
offer empirical, cross-linguistic evidence which exemplifies and supports the
theoretical discussion, thus enabling the reader to get a better grasp of the
topic. The richness of the references is also impressive. The contributors
successfully manage to guide readers through years of research within a couple
of well-written pages. Finally, the coherence and clarity which characterised
the articles in the first volume are maintained in this one. Typos: p.852:
“are generally the result earlier regular phonology”. p. 855: “CFs (Section 3)
and affixoids Section 4). p. 864: “in the escription of grammaticalization
processes:. p. 945: Hockett (1955) precedes Hockett (1954). p. 1207: “the
morpho phonological bracketing is basic”. p. 1645: “STRESS VARIATION ANWD THE
PROCESSING”.
REFERENCES
Baker, M. C. (2003). Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns and adjectives.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Chomsky, N. (1970). “Remarks on nominalisation”. In R. Jacobs and R. Rosenbaum
(Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 184-221). Waltham:
Ginn.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X’-syntax: A study of phrase structure. Linguistic
Inquiry Monograph 2. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Harris, Z. S. (1946). “From morpheme to utterance”. Language 11: 161-183.
Hockett, C. F. (1954). “Two models of grammatical description”. In Readings in
linguistics: The development of descriptive linguistics in America since 1925.
(Vol. 10, pp. 210-231). Washington: American Council of Learned Societies.
Martinet, A. (1950). “Review of Morphology, by Eugene Nida”. Word 30: 333-384.
Nida, E. (1949). Morphology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Alexandra Galani is a Senior Teaching Fellow in the Department of Primary
Education at the University of Ioannina (Greece). Her main research interests
are in morphology, its interfaces and language teaching and learning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*************************** LINGUIST List Support ***************************
The 2020 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
https://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list
Let's make this a short fund drive!
Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-32-2669
----------------------------------------------------------
More information about the LINGUIST
mailing list