<ul><li><p>The Handbook of Morphology </p><p>Edited by: Andrew Spencer and ARNOLD ZWICKY (Stanford University and Ohio State </p><p>University) </p><p>Series: Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics </p><p>List of Contributors. </p><p>List of Abbreviations. </p><p>Introduction (Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky </p><p>Part I: The Phenomena. </p><p>1. Inflection (Gregory T. Stump) </p><p>2. Derivation (Robert Beard) </p><p>3. Compounding (Nigel Fabb) </p><p>4. Incorporation (Donna B. Gerdts) </p><p>5. Clitics (Aaron L. Halpern) </p><p>6. Morphophonological Operations (Andrew Spencer) </p><p>7. Phonological Constraints on Morphological Rules (Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy) </p><p>Part II: Morphology and Grammar. </p><p>8. Morphology and Syntax (Hagit Borer) </p><p>9. Morphology and Agreement (Greville G. Corbett) </p><p>10. Morphology and Argument Structure (Louisa Sadler and Andrew Spencer) </p><p>11. Morphology and the Lexicon: Lexicalization and Productivity (Mark Aronoff and Frank </p><p>Anshen) </p><p>12. Morphology and Lexical Semantics (Beth Levin and Malka Rappaport Hovav) </p><p>13. Morphology and Pragmatics (Ferenc Kiefer) </p><p>Part III: Theoretical Issues. </p><p>14. Prosodic Morphology: (John J. McCarthy and Alan S. Prince) </p><p>15. Word Syntax (Jindrich Toman) </p><p>16. Paradigmatic Structure: Inflectional Paradigms and Morphological Classes (Andrew </p><p>Carstairs-McCarthy) </p><p>17. Morphology as Component or Module: Mapping Principle Approaches (Richard Sproat) </p></li><li><p>Part IV: Morphology in a Wider Setting. </p><p>18. Diachronic Morphology (Brian D. Joseph) </p><p>19. Morphology and Language Acquisition (Eve V. Clark) </p><p>20. Morphology and Aphasia (William Badecker and Alfonso Caramazza) </p><p>21. Morphology and Word Recognition (James M. McQueen and Anne Cutler) </p><p>22. Morphology in Language Production with Special Reference to Connectionism (Joseph </p><p>Paul Stemberger) </p><p>Part V: Morphological Sketches of Individual Languages. </p><p>23. Archi (Caucasian - Daghestanian (Aleksandr E. Kibrik) </p><p>24. Celtic (Indo-European) (James Fife and Gareth King) </p><p>25. Chichewa (Bantu) (Sam A. Mchombo) </p><p>26. Chukchee (Paleo-Siberian) (Irina A Muravyova) </p><p>27. Hua (Papuan) (John Haiman) </p><p>28. Malagasy (Austronesian) (Edward L. Keenan and Maria Polinsky) </p><p>29. Qafar (East Cushitic) (Richard J. Hayward) </p><p>30. Slave (Northern Athapaskan) (Keren Rice) </p><p>31. Wari (Amazonian) (Daniel L. Everett) </p><p>32. Warumungu (Australian - Pama - Nyungan) (Jane Simpson) </p><p>References. </p><p>Subject Index. </p><p>Author Index. </p></li><li><p>IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction </p><p>ANDREW SPENCER ANDREW SPENCER ANDREW SPENCER ANDREW SPENCER ANDANDANDAND ARNOLD M. ZWICKY ARNOLD M. ZWICKY ARNOLD M. ZWICKY ARNOLD M. ZWICKY </p><p>Morphology is at the conceptual centre of linguistics. This is not because it is the dominant </p><p>subdiscipline, but because morphology is the study of word structure, and words are at the interface </p><p>between phonology, syntax and semantics. Words have phonological properties, they articulate </p><p>together to form phrases and sentences, their form often reflects their syntactic function, and their </p><p>parts are often composed of meaningful smaller pieces. In addition, words contract relationships with </p><p>each other by virtue of their form; that is, they form paradigms and lexical groupings. For this reason, </p><p>morphology is something all linguists have to know about. The centrality of the word brings with it </p><p>two important challenges. First, there is the question of what governs morphological form: how is </p><p>allomorphy to be described? The second is the question of what governs the syntactic and semantic </p><p>function of morphological units, and how these interact with syntax and semantics proper. </p><p>There is a less enviable aspect to this centrality. Morphology has been called the Poland of linguistics </p><p> at the mercy of imperialistically minded neighbours. In the heyday of American structuralism, </p><p>morphology and phonology were the principal objects of study. Monographs entitled The Grammar of </p><p>L, for some language L, would frequently turn out to consist of the phoneme system of L and its </p><p>morphology. However, the study of morphology in generative linguistics was largely eclipsed by </p><p>phonology and syntax in the early days (though it is up to historians of linguistics to say exactly why). </p><p>Ultimately, it came to be that when morphology was considered at all, it was regarded as essentially </p><p>either a part of phonology or a part of syntax. True, there were a number of important works on </p><p>morphology, mainly inflectional morphology, such as Kiefers (1973) work on Swedish, Bierwischs </p><p>(1967) study of German and Warburton's (1973) paper on Greek inflection; but it was not until Halle's </p><p>(1973) short programmatic statement that linguistics at large began to appreciate that there was a </p><p>vacuum in linguistic theory where morphology should be. This was followed in 1974 by two </p><p>particularly influential MIT dissertations, later published as Aronoff (1976) and Siegel (1979), </p><p>proposing radically different approaches to the subject. </p><p>Siegel's theory of Level Ordering brought with it a new way of looking at the phonologymorphology </p><p>interface, which ultimately grew into Kiparsky's (1982a) Lexical Phonology. Siegel argued that those </p><p>affixes in English which never affect stress (and which do not trigger other lexical phonological </p><p>alternations) such as -ness are attached after stress rules have applied. These are the # boundary </p><p>affixes of SPE (Chomsky and Halle 1968), renamed Class II. The + boundary (Class I) affixes are those </p><p>which do affect stress, such as -ity, and they are attached before the stress rules. This led to an </p><p>interesting prediction about the linear order of affixes: Class I affixes appear nearer the root than </p><p>Class II affixes. This generalization is largely true, though it has been regularly pointed out since </p><p>Aronoff (1976) that it is not entirely true. Fabb (1988) has argued that even if it is true, the Level </p><p>Ordering Hypothesis is not sufficient to explain affix ordering in its entirety, and that alternative </p><p>conceptions which do give reasonably broad coverage can also handle the Level Ordering phenomena. </p><p>Lexical Phonology is generally associated with Level Ordering (though a number of lexical </p><p>phonologists have distanced themselves from it; cf. Booij and Rubach 1987). However, the leading </p><p>Theoretical Linguistics Morphology </p><p>10.1111/b.9780631226949.2001.00003.x </p><p>SubjectSubjectSubjectSubject</p><p>DOI:DOI:DOI:DOI:</p><p>Sayfa 1 / 8Introduction : The Handbook of Morphology : Blackwell Reference Online</p><p>28.12.2007http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9780631226949...</p></li><li><p>ideas of the model do not actually require Level Ordering. The main thrust of Kiparsky's theory is to </p><p>emphasize the traditional distinction between morphophonemic alternations and automatic </p><p>alternations. The morphophonemic alternations are generally mappings from sets of phonemes into </p><p>sets of phonemes (Structure Preservation), apply in contexts which are not defined in purely </p><p>phonological terms, often have lexical exceptions, can be cancelled by native speakers (e.g. in loan </p><p>phonology), and generally apply only within words. The automatic alternations are generally </p><p>allophonic (non-Structure Preserving), speakers are generally not aware of them, they apply to </p><p>monomorphemic forms, and they often apply across words. Kiparsky argued that morphophonemic </p><p>alternations are actually triggered by morphological operations of affixation. As an affix is added (or a </p><p>cycle of affixation with a level is completed), the battery of lexical phonological rules applies. This </p><p>gives rise to various types of cyclic effect, and accounts for a good many of the properties of the two </p><p>types of rule. </p><p>This innovation was more significant for the development of phonology than for that of morphology, </p><p>except that it (a) began to draw the attention of phonologists to morphology, and (b) tended to </p><p>strengthen the view that morphology was the poor relation to phonology. Lexical Phonology retains </p><p>the assumptions of SPE that every microgram of phonological regularity has to be squeezed out of the </p><p>system before we have to throw in the towel and admit that it's mere allomorphy. As a result, there </p><p>have been very few attempts to examine the extent to which the alternations might themselves have a </p><p>morphological function. To some extent this is addressed in Spencer's chapter, MORPHOPHONOLOGICAL </p><p>OPERATIONS and also in Carstairs-McCarthy's PHONOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ON MORPHOLOGICAL RULES. </p><p>While Chomsky's original syntactic theorizing overturned structuralist thinking about that discipline, </p><p>seminal studies in morphology from MIT served to strengthen structuralist assumptions. McCarthy </p><p>(1979) showed that root-and- pattern morphology could be handled very nicely as a kind of affixation </p><p>by adopting the then new theory of Autosegmental Phonology. Lieber (1980) built a theory of the </p><p>lexicon in which affixes are almost exactly like fully-fledged lexical items, with a phonology, a </p><p>meaning, a syntactic category and a subcategorization frame. At the same time, Selkirk (1982) and E. </p><p>Williams (1981b) were arguing that word structure is very much like phrase structure, by applying X-</p><p>bar syntax to words. This very influential approach is reviewed in Toman's chapter, WORD SYNTAX. </p><p>Central to the debate over the relationship between phonology and morphology is a long-standing </p><p>question in structuralist linguistics, whether morphology is best thought of in terms of Item-and-</p><p>Process or Item-and-Arrangement. In an IA approach, a word is made out of a string (or tree) of </p><p>objects; that is, word formation is the concatenation of morphemes, conceived of as mini-lexemes. In </p><p>an IP approach, forms of a word are the outputs of processes applied to a lexeme. This idea has been </p><p>revivified in various ways. Categorial grammar has been co-opted to develop a formal way of </p><p>describing the idea that affixation be viewed as a process (Hoeksema 1985). In a different vein, and </p><p>working from a different tradition, McCarthy and Prince have studied the way in which non-</p><p>concatenative effects are obtained by parsing out various phonologically defined subparts of words </p><p>and stems before applying affixation (or other operations) to them, and this work is summarized in </p><p>their chapter PROSODIC MORPHOLOGY. </p><p>However, the structuralist idea that words are just like phrases, and that the same set of principles </p><p>applies to both domains, is very attractive, especially to non-morphologists, and it is a theme which </p><p>runs through much of the research on the morphologysyntax interface over the past two decades. </p><p>Its most obvious application is in compounding where almost everyone accepts that words have some </p><p>kind of constituent structure. Somewhat more controversial is the view that derivational morphology </p><p>is like phrase syntax, a thesis that is being explored in the domain of argument structure by Hale and </p><p>Keyser (1993). This assumption was challenged by Aronoff (1976), and has more recently been </p><p>attacked by Anderson (1992), for whom all non-compounding morphology is a-morphous. </p><p>Anderson's strong position is, perhaps, extreme (see Carstairs-McCarthy 1992 for a telling critique). </p><p>However, the idea that morphemes are something other than just very short words which happen to </p><p>be bound is particularly influential amongst morphologists. Many theorists view word formation not </p><p>as the concatenation of two things to form a headed syntax-like structure, but as an operation on a </p><p>lexeme. For such theorists, affixation tends to be thought of as just one type of morphophonological </p><p>operation among several, and not a privileged syntactic process of concatenation. Word formation in </p><p>Aronoff (1976) is accomplished by Word Formation Rules (WFRs), and this leads to a radically different </p><p>conception of word structure. For one thing it opens the way to separating the phonological form of </p><p>Sayfa 2 / 8Introduction : The Handbook of Morphology : Blackwell Reference Online</p><p>28.12.2007http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9780631226949...</p></li><li><p>an affix from the morphological function or meaning of which it is an exponent. This is the content of </p><p>the Separation Hypothesis (Beard 1988). It is widely assumed in works on inflection, but Beard argues </p><p>it for derivation too, and surveys a number of the arguments in his chapter, DERIVATION. </p><p>The domain where separationism has been most popular is inflection. Following Matthews's (1972) </p><p>detailed critique of the structuralist notion of morpheme in inflection, Anderson (1977b) began a </p><p>programme of research which took inflections to be the result of word formation rules much like </p><p>those proposed by Aronoff (1976) for derivation, but with complex interactions. This work is </p><p>summarized in Stump's chapter, INFLECTION. </p><p>In Principles and Parameters syntax the importance of functional categories, which include inflectional </p><p>categories, was being stressed throughout the 1980s. At the same time, Baker's dissertation (written </p><p>in 1985 and revised as Baker 1988a) developed an extremely influential view of valency alternations </p><p>based on the idea of incorporation, coded as syntactic head-to-head movement. This meant that, for </p><p>example, the causative form of a verb was treated as a syntactic compound of two verbs, one of them </p><p>a causative. This led to the view that inflectional morphology could be handled in the same way, and </p><p>that an inflectional piece, say, a third-person singular subject in the past tense, was syntactically a </p><p>compound consisting of the verb, an Agreement head, Agr, bearing the features [3sg] and a Tense </p><p>head, T, bearing the feature [+Past] (cf. Pollock 1989). Some general problems with this account are </p><p>discussed in Borer's chapter, MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX, and a number of morphologists have pointed </p><p>out problems with the full-blown version of the approach, mainly from allo- morphy (Carstairs-</p><p>McCarthy 1992, Joseph and Smirniotopoulos 1993, Spencer 1992). However, more recently, Halle and </p><p>Marantz (1993) have attempted to combine the separationist tradition in inflection with the functional </p><p>head-movement approach, arguing that only in this way can we capture certain alleged homologies </p><p>between morphological structure and syntactic structure. Their model is discussed in Stump's </p><p>contribution. In addition, Rice shows how the complex and arbitrary-looking structure prefix of Slave </p><p>(Athabaskan) none the less reflects syntactic structure to an interesting degree. </p><p>One of the traditional problems in morphology and lexicology has been defining what is meant by </p><p>word. There are various criteria based on form (which tend to be equivocal) and others based on </p><p>behaviour and function (which tend to be even more equivocal). One symptom of this is the existence </p><p>of elements which bear some of the hallmarks of words and also important features of affixes, </p><p>namely, clitics. Ever since Zwicky's (1977) preliminary typology, there has been interest in this </p><p>problem, and for many phonologists and syntacticians, as well as morphologists, it is an urgent </p><p>practical matter, since both phonology and syntax appeal regularly to...</p></li></ul>