View More View Less
  • 1 University of Kentucky
Restricted access

In intuitive terms to be sharpened below, the micromorphology hypothesis is the hypothesis that an affix can itself be morphologically complex. This is a widespread assumption in descriptive accounts of the morphology of individual languages; yet, with only the rarest exceptions (e.g., the proposals of Bauer 1988; Bochner 1992 and Luís & Spencer 2005), morphological theory has tended to reject this hypothesis, most often tacitly. My objective here is therefore threefold. I begin by characterizing the micromorphology hypothesis in more precise terms, exemplifying it with the analysis of nominal inflection in Noon (Niger Congo/Atlantic; Senegal) presented by Soukka (2000) and showing that in a rule-based conception of morphology, this hypothesis entails an operation of rule conflation similar (though not identical) to the operation of function composition in mathematics. I propose an inferential realizational morphological theory that implements the micromorphology hypothesis by incorporating the notion of rule conflation. I demonstrate its basic properties with regard to the Noon evidence. I survey several kinds of evidence that favor the conciliation of morphological theory with the micromorphology hypothesis and therefore necessitate a rather profound rethinking of the principles of morphotactics. I discuss a number of apparent morphotactic anomalies that can be readily accounted for by assuming that the default patterns of interaction among a language’s morphological rules can be overridden by the conflation of two or more rules. I conclude by discussing the wider implications of the micromorphology hypothesis for refining a theory of inflectional exponence, observing that rule conflation is only one of the ways in which current conceptions of the algebra of morphotactics must be improved upon.

  • Anderson, Stephen R. 1977. On the formal description of inflection. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 13. 1544.

  • Anderson, Stephen R. 1986. Disjunctive ordering in inflectional morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 131.

  • Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Arnott, David Whitehorn. 1970. The nominal and verbal systems of Fula. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word-formation in generative grammar (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself. Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Ashton, Ethel O. 1944. Swahili grammar. Essex: Longman.

  • Baayen, R. Harald. 1993. On frequency, transparency and productivity. In Booij & van Marle (1993, 181–208).

  • Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Luedeling and M. Kyto (eds.) Corpus linguistics. An international handbook. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 900919.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bauer, Laurie. 1988. A descriptive gap in morphology. In G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.) Yearbook of morphology 1988. Dordrecht: Foris. 1727.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Blevins, James P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42. 531573.

  • Bochner, Harry. 1992. Simplicity in generative morphology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Bonami, Olivier and Gregory Stump. 2017. Paradigm function morphology. In A. Hippisley and G. Stump (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 449481.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Booij, Geert and Jaap van Marle (eds.). 1993. Yearbook of morphology 1992. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Buell, Leston, Mariame Sy and Harold Torrence. 2008. The syntax of mirror principle violations in Wolof. Handout from the 2008 International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Burrow, Thomas and Sudhibhushan Bhattacharya. 1970. The Pengo language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Crysmann, Berthold and Olivier Bonami. 2016. Variable morphotactics in informationbased morphology. Journal of Linguistics 52. 311374.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Davies, Mark. 2008. The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990 present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Embick, David and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 55595.

  • Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan H. Klein, Geoffrey K. Pullum and Ivan A. Sag. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Harris, Alice C. 2017. Multiple exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Janda, Richard D. 1983. “Morphemes” aren’t something that grows on trees: Morphology as more the phonology than the syntax of words. In J. F. Richardson, M. Marks and A. Chukerman (eds.) Papers from the Parasession on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 7995.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Luís, Ana and Andrew Spencer. 2005. A paradigm function account of ‘mesoclisis’ in European Portuguese. In G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.) Yearbook of morphology 2004. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 177228.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nevis, Joel A. and Brian D. Joseph. 1993. Wackernagel affixes: Evidence from Balto-Slavic. In Booij & van Marle (1993, 93–111).

  • Ryan, Kevin M. 2010. Variable affix order: Grammar and learning. Language 86. 758791.

  • Soukka, Maria. 2000. A descriptive grammar of Noon: A Cangin language of Senegal. Munich: LINCOM Europa.

  • Spencer, Andrew and Gregory Stump. 2013. Hungarian pronominal case and the dichotomy of content and form in inflectional morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31. 12071248.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stewart, Tom and Gregory Stump. 2007. Paradigm Function Morphology and the morphology/ syntax interface. In G. Ramchand and C. Reiss (eds.) The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 383421.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stump, Gregory. 1991. A paradigm based theory of morphosemantic mismatches. Language 67. 675725.

  • Stump, Gregory. 1993. Position classes and morphological theory. In Booij & van Marle (1993, 129–180).

  • Stump, Gregory. 2001. Inflectional morphology A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Stump, Gregory. 2012. The formal and functional architecture of inflectional morphology. In A. R. amd Geert Booij, S. Scalise and A. Karasimos (eds.) Morphology and the architecture of grammar: On-line proceedings of the Eighth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM8), Cagliari, Italy, 14–17 September 2011. 254270.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stump, Gregory. 2016. Inflectional paradigms: Content and form at the syntax–morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Stump, Gregory. to appear a. An apparently noncanonical pattern of morphotactic competition. In W. Dressler, F. Gardani, F. Rainer and H. C. Luschützky (eds.) Competition in morphology. Berlin: Springer.

  • Stump, Gregory. to appear b. Polyfunctionality and the variety of inflectional exponence relations. In F. Kiefer, J. P. Blevins and H. Bartos (eds.) Morphological paradigms and functions. Leiden: Brill. Stump, Gregory. to appear c. Rules and blocks.

  • Tumbahang, Govinda Bahadur. 2007. A descriptive grammar of Chhatthare Limbu. Doctoral dissertation. Tribhuvan University.

  • Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word”. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 245274.

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
May 2020 0 20 15
Jun 2020 0 6 3
Jul 2020 5 0 0
Aug 2020 0 6 6
Sep 2020 0 1 0
Oct 2020 0 5 2
Nov 2020 0 0 0