Chapters in this volume describe morphology using four different frameworks that have an architectural property in common: they all use defaults as a way of discovering and presenting systematicity in the least systematic component of grammar. These frameworks - Construction Morphology, Network Morphology, Paradigm-function Morphology, and Word Grammar - display key differences in how they constrain the use and scope of defaults, and in the morphological phenomena
that they address. An introductory chapter presents an overview of defaults in linguistics and specifically in morphology. In subsequent chapters, key proponents of the four frameworks seek
to answer questions about the role of defaults in the lexicon, including: Does a defaults-based account of language have implications for the architecture of the grammar, particularly the proposal that morphology is an autonomous component? How does a default differ from the canonical or prototypical in morphology? Do defaults have a psychological basis? And how do defaults help us understand language as a sign-based system that is flawed, where the one to one association of form and meaning
breaks down in the morphology?
Chapters in this volume describe morphology using four different frameworks that have an architectural property in common: they all use defaults as a way of discovering and presenting systematicity in the least systematic component of grammar. These frameworks - Construction Morphology, Network Morphology, Paradigm-function Morphology, and Word Grammar - display key differences in how they constrain the use and scope of defaults, and in the morphological phenomena
that they address. An introductory chapter presents an overview of defaults in linguistics and specifically in morphology. In subsequent chapters, key proponents of the four frameworks seek
to answer questions about the role of defaults in the lexicon, including: Does a defaults-based account of language have implications for the architecture of the grammar, particularly the proposal that morphology is an autonomous component? How does a default differ from the canonical or prototypical in morphology? Do defaults have a psychological basis? And how do defaults help us understand language as a sign-based system that is flawed, where the one to one association of form and meaning
breaks down in the morphology?
Acknowledgements
List of abbreviations
List of contributors
1: Nikolas Gisborne and Andrew Hippisley: Defaults in
linguistics
2: Geert Booij: Inheritance and motivation in Construction
Morphology
3: Alain Kihm: Old French declension: A Word and Paradigm approach
and the role of syncretism and defaults in its rise and fall
4: Dunstan Brown: Inflectional classes and containment
5: Andrew Hippisley: Default inheritance and the canonical:
Derivation as sign builder and sign connector
6: Richard Hudson: French pronouns in cognition
7: Nikolas Gisborne: Defaulting to the new Romance synthetic
future
8: Bertholdt Crysmann: Inferential-realizational morphology without
rule blocks: An information-based approach
9: Robert Malouf: Defaults and lexical prototypes
10: Farrell Ackerman and Olivier Bonami: Systemic polyfunctionality
and morphology-syntax interdependencies
11: Stephen R. Anderson: Defaults and morphological structure
References
Index
Nikolas Gisborne is Professor of Linguistics and Head of
Linguistics and English Language at the University of Edinburgh.
His main interests are in event structure and its relationship to
morphosyntax, the lexicon, and language change. His book The Event
Structure of Perception Verbs was published by OUP in 2010. He is
the co-editor, with Willem Hollmann, of Theory and Data in
Cognitive Linguistics (Benjamins 2014). Andrew Hippisley is Chair
of
the Linguistics Department at the University of Kentucky, having
previously worked a research fellow in the Surrey Morphology Group.
He is the author, with Dunstan Brown, of Network Morphology (CUP
2012) and co-editor of
Deponency and Morphological Mismatches (with Matthew Baerman,
Greville G. Corbett, and Dunstan Brown; OUP 2007) and of The
Cambridge Handbook of Morphology (with Gregory Stump; CUP 2016).
|
Ask a Question About this Product More... |
|
