Abstract
AbstractThis paper makes a terminological proposal: that the old term morph can be used for a minimal linguistic form. Many linguists (not only morphologists) need such a term, because we often refer to minimal linguistic forms, but the various terms used by linguists in roughly this meaning are either unclear or do not refer to forms. The term “morpheme” has three rather different meanings, and other terms such as “vocabulary item” are too abstract. The term “morph” can be used as the basis for defining other widely used terms such as “root”, “prefix”, and “suffix”, which are currently often defined as kinds of “morphemes”. It can also serve as the basis for a clearer definition of suppletion (involving suppletive morph sets) and morph variants, thus avoiding the confusions surrounding the term “allomorph(y)”.
Funder
European Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference60 articles.
1. Aikhenvald, A. (2007). Typological distinctions in word-formation. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (2nd ed.) (Vol. 3, pp. 1–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-Morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Anderson, S. R. (2015). The morpheme: its nature and use. In M. Baerman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of inflection (pp. 11–33). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Arndt-Lappe, S. (2014). Analogy in suffix rivalry: the case of English -ity and -ness. English Language and Linguistics, 18(3), 497–548. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067431400015X.
5. Bauer, L. (1988). A descriptive gap in morphology. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1988 (Vol. 1, pp. 17–27). Dordrecht: Foris.
Cited by
18 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献