Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Understanding Morphological Rules pp 1–34Cite as

Preliminaries

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 522 Accesses

Part of the book series: Studies in Morphology ((SUMO,volume 1))

Abstract

This chapter begins with an introductory Section 1.1 that includes subsections on history of research and organization of the book. Section 1.2 acquaints the reader with the phonological, morphonological and morphological features of Bulgarian, Russian and Serbo-Croatian, three Slavic languages from which the main part of the data analysed in the present book come. Section 1.3 acknowledges the word as a basic linguistic unit, i.e. it is argued that with respect to morphosemantics all morphological rules are word-based. Section 1.4 defines word-, stem- and root-based morphology, i.e. with respect to morphotactics, morphological rules operate on words, stems and roots. The last Section 1.5 tackles thematic markers, aspectual suffixes and root extensions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See the discussion in Don (1993).

  2. 2.

    Stojanov is the author of the part on WF in Andrejčin et al. (1983), therefore Stojanov (1993) is often cited instead of the Bulgarian Academy Grammar.

  3. 3.

    See Marchand (1969 [1960]) in the references.

  4. 4.

    In the Russian Academy Grammar (1970), the chapter on word-formation is written by Lopatin and Uluhanov.

  5. 5.

    For a more detailed history of research on zero derivation in Russian see Vogel (1996: 31ff).

  6. 6.

    Babić (1991: 40) mentions substraction (SC. supstrakcija) as a term preceding ‘zero suffix’ in the terminology of Serbo-Croatian grammars. However, I could not find a source operating with the term.

  7. 7.

    Uluhanov illustrates desuffixation with examples such as: čaška – čaša ‘cup – big cup’, ložka – loga ‘spoon – big spoon’ and njanja → njan’ ‘babysitter-FEM – babysitter-MASC’, the latter is pointed out as a case of zero desuffixation. For Uluhanov, desuffixation, deprefixation, depostfixation, desubstantivization and decomposition constitute the group of “okkasionelle inverse, reine Wortbildungsarten” (‘occasional inverse, pure word-formation strategies’) (Uluhanov 2000: 291f).

  8. 8.

    In Russian, ž, c and š are invariably hard while č and šč are invariably soft.

  9. 9.

    Štokavian is the main dialect of the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian languages. It is spoken in Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzigovina, in part of Croatia and in the southern part of Burgenland (Austria). The name of the dialect comes from the form for the interrogative pronoun ‘what’, which is što or šta in this dialect. There are also Kajkavian (‘what’ is pronounced as kaj) and Čakavian (‘what’ is pronounced as ča) dialects, both spoken in different parts of Croatia.

  10. 10.

    However, curr-i-bus has as a secondary form curr-u-bus, the latter with the TM -u- (my footnote).

  11. 11.

    The most thematic of all declensions is declension 5 where the theme ē-- or -e- is visible in all cases. Less thematic is declension 4 where the theme -u- is omitted in Dative and Ablative Plural: curr-i-bus. In the first declension, the theme is -a-, -ā-, many forms are, however, without the theme vowel: the Dative and Ablative Plural femin-īs, the Genitive and Dative Singular, the Nominative Plural femin-ae (pronounced as féminé today). In the second declension, thematic forms are the minority: serv-ō, serv-ō-rum, serv-ō-s. In the third declension, the theme is more frequent in words that belonged to the old i-stems (mar-is, mar-ī, mar-i-a, mar-i-um, mar-i-bus) and less frequent in words whose origin is in the consonant stems (trab-i-s, trab-ī, trab-i-bus). (Skalička 1979: 48). (Translation SM)

  12. 12.

    Not all linguists recognize Renarrated as a mood, see, for example, Kucarov (1999: 413) who speaks of Mode of Expression (‘Vid na izkazvaneto’), instead of Mood.

  13. 13.

    Imperfect is almost entirely replaced by Perfect; the same is true of Aorist, but to a lesser extent.

  14. 14.

    Only in Serbian.

  15. 15.

    In Modern Bulgarian, like in Serbo-Croatian, one can still derive a vocative from any noun, animate and inanimate alike. Vocatives from inanimates are, however, not really in use whereas vocatives derived from proper names can be used but are felt impolite, especially vocatives from women’s names, e.g. the vocative Elen-o (Elena-VOC) sounds rude and it is therefore advisable to use Elena instead.

  16. 16.

    Some linguists (cf. Vinogradov 1972 [1947]: 204; Isačenko 1982: 158) assume that the short form of an adjective is a base of its synthetic comparative, since the synthetic comparative and the feminine short form of the adjective have the same stress pattern: sláb-yj ‘thin’, short forms: MASC slab, FEM slab-á → COMP slab-ée, krasív-yj ‘beautiful’, short forms: MASC krasív, FEM krasív-a → COMP krasív-ee.

  17. 17.

    The preliminary results of a comparative psycholinguistic investigation of the organization of Bulgarian and Italian verb paradigms by Manova, Bertinetto, Finocchiaro and Janyan also speak in favour of the citation form of the verb – the infinite in Italian and 1 SG PRES in Bulgarian.

  18. 18.

    Stump (2001: 1ff) provides a detailed overview of realizational approaches to morphology and their advantages over incremental (i.e. entirely compositional) analyses.

  19. 19.

    Inflectional morphology may exhibit peculiarities with respect to the base of a rule, see examples (9) and (10) in Section 4.2.1.

  20. 20.

    A principle proposed by Williams (1981) that says that the right-hand member of a morphologically complex word is the head of that word, i.e. the rightmost constituent determines all the properties of the word.

  21. 21.

    1 PL is cited instead of 1SG in order to have overt TMs and inflectional suffixes in the forms used for illustration.

References

  • Bojadžiev, Todor, Ivan Kucarov, and Jordan Penčev. 1999. Săvremenen bălgarski ezik. Fonetika. Leksikologija. Slovoobrazuvane. Morfologija. Sintaksis. Sofija: P. Beron.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, Valerie. 1973. An Introduction to Modern English Word-Formation. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Stephen R. 1988. Morphological Theory. In Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Vol. I: Linguistic Theory: Fondations, ed. Frederick J. Newmeyer, 146–191. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrejčin, Ljubomir. 1962. K morfologičeskoj xarakteristike vidovoj sistemy sovremennogo bolgarskogo jazyka. In Voprosy glagol’nogo vida, ed. Jurij Maslov, 231–237. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo inostrannoj literatury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrejčin, Ljubomir. 1978. Osnovna bălgarska gramatuka. Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrejčin, Ljubomir, Petja Asenova, Elena Georgieva, Kalina Ivanova, Ruselina Nicolova, Petăr Pašov, Xristo Părvev, Rusin Rusinov, Valentin Stankov, Stojan Stojanov, and Kristalina Čolakova. 1983. Gramatika na săvremennija bălgarski knižoven ezik. Tom II. Morfologija. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na BAN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrejčin, Ljubomir, L. Georgiev, St. Ilčev, N. Kostov, Iv. Lekov, St. Stojkov, and Cv. Todorov. 1999. Bălgarski tălkoven rečnik, IV izdanie, dopălneno i preraboteno ot D. Popov. Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anić, Vladimir. 1991. Rječnik hrvatskoga jezika. Zagreb: Novi Liber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anić, Vladimir, Dunja Brozović Rončević, Ivo Goldstein, Slavko Goldstein, Ljiljana Jojić, Ranko Matasovič, and Ivo Pranjković. 2002. Hrvatski enciklopedijski rječnik. Zagreb: Novi Liber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronoff, Mark and Nanna Fuhrhop 2002. Restricting suffix combinations in German and English: Closing suffixes and the monosuffix constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 451–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assenova, Petja 2002. Balkansko ezikoznanie. V. Tǎrnovo: Faber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babić, Stjepan. 1991 [1986]. Tvorba riječi u hrvatskom književnom jeziku: nacrt za gramatiku. 2 izd. Zagreb: Djela Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babić, Stjepan, Dalibor Brozović, Milan Moguš, Slavko Pavešić, Ivo Škarić, and Stjepko Težak. 1991. Povijesni pregled, glasovi i oblici hrvatskoga književnog jezika: nacrt za grammatiku. Zagreb: Djela Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barić, Eugenija, Mijo Lončarić, Dragica Malić, Slavko Pavešić, Mirko Peti, Vesna Zečević, and Marija Znika. 1997 [1995]. Hrvatska gramatika. II. promijeneno izdanje. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battistella, Edwin L. 1990. Markedness. The Evaluative Superstructure of Language. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battistella, Edwin L. 1996. The Logic of Markedness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word-formation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, Laurie. 1988. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, Laurie. 2005. Conversion and the notion of lexical category. In Approaches to Conversion/Zero-Derivation, eds. Laurie Bauer and Salvador Valera, 19–30. Münster/New York: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxturina, R.V. 1966a. Značenie i obrazovanie otimennyx glagolov s suffiksom -Ø- // -i-(t’). In Razvitie slovoobrazovanija sovremennogo russkogo jazyka, eds. Elena A. Zemskaja and D. N. Šmeleva, 74–112. Moskva: Nauka.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxturina, R. V. 1966b. Morfonologičeskie uslovija obrazovanija otymennyx glagolov s suffiksom -Ø- // -i-(t’). In Razvitie slovoobrazovanija sovremennogo russkogo jazyka, eds. Elena A. Zemskaja and D. N. Šmeleva, 113–126. Moskva: Nauka.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beard, Robert. 1982. The plural as a lexical derivation. Glossa 16(2), 133–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beard, Robert. 1987. Morpheme order in a lexeme/morpheme-based morphology. Lingua 72, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Thomas. 1990. Analogie und morphologische Theorie. München: Fink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Thomas. 1993. Back-formation, cross-formation, and ‘bracketing paradoxes’ in paradigmatic morphology. In Yearbook of Morphology 1993, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 1–25. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergenholtz, H. and J. Mugdan. 1979. Ist liebe primär? – Über Ableitung und Wortarten. In Deutsche Gegenwartssprache, ed. Peter Braun, 339–354. München: Fink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, Brent and Paul Kay. 1969. Basic Color Terms. Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blevins, J. P. 2005. Word-based declensions in Estonian. In Yearbook of Morphology 2005, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 1–25. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blevins, J. P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42, 531–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York, NY: Holt [British edition 1935]: London: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bojadžiev, Todor, Ivan Kucarov, and Jordan Penčev. 1999. Săvremenen bălgarski ezik. Fonetika. Leksikologija. Slovoobrazuvane. Morfologija. Sintaksis. Sofija: P. Beron.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bojadžiev, T. 1999. Slovoobrazuvane. In Săvremenen bălgarski ezik. Fonetika. Leksikologija. Slovoobrazuvane. Morfologija. Sintaksis, eds. Bojadžiev, Todor, Ivan Kucarov, and Jordan Penčev, 227–276. Sofija: P. Beron.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booij, G. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Yearbook of Morphology 1995, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 1–16. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booij, G. 2000. Inflection and derivation. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation. Vol. 1, eds. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 360–369. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booij, Geert. 2002. The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booij, Geert, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan. (eds.). 2000. Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, W. 1993. Serbo-Croat. In The Slavonic Languages, eds. Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, 306–387. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulgarian Academy Grammar = Andrejčin et al. (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, J. L. 1988. Morphology as lexical organization. In Theoretical Morphology, eds. Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan, 119–141. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, Joan L. and Carol L. Moder. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59, 251–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, Joan, R. Perkins, and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannon, G. 2000. Blending. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. 1, eds. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 952–956. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1992. Current Morphology. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 2000. Lexeme, word-form, paradigm. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. 1, eds. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 595–607. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cetnarowska, Bożena. 1993. The Syntax, Semantics and Derivation of Bare Nominalisations in English. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, Linda and Paul Kay. 1981. Prototype semantics: The English verb lie. Language 57/1, 26–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, Greville G. and Norman M. Fraser. 1993. Network morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29, 113–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bray, R. G. A. 1951. Guide to the Slavonic Languages. London: Dent. (Third edition 1980 in three volumes: Guide to the South Slavonic Languages; Guide to the West Slavonic Languages; Guide to the East Slavonic Languages. Columbus, OH: Slavica).

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Sciullo, Anna M. and Edwin Williams 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT-Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dokulil, Miloš. 1968a. Zur Frage der Konversion und verwandter Wortbildungsvorgänge und –beziehungen. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 3, 215–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1984. Subtraction in word formation and its place within a theory of natural morphology. Quaderni di Semantica 5, 78–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1987a. Subtraction in a polycentristic theory of Natural Morphology. In Rules and the lexicon, ed. E. Gussmann, 67–78. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiege Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1987b. Word formation (WF) as part of natural morphology. In Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology, eds. Wolfgang U. Dressler, Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl, and Wolfgang U. Wurzel, 99–126. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1989. Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft and Kommunikationsforschung 42, 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1994. Subtraction. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. Robert E. Asher, 4401–4402. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2000a. Naturalness. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. 1, eds. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 288–296. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2000b. Subtraction. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation. Vol. 1, eds. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 581–587. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Stela Manova. 2002. Conversion vs. modification and subtraction. Paper Presented at the Seminar on Conversion/Zero-Derivation. Szentendre, Hungary, May 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. M. and G. G. Corbett. 1995. Gender, animacy, and declensional class assignment: A unified account for Russian. In Yearbook of Morphology 1994, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 123–150. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963 (ed.). Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libben, G. and R. G. de Almeida. 2002. Is there a morphological parser? In Morphology 2000. Selected papers from the 9th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 24–28 February 2000, eds. Sabrina Bendjaballah, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and Maria D. Voeikova, 213–226. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manova, S. 2005a. Derivation versus inflection in three inflecting languages. In Morphology and its Demarcations. Selected Papers from the 11th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2004, eds. Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastovsky, Oskar Pfeiffer, and Franz Rainer, 233–252. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manova, Stela. 2005c. Towards a theory of conversion in Slavic: Evidence from Bulgarian, Russian and Serbo-Croatian. Glossos 6. http://seelrc.org/glossos/issues/6/manova.pdf. Accessed 26.01.2010.

  • Manova, S. 2008. On some recent changes in Bulgarian conjugation. In Bulgarian Language and Literature at the Crossroads of Cultures, Vol., ed. István, Ferincz, 22–29. Szeged: Szegedi Egyetemi Kiadó. http://homepage.univie.ac.at/stela.manova/publications/Manova_Paper_Szeged.pdf. Accessed 26.01.2010.

  • Manova, Stela and Wolfgang U. Dressler. 2001. Gender and declensional class in Bulgarian. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 67–69, 45–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchand, Hans. 1963. On a question of contrary analysis with derivationally connected but morphologically uncharacterised words. English Studies 44, 176–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchand, Hans. 1964a. A set of criteria for the establishing of derivational relationship between words unmarked by derivational morphemes. Indogermanische Forschungen 69, 10–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchand, Hans. 1969 [1960]. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation, 2nd completely revised and enlarged edition. München: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Jack. 1988. Subtractive morphology as dissociation. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 7, 229–240. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mrazović, Pavica and Zora Vukadinović. 1990. Gramatika srpskohrvatskog jezika za strance. Sremski Karlovci: Izdavačka knjižarnica Zorana Stojanovića; Novi Sad: Dobra vest.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russian Academy Grammar 1970 = Grammatika sovremennnogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka. Moskva: Nauka (Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenker, Alexander M. and Stankiewicz, Edward. (eds.). 1980. The Slavic Literary Languages: Formation and Development. New Haven, CT: Yale Concilium on International and Area Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smirnickij, A. I. 1954. Po povodu konversii v anglijskom jazyke. Inostrannnye jazyki v škole 3, 12–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Švedova, Natalija Ju. et al. 1980. Russkaja grammatika. Tom I. Fonetika, Fonologija, Udarenie, Intonacija, Slovoobrazovanie, Morfologija. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’ (Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vennemann, Teo. 1972. Rule Inversion. Lingua 29, 209–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinogradov, Viktor V. 1972 [1947]. Russkij jazyk (grammatičeskoe učenie o slove). Izdanie II. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo “Vysšaja škola”.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, Petra M. 1996. Wortarten und Wortartenwechsel. Berlin: Walter de Guyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zemskaja, Elena A. 1973a. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk: slovoobrazovanie. Moskva: Prosveščenie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwicky, A. M. 1985. How to describe inflection. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, eds. Mary Niepokuj, Mary Van Clay, Vassiliki Nikiforidou, and Deborah Feder, 372–386. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, Bernard. 1990. Russian. In The Major Languages of Eastern Europe, ed. Bernard Comrie, 63–81. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timberlake, Alan. 1993. Russian. In The Slavonic Languages, eds. Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, 827–886. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions “Lexically related” and “Head of a Word”. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stojanov, Stojan. 1993 [1964]. Gramatika na bălgarskija knižoven ezik. V izdanie. Sofija: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kl. Oxridski”.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Slavic Studies, University of Vienna, Universitätscampus AAKH, Spitalgasse 2-4, Hof 3, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Stela Manova

Authors
  1. Stela Manova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stela Manova .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Manova, S. (2010). Preliminaries. In: Understanding Morphological Rules. Studies in Morphology, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9547-3_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation