Skip to main content

Baerman, Matthew (ed): The Oxford Handbook of Inflection

First published in paperback 2017. [First published as hardback 2015.] ISBN 978-0-19-880861-9 (pbk). Xxi + 685 p. Oxford: OUP

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Thanks to Matthew Baerman, Martin Maiden and the Editor Ingo Plag for response on a previous draft. They are not to be blamed for remaining weaknesses.

  2. 2.

    One may wonder whether, given such vacuous definitions of morphemes as ‘abstract syntactic units’—a definition that gets its fair share of criticism also from Blevins (2016)—a linguist can avoid finding morphemes. If not, then morphemes are introduced by fiat; they will be found in language L simply because they cannot be avoided.

  3. 3.

    Compare Baerman (2012:471): “The problem with such constructs as paradigm economy and no-blur comes from trying to foist the burden of inflection class assignment onto one inflectional form”.

References

  1. Ackerman, F., & Malouf, R. (2013). Morphological organization: the low conditional entropy conjecture. Language, 89(3), 429–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ackerman, F., & Malouf, R. (2015). The no blur principle effects as an emergent property of language systems. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 41, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Albright, A. (2003). A quantitative study of Spanish paradigm gaps.

  4. Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: CUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson, S. R. (2017). Words and paradigms. Transactions of the Philological Society, 115(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Anttila, R. (2003). Analogy: the warp and woof of cognition. In R. D. Janda & B. D. Joseph (Eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 425–440). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Audring, J., & Jackendoff, R. (2018). Relational morphology in the parallel architecture. In J. Audring & F. Masini (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of morphological theory (pp. 390–409). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Audring, J. & Masini, F. (Eds.) (2018). The Oxford handbook of morphological theory. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Baerman, M. (2012). Paradigmatic chaos in Nuer. Language, 88(3), 467–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Baerman, M., Brown, D., & Corbett, G. G. (2017). Morphological complexity. Cambridge: CUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Bermudez-Otero, R. (2013). The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features. Probus, 25(1), 3–103.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bjerkan, K. M. (2000). Verbal morphology in specifically language impaired children. Oslo.

  14. Blevins, J. P. (2016). Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Booij, G. et al. (Eds.) (2000–2004). Morphologie/morphology. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  17. Braunmüller, K. (1984). Morphologische Undurchsichtigkeit—ein Charakteristikum kleiner Sprachen. Kopenhagener Beiträge zur Germanistischen Linguistik, 22, 48–68.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Bybee, J. L. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: CUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Bye, P., & Svenonius, P. (2012). Nonconcatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. In J. Trommer (Ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence: the state of the art (pp. 427–495). Oxford: OUP.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Carstairs, A. (1983). Paradigm economy. Journal of Linguistics, 19, 115–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1994). Inflection classes, gender and the principle of contrast. Language, 70(4), 737–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2005). Basic terminology. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 5–23). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2010). The evolution of morphology. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chomsky, N. A. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 184–221). Waltham: Ginn.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Dahl, Ö. (2004). The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Dammel, A. (2011). Konjugationsklassenwandel. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Enger, H.-O. (2010). How do words change inflection class? Evidence from Norwegian. Language Sciences, 32(3), 366–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Enger, H.-O. (2014). Reinforcement in inflection classes. Word Structure, 7(2), 153–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Enger, H.-O. (2017). Vocabular clarity and insular Scandinavian: a response to Thorgeirsson. Folia Linguistica, 51(3), 527–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Enger, H.-O. (Forthcoming a). In defence of morphomic analyses. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia.

  32. Enger, H.-O. (Forthcoming b). Thoughts on morphomes—on a Scandinavian background. In A. Dammel & O. Schallert (Eds.), Morphological variation—theoretical and empirical perspectives. In press

  33. Fertig, D. (2013). Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh: EUP.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hudson, R. A. (1996). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: CUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Kemmer, S. (1993). The middle voice. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  37. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. Lass, R. (1984). Phonology. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lieber, R. & Štekauer, P. (Eds.) (2009). The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lieber, R. & Štekauer, P. (Eds.) (2014). The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Maiden, M. (2009). Where does heteroclisis come from? Evidence from Romanian dialects. Morphology, 19, 59–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Maiden, M. (2018a). The Romance verb: Morphomic structure and diachrony. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. Maiden, M. (2018b). New thoughts on an old puzzle. Revue Romane, 53(2), 217–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Maiden, M., & O’Neill, P. (2010). Morphomic defectiveness. In M. Baerman, G. Corbett, & D. Brown (Eds.), Defective paradigms: missing forms and what they tell us (pp. 103–124). London: OUP/British Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Matthews, P. H. (1972). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Matthews, P. H. (1991). Morphology. Cambridge: CUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  47. Nesset, T. (2008). Abstract phonology in a concrete model. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  48. Nübling, D. (2000). Prinzipien der Irregularisierung. Eine kontrastive Untersuchung von zehn Verben in zehn germanischen Sprachen (LA 415). Tübingen: Niemeyer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Nübling, D. (2008). Was tun mit Flexionsklassen? Deklinationsklassen und ihr Wandel im Deutschen und seinen Dialekten. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, 75(3), 282–330.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Siemund, P. (2011). Introduction. In P. Siemund (Ed.), Linguistic universals and language variation (pp. 1–20). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  51. Spencer, A., & Zwicky, A. (1998). Handbook of morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Stewart, T. (2016). Contemporary morphological theories: a user’s guide. Edinburgh: EUP.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: CUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  54. Stump, G. (2006). Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language, 82, 279–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Trudgill, P. (2011). Sociolinguistic typology: social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Wurzel, W. U. (1984). Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Wurzel, W. U. (1989). Von der Inadäquatheit einer Affixmorphologie. In Linguistische Studien, Reihe A, 194 (pp. 277–298).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Zimmer, C. (2016). Die Markierung des Genitiv(s) im Deutschen: Empirie und theoretische Implikationen von morphologischer Variation. Dissertation. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans-Olav Enger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Enger, HO. Baerman, Matthew (ed): The Oxford Handbook of Inflection. Morphology 29, 133–151 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-018-09338-7

Download citation