Word-Formation and Inflectional Morphology

  • Gregory T. Stump
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 64)


Mass Noun Past Participle Count Noun Bare Noun Inflected Form 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ackerman, Farrell and Stump, Gregory (2004). “Paradigms and periphrastic expression: A study in realization-based lexicalism.” In: L. Sadler and A. Spencer (eds.), Projecting morphology. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 111–157.Google Scholar
  2. Aitchison, Jean. 1994. Words in the mind [2nd edition]. Oxford UK & Cambridge USA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. “Where’s morphology?” Linguistic Inquiry 13, 571–612.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, Stephen R. 1985. “Inflectional morphology.” In: T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, volume III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 150–201.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, Stephen R. 1992, A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Andrews, Avery D. 1990. “Unification and morphological blocking.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8, 507–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauer, Laurie. 1997. “Derivational paradigms.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1996. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 243–256.Google Scholar
  8. Bochner, Harry. 1984. “Inflection within derivation.” The Linguistic Review 3, 411–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bochner, Harry. 1992. Simplicity in Generative Morphology. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  10. Booij, Geert. 1996. “Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1–16.Google Scholar
  11. Booij, Geert. 1997. “Autonomous morphology and paradigmatic relations.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle, (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1996. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 35–53.Google Scholar
  12. Booij, Geert. 2000. “Inflection and derivation.” In: G. Booij, Ch. Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan (eds.), Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, 360–369.Google Scholar
  13. Börjars, Kersti; Vincent, Nigel; and Chapman, Carol. 1997. “Paradigms, periphrases and pronominal inflection: a feature-based account.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1996. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 155–180.Google Scholar
  14. Bresnan, Joan. 2000. “Optimal syntax.” In: J. Dekkers, F. van der Leeuw, and J. van de Weijer (eds.), Optimality Theory: Phonology, syntax and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 334–385.Google Scholar
  15. Csúcs, Sándor. 1988. “Die wotjakische Sprache.” In: D. Sinor (ed.), The Uralic languages: Description, history and foreign influences. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 131–146.Google Scholar
  16. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria and Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1989. “Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation.” Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42, 3–10.Google Scholar
  18. Ettinger, Stefan. 1974. Form und Funktion in der Wortbildung. Die Diminutiv-und Augmentativmodifikation im Lateinischen, Deutschen und Romanischen. Ein kritischer Forschungsbericht 1900–1970. Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 47. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
  19. Halpern, Aaron L. 1992. Topics in the placement and morphology of clitics. Doctoral dissertation. Stanford University.Google Scholar
  20. Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. “The diachronic externalization of inflection.” Linguistics 31, 279–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoeksema, Jacob. 1984. Categorial morphology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen [New York: Garland, 1985].Google Scholar
  22. Lapointe, Steven G. 1990. EDGE features in GPSG. In: M. Ziolkowski, M. Noske, and K. Deaton (eds.), Papers from the 26th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, volume 1. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 221–235.Google Scholar
  23. Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the Organization of the Lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. [Reproduced by Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1981.]Google Scholar
  24. Marantz, Alec. 1988. “Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure.” In: M. Hammond and M. Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics. San Diego: Academic Press, 253–270.Google Scholar
  25. Matthews, Peter. H. 1972. Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Matthews, Peter. H. 1991. Morphology [2nd edn.]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Miller, Philip H. 1991. Clitics and constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit te Utrecht.Google Scholar
  28. Mufwene, Salikoko. 1980. “Bantu class prefixes: inflectional or derivational?” In J. Kreiman and A. E. Ojeda (eds.), Papers from the Sixteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 246–58.Google Scholar
  29. Perlmutter, David. 1988. “The split morphology hypothesis: evidence from Yiddish.” In: M. Hammond and M. Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics. San Diego: Academic Press, 79–100.Google Scholar
  30. Pesetsky, David. 1985. “Morphology and logical form.” Linguistic Inquiry 16, 193–246.Google Scholar
  31. Sadler, Louisa and Spencer, Andrew. 2001. “Syntax as an exponent of morphological features.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2000. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 71–97.Google Scholar
  32. Sells, Peter. 1998. “Optimality and economy of expression in Japanese and Korean.” In: N. Akatsuka et al. (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 7. CSLI, Stanford Linguistics Association, 499–514.Google Scholar
  33. Sproat, Richard. 1988. “Bracketing paradoxes, cliticization and other topics: the mapping between syntactic and phonological structure.” In: M. Everaert, A. Evers, R. Huybregts, and M. Trommelen (eds.), Morphology and modularity. Dordrecht: Foris, 339–360.Google Scholar
  34. Stump, Gregory T. 1990a. “Breton inflection and the split morphology hypothesis.” In: R. Hendrick (ed.), Syntax and semantics, volume 23: The syntax of the modern Celtic languages. San Diego: Academic Press, 97–119.Google Scholar
  35. Stump, Gregory T. 1990b. “La morphologie bretonne et la frontière entre la flexion et la derivation.” La Bretagne linguistique 6, 185–237.Google Scholar
  36. Stump, Gregory T. 1991. “A paradigm-based theory of morphosemantic mismatches.” Language 67, 675–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stump, Gregory T. 1993. “How peculiar is evaluative morphology?” Journal of Linguistics 29, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stump, Gregory T. 1995. “The uniformity of head marking in inflectional morphology.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1994. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 245–296.Google Scholar
  39. Stump, Gregory T. 1998. “Inflection.” In: A. Spencer and A. M. Zwicky (eds.), The handbook of morphology. Oxford & Malden, MA: Blackwell, 13–43.Google Scholar
  40. Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Stump, Gregory T. 2002. “Morphological blocking and Pàõini’s principle.” Paper presented at the Periphrasis and Paradigms Workshop, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  42. Stump, Gregory T. 2004. “Delineating the boundary between inflection-class marking and derivational marking: The case of Sanskrit-aya.” Paper presented at the 11th International Morphology Meeting, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
  43. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. “How to describe inflection.” In: M. Niepokuj, M. van Clay, V. Nikiforidou and D. Feder (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 372–386.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory T. Stump
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EnglishUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations