Conclusions

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

Abstract

In this chapter the main ideas of the analysis are summarized and conclusions are drawn. Special attention is paid to the productivity of conversion and subtraction. It is concluded that conversion and subtraction behave as any other morphological technique: (1) they operate in derivation as well as in inflection; (2) in derivation, conversion and subtraction have prototypical (word-class-changing) and non-prototypical (word-class-preserving) realizations; (3) both techniques can be applied to different bases such as words, stems and roots; (4) like affixation and substitution, subtraction is often accompanied by phonological and morphonological modifications (modifications are not allowed in conversion, since their occurrences are realizations of the morphological technique of modification); (5) conversion and subtraction often compete with more diagrammatic techniques such as affixation, substitution and modification.

Keywords

Word Class Formal Conversion Derivation Rule Semantic Change Inflectional 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.

References

  1. Adams, Valerie. 1973. An Introduction to Modern English Word-Formation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word-formation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Dokulil, Miloš. 1968a. Zur Frage der Konversion und verwandter Wortbildungsvorgänge und –beziehungen. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 3, 215–239.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Slavic StudiesUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations