Preliminaries

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Morphology book series (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.

Keywords

Root Extension Slavic Language Citation Form Morphological Technique Thematic Marker 
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. Bojadžiev, Todor, Ivan Kucarov, and Jordan Penčev. 1999. Săvremenen bălgarski ezik. Fonetika. Leksikologija. Slovoobrazuvane. Morfologija. Sintaksis. Sofija: P. Beron.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, Valerie. 1973. An Introduction to Modern English Word-Formation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Andrejčin, Ljubomir. 1978. Osnovna bălgarska gramatuka. Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Anić, Vladimir. 1991. Rječnik hrvatskoga jezika. Zagreb: Novi Liber.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Assenova, Petja 2002. Balkansko ezikoznanie. V. Tǎrnovo: Faber.Google Scholar
  15. Babić, Stjepan. 1991 [1986]. Tvorba riječi u hrvatskom književnom jeziku: nacrt za gramatiku. 2 izd. Zagreb: Djela Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Battistella, Edwin L. 1990. Markedness. The Evaluative Superstructure of Language. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  19. Battistella, Edwin L. 1996. The Logic of Markedness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word-formation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Bauer, Laurie. 1988. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Beard, Robert. 1982. The plural as a lexical derivation. Glossa 16(2), 133–148.Google Scholar
  26. Beard, Robert. 1987. Morpheme order in a lexeme/morpheme-based morphology. Lingua 72, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  28. Becker, Thomas. 1990. Analogie und morphologische Theorie. München: Fink.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Berlin, Brent and Paul Kay. 1969. Basic Color Terms. Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Blevins, J. P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42, 531–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York, NY: Holt [British edition 1935]: London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  35. Bojadžiev, Todor, Ivan Kucarov, and Jordan Penčev. 1999. Săvremenen bălgarski ezik. Fonetika. Leksikologija. Slovoobrazuvane. Morfologija. Sintaksis. Sofija: P. Beron.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. Booij, Geert. 2002. The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Browne, W. 1993. Serbo-Croat. In The Slavonic Languages, eds. Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, 306–387. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Bulgarian Academy Grammar = Andrejčin et al. (1983).Google Scholar
  43. Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Bybee, Joan L. and Carol L. Moder. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59, 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1992. Current Morphology. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Cetnarowska, Bożena. 1993. The Syntax, Semantics and Derivation of Bare Nominalisations in English. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.Google Scholar
  51. Coleman, Linda and Paul Kay. 1981. Prototype semantics: The English verb lie. Language 57/1, 26–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  54. Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Corbett, Greville G. and Norman M. Fraser. 1993. Network morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29, 113–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Di Sciullo, Anna M. and Edwin Williams 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT-Press.Google Scholar
  58. Dokulil, Miloš. 1968a. Zur Frage der Konversion und verwandter Wortbildungsvorgänge und –beziehungen. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 3, 215–239.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1989. Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft and Kommunikationsforschung 42, 3–10.Google Scholar
  63. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1994. Subtraction. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. Robert E. Asher, 4401–4402. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963 (ed.). Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  69. 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
  70. 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
  71. 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.
  72. 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.
  73. Manova, Stela and Wolfgang U. Dressler. 2001. Gender and declensional class in Bulgarian. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 67–69, 45–81.Google Scholar
  74. Marchand, Hans. 1963. On a question of contrary analysis with derivationally connected but morphologically uncharacterised words. English Studies 44, 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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
  76. Marchand, Hans. 1969 [1960]. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation, 2nd completely revised and enlarged edition. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  77. Martin, Jack. 1988. Subtractive morphology as dissociation. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 7, 229–240. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  78. Mrazović, Pavica and Zora Vukadinović. 1990. Gramatika srpskohrvatskog jezika za strance. Sremski Karlovci: Izdavačka knjižarnica Zorana Stojanovića; Novi Sad: Dobra vest.Google Scholar
  79. Russian Academy Grammar 1970 = Grammatika sovremennnogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka. Moskva: Nauka (Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR).Google Scholar
  80. 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
  81. Smirnickij, A. I. 1954. Po povodu konversii v anglijskom jazyke. Inostrannnye jazyki v škole 3, 12–24.Google Scholar
  82. Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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
  84. Vennemann, Teo. 1972. Rule Inversion. Lingua 29, 209–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Vinogradov, Viktor V. 1972 [1947]. Russkij jazyk (grammatičeskoe učenie o slove). Izdanie II. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo “Vysšaja škola”.Google Scholar
  86. Vogel, Petra M. 1996. Wortarten und Wortartenwechsel. Berlin: Walter de Guyter.Google Scholar
  87. Zemskaja, Elena A. 1973a. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk: slovoobrazovanie. Moskva: Prosveščenie.Google Scholar
  88. 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
  89. Comrie, Bernard. 1990. Russian. In The Major Languages of Eastern Europe, ed. Bernard Comrie, 63–81. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  90. Timberlake, Alan. 1993. Russian. In The Slavonic Languages, eds. Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, 827–886. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  91. Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions “Lexically related” and “Head of a Word”. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245–275.Google Scholar
  92. Stojanov, Stojan. 1993 [1964]. Gramatika na bălgarskija knižoven ezik. V izdanie. Sofija: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kl. Oxridski”.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Slavic StudiesUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations