2018
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modeling Signifiers in Constructional Approaches to Morphological Analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Davis & Tsujimura (2018) opt for a different schematic representation, but their solution is similar in spirit. The analysis shows that root-and-pattern morphology can be represented as constructional schemas (see also Good 2018). The meanings of the schemas have to be specified holistically, just as is argued for exocentric compounding in Section 3.1 and for reduplication in Section 3.2.…”
Section: Templatic Morphologymentioning
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Davis & Tsujimura (2018) opt for a different schematic representation, but their solution is similar in spirit. The analysis shows that root-and-pattern morphology can be represented as constructional schemas (see also Good 2018). The meanings of the schemas have to be specified holistically, just as is argued for exocentric compounding in Section 3.1 and for reduplication in Section 3.2.…”
Section: Templatic Morphologymentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Relevant work within CxM includes that by Gurevich (2006, pp. 54-57), Good (2018), andBaker (2018); Good (2016) provides a book-length typology. The following representation gives the maximal morphological template for nominals in Ngalakgan (Gunwinyguan), with an example word (Baker 2018, p. 274): (13) [(Noun class-)(Bound stem-)N(-Dative pronoun)(-Number)(-Case)] N cu-jappa-ŋki-ppulu-kkaʔ fem-sister-2mdat-pl-loc 'at your (sg.)…”
Section: Templatic Morphologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They are strong evidence for CxM. Think also of templatic Morphology, as discussed by Good (2018). Schemas are the right formalism for describing templatic morphology because templates can be described as schemas.…”
Section: Questionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Non-canonical patterns, or form and function mismatches in morphology, where signifiers deviate from a canonical linear ideal, such as fusion, suppletion, defectivness, syncretism, subtractive morphology, multiple exponence, or non-concatenative morphology, are often handled within the Word and Paradigm model (Matthews 1965; Blevins 2006, 2016), where inflectional classes are established to see how much is predictable from other parts within the paradigm (Carstairs-McCarthy 1983, 1994; Stump 2001, 2016; Finkel & Stump 2007; Corbett 2009; Ackerman & Malouf 2013). This is because they show that an inflected word’s content and form fail to exhibit the kind of isomorphism that the morpheme concept predicts, and thus a holistic approach makes more sense (Stump 2016: 17, 22; Booij 2018a: 5, 18; Good 2018). Such an approach has been applied to various Otomanguean languages which exhibit complex inflectional paradigms, such as Mazatec (Léonard & Kihm 2010, Ackerman & Malouf 2013, Baerman 2013, Corbett 2015), Otomí (Palancar 2012), Chinantec (Baerman 2013, Baerman & Palancar 2015), and Amuzgo (Palancar & Feist 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%