Word: a typological framework

Dixon, R. M. W.; Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511486241.002

Cited by 192 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 Speakers who are illiterate in any language (the best test case) are becoming increasingly rare, and field linguists who do not already expect to find words are not common either. Moreover, the speakers would have to be able to communicate their intuitions, but as Dixon & Aikhenvald (2002: 3) note, "the vast majority of languages spoken by small tribal groups . .…”

Section: Speaker Intuitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While words are expected to be mobile with respect to other words, wordinternal elements are expected to occur in a fixed order (e.g. Bauer 1988: 52, Mugdan 1994: 2552, Dixon & Aikhenvald 2002. Bauer (1988: 52) notes that in a Latin word like reg-e:-ba-nt-ur [rule-STEM-PST-3PL-PASS] 'they were being ruled', the order of the morphs cannot be rearranged, while the word forms of a sentence are "much more movable".…”

Section: (8) Lithuanianmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The general distinction between morphology and syntax is widely taken for granted, but it crucially depends on a cross-linguistically valid concept of '(morphosyntactic) word'. I show that there are no good criteria for defining such a concept. I examine ten criteria in some detail (potential pauses, free occurrence, mobility, uninterruptibility, non-selectivity, non-coordinatability, anaphoric islandhood, nonextractability, morphophonological idiosyncrasies, and deviations from bi-uniqueness), and I show that none of them is necessary and sufficient on its own, and no combination of them gives a definition of 'word' that accords with linguists' orthographic practice. 'Word' can be defined as a language-specific concept, but this is not relevant to the general question pursued here. 'Word' can be defined as a fuzzy concept, but this is theoretically meaningful only if the continuum between affixes and words, or words and phrases, shows some clustering, for which there is no systematic evidence at present. Thus, I conclude that we do not currently have a good basis for dividing the domain of morphosyntax into morphology and syntax, and that linguists should be very careful with general claims that make crucial reference to a cross-linguistic 'word' notion.

show abstract

Section: Speaker Intuitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (8) Lithuanianmentioning

confidence: 99%

The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The overall goal has been to demonstrate that the processes discussed here fall within the areas which, in Dixon and Aikhenvald's (2002) definition, the defining properties of a phonological word surface. The conclusion for Dagbani is that, when any of the processes or rules triggered by an element within a domain A affects a segment located in a domain B, then domain B does not constitute a phonological word.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the Phonological Word in Dagbani? A Positional Faithfulness Account

Hudu

2014

Ghana J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper offers a phonological diagnostic for defining the word in Dagbani, a Gur language of Ghana. It shows that a morphological unit that constitutes a complete word blocks contrast-neutralising phonological processes from target segments within its boundaries when triggered across its boundary. In sub-word units, these processes (e.g. nasal place assimilation, vowel harmony, segmental deletion) apply to target sounds without restrictions. The result is the maintenance of contrast in words and neutralisation of contrast in sub-words. The paper further argues that the asymmetrical application of these rules is an indication of a morphological strength distinction between the word as a strong position where segments are fully specified for phonological features, and the sub-word domain as a non-privileged position where segments may be underspecified for features. A formal analysis of the asymmetry is presented using the theory of positional faithfulness within the framework of Optimality Theory.

show abstract

“…A longstanding linguistic observation is that the levels do not in fact coincide. A well-known example is the mismatch between phonological and syntactic words (Dixon & Aikhenvald 2002): Consider resyllabification, as in the pronunciation of my bike is small as mai.bai.kismall (Vroomen & de Gelder 1999) here, the lower-level units don't match the higher ones. Similarly, syntactic structure and semantic structure do not match: All men looks like Tall men in surface structure, but has a quite different underlying semantics.…”

Section: Stephen Grossbergmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural constraints and flexibility in language processing

Huyck¹

2016

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Copyright and moral rights to this thesis/research project are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. The work is supplied on the understanding that any use for commercial gain is strictly forbidden. A copy may be downloaded for personal, non-commercial, research or study without prior permission and without charge. Any use of the thesis/research project for private study or research must be properly acknowledged with reference to the work's full bibliographic details.This thesis/research project may not be reproduced in any format or medium, or extensive quotations taken from it, or its content changed in any way, without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s).If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contact the Repository Team at Middlesex University via the following email address:eprints@mdx.ac.ukThe item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated. Humans process language with their neurons. Memory in neurons is supported by neural firing, and short and long-term synaptic weight change; the emergent behaviour of neurons, synchronous firing and cell assembly dynamics, is also a form of memory. As the language signal moves to later stages, it is processed with different mechanisms that are slower but more persistent.

show abstract

Word: a typological framework

Cited by 192 publications

References 35 publications

The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax

The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax

What is the Phonological Word in Dagbani? A Positional Faithfulness Account

Neural constraints and flexibility in language processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About