Search

With regard to change in inflection, historical linguistics fundamentally relies on the concept of morphological analogy, which is held responsible for nearly all change not attributable to phonological factors. Despite its central importance, how morphological analogy operates has never been established. Two different opinions are held in contemporary linguistics. The first position assumes that morphological analogy modifies inherited inflectional forms, making them more similar to other inflectional forms. According to the second position, in the course of morphological analogy, inherited inflectional forms are not merely modified but rather are replaced by forms created entirely anew on a model pattern already present in the grammar. This research report tries to establish what kind of data may constitute the evidence sufficient to differentiate between the two views. It argues that all relevant data point to whole-word replacement as the only mechanism of analogical change in inflection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In alphabetic writing systems, the most consistent correspondences hold between written and spoken segments. Although English spelling uses the Roman alphabet and is thus largely phonographic, it also encodes non-phonological distinctions such as those among homophonic words (e.g., pair, pare, pear). We review evidence that English spelling is to some extent morphographic at the level of suffixes: some suffixes (e.g. -s and -ed) have a single constant spelling (‹-s› and ‹-ed›), despite the fact that they vary in phonological realization (-s is realized as [z], [s], or [əz], depending on the preceding segment); while other suffixes (e.g. -ic) are spelled differently from homophonous word-final phonological sequences (e.g. ‹relic› vs. ‹relick›). We explore the implications of our research for psycholinguistic findings on morphological processing of written English, with a special focus on 'affix stripping' processes. Psycholinguistic research has largely assumed the straightforward linguistic validity of morphographic spelling, without appreciating either its typologically unusual nature or the subtle and complex relation that it bears to morphology, phonology, and semantics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What determines consonant doubling in English? This question is pursued by using a large lexical database to establish systematic correlations between spelling, phonology and morphology. The main insights are: Consonant doubling is most regular at morpheme boundaries. It can be described in graphemic terms alone, i.e. without reference to phonology. In monomorphemic words, consonant doubling depends mostly on the word ending. Certain endings correlate with double consonants (e.g. as in ), while others correlate with single consonants (e.g. as in ). What is more, it is the graphemic form of the word ending that determines the presence or absence of double consonants: The word endings <-ic> and <-ick>, for example, are homophonous, but the former almost always occurs with single consonants (e.g. ), the latter with double consonants (e.g. ). That makes graphemic word endings peculiar entities: Like suffixes, they are recurring and they have distributional properties-but unlike suffixes, they have no morphosyntactic or semantic function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Do the production and interpretation of patterns of plural forms in noun-noun compounds reveal the workings of innate constraints that govern morphological processing? The results of previous studies on compounding have been taken to support a number of important theoretical claims: first, that there are fundamental differences in the way that children and adults learn and process regular and irregular plurals, second, that these differences reflect formal constraints that govern the way the way regular and irregular plurals are processed in language, and third, that these constraints are unlikely to be the product of learning. In a series of seven experiments, we critically assess the evidence that is cited in support of these arguments. The results of our experiments provide little support for the idea that substantively different factors govern the patterns of acquisition, production and interpretation patterns of regular and irregular plural forms in compounds. Once frequency differences between regular and irregular plurals are accounted for, we find no evidence of any qualitative difference in the patterns of interpretation and production of regular and irregular plural nouns in compounds, in either adults or children. Accordingly, we suggest that the pattern of acquisition of both regular and irregular plurals in compounds is consistent with a simple account, in which children learn the conventions that govern plural compounding using evidence that is readily available in the distribution patterns of adult speech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The analytical goal of this paper is to provide a treatment of number and aspect as syntactic properties of the Tohono 'O'odham sign. It situates duplication (one of the phonological expressions of syntactic number) and subtraction (one of the phonological expressions of aspect) within this treatment. Morphological analysis might be easier if there were a one-to-one relationship between grammatical notion and phonological expression--if, for example, 'plural' number in Language-L were always and only associated with the presence of the morph Z. Whether the investigation begins with 'plural' or with Z, it would cover the same ground. However, the properties of Tohono 'O'odham morphology, where duplication is only one of the expressions of syntactic number and subtraction only one of the expressions of aspect, are relatively common. This paper argues, therefore, that the grammatical notion, not the phonological expression, provides the appropriate starting point for morphological analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proceeding from the assumption that all languages are equally complex, there exists a corollary, widely held but poorly documented, herein referred to as the negative correlation hypothesis. It states: If one component of language is simplified then another must be elaborated. Here, this assumption is reformulated in terms of a scientific hypothesis and subjected to statistical analysis. Thirty-two geographically diverse languages representing thirty language families and two isolates are tested for syllable count and inflectional synthesis on the verb as a means of rating their phonological and morphological complexity, respectively. The correlation between these measures is found to be slightly positive (r=0.0704), but statistically insignificant (p>0.05), indicating that the negative correlation hypothesis, if it is to be retained, still awaits scientific confirmation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]