In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Morphology 2000: Selected papers from the 9th morphology meeting, Vienna, 24–28 February 2000 ed. by Sabrina Bendjaballah et al
  • Kirsten Fudeman
Morphology 2000: Selected papers from the 9th morphology meeting, Vienna, 24–28 February 2000. Ed. by Sabrina Bendjaballah, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and Maria D. Voeikova. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002. Pp. vii, 317. ISBN: 1-58811-080-X. $95.00.

Focusing on crosslinguistic analysis with a minor emphasis on psycholinguistics, Morphology 2000 is a testament to the diversity of morphological research being developed today even within these general boundaries. In ‘The lexical bases of morphological well-formedness’, Adam Albright examines the role of type and token frequency in the perception of morphological well-formedness. In ‘How stems and affixes interact’, Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy explores how stem alternations interact with affixal allomorphy. ‘Morphology, typology, computation’ by Greville Corbett et al. hints at the great potential inherent in studying interactions between morphology, typology, and computation. Marit Julien, in ‘Inflectional morphemes as syntactic heads’, analyzes patterns of verbal inflection in terms of syntactic mechanisms. Elena Kalinina’s ‘The problem of morphophonological description of [End Page 646] verbal forms ambivalent between finite and nonfinite uses’ is a crosslinguistic study of verb forms with both verbal and nominal morphology. Alexandr Ki-brick tackles the problematic case of Alutor person-number verb inflection in ‘ “Anomalies” of cross-reference marking’. Igor Melĉuk, in ‘Towards a formal concept “zero linguistic sign,” ’ proposes a principle to guide the postulation of zeroes in linguistic analysis. In ‘Polysynthetic word formation’, David Rood applies Wichita data to questions of whether words in polysynthetic languages are formed syntactically and stored in the lexicon.

Mark Baker, in ‘On category asymmetries in derivational morphology’, reveals an asymmetry in the markedness of category-changing derivations, proposing that it can be explained within a theory of lexical categories. In ‘What you can do with derivational morphology’, Laurie Bauer describes a cross-linguistic study whose aims included searching for core derivational meanings, determining the geographical distribution of categories, and looking for categories that tend to be equated in terms of overt marking. ‘Gender inversion in Romance derivatives with -arius’, by Michel Roché, illuminates an under-studied aspect of gender: gender assignment to suffixal derivatives.

Bożena Cetnarowska, in ‘Adjectival past-participle formation as an unaccusativity diagnostic’, argues that the lack of adjectival past participles in English and departicipial adjectives in Polish cannot be taken as proof that a given verb is unergative. ‘On contrastive word-formation semantics’, by Wolfgang Dressler and Mária Ladányi, explores morphosemantic opacity in German and Hungarian denominal adjective formation. Peter Hallman proposes a novel analysis of passive in English, showing that it is morphologically similar to that of Arabic, in ‘Passive in Arabic and English’.

Bernard Comrie examines data from Celtic, Italian, and Maltese in ‘Morphophonological alternations: Typology and diachrony’. Michele Loporcaro’s paper, ‘External and internal causation in morphological change’, compares alternative explanations for changes in the pronominal clitic systems of Italian dialects. Thomas Menzel’s paper, ‘ “Constructional” and “structural” iconicity of noun vs. adjective/pronoun markers in the Slavic nominal inflection’, considers case marking in Polish and Russian. ‘Morphological splits—iconicity and optimality’, by Tore Nesset and Hans-Olav Enger, is concerned with principles governing diachronic developments in which a category with a single marker becomes marked by two.

In ‘The acquisition of German plurals’, Hilke Elsen argues that inflectional morphology is based on pattern association. Steven Gillis and Dorit Ravid examine the interaction of spelling acquisition and morphology in Dutch and Hebrew in ‘Language-specific effects on the development of written morphology’.

In ‘Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in morphologically complex words’, LauraGonnerman and Elaine Andersen argue that accounting for morphological priming effects does not require reference to a distinct morphological component. Georgi Jetchev and Pier Marco Bertinetto’s experimental study, ‘Lexical...

pdf

Share