Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T17:07:26.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Arguments for morpholexical rules1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Andrew Spencer
Andrew Spencer
Affiliation:
Départment de langue et littérature anglaises, Université de Genève, Geneva
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Lieber (1980) provided a theory of the organization of the lexicon which has been extremely influential within current theories of morphology. However, one of her central suggestions, concerning the nature of phonological rules in the lexicon, has been largely ignored. Lieber (1980, 1982) considers allomorphic variation induced by relationships which are not true phonological rules, in that they refer to lexical or morphosyntactic features but which none the less seem to be statable in phonological terms. These constitute the bulk of morphologically conditioned alternations, particularly those which have the prime function of signalling morphological relationships. Such rules have been dubbed ‘morpholexical’ rules in the structuralist literature, and Lieber adopts this term, giving it a specialist technical interpretation within the Lexicalist theory she develops.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , March 1988, pp. 1 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Archangeli, D. B. (1984). Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. Cambridge, Mass.: unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1982). Where's morphology? LIn 13. 571–612Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G. & Rubach, J. (1987). Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in Lexical Phonology, LIn 18. 1–44.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
De Bray, R. G. A. (1980). Guide to the Slavonic languages: West Slavonic. Ann Arbor: Slavica.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. (1985). Morphonology. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Mohanan, K. P. (1985). Segmental phonology of Modern English. LIn 16. 57–116.Google Scholar
Harris, J. W. (1969). Spanish phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. B. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, G. (1980). Automatic alternations in non-transformational phonology. Lg 56. 94–125.Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. (1984). Some aspects of word formation in a polysynthetic language. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 10. 104–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.), The structure of phonological representations, Part I. Dordrecht: Foris. 131–175.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 83–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopecký, L. V., Filipce, J. & Lešky, O. (1976). Česko-ruský slovník. Prague: Státní Pedagogické Nakladatelství.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1980). The organization of the lexicon. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, 1981a.]Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1981b). Morphological conversion within a restricted theory of the lexicon. In Moortgat, H., Van der Hulst, H. & Hoekstra, T. (eds.), The scope of lexical rules. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1982). Allomorphy. Linguistic Analysis 10. 27–52.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1982). Re reduplication. LIn 13. 483–545.Google Scholar
Monahan, K. P. (1986). The theory of lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Rubach, J. (1984). Cyclic and lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, P. (1985). Modularisation and substantive constraints in Dakota lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 171–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šmilauer, V. (1972). Nauka o českém jazyku. Prague: Státní Pedagogické Nakladatelství.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. (1986). A non-linear analysis of vowel-zero alternations in Polish. JL 22. 249–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, Th. (1972). Rule inversion. Lingua 29. 209–242.Google Scholar