Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T17:16:42.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On rules of referral

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Gregory T. Stump
Gregory T. Stump*
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
*
Department of English, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0027
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Zwicky (1985) has argued that an adequate realizational theory of morphology must incorporate RULES OF REFERRAL in order to account for some kinds of inflectional syncretism. In this paper I propose a formal theory of rules of referral within the broader framework of PARADIGM FUNCTION MORPHOLOGY. This theory affords a precise account of a range of rule interactions involving rules of referral; in addition, it furnishes a simple explanation for the fact that syncretisms don't always encompass whole words, for the fact that some referrals are bidirectional, and for the fact that two or more referrals may participate successively or simultaneously in the definition of a single instance of syncretism.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 69 , Issue 3 , September 1993 , pp. 449 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 by Linguistic Society of America

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

Footnotes

*

I wish to thank two anonymous referees for their comments.

References

Anderson, Stephen R. 1977. On the formal description of inflection. Chicago Linguistic Society 13. 15–44.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where's morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13. 571–612.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1984. Outlines of a constraint on syncretism. Folia Linguistica 18. 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in inflexion. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Elson, Mark J. 1989. Macedonian verbal morphology: A structural analysis. Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
Gordon, E. V. 1957. An introduction to Old Norse [2nd revised edn.]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1992. The Latvian declension. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, ed. by Booij, Geert and Marie, Jaap van, 33–47. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heusler, Andreas. 1962. Altisländisches Elementarbuch [5th edn.]. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D., and Joseph, Brian D. 1986. One rule or many? Sanskrit reduplication as fragmented affixation. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics [ESCOL '85] 2. 103–19. Columbus: Ohio State University Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the organization of the lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1981.].Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lunt, Horace G. 1952. Grammar of the Macedonian literary language. Skopje: Narodno knigoizdatelstvo na NR Makedonija.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 1972. Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Noreen, Adolf. 1923. Altnordische Grammatik I: Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik [4th edn., 1970 reprint]. University, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Sampson, John. 1926. The dialect of the Gypsies of Wales [1968 reprint]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1982. The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1988. Arguments for morpholexical rules. Journal of Linguistics 24. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1991. A paradigm-based theory of morphosemantic mismatches. Lg. 67. 675–725.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1992. On the theoretical status of position class restrictions on inflectional affixes. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, ed. by Booij, Geert and Marie, Jaap van, 211–41. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1993a. Position classes and morphological theory. Yearbook of Morphology 1992, ed. by Booij, Geert and Marie, Jaap van, 129–80. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1993b. Reconstituting morphology: The case of Bantu preprefixation. Linguistic Analysis 23, to appear.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1889. Sanskrit grammar [2nd edn.]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. Hierarchies of person. Chicago Linguistic Society 13. 714–33.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. How to describe inflection. Berkeley Linguistics Society 11. 372–86.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1990. Inflectional morphology as a (sub)component of grammar. Contemporary morphology, ed. by Dressier, Wolfgang U., Luschützky, Hans C., Pfeiffer, Oskar E., and Rennison, John R., 217–36. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1991. Systematic versus accidental phonological identity. Paradigms: The economy of inflection, ed. by Plank, Frans, 113–31. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar