* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
Title: Projecting Morphology
Edited By: Louisa Sadler
Andrew Spencer
Series Title: Stanford Studies in Morphology and the Lexicon
Description:

The strict separation of syntax and morphology along with the rejection of derivational operations in structural syntax are two of several principles in contemporary lexicalist theories. The syntactic theory ofLexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) recognizes that this separation between syntax and morphology applies only to a structural domain but also that both are equal, interacting, and competing contributors in a functional domain.This book discusses the role of morphology in LFG, reintroducing two seminal papers on the impact of the development of LFG on morphology, while presenting new papers on current morphological issues. Theoretical issues addressed include the relationship between synthetic and analytic exponents of functional features; the need for a separate projection of m-structures; the nature of morphosyntactic paradigms; optimality theory's role in LFG morphology; and the use of LFG architecture in morphological description.

Publication Year: 2004
Publisher: CSLI Publications
Linguistic Field(s): Linguistic Theories
Morphology
Syntax
Versions:
Format: Hardback
ISBN: 157586469X
ISBN-13: N/A
Pages: 239
Prices: U.S. $ $80.00
 
Format: Paperback
ISBN: 1575864703
ISBN-13: N/A
Pages: 239
Prices: U.S. $ $27.50
 
LL Issue: 15.3474
 
 
Become a LL reviewer
  Want to become a LL reviewer?
Read guidelines.


View bibtex record for this book.
View BibTex record
Page Updated: 24-Nov-2009

Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.