Cover not available
Review published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 38:4 (2014) ► pp.995–1004
Book review

Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds.). The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. . [Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics, 4]. xii + 319 pp.

Reviewed by
| University of Oslo
Published online: 8 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.4.10eng
References (23)
References
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert E. 1993. Against split morphology. Yearbook of morphology 1993, ed. by Geert E. Booij & Jaap van Marle. 27–49. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan & Andrew Hippisley. 2012. Network morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bye, Patrik & Peter Svenonius. 2011. Non-concatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. The morphology and phonology of exponence: the state of the art, ed. by Jochen Trommer. 427–495. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1999. Origins of complex language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Umlaut as signans and signatum: Synchronic and diachronic aspects. Yearbook of Morphology 1999, ed. by Geert E. Booij & Jaap van Marle. 1–23. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Affixes, stems and allomorphic conditioning in paradigm function morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, ed. by Geert E. Booij & Jaap van Marle. 253–81. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
. 2010. The evolution of morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, Ewa. 2004. Language, mind and brain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. The Oxford handbook on linguistic interfaces, ed. by Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss. 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fradin, Bernard & Françoise Kerleroux. 2003. Troubles with lexemes. In Topics in Morphology. Selected papers from the Third Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, ed. by Geert E. Booij, Janet de Cesaris, Sergio Scalise & Angela Ralli. 177–196. Barcelona: IULA-Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, volume 21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2011a. Allomorphy, autonomous morphology and phonological conditioning in the history of the Daco-Romance present and subjunctive. Transactions of the Philological Society, 109(1): 59–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. Morphomes and “stress-conditioned allomorphy” in Romansh Maiden et al. (eds), 36–50.Google Scholar
. 2013. The Latin ‘third stem’ and its Romance descendants. Diachronica 30(4): 492–530. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds). 2011. Morphological autonomy: perspectives from Romance inflectional morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nilsen, Marianne Brodahl. 2012. Sterke verb og semantiske fellestrekk. Master’s thesis, University of Oslo. [URL]
Nübling, Damaris. 2008. Was tun mit Flexionsklassen? Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 75(3): 282–330.Google Scholar
Smith, John Charles. 2011. Variable analyses of a verbal inflection in (mainly) Canadian French. Maiden et al. (eds), 311–327.Google Scholar
Spilling, Eivor F., Marianne B. Nilsen & Hans-Olav Enger. 2014. Reorganising grammatical variation in Norwegian. In prep.Google Scholar
Stump, Greg T. 2001. Inflectional morphology: a theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thornton, Anna M. 2011. Overabundance (multiple forms realizing the same cell): a non-canonical phenomenon in Italian verb morphology. Maiden et al. (eds), 358–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 2011. Non-finite forms, periphrases and autonomous morphology in Latin and Romance. Maiden et al. (eds), 417–435.Google Scholar