1932

Abstract

The term morphome (to be distinguished from morpheme), and the notion that there exist autonomous morphological phenomena synchronically independent of phonological or functional conditioning, has occupied a central place in morphological theory. This article reviews some characteristics of morphomic (i.e., autonomously morphological) structures that are assumed in recent studies. Taking a diachronic perspective, it asks whether these properties (typological uniqueness, phonological heterogeneity, syncretism, systematicity, predictiveness) are inherent or only contingent. It concludes that typological uniqueness is not inherent and that the belief that it is so is a misunderstanding. Phonological heterogeneity, a repeatedly observed concomitant of some of the best-known types of morphome, proves merely contingent since alternations firmly anchored in a particular phonological form can be morphomic. Syncretism may be a precondition for, but is not necessarily characteristic of, the historical emergence of morphomes. Contrary to widely held assumptions, systematicity and predictiveness are acquired (not inherent) characteristics of morphomes.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-040220-042614
2021-01-04
2024-04-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/7/1/annurev-linguistics-040220-042614.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-040220-042614&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ackerman F, Blevins J, Malouf R 2009. Parts and wholes: implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. Analogy in Grammar J Blevins, J Blevins 54–82 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Andersen H. 2010. From morphologization to demorphologization. The Bloomsbury Companion to Historical Linguistics S Luraghi, V Bubeník 117–46 London, UK: Continuum
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arkadiev P. 2017. Stems in Lithuanian verbal inflection (with remarks on derivation). Word Struct 5:7–27
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aronoff M. 1994. Morphology by Itself Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  5. Aronoff M. 2016a. A fox knows many things but a hedgehog one big thing. The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology A Hippisley, G Stump 186–205 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Aronoff M. 2016b. Unnatural kinds. See Luís & Bermúdez-Otero 2016 11–32
  7. Bermúdez-Otero R, Luís A. 2016. A view of the morphome debate. See Luís & Bermúdez-Otero 2016 309–40
  8. Blevins J. 2016. Word and Paradigm Morphology Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  9. Corbett G. 2016. Morphomic splits. See Luís & Bermúdez-Otero 2016 65–88
  10. Embick D. 2016. On the distribution of stem alternants: separation and its limits. See Luís & Bermúdez-Otero 2016 276–305
  11. Enger HO. 2019. In defence of morphomic analyses. Acta Linguist. Hafniensia 51:31–59
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Esher L. 2013. Future and conditional in Occitan: a non-canonical morphome. The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives S Cruschina, M Maiden, JC Smith 95–115 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Esher L. 2014. Autonomous morphology and extramorphological coherence. Morphology 24:325–50
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Esher L. 2015a. Formal asymmetries between the Romance synthetic future and conditional in the Occitan varieties of the western Languedoc. Trans. Philol. Soc. 113:249–70
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Esher L. 2015b. Morphomes and predictability in the history of Romance perfects. Diachronica 32:494–529
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Esher L. 2016. Morphomic distribution of augments in varieties of Occitan. Rev. Romane 51:271–306
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Esher L. 2017. Morphome death and transfiguration in the history of French. J. Linguist. 53:51–84
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gaglia S. 2011. Representational aspects of morphomic vowel variation in southern Italy. See Maiden et al. 2011 95–118
  19. Herce B. 2019. Morphome interactions. Morphology 29:109–32
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Herce B. 2020. A typological approach to the morphome PhD Thesis, Univ. Surrey, Surrey, UK/Univ. Basque Country Leioa, Spain:
  21. Kaye S. 2013. Morphomic stems in the Northern Talyshi verb: diachrony and synchrony. The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives S Cruschina, M Maiden, JC Smith 181–208 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Koontz-Garboden A. 2016. Thoughts on diagnosing morphomicity: a case study from Ulwa. See Luís & Bermúdez-Otero 2016 89–111
  23. Lombard A. 1955. Le verbe roumain: étude morphologique 2 Lund, Swed: Gleerup
  24. Luís A, Bermúdez-Otero R. 2016. The Morphome Debate Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  25. Maiden M. 2001. A strange affinity: “perfecto y tiempos afines. Bull. Hisp. Stud. 78:441–64
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Maiden M. 2005. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004 G Booij, J van Marle 137–75 Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Maiden M. 2008. Lexical nonsense and morphological sense: on the real importance of “folk etymology” and related phenomena for historical linguists. Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal Papers T Eythórsson 307–28 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Maiden M. 2011a. Allomorphy, autonomous morphology and phonological conditioning in the history of the Daco-Romance present and subjunctive. Trans. Philol. Soc. 109:59–91
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Maiden M. 2011b. Morphophonological persistence. The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, Vol. 1: Structures M Maiden, JC Smith, A Ledgeway 155–215, 699–706 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Maiden M. 2013. The Latin “third stem” and its Romance descendants. Diachronica 30:492–530
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Maiden M. 2016. Some lessons from history: morphomes in diachrony. See Luís & Bermúdez-Otero 33–63
  32. Maiden M. 2018a. The Romance Verb: Morphomic Structure and Diachrony Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  33. Maiden M. 2018b. Romanian iotacization and the morphology of second person singular verb-forms. The type (tu) vii, (tu) rămâi. . Rev. Roum. Linguist 63:325–40
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Maiden M. 2020a. Establishing contact: Slavonic influence on Romanian morphology. J. Lang. Contact. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Maiden M. 2020b. Un problema trascurato di morfologia storica: la terza persona plurale del presente indicativo nell'italoromanzo. Tra etimologia romanza e dialettologia P del Puente, F Guazzelli, L Molinu, S Pisano pp. 24559 Alessandria, Italy: dell'Orso
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Maiden M, Smith JC, Goldbach M, Hinzelin MO 2011. Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  37. Maschi R. 2007. Analogy and irregularity in Romance verbal morphology. Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM5) Fréjus 15–18 September 2005 G Booij et al.125–39 Bologna, Italy: Univ. Bologna
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Nevins A, Rodrigues C, Tang K 2015. The rise and fall of the L-shaped morphome: diachronic and experimental. Probus 27:101–55
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Nielsen PJ. 2019. Diachronic morphology, indexical function and a critique of the morphome analysis: the content and expression of Danish forstå. Perspectives on Language Structure and Language Change L Heltoft, I Igartua, B Joseph, K Jeppesen Kragh, L Schøsler 125–50 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Nishiyama K. 2016. The theoretical status of ren'yoo (stem) in Japanese verbal morphology. Morphology 26:65–90
    [Google Scholar]
  41. O'Neill P. 2011a. The evolution of the pretérito y tiempos afines in Ibero-Romance. Bull. Hisp. Stud. 88:851–78
    [Google Scholar]
  42. O'Neill P. 2011b. The notion of the morphome. See Maiden et al. 2011 70–94
  43. O'Neill P. 2014. The morphome in constructive and abstractive models of morphology. Morphology 24:25–70
    [Google Scholar]
  44. O'Neill P. 2015. The origin and spread of velar allomorphy in the Spanish verb. Bull. Hisp. Stud. 92:489–518
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Pușcariu S. 1937. Considérations sur le système phonétique et phonologique de la langue roumaine. Etudes de linguistique roumaine S Puşcariu 203–59 Cluj, Rom: Impr. Natl.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Round E. 2015. Rhizomorphomes, meromorphomes, and metamorphomes. Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity M Baerman, D Brown, G Corbett 29–52 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Round E. 2016. Kayardild inflectional morphotactics is morphomic. See Luís & Bermúdez-Otero 2016 228–47
  48. Santamarina A, Fernández Rei F, García Pérez C 1990–2005. Atlas lingüístico galego, Vol. 1: Morfoloxía verbal Corunna, Spain: Fund. Pedro Barrie de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Saramandu N. 1992. Iotacizarea verbelor și structura dialectală a dacoromânei. Limba Română 41:83–87
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Sims-Williams H. 2016. Analogical levelling and optimisation: the treatment of pointless lexical allomorphy in Greek. Trans. Philol. Soc. 114:315–38
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Wälchli B. 2018. The morphologization of negation constructions in Nalca (Mek, Tanah Papua), or, how nothing easily moves to the middle of a word. Linguistics 56:1413–61
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-040220-042614
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-040220-042614
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error