The study also highlights the constructs of current linguistic theory, arguing for distinctive features and the notion 'onset' and against some of the claims of Optimality Theory and Usage-based accounts.
The importance of Henk Zeevat's new monograph cannot be overstated. [...] I recommend it to anyone who combines interests in language, logic, and computation [...]. David Beaver, University of Texas at Austin
EDITOR: Katamba, Francis X. TITLE: Morphology SUBTITLE: Critical Concepts in Linguistics SERIES: Critical Concepts in Linguistics YEAR: 2003 PUBLISHER: Routledge (Taylor and Francis) ISBN: 0415270782 (for the six-volume set)
Kalyanamalini Sahoo, language consultant
[This is the second part of the review, containing the Synopses of Volumes IV-VI, the Critical Evaluation, and the References. To read Part I: <a href="http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-1351.html" target="_blank">http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-1351.html</a> -- Eds.]
VOLUME IV -- MORPHOLOGY: ITS RELATION TO SYNTAX A major theme running through many of the papers in this volume is how similar or different is morphology to syntax? Many linguists have argued for an intimate relationship between syntactic operations and word formation. In this context, chapters discuss topics concerning inflectional morphology, incorporation, compounds, clitics, causatives and headedness of words.
The opening contribution 'The mirror principle and morpho-syntactic explanation' (Source: Linguistic Inquiry 16(3) (1985): 373-415.) by Mark Baker (ch 42), advocates the Mirror Principle which claims that there are processes in the languages of the world that have both a syntactic as well as a morphological component. Hence, ''Morphological derivations must directly reflect syntactic derivations (and vice versa)''. The Mirror Principle ties morphology and syntax together in such a way that any constraint discovered in one system will automatically constitute a constraint on the other system. Baker focuses on the interaction between syntactic rules that change grammatical functions and the corresponding affixation phenomena in the morphological component that are induced by the changes of grammatical function. He claims that the Mirror Principle or the structure of the grammar that derives it plays an important role in explanatory generative grammar, supported by both theoretical necessity and empirical fact.
In chapter 43 'The agreement hierarchy'(Source: Journal of Linguistics 15 (1979): 203-224.), G. C. Corbett focuses on agreement phenomena, another area of inflectional morphology where there is a clear relatedness of morphology to syntax. Considering alternative agreement forms of certain items, he postulates a hierarchy of agreement positions and justifies the hierarchy by data from a variety of languages. He discusses the status of the hierarchy and the type of predictions it makes. He advocates that agreement is not a discrete phenomenon, rather that some items 'agree more' than others. The further an element stands from its controller in terms of syntactic distance, the more likely is semantic agreement, and the agreement hierarchy provides the primary measure for this distance.
In chapter 44 'Walpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages'(Source: Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1 (1983): 5- 47.), Ken Hale asks the question whether there are clearly defined typological differences between configurational languages (e.g. English) and non-configurational languages like Warlpiri, which are characterized by free word order, use of syntactically discontinuous expressions and extensive use of null anaphora. He discusses the important role played by case in the dependent-marking non-configurational languages. Free word order is made possible by rich inflectional morphology.
In chapter 45 'The evolution of noun incorporation' (Source: Language 60 (4) (1984): 847-894.), examining noun incorporation across a large number of geographically and genetically diverse languages, Marianne Mithun identifies the phenomenon as a device as it derives lexical items, not sentences. Hence, noun incorporation falls in the domain of morphology rather than syntax, and in the process of evolution can possibly revive as a productive system of affixation.
The next two studies treat compounds.
In chapter 46 'Be-heading the word'(Source: Journal of Linguistics 26 (1990):1-31.), Laurie Bauer takes a highly skeptical view of the analysis of a syntactic, X-bar theoretic analysis of compounds that assumes that they have heads analogous to the heads of syntactic constituents. Considering the morphological structure of English, she argues that the criteria usually used for deciding headedness in syntax do not apply well in morphology, and provide conflicting results. She finds William's (cf. next chapter) 'Righthand Head Rule' internally inconsistent and argues that heads have no place in morphology.
In chapter 47, On the notions ''lexically related'' and ''head of a word'' (Source: Linguistic Inquiry 12(2) (1981): 245-274.), Edwin Williams proposes a full-fledged syntactic treatment of compounds in terms of heads and maximal projections (cf. Selkirk, ch. 13 and Lieber ch. 27). He presents a theory of inflection whereby the inflectional system of languages will consist of two inventories, a set of syntactic features and a set of morphological subcategories, along with a mapping between them. He stipulates that the set of morphological subcategories must form a connected constellation where each arc meets the definition of ''relatedness'', based on the notion ''head of a word''. The definition of ''relatedness'' solves the paradoxes involving inflection inside of compounds and predicts that inflectional endings will not occur between a stem and a derivational affix. He provides a unified theory of affixational morphology, in which derivational affixes and inflectional affixes need not be separated in the rules of formation.
Chapter 48 'Functional heads and inflectional morphemes' (Source: Linguistic Review 8 (1984): 389-417.), written in the principles and parameters model of generative grammar, also deals with heads in morphology. Margaret Speas examines the relationship between syntactic structure and inflectional morphology in Navajo. She shows that although Navajo inflectional morphology seems to obey the Mirror Principle (ch 42) to some extent, it fails to confirm to syntactic head-to-head movement. She claims that morpheme order is constrained by head-to-head movement, but is not completely determined by principles of syntax. Considering syntactic derivations involving lowering and long head movement, she shows that although both the derivations can capture the facts, still both have properties to add undesirable power to the grammar. So, to avoid such problems, she proposes that inflected forms can be base-generated as such and then move to accomplish feature checking. Of course it weakens the predictions about the correlation between morpheme order and syntactic structure in that it allows the agreement morphology to get attached to some other head, but not project its own structure, but that is the desirable result.
Heads in morphology are further explored in chapter 49 'Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP'(Source: Linguistic Inquiry 20 (3) (1989): 365-424.) by Jean-Yves Pollock. Making a contrastive study of English and French syntactic constructions like sentence negation, question, adverbs, floating quantifiers, and quantification at a distance, he proposes morphology at the heart of syntax. Of course, such a proposal depends crucially on Chomsky's (1955) claim that tense and agreement morphemes should be treated as separate syntactic entities at an abstract level of representation.
The close relationship between morphology and syntax is also examined in chapter 50 'A typology of causatives: form, syntax and meaning' (Source: R. M. W.Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), Changing Valency, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 30-83.) by R. M. W. Dixon. Dixon surveys causatives typologically with respect to three parameters: their meanings, syntax, morphological marking; and the inter- relation between the three parameters. In the languages he has studied, he suggests that if a language has two or more different causative mechanisms the mechanisms will contrast semantically.
In chapter 51 'The best clitic: constraint conflict in morphosyntax'(Source: Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1997, pp. 169-196.), Jane Grimshaw's contribution uses Optimality Theory (OT) in the domain of morphosyntax. Considering Romance languages, she exemplifies the employment of OT in syntax to resolve morphosyntactic conflict in ''opaque clitics'': cases where the realization of clitics in a given context is not what would be expected given the choice of clitics in isolation.
VOLUME V -- MORPHOLOGY: ITS RELATION TO SEMANTICS AND THE LEXICON The volume starts with an article dealing with the interplay between form and meaning in morphology, followed by five articles dealing with productivity in word-formation, and 4 articles dealing with the nature of the lexicon and lexical representations.
In chapter 52 'Form and Meaning - their interplay in morphology' (Source: Travaux linguistiques de Prague 4 (1971): 157-187.), Ivan Poldauf explores the interplay between form and meaning in morphology. Considering morphological units of the Czech declension, he illustrates that with reference to the form and/or the meaning, linguistic units take part in the formation of a sentence, and this reference enables the speaker to make proper use of the units in his performance irrespective of the characteristic of each unit separately.
The next five contributions deal with different issues to do with productivity in word-formation.
In chapter 53, 'Producing morphologically complex words'(Source: Linguistics 26 (1988): 641-655.), Frank Anshen and Mark Aronoff use psychological, historical and statistical evidence to support the hypothesis that certain morphologically complex words are stored fully- formed in the lexicon while others are manufactured as needed.
In chapter 54 'On the role of semantics in productivity change'(Source: Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology, Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications, 1988, pp. 139-154.), Jaap van Marle investigates the role of semantics in productivity change diachronically. Considering Dutch deverbal adjectives, he discusses the questions that in the diachronic dimension of morphological productivity, how the change from productive to non-productive and the vice-versa takes place.
In chapter 55 'Productivity and English derivation: a corpus-based study' (Source: Linguistics 29 (1991): 801-843.), Harald Baayen and Rochelle Lieber review definition and criteria for productivity available in the literature before going on to establish empirically in a corpus-based study, the relative degree of productivity of a number of English derivational suffixes. They propose a number of statistical measures of productivity which focus on the quantitative weight of linguistic restrictions on word-formation rules.
In chapter 56 'The polysemy of -ize derivatives: on the role of semantics in word formation' (Source: Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1997, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988, pp. 219- 242.), Ingo Plag puts forward a unifying analysis of the suffix -ize in English. He teases out the various meanings of the -ize suffix and argues that all the meanings of -ize are derived from one single semantic representation, which is claimed to be the underspecified Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS) of possible -ize derivatives. He claims that the semantic interpretation of a given derivative can be construed by mapping the different participants and the base onto the semantic representation as expressed in the LCS. This provides a springboard for a discussion of the status of word-formation rules in the lexicon as well as the role of semantic and pragmatic factors in word-formation.
In chapter 57 'When nouns surface as verbs'(Source: Language 55(4) (1979): 767-811.), Eve V. Clark and Herbert H. Clark explore zero derivation resulting in nouns surfacing as verbs in English. They argue that although denominal verbs belong to a unified morphological family, they do not allow a unified semantic description. They propose that pragmatic as well as syntactic considerations play an important role in the creation of verbs from nouns by conversion. Such derivations make use of notions such as kinds of situations, rationality, ready computability, uniqueness, the speaker's and listener's mutual knowledge, and certain syntactic constraints.
The next group of articles deals with the nature of the lexicon and lexical representations.
In chapter 58 'Theory of the lexicon' (Source: Jack Hoeksma, Categorial Morphology, New York: Garland, 1985, pp. 1-31.), Jack Hoeksma outlines a theory of the lexicon in a lexicalist approach. Contrary to Bloomfield's (Bloomfield 1933:274) assertion that the lexicon is the appendix to the grammar that contains all the irregularities, Hoeksma prefers for a lexicon that is seen as a part of the grammar that contains the vocabulary and rules of word-formation belonging to a particular language. Hoeksma disputes the claim made by advocates of word-based theories of morphology (e.g. Aronoff 1976) that regular word-formation processes are word-based. After drawing the familiar distinction between potential lexicon (the set of possible words) and actual lexicon (the set of existing words), Hoeksma outlines a formal model of the potential lexicon (with word-formation rules formulated) using categorial grammar. The potential lexicon contains a set of lexical entries based on a set of word-formation rules. Lexical entries are defined consisting of three components: a phonological, a categorial, and a semantic component. The word-formation rules are characterized by the number of arguments they take. Phonological subcategorization and the interaction between morphology and syntax have been considered.
In ch. 59 'Morphology is in the lexicon!'(Source: Linguistic Inquiry 15(3) (1984): 474-498.), in answer to Anderson's ''where is morphology?'' (ch.12), John Jensen and Margaret Stong-Jensen argue for a Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis where all morphology is placed unequivocally in the lexicon. The lexicon is the locus of all types of word formation and of the phonological processes that interact with word formation. The lexical model is justified over Anderson's interpretive model in the following ways: i) Lexical morphology allows derivational morphology to have access to inflectional forms as a parameter of universal grammar. ii) Lexical morphology accounts for inflections in terms of independently needed principles such as feature percolation without having to resort to new devices such as Anderson's stipulated disjunctivity. iii) A lexical morphology formulated with a morphemic approach allows compounding, derivation, and inflection to be unified under a single type of operation, that of attaching a morpheme in accordance with its subcategorization frame.
A different perspective on the lexicon, also endorsing a lexicalist stance, is provided in chapter 60 'Lexical entries and lexical rules' (Source: Stephen Pinker, Language Learnability and Language Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984, pp. 291-347.), in which Steven Pinker considers the issue of lexical entries and lexical rules from the point of view of learnability in language acquisition. He shows that by using several types of learning mechanisms the child can acquire a domain of grammatical rules by exploiting certain linguistic regularities. He proposes a theory in which the child can learn lexical entries by using some mechanisms in such a way that the mechanisms should refrain from overgeneration.
Unlike most of the studies of the lexicon considered in the last few paragraphs, which are concerned with the nature of the grammatical aspect of lexical entries and how they are represented by rules in the lexicon, in chapter 61 'Approaches to lexical semantic representation'(Source: D. Walker, A. Zampolli and N. Calzorari (eds), Automating the Lexicon, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994, pp. 53-91.), Beth Levin deals with the representation of semantic information in the lexicon. For lexical semantic representation, she gives preference to the predicate decomposition approach (Carter 1976, Jackendoff 1976, 1983) over the semantic role list (Fillmore, 1968). She claims that the predicate decomposition approach is the most successful at allowing the identification of the natural classes of verbs and classes of arguments that figure in the generalizations involving the syntactic properties and entailment of verbs. Notions like agency, causation, location, and motion play an important role too. Gruber's (1965) and Jackendoff's (1976, 1983) notion of field for lexical organization provides taking advantage of economies inherent in the lexicon.
VOLUME VI -- MORPHOLOGY: ITS PLACE IN THE WIDER CONTEXT Along with two articles on computational morphology and three articles dealing with historical linguistics, this volume contains a series of articles addressing psycholinguistic issues including 4 articles on lexical storage, retrieval and production as well as acquisition, 2 articles dealing with the storage of words with inflectional morphemes, 3 articles dealing with the acquisition of morphology, and 3 articles concerned with the disintegration of morphology in language disorders.
In chapter 62 'Lexical Representation' (Source: B. Butterworth (ed.), Language Production. Vol.2, London: Academic Press, 1983, pp.257-294.), B. Butterworth gives an account of how words are represented in the mind. He suggests that all forms of words including base forms as well as compounds have their own lexical representation in the mind.
In chapter 63 'Regular morphology and the lexicon' (Source: Language and Cognitive Processes 10(5) (1995): 425-455.), Joan Bybee examines three models of lexical storage and processing: the dual-processing model of Pinker, Marcus and others, the connectionist model of Marchman, Plunkett, Seidenberg and others and the network model of Bybee and Langacker. She discusses that according to the connectionist model and network model the type frequency of a morphological pattern plays an important role in determining productivity. Considering the nature of source-oriented and product-oriented lexical schemas in the network model, she claims that the interaction of phonological properties of lexical patterns with frequency and the interaction of type and token frequency influence the degree of productivity.
In chapter 64 'Derivational Rules and the internal lexicon'(Source: Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 17 (1978): 61-71.), in a study of derivational morphology, Donald G. MacKay, contrasts two approaches to lexical storage and word production, one where complex derived nouns are formed by rules for combining stems and affixes separately stored in the lexicon and the other where mono-morphemic words are stored whole. Retrieval experiments showed slower retrieval times for complex nouns than simple nouns, which suggests that complex nouns are not stored as wholes but are formed by rule. He proposes a model of lexical retrieval processes incorporating derivational processes.
Chapters 65 and 66 deal with the storage of words with inflectional morphemes.
In chapter 65 'Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms' (Source: Memory & Cognition 14(1) (1986): 17-26.), Joseph Paul Stemberger and Brian MacWhinney show that naturally occurring speech errors indicate that high frequency inflected forms are entered as separate entries in the mental lexicon and not manufactured as needed.
In chapter 66 'Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon?' (Source: Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan (eds), Theoretical Morphology: approaches in modern linguistics, London: Academic Press, 1988, pp. 101- 116.), Stemberger and MacWhinney revisit the question of lexical storage. The second study confirms that irregular forms as well as high-frequency regular forms appear to be stored in the lexicon. However, low-frequency regular inflected forms are not stored in the lexicon. So, performance factors like frequency are shown to influence lexical storage.
In chapter 67 'A Spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production' (Source: Psychological Review 93(3)(1986): 283-321.), Gary S. Dell presents a theory of production called the spreading-activation theory, which is designed to account for lexical retrieval in sentence production with special emphasis on the phonological form of words. The theory is motivated by an investigation of errors in speech production. It combines what Dell calls a spreading-activation retrieval mechanism with assumptions about linguistic structure and levels of analysis, including morphology. The model envisages lexical entries as a tagged network of ordered semantic, syntactic, phonological and morphological properties of a lexical item. Errors arise if the retrieval of all the various tags is not perfectly synchronized in speech production. Speech errors, however, in the theory are seen not as malfunctions, but rather as the consequence of the need for language production to be productive, coupled with some assumptions about the way that linguistic knowledge is represented and retrieved.
The following three articles are concerned with the acquisition of morphology. In chapter 68 'The child's learning of English morphology' (Source: Word 14(1958): 150-177.), Jean Berko investigates how children, ranging from four to seven years in age, acquire English morphology.
In ch. 69 and 70, the focus shifts to cross-linguistic generalizations about the order of morpheme acquisition in second language learning. To what extent does the learning of the morphology of a second language reflect Universal Grammar? Is it analogous to the acquisition of the morphology of a first language?
In chapter 69 'Functional categories and acquisition orders' (Source: Language Learning 44(1) (1994): 159-180.), Helmut Zobl and Juana Liceras examine the functional category acquisition by L1 and L2 learners and make a principled explanation of salient differences between the L1 and L2 morpheme orders. The study does not make specific predictions about order of acquisition, but shows interesting syntactic parallels between bound and free morphemes within and across categories. It gives insights on the category-specific development of functional projections in L1 acquisition; and cross-categorial development of functional projections in L2 acquisition.
In chapter 70 'Implications of the morpheme studies for second language acquisition' (Source: Review of Applied Linguistics 39-40 (1978): 93- 102.), considering the order of acquisition of morphemes by the second language learners, Diane Larsen-Freeman discusses how second language learners regularly produce certain morphemes more accurately than others. She suggests that non-native speakers learn to insert the appropriate morphemes in their speech in an attempt to match the gestalt of the native- speaker input to which they are exposed. Rather than treating the morphemes analytically and holding to the rules of the morpheme, the learner attempts to have his speech product conform to the contour of the input, and the morphemes function as filler syllables which aid him to sound more native-like.
The next three articles are concerned with the disintegration of morphology in language disorders. In chapter 71 'Aphasics' attention to grammatical morphemes' (Source: Language and Speech 20 (1977): 11-19.), Cheryl Goodenough, Edgar B. Zurif and Sandra Weintraub show that agramatism in aphasics results in a failure to attend to normally semantically empty morphemes. Thus, aphasic patients with anterior brain damage register only those words that are not semantically empty.
This finding is further elaborated by Elizabeth Bates, Angela Friederici and Beverly Wulfeck in chapter 72 'Grammatical morphology in aphasia: evidence from three languages' (Source: Cortex 23 (1987): 545-574.). In an experimental study of the inflectional morphology of English, Italian and German aphasics, Bates et al. suggest that the agrammatism/paragrammatism distinction does not work well for richly- inflected languages.
In chapter 73 'Morphological Composition in the lexical output system' (Source: Cognitive Neuropsychology 8(5) (1991): 335-367.), William Badecker and Alfonso Caramazza investigate acquired lexical impairments that result in morphological errors. They have argued that these errors result from an output impairment, and that the paraphrastic morphological forms are the result of compositional errors rather than whole-word lexical substitutions.
The next two articles present two models of computational morphology. In chapter 74 'Lexical knowledge representation and natural language processing' (Source: Artificial Intelligence 63(1993): 193-223.), James Pustejovsky and Branimir Boguraev defend a rich theory of lexical semantics making use of a knowledge representation framework. They propose that the lexicon can be seen as a generative system, where word senses are related by logical operations defined by the well-formedness rules of the semantics. They claim that such an approach of the lexicon can be used to improve the overall robustness of automatic natural language processing - both in terms of lexicon acquisition and language learnability.
In chapter 75 'Network morphology: a DATR account of Russian nominal inflection' (Source: Journal of Linguistics 29 (1993): 113-142.), Greville G.Corbett and Norman M. Fraser argue for an analysis of Russian inflectional morphology using the monostratal declarative theory called Network Morphology, which uses the lexical representation language DATR.
The volume concludes with three articles dealing with historical linguistics.
In chapter 76 'Morphological change: towards a typology' (Source: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical Morphology, Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 29, Berlin: Mouton, 1980, pp. 1-50.), Henning Andersen discusses a wide-ranging typological study of morphological change.
In chapter 77 'Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change' (Source: Lingua e Stile 20(3)(1985): 308-318.), Christian Lehmann examines grammaticalization, a diachronic process that turns lexemes into grammatical affixes. He argues that synchronically, grammaticalization helps to identify the subcategories of a given grammatical category.
In chapter 78 'La nature des process dits <<analogiques>>' (Source: Acta Linguistica 5(1)(1949): 15-37.), Jerzy Kurylowicz considers the role of analogy diachronically in morphological change.
The set ends with an index of terminologies used in all the volumes.
This set of volumes is an unique attempt to offer critical concepts of morphology and its stance in different branches of linguistics, written by leading scholars in the field (although it does not contain any article by the distinguished morphologists Andrew Spencer, or Francis Katamba; and for this, of course the editor mentions that ''the inclusion of articles that are not readily available was prioritized''). Personally, I feel, the inclusion of some articles by the above-said morphologists, and even the inclusion of some articles concerning how morphology is treated in the contemporary lexicalist theories like Head Driven Phrase-Structure Grammar (HPSG) and/or Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) would have made the set more complete. This set is like an encyclopaedia in morphology. It can satisfy all its readers across theoretical approaches and across linguistic disciplines: beginning with various approaches to word structure and morphological primes - from inflectional and derivational morphology like compounding, reduplication, etc. to phonological explanation like prosodic morphology; morphosyntactic explanation like incorporation, cliticization, headedness of the word; semantic explanation like polysemy, complex words, zero-derivations, and lexical semantic representations; pragmatic explanations like derivational rules, grammaticalization, diachronic change and synchronic variations; and even applications like natural language processing and psycholinguistic issues like second language acquisition.
In addition to the wealth of language data covered, and numerous types of theoretical approaches taken into consideration, the extensive range of morphological phenomena on all levels of linguistic structure discussed in the set is a reflection of the stimulating effect the set can have for researchers in the field. Providing a critical introduction to the central concepts and perennial problems of morphology, it equips readers with the skills to analyze a wealth of classic morphological issues. The inclusion of an index of important terms used in the volumes, makes this set very reader-friendly.
Although the composition of chapters in the volumes is well planned, somehow, I feel that ch. 47 could have preceded ch. 46 as ch. 46 deals directly contra ch. 47 William's notion of 'head of a word'. In ch. 46, be- heading the word Bauer claims that ''heads have no place in morphology''. And chapter 60 dealing with psycholinguistic issues should have been included in volume 6 instead of volume 5.
One more drawback is that the set is not proofread well. It has a number of misprints, such as, 'dragrams' for 'diagram'(p20), 'linguists' for 'linguistic' (p10), 'syliable' for 'syllable'(p22), 'categorical grammar' for 'categorial grammar'(p10), missing punctuation (p11) etc. And a very sad thing is that even the authors names have been misspelt, e.g. 'Gleville Corbett and Norma Fraser' for 'Greville Corbett and Norman Fraser'(p12). Especially, the name of the author 'Greville G. Corbett' has been cited as G. C. Corbett (p viii, IV-p48), and as 'Gleville Corbett' (p8). If these drawbacks are taken care of, it would substantially increase the quality of the work.
In conclusion, this set of volumes is invaluable both empirically and theoretically. It is highly recommended not only to morphologists, but also to scholars in all other areas in linguistics (i.e. phonology, syntax, semantics, typology, computational linguistics, psycholinguistics, etc. It is not only a rich source of reference for important works in the field, but is also a thought provoking and inspiring source for much further research. It will give an opportunity for everyone to compare different approaches taken by scholars of different schools of thought.
Aronoff, M. (1976) Word Formation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bloch, B. (1947) English Verb Inflection. Language 23: 399-418.
Bloomfield, L. (1933) Language. New York:Holt.
Bloomfield, L. (1933) Language. Reprint, Allen & Unwin, London 1976.
Bresnan, J. (1971) ''Sentence Stress and Syntactic Transformations,'' Language 47, 257-281.
Bresnan, J. (1972) ''Stress and Syntax,'' Language 48, 326-342.
Carter, R. J. (1976) 'Some Constraints on Possible Words', Semantikos, 1: 27-66.
Chomsky, Noam (1955) The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, Plenum, New York (1975).
Fillmore, C. J.(1968) 'The Case for Case', in E. Bach and R. T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston: 1-88.
Gruber, J.S. (1965) 'Studies in Lexical Relations', doctoral dissertation, MIT Cambridge, Mass.
Halle, M.(1979) ''Formal vs Functional Considerations in Phonology'', in B. Brogyany (ed.) Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory Vol. 11. John Benjamins B. V., Amsterdam.
Harris, Z. (1941) ''Linguistic Structure of Hebrew'', Journal of the American Oriental Society 62, 143-167.
Harris, Z. (1951) Methods in Structural Linguistics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Jackendoff, R. S. (1976) 'Towards an Explanatory Semantic Representation', Linguistic Inquiry, 7: 89-150.
Jackendoff, R. S. (1983) Semantics and Cognition, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Lees, R. B. (1960) The Grammar of English Nominalizations, Mouton, The Hague.
Lieber, R.(1980) On the Organization of the Lexicon, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Whitney, W. D.(1889) Sanskrit Grammar. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press.
Williams, E. (1981) ''On the notions 'Lexically Related' and 'Head of a Word','' Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245-274.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER:
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Kalyanamalini Sahoo has extensively worked on morphosyntactic investigations in the South-Asian language Oriya, including applicational fields like computational morphology. She received her Ph.D. from Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Trondheim, Norway, in the year 2001 and is primarily interested in computational morphology and syntax.