Inflectional Morphology: Conclusions, extensions, and alternatives

By Gregory T. Stump. 2001

416 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Law, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fdb81704b42287c7fc001a61f3e4729f0d1026a2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Law

In Political Science and International Relations

Citations in the corpus

Non-concatenative morphology as epiphenomenon (2011, background): “One response is to posit a powerful morphological component, allowing a wide variety of rules to impose alterations on base forms, as with the readjustment rules of Halle and Marantz (1993), the word formation rules of Anderson (1992), and similar assumptions in Stump (2001).”
Canonical Typology, Suppletion, and Possible Words (2007, methodology): “This view presupposes a lexical approach to morphology, which treats affixes and stems as rather similar (Stump 2001:1–3).”
The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from Serbian (2009, background): “These paradigms are considered by some contemporary linguists as a fundamental building block of language (cf., Blevins, 2006; Hockett, 1957; Matthews, 1972; Stump, 2001).”
Variable morphotactics in Information-based Morphology1 (2015, methodology): “[42] While this paper focuses on issues of morphotactics, Information-based Morphology has the ambition of being a complete theory of morphology, on a par with other inferential-realisational theories such as A-morphous Morphology (Anderson 1992), Paradigm Function Morphology (Stump 2001), or Networ”
Limits on Allomorphy: A Case Study in Nominal Suppletion (2015, background): “This raises the question whether these asymmetries can be captured in frameworks that deny that hierarchical syntactic structure plays a role in the morphology, such as word-and-paradigm approaches (e.g., Anderson 1992, Stump 2001).”
On the Status of Stems in Morphological Theory (2003, background): “Or, sound/meaning connections at the word level are treated as essentially arbitrary, so that there is no morphological ‘theory’ per se, surely the most pessimistic option (this seems to be the case with Stump 2001).”
Periphrasis as collocation (2015, methodology): “The high prevalence of Pān ˙ inian splits motivates the use of a specificity ordering on rules of exponence, variously implemented under the name of the elsewhere condition (Kiparsky, 1973), the subset principle (Halle & Marantz, 1993), or Pān ˙ ini’s principle (Stump, 2001).”