Titlebook: Understanding Morphological Rules; With Special Emphasi Stela Manova Book 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 Slavic languages.S

Archipelago

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9547-3Slavic languages; Slavic morphology; cognitive grammar; conversion; inflection; linguistics; morphological

Pastry

Suggestions

Preliminaries,nts the reader with the phonological, morphonological and morphological features of Bulgarian, Russian and Serbo-Croatian, three Slavic languages from which the main part of the data analysed in the present book come. Section 1.3 acknowledges the word as a basic linguistic unit, i.e. it is argued th

潰爛

Theoretical Background,ognitive Linguistics’ (CL) (Section 2.2). Section 2.3 is devoted to the notion of prototype, which is seen as central to the understanding of the nature of morphological phenomena. Section 2.4 puts forward a set of morphological techniques corresponding to all possible cognitive operations that can

憤慨點吧

Conversion,nt book, namely that a given morphological change is not a set of uniform realizations but varies and exhibits deviations that are best describable in terms of clines, the latter constitutive parts of the derivation-inflection continuum. After a discussion on terminological matters (Section 3.1), a

得意人

ULCER

Typological and Language-Specific Adequacy of Conversion and Subtraction,al adequacy of subtraction, conversion is tackled (Section 5.1). The typological perspective in regard to conversion is primarily in relation to its bases in the two polar morphological types – the isolating and the inflecting-fusional, though examples from agglutinating languages are also considere

Barrister

Conclusions,nd subtraction. It is concluded that conversion and subtraction behave as any other morphological technique: (1) they operate in derivation as well as in inflection; (2) in derivation, conversion and subtraction have prototypical (word-class-changing) and non-prototypical (word-class-preserving) rea

Devastate

Book 2011lso positions the analysis in the context of current morphological debates. It is thus a valuable contribution both to comparative Slavic morphology and general morphological theory. Moreover, the book is the first attempt at a theory of conversion and subtraction relevant to languages with rich inf

miscreant