Search Results

This chapter offers a typology of features which express meanings or functions correlating with different forms of inflected words. Morphosyntactic, morphosemantic, and purely morphological features are distinguished on the basis of their available realization options. It is suggested that the tense‐aspect‐mood‐polarity affixes of Kayardild (Tangkic) realize morphosemantic features.

This chapter examines the place of morphology in the LFG architecture. The chapter assumes a modular view of the morphological component, in line with the overall modular architecture of LFG: the morphological component has its own internal structure and obeys universal and language particular constraints on word formation that need not be shared by other levels of structure. According to this model, the morphological component associates a word form with a set of features representing the morphological structure and grammatical contribution of the word; these features are interpreted at the interface of morphology with the rest of the grammar, producing the lexical entry for the word form. This view fits well with a realizational theory of morphology; the proposals are compatible not only with explicitly paradigm-based models, but with any morphological theory which relates words to feature sets encoding their grammatical properties and structure, including finite state theories of morphology.

This chapter concentrates on the definition of the morphome as a regular distribution of identical form which does not correspond to any coherent phonological generalization or semantic or syntactic function. The classical example of such a morphome is what Aronoff termed the ‘third stem’ of Latin. With reference to this morphome and in accordance with the convention in linguistics to understand and model the complexity of natural languages by recourse to features (Kibort and Corbett 2010), I formalize the morphome as a purely morphological feature. I then analyse to what extent morphomic features are different from those interface features which are considered to be relevant not only to morphology but also to syntax or semantics; I term these features ‘morphemic features’. I examine the different uses of the imperfect indicative in Spanish and demonstrate that this morphological form corresponds to a wide and varied semantics for which there is no functional common denominator. I suggest that the difference between morphemic and morphomic features is not one of kind but one of degree.

This chapter extends the analysis of Irish to Hebrew. The resumptive pronoun system of Hebrew is shown to be similar to that of Irish. With respect to distribution, resumptive pronouns occur in every position except the highest subject. The main difference between the two languages concerns the realization of the licensers for resumptive pronouns. In Irish, the information is associated with a particular morphological series of complementizers. In Hebrew, the information is associated with complementizers in general, i.e. with the complementizer system. I first present some basic Hebrew unbounded dependency data, focusing on resumptive pronouns. I then present the lexical licensing mechanism for Hebrew resumptive pronouns and provide an analysis of the data. I also consider dialectal variation in Hebrew with respect to resumptive pronouns in questions. The chapter concludes with a comparison of the Irish and Hebrew resumptive pronoun systems.

This chapter focuses on the marine gastropod clade of Opisthobranchia. It explains that the Opisthobranchia is a major branch of Heterobranchia that include bubble shells, sea hares, and sea slugs. It describes the anatomy and morphological features of the opisthobranchs including their defense mechanism, diet, and feeding habits. It analyses phylogenetic evidence from fossil record and highlights the need for a more detailed descriptions of new and previously named taxa.

Vernacular Newfoundland English displays many grammatical features that do not occur in contemporary standard English. Most have been inherited from the regional speech of southwest England and southeast Ireland. This chapter describes the principal morphological and syntactic characteristics of this variety. Though non-standard morphological features are found in all lexical categories, they are particularly in evidence for verbs (e.g. regularisation of irregular past forms, non-past habitual –s suffix, habitual bees/do(n’t) be, the Irish-origin after perfect, bin (‘been’) as a perfect auxiliary), as well as pronouns (e.g. pronoun exchange, grammatical gender in inanimates, existential it, 2^nd person forms ye, yous and (d)ee). Among the syntactic features illustrated are negative concord, verb inversion in embedded questions, the complementiser for to, and the Irish-origin “subordinating and” construction.

This chapter describes Heterorhabdidae which can be distinguished not only from the other families of the superfamily Arietelloidea but also from all other calanoid families by these three characters: the left caudal ramus is normally fused to the anal segment, and it is longer than the right ramus; the fourth marginal seta (counted from the lateral) of the left ramus is naked and greatly elongated; and finally the basis of the male right P5 has a large, plumose inner lobe, which in some taxa is extremely large. It notes that these three characters are highly pronounced in all species examined in the study except for Paraheterorhabdus (Antirhabdus) compactus, in which the left caudal ramus is only slightly longer than the other marginal setae but not greatly elongated. It further notes that these character states of this species are believed to be reductive rather than primitive because the species shows an advanced stage of evolution in all other morphological features.

This chapter investigates the evolution and phylogeny of the gastropod clade of Vetigastropoda. It explains that Vetigastropoda, introduced in 1980, is a clade of basal marine snails that include abalone, keyhole limpets, and slit shells. It provides a summary of the major groups within Vetigastropoda including their key characters and morphological features. It highlights the importance of a multilevel approach consisting of museum studies combining new field collecting and live observations to improve understanding of the Vetigastropoda phylogeny.

This chapter provides a short historical overview of the banjo, from its origins among enslaved populations up through the so-called golden era of its development and manufacture in the late 19^th century. It begins with a definition of the instrument based on specific morphological features, taking into account various African antecedents that remain hallmarks of its design and distinctive tone production. This is followed by a discussion of the gradual emergence of mass produced banjos created for the burgeoning middle-class parlor market in the 1880s and 1890s, and the roll these same instruments have played in determining the design parameters commonly employed by contemporary makers creating open-back banjos for the old-time musical community.

The introduction comprises three subsections: the first one is devoted to the presentation of the corpus from the point of view of the typology, dating, and localization of texts; the second presents in a highly synthetic manner the general phonological characteristics of OR (inventory of phonemes—vowels and consonants—and the diatopic distribution of their allophones); the last subsection contains a brief outline of the morphological system of OR (the features are examined separately for the noun, adjective, pronoun, and the verb).