What happens phonetically in the production of stems in words such as days and daze? Do inflectional stems differ phonetically from monomorphemic words? Can these differences be perceived? This volume aims to answer these questions in a replication project by investigating data from two corpora and a production experiment, as well as by extending this research with two perception experiments. It investigates what happens phonetically in the stems of words that end in homophonous suffixes, and whether listeners can perceive these subtle phonetic differences. Two potential effects were termed; categorical paradigm uniformity, in which stems of words ending in [s, z] are expected to have longer durations if these words are morphologically complex (e.g. days is longer than daze), as well as gradient paradigm uniformity, in which the frequency of related words is expected to have an influence on paradigm members (e.g. day influences days). Findings from these studies contribute to a growing body of research in the field of morphophonetics.

What happens phonetically in the production of stems in words such as days and daze? Do inflectional stems differ phonetically from monomorphemic words? Can these differences be perceived? This volume aims to answer these questions in a replication project by investigating data from two corpora and a production experiment, as well as by extending this research with two perception experiments. It investigates what happens phonetically in the stems of words that end in homophonous suffixes, and whether listeners can perceive these subtle phonetic differences. Two potential effects were termed; categorical paradigm uniformity, in which stems of words ending in [s, z] are expected to have longer durations if these words are morphologically complex (e.g. days is longer than daze), as well as gradient paradigm uniformity, in which the frequency of related words is expected to have an influence on paradigm members (e.g. day influences days). Findings from these studies contribute to a growing body of research in the field of morphophonetics.

This is the latest addition to a group of handbooks covering the field of morphology, alongside The Oxford Handbook of Case (2008), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding (2009), and The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology (2014). It provides a comprehensive state-of-the-art overview of work on inflection - the expression of grammatical information through changes in word forms. The volume's 24 chapters are written by experts in the field from a variety of theoretical backgrounds, with examples drawn from a wide range of languages. The first part of the handbook covers the fundamental building blocks of inflectional form and content: morphemes, features, and means of exponence. Part 2 focuses on what is arguably the most characteristic property of inflectional systems, paradigmatic structure, and the non-trivial nature of the mapping between function and form. The third part deals with change and variation over time, and the fourth part covers computational issues from a theoretical and practical standpoint. Part 5 addresses psycholinguistic questions relating to language acquisition and neurocognitive disorders. The final part is devoted to sketches of individual inflectional systems, illustrating a range of typological possibilities across a genetically diverse set of languages from Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Australia, Europe, and South America.

This book presents new insights on the phonology-morphology interface. It discusses a wide range of central theoretical issues, including the role of paradigms in synchronic grammars, and does so in the context of a wide variety of languages including several non-Indo-European languages. Paradigm uniformity has a long tradition in pre-generative linguistics but until recently played a minor role in theoretical phonology. Optimality Theory has drawn renewed attention to paradigmatic effects, formalized by constraints comparing the surface pronunciation of morphologically related words. The ten chapters in this volume illustrate how a wide range of exceptions to regular phonological processes can be explained in this fashion. The chapters address such important theoretical questions as: do paradigms have a morphological base? If so, how is it defined? Why do paradigmatic effects hold for only certain subsets of words? In which areas of the grammar are paradigmatic effects likely to be found? The authors discuss new data from the synchronic grammars of a wide variety of unrelated languages, including: Modern Hebrew, Chimwiini and Jita (Bantu), Halkomelem (Salish), Hungarian, and Arabic.

A recurrent issue in linguistic theory and psychology concerns the cognitive status of memorized lists and their internal structure. In morphological theory, the collections of inflected forms of a given noun, verb, or adjective into inflectional paradigms are thought to constitute one such type of list. This book focuses on the question of which elements in a paradigm can stand in a relation of partial or total phonological identity. Leading scholars consider inflectional identity from a variety of theoretical perspectives, with an emphasis on both case studies and predictive theories of where syncretism and other "paradigmatic pressures" will occur in natural language. The authors consider phenomena such as allomorphy and syncretism while exploring questions of underlying representations, the formal properties of markedness, and the featural representation of conjugation and declension classes. They do so from the perspective of contemporary theories of morphology and phonology, including Distributed Morphology and Optimality Theory, and in the context of a wide range of languages, among them Amharic, Greek, Romanian, Russian, Saami, and Yiddish. The subjects addressed in the book include the role of featural decomposition of morphosyntactic features, the status of paradigms as the unit of syncretism, asymmetric effects in identity-dependence, and the selection of a base-of-derivation. The Bases of Inflectional Identity will interest linguists and cognitive scientists, especially students and scholars of phonological theory and the phonology-morphology and mind-language interfaces at graduate level and above.

A new contribution to linguistic theory, this book presents a formal framework for the analysis of word structure in human language. It sets forth the network of hypotheses constituting Paradigm Function Morphology, a theory of inflectional form whose central insight is that paradigms play an essential role in the definition of a language's system of word structure. The theory comprises several unprecedented claims, chief among which is the claim that a language's realization rules serve as clauses in the definition of a paradigm function, an overarching construct which is indispensable for capturing certain kinds of generalizations about inflectional form. This book differs from other recent works on the same subject in that it treats inflectional morphology as an autonomous system of principles rather than as a subsystem of syntax or phonology and it draws upon evidence from a diverse range of languages in motivating the proposed conception of word structure.

Paradigmatic gaps ('missing' inflected forms) have traditionally been considered to be the random detritus of a language's history and marginal exceptions to the normal functioning of its inflectional system. Arguing that this is a misperception, Inflectional Defectiveness demonstrates that paradigmatic gaps are in fact normal and expected products of inflectional structure. Sims offers an accessible exploration of how and why inflectional defectiveness arises, why it persists, and how it is learned. The book presents a theory of morphology which is rooted in the implicative structure of the paradigm. This systematic exploration of the topic also addresses questions of inflection class organization, the morphology-syntax interface, the structure of the lexicon, and the nature of productivity. Presenting a novel synthesis of established research and new empirical data, this work is significant for researchers and graduate students in all fields of linguistics.