PL EN


2004 | 128 | 4 | 441-445
Article title

Words, morphemes, suffixes

Authors
Title variants
Languages of publication
HU
Abstracts
EN
This paper is a rejoinder to István Pete's two articles in previous numbers of this periodical, in which he intends to 'redefine' the concept of the morpheme, and within it that of the zero morpheme. I take issue with him on several counts; primarily by arguing against his view that the morpheme can be defined as a theory-independent notion, and claim that, just as in the case of the phoneme and most other terms in linguistics, what we understand by morpheme depends on the theses, principles, etc., of particular theories. In a modular grammar, for example, it is the needs of the Lexicon, i.e., the idiosyncratic elements to be listed, the 'listemes' of di Sciullo and Williams (1987), that determine the basic units, which then other approaches might call morphemes. The rest is a defense of the analyses put forward in Kenesei (2000) and criticised by Pete (2004a, 2004b).
Keywords
Year
Volume
128
Issue
4
Pages
441-445
Physical description
Document type
ARTICLE
Contributors
author
  • I. Kenesei, no address given, contact the journal editor
References
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
CEJSH db identifier
06HUAAAA01042398
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.f6eab68d-c236-3b38-b2fc-081c9586fd0d
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.