pp 1–19 | Cite as

Baerman, Matthew (ed): The Oxford Handbook of Inflection

First published in paperback 2017. [First published as hardback 2015.] ISBN 978-0-19-880861-9 (pbk). Xxi + 685 p. Oxford: OUP
  • Hans-Olav EngerEmail author
Book Review


Readers of Morphology may not feel that they need arguments why an Oxford Handbook of Inflection1 is a laudable enterprise, but it may be worth remembering that there is an Oxford Handbook for just about every subject under the sun, including Ancient Anatolia and PositivePsychology. The boom in ‘handbooks’, in linguistics as in other sciences, reflects a tendency towards specialisation and fragmentation; no scholar can manage to read and keep up with the very large and highly specialised output within so many sub-disciplines. It is instructive to compare the volume under review to the Blackwell Handbook of Morphology (Spencer and Zwicky 1998), which, twenty years ago, aimed at covering ‘Morphology’ in toto. By contrast, the volume under review deals with ‘Inflection’ only, and there are no less than three sister volumes: The Oxford Handbook of Compounding (Lieber and Štekauer (Eds.) 2009), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology (Lieber and Štekauer (Eds.) 2014),...


  1. Ackerman, F., & Malouf, R. (2013). Morphological organization: the low conditional entropy conjecture. Language, 89(3), 429–464. Google Scholar
  2. Ackerman, F., & Malouf, R. (2015). The no blur principle effects as an emergent property of language systems. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 41, 1–14. Google Scholar
  3. Albright, A. (2003). A quantitative study of Spanish paradigm gaps. Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, S. R. (2017). Words and paradigms. Transactions of the Philological Society, 115(1), 1–13. Google Scholar
  6. Anttila, R. (2003). Analogy: the warp and woof of cognition. In R. D. Janda & B. D. Joseph (Eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 425–440). Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  7. Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  8. Audring, J., & Jackendoff, R. (2018). Relational morphology in the parallel architecture. In J. Audring & F. Masini (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of morphological theory (pp. 390–409). Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
  9. Audring, J. & Masini, F. (Eds.) (2018). The Oxford handbook of morphological theory. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
  10. Baerman, M. (2012). Paradigmatic chaos in Nuer. Language, 88(3), 467–494. Google Scholar
  11. Baerman, M., Brown, D., & Corbett, G. G. (2017). Morphological complexity. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar
  12. Bermudez-Otero, R. (2013). The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features. Probus, 25(1), 3–103. Google Scholar
  13. Bjerkan, K. M. (2000). Verbal morphology in specifically language impaired children. Oslo. Google Scholar
  14. Blevins, J. P. (2016). Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
  15. Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
  16. Booij, G. et al. (Eds.) (2000–2004). Morphologie/morphology. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  17. Braunmüller, K. (1984). Morphologische Undurchsichtigkeit—ein Charakteristikum kleiner Sprachen. Kopenhagener Beiträge zur Germanistischen Linguistik, 22, 48–68. Google Scholar
  18. Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  19. Bybee, J. L. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar
  20. Bye, P., & Svenonius, P. (2012). Nonconcatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. In J. Trommer (Ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence: the state of the art (pp. 427–495). Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
  21. Carstairs, A. (1983). Paradigm economy. Journal of Linguistics, 19, 115–128. Google Scholar
  22. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1994). Inflection classes, gender and the principle of contrast. Language, 70(4), 737–788. Google Scholar
  23. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2005). Basic terminology. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 5–23). Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  24. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2010). The evolution of morphology. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
  25. Chomsky, N. A. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 184–221). Waltham: Ginn. Google Scholar
  26. Dahl, Ö. (2004). The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  27. Dammel, A. (2011). Konjugationsklassenwandel. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  28. Enger, H.-O. (2010). How do words change inflection class? Evidence from Norwegian. Language Sciences, 32(3), 366–379. Google Scholar
  29. Enger, H.-O. (2014). Reinforcement in inflection classes. Word Structure, 7(2), 153–181. Google Scholar
  30. Enger, H.-O. (2017). Vocabular clarity and insular Scandinavian: a response to Thorgeirsson. Folia Linguistica, 51(3), 527–536. Google Scholar
  31. Enger, H.-O. (Forthcoming a). In defence of morphomic analyses. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia. Google Scholar
  32. Enger, H.-O. (Forthcoming b). Thoughts on morphomes—on a Scandinavian background. In A. Dammel & O. Schallert (Eds.), Morphological variation—theoretical and empirical perspectives. In press Google Scholar
  33. Fertig, D. (2013). Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh: EUP. Google Scholar
  34. Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
  35. Hudson, R. A. (1996). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar
  36. Kemmer, S. (1993). The middle voice. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  37. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
  38. Lass, R. (1984). Phonology. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar
  39. Lieber, R. & Štekauer, P. (Eds.) (2009). The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
  40. Lieber, R. & Štekauer, P. (Eds.) (2014). The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
  41. Maiden, M. (2009). Where does heteroclisis come from? Evidence from Romanian dialects. Morphology, 19, 59–86. Google Scholar
  42. Maiden, M. (2018a). The Romance verb: Morphomic structure and diachrony. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
  43. Maiden, M. (2018b). New thoughts on an old puzzle. Revue Romane, 53(2), 217–260. Google Scholar
  44. Maiden, M., & O’Neill, P. (2010). Morphomic defectiveness. In M. Baerman, G. Corbett, & D. Brown (Eds.), Defective paradigms: missing forms and what they tell us (pp. 103–124). London: OUP/British Academy. Google Scholar
  45. Matthews, P. H. (1972). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar
  46. Matthews, P. H. (1991). Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar
  47. Nesset, T. (2008). Abstract phonology in a concrete model. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  48. Nübling, D. (2000). Prinzipien der Irregularisierung. Eine kontrastive Untersuchung von zehn Verben in zehn germanischen Sprachen (LA 415). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar
  49. Nübling, D. (2008). Was tun mit Flexionsklassen? Deklinationsklassen und ihr Wandel im Deutschen und seinen Dialekten. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, 75(3), 282–330. Google Scholar
  50. Siemund, P. (2011). Introduction. In P. Siemund (Ed.), Linguistic universals and language variation (pp. 1–20). Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  51. Spencer, A., & Zwicky, A. (1998). Handbook of morphology. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  52. Stewart, T. (2016). Contemporary morphological theories: a user’s guide. Edinburgh: EUP. Google Scholar
  53. Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar
  54. Stump, G. (2006). Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language, 82, 279–322. Google Scholar
  55. Trudgill, P. (2011). Sociolinguistic typology: social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
  56. Wurzel, W. U. (1984). Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Google Scholar
  57. Wurzel, W. U. (1989). Von der Inadäquatheit einer Affixmorphologie. In Linguistische Studien, Reihe A, 194 (pp. 277–298). Google Scholar
  58. Zimmer, C. (2016). Die Markierung des Genitiv(s) im Deutschen: Empirie und theoretische Implikationen von morphologischer Variation. Dissertation. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dep. of Linguistics and Scandinavian StudiesUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations