Advertisement

Typological and Language-Specific Adequacy of Conversion and Subtraction

  • Stela ManovaEmail author
Chapter
  • 425 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Morphology book series (SUMO, volume 1)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the typological and language-specific characteristics of conversion and subtraction. After a brief discussion of the typological 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 considered. In Section 5.2, cases of conversion and subtraction are explained with language-specific features such as system-adequate stress-patterns, language-specific inflectional productivity, etc. Bulgarian, Russian and Serbo-Croatian belong to the Slavic family and possess nearly the same sets of morphemes, presupposing the same or at least similar morphological solutions. At times, however, the same semantic meaning may be expressed by different morphological techniques in the three languages. Such instances are also in the scope of the chapter.

Keywords

Plural Form Slavic Language Language Type Morphological Technique Feminine Noun 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adams, Valerie. 1973. An Introduction to Modern English Word-Formation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Stephen R. 1988. Morphological Theory. In Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Vol. I: Linguistic Theory: Fondations, ed. Frederick J. Newmeyer, 146–191. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Andrejčin, Ljubomir. 1962. K morfologičeskoj xarakteristike vidovoj sistemy sovremennogo bolgarskogo jazyka. In Voprosy glagol’nogo vida, ed. Jurij Maslov, 231–237. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo inostrannoj literatury.Google Scholar
  5. Andrejčin, Ljubomir. 1978. Osnovna bălgarska gramatuka. Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo.Google Scholar
  6. Andrejčin, Ljubomir, Petja Asenova, Elena Georgieva, Kalina Ivanova, Ruselina Nicolova, Petăr Pašov, Xristo Părvev, Rusin Rusinov, Valentin Stankov, Stojan Stojanov, and Kristalina Čolakova. 1983. Gramatika na săvremennija bălgarski knižoven ezik. Tom II. Morfologija. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na BAN.Google Scholar
  7. Andrejčin, Ljubomir, L. Georgiev, St. Ilčev, N. Kostov, Iv. Lekov, St. Stojkov, and Cv. Todorov. 1999. Bălgarski tălkoven rečnik, IV izdanie, dopălneno i preraboteno ot D. Popov. Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo.Google Scholar
  8. Anić, Vladimir. 1991. Rječnik hrvatskoga jezika. Zagreb: Novi Liber.Google Scholar
  9. Battistella, Edwin L. 1990. Markedness. The Evaluative Superstructure of Language. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  10. Battistella, Edwin L. 1996. The Logic of Markedness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  12. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1987a. Subtraction in a polycentristic theory of Natural Morphology. In Rules and the lexicon, ed. E. Gussmann, 67–78. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiege Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.Google Scholar
  13. Georgiev, Vladimir I. 1985. Problemi na bălgarskija ezik. Sofija: BAN.Google Scholar
  14. Kastovsky, Dieter. 1994. Typological differences between English and German morphology and their causes. In Language Change and Language Structure: Old Germanic Languages in a Comparative Perspective, eds. Toril Swan, Endre Mørck and Olaf Jansen Westvik, 135–158. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kastovsky, Dieter. 2005. Conversion and/or zero: word-formation theory, historical linguistics, and typology. In Approaches to Conversion/Zero-Derivation.Bauer, eds. Laurie Bauer and Salvador Valera, 31–50. Münster/New York: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  16. Manova, Stela. 2003a. An input-oriented approach to inflection class assignment illustrated with Bulgarian nominal inflection. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 49, 103–118.Google Scholar
  17. Manova, Stela. 2003b. Conversion and Subtraction in Bulgarian, Russian and Serbo-Croatian. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
  18. Manova, Stela and Wolfgang U. Dressler. 2001. Gender and declensional class in Bulgarian. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 67–69, 45–81.Google Scholar
  19. Mel’čuk, Igor A. 1982. Towards a Language of Linguistics. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
  20. Stojanov, Stojan. 1993 [1964]. Gramatika na bălgarskija knižoven ezik. V izdanie. Sofija: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kl. Oxridski”.Google Scholar
  21. Švedova, Natalija Ju. et al. 1980. Russkaja grammatika. Tom I. Fonetika, Fonologija, Udarenie, Intonacija, Slovoobrazovanie, Morfologija. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’ (Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR).Google Scholar
  22. Vogel, Petra M. 1996. Wortarten und Wortartenwechsel. Berlin: Walter de Guyter.Google Scholar
  23. Zemskaja, Elena A. 1992. Slovoobrazovanie kak dejatel’nost’. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
  24. Mirčev, Kiril. 1963. Istoričeska gramatika na bălgarskija knižoven ezik. Vtoro izdanie. Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Slavic StudiesUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations