Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T02:32:24.055Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Word-internal modification: The case of the Persian comparative marker

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2018

Arsalan Kahnemuyipour
Arsalan Kahnemuyipour*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto Mississauga
*
a.kahnemuyipour@utoronto.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Squib/Notule
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 138 - 145
Copyright
© Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank Jonathan Bobaljik and Alec Marantz for questions and discussions that inspired me to write this squib. Thanks also to audiences at the University of Toronto and University of Manitoba and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier versions. All errors are mine.

References

Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where's morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13(4): 571–612.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1998. Derivation. In A handbook of morphology, ed. Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold, 44–65. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2005. Itelmen plural diminutives: A belated reply to Perlmutter 1988. In Yearbook of morphology 2004, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 317–319. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1993. Against split morphology. In Yearbook of morphology 1993, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 27–49. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Yearbook of morphology 1995, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 1–16. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1989. Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift fur Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung [Journal of Phonetics, Linguistics and Communications Research] 42: 3–10.Google Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2003. Persian stress and syntactic categories. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(2): 333–379.Google Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2018. Prosody. In Oxford handbook of Persian linguistics, ed. Sedighi, Anousha and Shabani-Jadidi, Pouneh, 142–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kazemian, Bahram, and Hashemi, Somayye. 2014. A contrastive linguistic analysis of inflectional bound morphemes of English, Azerbaijani and Persian Languages. Journal of Education and Human Development 3(1): 593–614.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the organization of the lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Mahootian, Shahrzad. 2002. Persian. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
van Marle, Jaap. 1996. The Unity of Morphology: On the interwovenness of the derivational and inflectional dimension of the word. In Yearbook of morphology 1995, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 67–82. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1972. Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Newell, Heather. 2008. Aspects of the morphology and phonology of phases. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Oxford, Will. 2017. Variation and change in the Degree Phrase. Linguistic Variation 17(1), 98–110.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1988. The split morphology hypothesis: Evidence from Yiddish. In Theoretical morphology, ed. Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael, 79–100. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rainer, Franz. 1996. Inflection inside derivation: Evidence from Spanish and Portuguese. In Yearbook of morphology 1995, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 83–91. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1992. Cross-linguistic evidence for Number Phrase. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37(2): 197–218.Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio. 1984. Generative morphology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1982. The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 1998. Inflection. In A handbook of morphology, ed. Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold, 13–43. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Transformations and the lexicon. In Formal syntax, ed. Culicover, Peter W., Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 327–360. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26(3): 639–694.Google Scholar
Windfuhr, Gernot. 2009. Persian and Tajiki. In The Iranian languages, ed. Windfuhr, Gernot, 416–544. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar