Slavic languages are notorious for rich inflectional systems, allowing substantial freedom in word order. Aside from SVO word order, canonical for the great majority of Slavic languages, orders with arguments surfacing in non-canonical positions are also allowed. We consider two such orders – OVS and OSV. The two orders stem from two different types of argument reordering with distinct syntactic, interpretive and prosodic properties. The first is linked to neutral prosody and is licenced by the object being construed as interpretively prominent compared to the subject. The object undergoing this type of reordering binds into the subject and takes scope over it. This reordering is possible only if the thematic prominence relations of arguments are identified by means other than their relative structural position. The second type is linked to marked prosody and is licenced by the displaced object being disambiguated as contrastive. In this type of reordering the object cannot bind into the subject or take scope over it. This type of reordering is possible only if the object carries a strong prosodic marker.

The chapter opens with a basic structural description of declensional patterns in Slavic languages, concentrating on several pervasive, salient, and typologically important features. The Late Common Slavic (LCS) system is outlined, with samples of key substantival and pronominal paradigms. Next, the survey traces crucial changes from LCS into the modern languages in the organization of nominal inflection into classes, including emergence of patterns specific for adjectives and numerals. Also discussed is the prehistory of the LCS system and its contextualization within the Indo-European family. Finally, the chapter reviews a number of mostly post-LCS innovations involving interesting synchronic or diachronic problems, such as: encoding virility and animacy; encoding innovative case/number categories (‘second locative’, partitive, paucal, etc.); patterns of syncretism and developments towards analyticity; defectivity and indeclinability; recycling of former dual endings; rise of definiteness markers; transfers to and from declensional morphology; role of segmental alternations and prosodic distinctions in declensional systems.

This chapter provides an overview of the inventory, formation, and use of synthetic and periphrastic tense and mood forms in modern Belarusian, Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian, Bulgarian, Czech, Macedonian, Polish, Russian, Slovak, Slovene, Lower and Upper Sorbian, and Ukrainian. It addresses both characteristics common to all modern languages and features of individual languages.

The article describes grammatical voice in Slavic: (1) informal characterization of voice; (2) definition of voice and a general inventory of specific voices; (3) voice types in Slavic; (4) Slavic derived voices; (5) discourse functions of voices; (6) historical development of voice in Slavic; (7) some voice-like phenomena in Slavic; and (8) summary of the main issues in the study of Slavic voice. Voice phenomena are considered in a dependency approach to language.

Chapter 6 presents an overview of the organization of the mental grammar. We will focus on general architectural properties of the mental grammar, that is, the units and rules that every grammar must have to capture the sound form, meaning, and syntactic structure of words and sentences. I will suggest that the grammar functions like a checking device in that it tells the language user whether linguistic expressions are well-formed (i.e., grammatical, in accordance with the rules of grammar). There is some technical detail (and many linguistic terms), but at the very least the reader will be left with the conviction that languages are quite complex. It is explained how languages allow people to express any thought they might have, drawing attention to the pivotal notion of recursivity. This chapter sets the stage for being amazed that children have pretty much full control of their language by the age of 4. By learning what a mental grammar might look like, the reader can form an idea of what it is that the child needs to acquire. Without such information, it would be difficult to discuss the role of nature and nurture in language.

This chapter discusses the place of inflectional and derivational morphology in Role and Reference Grammar (RRG). After describing how inflection is encoded in the layered structure of the word, the chapter offers an explanatory account of the factors that motivate inflectional marking. The functional orientation of RRG presupposes a view of morphology distributed throughout the different components of the grammatical model. Additionally, the typological commitment of RRG requires paying close attention to the role of inflectional processes not only in dependent-marking languages but also in head-marking languages, since the interface between inflectional morphology and syntax is much tighter in the latter type of language. The chapter then reflects on word formation as a lexicological process which involves the interaction of lexical semantics and morphology. The approach to derivational morphology can be said to be markedly motivated by semantics.

The concepts being discussed in this chapter are bound morpheme, free morpheme, root, affix, semi-affix, inflection, derivation and their application in the analysis of Chinese word-formation process. The inflectional affixes include aspectual markers, plural marker, potential infixes as well as those involved in reduplication. Two major approached are presented in this chapter about the derivation of Chinese words. The essence of the morphological derivation approach is that most word-building blocks have equal status as free root and bound roots, except for affixes. Chinese words are formed with these roots according to morphological rules and the syntactic status of a word is determined by its head. The essence of the syntactic-semantic is that the majority of Chinese words are constructed according to syntactic rules in that the relationship between morphemes in a word could be described as conjunction, modification, subject-predicate, verb-object or verb-result. A few bound morphemes are treated as affixes since their semantic content has been bleached, and they form words with morphological rules.

In Chapter 2, we discussed evidence supporting a Usage-based Construction Grammar approach. Now, we move on to looking at the various types of constructions needed for a full analysis of Present-day English. We start with what is normally considered to be the smallest types of FORM-MEANING pairings, morphemes, and investigate the various parameters according to which these can be classified. In particular, we will see to what degree the classic Structuralist distinction between grammatical and lexical morphemes makes sense from a Construction Grammar point of view. Then we will look at the various ways in which Present-day English can outlinine a Construction Grammar approach to word-formation.

This chapter elaborates on two case studies in structural variation to illustrate how the comparison of closely related grammatical systems fuels research questions on general theoretical issues. Our first case study regards subject clitics in central Romance dialects. Subject clitics have been studied extensively over recent decades, but they still raise several questions concerning the nature of null subject languages. Analogously, there is a huge literature on the selection of perfective auxiliaries – the second case study in our chapter – and, as in the case of subject clitics, lesser-known non-standard dialects display a kaleidoscope of auxiliation options whose rationalization poses fascinating analytical challenges and yields insights into basic issues of linguistic theory. The core question raised by our case studies concerns the modelling of linguistic diversity: do the above phenomena result from a finite set of discrete parameters or emerge from random language-specific options? We argue that the otherwise ‘hyperastronomical’ number of possible grammars is aptly constrained by syntactic factors, although inflexional morphology – which syntax cannot control entirely – may have a role in the realization of specific auxiliary or subject clitic forms in each dialect and for each person.

Researchers on the vocabulary growth of native speakers of English, usually distinguish three main ways in which a learner’s vocabulary increases – through being taught or deliberately learning new words, through learning new words by meeting them in context, and through recognising and building new words by gaining control of the prefixes and suffixes and other word building devices. In this chapter we look at the extent to which word building affects vocabulary size, the psychological reality of the relationship between inflected and derived words and their stem form, and the teaching and learning options for gaining control of English word-building processes. There are two related but distinguishable reasons for focusing on word parts. First, prefixes and stems can work as mnemonic devices to help learners remember new words by relating them to the meanings of the known parts that they contain. Second, knowledge of prefixes and suffixes can help learners see the relationship between word family members where one or more of the members is already known. The chapter contains lists of useful word parts and describes a strategy for using word parts to help remember words.

The acquisition, maintenance, and attrition of morphological properties of heritage languages (HLs) has been a central research focus since the inception of the systematic study of these linguistic varieties. Both child and adult heritage language speakers (HSs) experience difficulty in producing target-like inflectional morphology, and in some instances, the errors in their production are similar to those found in the speech of L2 learners. This chapter offers a broad survey of developmental trends of derivational and inflectional morphology in the nominal (e.g., gender and case) and verbal (e.g., agreement, tense, aspect, mood) domains. Different morphological types (e.g., inflectional, agglutinative, fusion, isolating) are discussed, focusing on whether certain properties of heritage morphology are specific to each type and whether certain properties cut across all of them. Claims regarding the effects of maturational constraints and continued activation on the ultimate attainment of heritage morphology are reviewed. This chapter also considers the issue of age effects in connection with heritage morphology and concludes with a brief discussion of the implications that these findings have on linguistic theory as well as highlighting future directions for the study of heritage morphology.

Verbs combine with other words to form verb phrases (VP), which are the heads of most clauses. A typical clause is a subject and a head VP. English verbs typically have more variety in their forms than other English words, reflecting grammatical categories like tense, person, and number, though these forms can sometimes look and sound the same. Most also have the secondary forms, namely gerund-participle, past participle, and plain form. A special group of verbs with distinctive properties is the auxiliary verbs, including the modal auxiliaries.

Semantically speaking, situations such as actions and states have perfective and imperfective interpretations, which are expressed in clauses and depend largely on the head verb, along with its tense and aspect. English has two past tenses (preterite & perfect), one present tense, and no future tense. The preterite and present are the primary tenses. There are two aspects, progressive and non-progressive. The modal auxiliaries specialize in expressing modality, which relates to how the possible situations described in a clause can reflect reality. There’s also a special irrealis form of be for expressing counterfactuals.

This chapter takes us on a survey of morphological categories, both derivational and inflectional, focusing not only on MSA but even more particularly on Yemeni, Saudi, and Egyptian dialects in contrastive analysis. Starting with the basics of Arabic derivation, Watson notes the key templatic nature of Arabic word formation and reviews concepts such as verb valency and different types of noun categories. In her discussion of Arabic inflectional categories, Watson covers number, gender, person, aspect, tense, mood, voice, degree, and definiteness.

This chapter introduces students to the study of morphology. We look in a preliminary way at the difficulty inherent in defining what we mean by a word and introduce the term morpheme. We introduce the basic concepts of simple versus complex words. Students learn the distinction between word tokens, word types, and lexemes. We end with a brief introduction to the difference between inflection and derivation.