Chapter 25 offers a survey of Jejueo (Cheju-ŏ), with a focus on two major issues. The first is the status of Jejueo and whether it deserves to be classified as a dialect of Korean, consistent with long-standing practice. Based on a test of its intelligibility to monolingual speakers of Korean, the chapter concludes that Jejueo is in fact a distinct language and deserves to be recognized as such. This finding leads to the question of how Jejueo differs in its phonology and morphosyntax from Korean. Drawing on the extensive treatment of this subject in the authors’ book, Jejueo: The Language of Korea’s Jeju Island (University of Hawaii Press, 2019), the chapter examines the salient features of its phonological patterns, its inventory of nominal particles, and its system of verbal inflection.

This chapter synthesizes the alternation patterns in the morphophonology of Chinese affixation, and analyzes rime change (变韵 biànyuùn) mutation-like phenomena in terms of featural affixation. The main goal is to demonstrate that the paucity of affixation in Chinese languages/dialects does not render Chinese alternations less relevant to typological and theoretical pursuits. Two areas of morphophonology are examined to illustrate how phonetics/phonology interact with morphology under Chinese affixation: unexpected affixed outputs and the phonological realizations of featural affixes. Case studies of unexpected morphophonological outputs and unfaithful parsing of some root/affix features are reviewed, and the seemingly exceptional cases are explained by preservation of phonological/phonetic contrasts within the root-diminutive morphological paradigm and/or by morphological, prosodic and segmental principles and restrictions. An overview of the typology and characteristics of Chinese featural affixes is presented. The analytical approach rests on the theoretical underpinnings of non-linear phonology, the item-and-arrangement morphological model, and the notion of contrast preservation.

This chapter highlights how phenomena found in modern Romance varieties as well as processes of language change pose challenges to the idea that inflexion, derivation, and compounding may reside in distinct modules or components of the grammar. It discusses the basic and uncontroversial characteristics of inflexion, derivation, and compounding with data from Romance languages and presents specific topics and case studies that challenge the traditional view from both a synchronic and a diachronic perspective. The first case study considers the ways in which various morphophonological alternations, such as diphthongization and palatalization, pattern alike or differently with respect to inflexion, derivation, and compounding. The question whether inflexion and derivation can be distinguished on semantic grounds is the focus of two further case studies dealing with (i) the formal marking and the semantic interpretation of number in Italian ambigeneric nouns, and (ii) with the different outcomes of the Latin augment /-sc-/ in modern Romance languages, which evolved in some languages into an inflexional marker, while retaining a derivational function in others. A final topic covered is so-called ‘conversion’, defined here as a transpositional (i.e., category-changing) process that is not marked by any formative, and thus applies to fully inflected words.