Morphology and Contact-Induced Language Change (original) (raw)

Abstract

and Keywords This chapter focuses on a wide range of phenomena occurring under the heading of con tact-induced morphological change, including several degrees of morphological integra tion, non-integration (qua indeclinability or maintenance of original markers), and bor rowing. It also discusses three major types of mechanisms leading to morphological bor rowing: 'macro-mechanisms' are general psycholinguistic mechanisms of transfer con ceived in terms of source language vs. recipient language agentivity; 'meso-mechanisms' are conscious and unconscious techniques which are responsible for contact-induced lan guage change, such as 'Trojan horse structures'; 'micro-mechanisms' are local, concrete mechanisms, such as reborrowing and reanalysis. Cross-linguistic data are presented and discussed in light of the implications that contact-induced morphological change has for the theory of morphology.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (108)

  1. Adamou, Evangelia. 2013. Replicating Spanish estar in Mexican Romani. Linguistics 51(6): 1075-1105.
  2. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2007. Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Grammars in Contact: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and Robert M. W. Dixon, 1-66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  3. Atanasov, Petar. 1990. Le mégléno-roumain de nos jours: Une approche linguistique. Balkan-Archiv, Beheft 7. Hamburg: Buske.
  4. Babel, Anna, and Stefan Pfänder. 2014. Doing copying: Why typology doesn't matter to language speakers. In Congruence in Contact-Induced Language Change: Language Fam ilies, Typological Resemblance, and Perceived Similarity, edited by Juliane Besters-Dilger, Cynthia Dermarkar, Stefan Pfänder, and Achim Rabus, 239-257. Linguae and Litterae 27. Berlin: De Gruyter.
  5. Bauer, Laurie. 2004. The function of word-formation and the inflection-derivation distinc tion. In Words in Their Places: A Festschrift for J. Lachlan Mackenzie, edited by Henk Aertsen, Mike Hannay, and Rod Lyall, 283-292. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.
  6. Behrens, Leila. 1996. Lexical rules cross-cutting inflection and derivation. Acta Linguisti ca Hungarica 43: 33-65.
  7. Booij, Geert E. 1994. Against split morphology. In Yearbook of Morphology 1993, edited by Geert E. Booij and Jaap van Marle, 27-50. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  8. Booij, Geert E. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hy pothesis. In Yearbook of Morphology 1995, edited by Geert E. Booij and Jaap van Marle, 1-16. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  9. Boretzky, Norbert, and Birgit Igla. 1999. Balkanische (südosteuropäische) Einflüsse im Romani. In Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik, edited by Uwe Hinrichs, 709-731. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
  10. Bowern, Claire. 2013. Relatedness as a factor in language contact. Journal of Language Contact 6(2): 411-432.
  11. Breu, Walter. 1991. Abweichungen vom phonetischen Prinzip bei der Integration von Lehnwörtern. In Slavistische Linguistik 1990: Referate des XVI. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens Bochum/Löllinghausen 19.-21.9.1990 (Slavistische Beiträge 274), edited by Klaus Hartenstein and Helmut Jachnow, 36-69. München: Otto Sagner.
  12. PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 05 February 2020
  13. Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Typological Studies in 9. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (p. 118) Chamoreau, Claudine. 2012. Spanish diminutive markers -ito/-ita in Mesoameri can languages: A challenge for acceptance of gender distinction. In Morphologies in Con tact, edited by Martine Vanhove, Thomas Stolz, Aina Urdze, and Hitomi Otsuka, 71-90. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
  14. Clements, J. C., and Ana R. Luís. 2015. Contact intensity and the borrowing of bound mor phology in Korlai Indo-Portuguese. In Borrowed Morphology edited by Francesco Gar dani, Peter Arkadiev, and Nino Amiridze, 219-240. Language Contact and Bilingualism 8. Boston; Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  15. Dawkins, R. M. 1916. Modern Greek in Asia Minor: A Study of the Dialects of Sílli, Cap padocia and Phárasa with Grammar, Texts, Translations and Glossary. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press.
  16. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1989. Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42(1): 3-10.
  17. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1997. Universals, typology, and modularity in natural morphology. In Language History and Linguistic Modelling: A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th
  18. Birthday, Vol. 2: Language History and Linguistic Modelling, edited by Raymond Hickey and Stanisław Puppel, 399-1421. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  19. Elšik, Viktor. 2007. Grammatical borrowing in Hungarian Rumungro. In Grammatical Bor rowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, edited by Yaron Matras and Jeanette Sakel, 261- 282. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  20. Epps, Patience. 2013. Inheritance, calquing, or independent innovation? Reconstructing morphological complexity in Amazonian numerals. Journal of Language Contact 6(2): 329- 357. Estrada Fernández, Zarina, and Lilián Guerrero. 2007. Grammatical borrowing in Yaqui. In Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, edited by Yaron Matras and Jeanette Sakel, 419-433. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  21. Field, Fredric W. 2002. Linguistic Borrowing in Bilingual Contexts. Studies in Language Companion Series 62. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  22. Friedman, Victor A. 2012. Copying and cognates in the Balkan Sprachbund. In Copies ver sus Cognates in Bound Morphology, edited by Lars Joanson and Martine I. Robbeets, 323-336. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
  23. Gardani, Francesco. 2008. Borrowing of Inflectional Morphemes in Language Contact. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  24. PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 05 February 2020
  25. Gardani, Francesco. 2012. Plural across inflection and derivation, fusion and agglutina tion. In Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology, edited by Lars Johanson and Mar tine I. Robbeets, 71-97. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
  26. Gardani, Francesco. 2013. Dynamics of Morphological Productivity: The Evolution of Noun Classes from Latin to Italian. Empirical Approaches to Linguistic Theory 4. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
  27. Gardani, Francesco, Peter Arkadiev, and Nino Amiridze (eds.). 2015. Borrowed Morpholo gy. Language Contact and Bilingualism 8. Boston; Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  28. Gardner-Chloros, Penelope. 2009. Code-Switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Golovko, Evgenij V., and Nikolai B. Vakhtin. 1990. Aleut in contact: The CIA enigma. Acta linguistica Hafniensia 22: 97-125.
  30. Gómez-Rendón, Jorge. 2007. Grammatical borrowing in Imbabura Quichua. In Grammati cal Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, edited by Yaron Matras and Jeanette Sakel, 481-521. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (p. 119) Grant, Anthony. 2002. Fabric, pattern, shift and diffusion: What change in Oregon Penutian languages can tell historical linguists. In Proceedings of the Meeting of the Hokan-Penutian Workshop, June 17-18, 2000, U. of California at Berkeley. Report 11, Sur vey of California and Other Indian Languages, edited by Laura Buszard-Welcher, 33-56. Berkeley: Department of Linguistics, University of California at Berkeley.
  31. Grant, Anthony. 2004. Review of Ruth King, The Lexical Basis of Grammatical Borrowing: A Prince Edward Island Case Study (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2000). Word 54: 251-256.
  32. Grant, Anthony. 2008. Contact-induced change and the openness of 'closed' morphologi cal systems: Some cases from Native America. Journal of Language Contact 2(1): 165- 186. Grant, Anthony. 2017. The Western Micronesian Sprachbund. In The Cambridge Hand book of Areal Linguistics, edited by Raymond Hickey, 852-877. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Hajek, John. 2007. Language contact and convergence in East Timor: The case of Tetun Dili. In Grammars in Contact: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhen vald and Robert M. W. Dixon, 163-178. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  34. Haspelmath, Martin. 2009. Lexical borrowing: Concepts and issues. In Loanwords in the World's Languages: A Comparative Handbook, edited by Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tad mor, 35-54. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  35. Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. An inflection/derivation distinction on the other side of the globe? http://dlc.hypotheses.org/388.
  36. PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 05 February 2020
  37. Haspelmath, Martin, and Andrea D. Sims. 2010. Understanding Morphology, 2nd edition. London: Hodder Education.
  38. Heath, Jeffrey. 1978. Ngandi Grammar, Texts, and Dictionary. Canberra: Australian Insti tute of Aboriginal Studies.
  39. Heath, Jeffrey. 1980. Basic Materials in Ritharngu: Grammar, Texts and Dictionary. Pacific Linguistics, Series B, Monographs 62. Canberra: Australian National University.
  40. Jastrow, Otto. 1985. Laut-und Formenlehre des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Mīdin im Tūr ʿAbdīn. 3rd edition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
  41. Jensen, Hans. 1931. Neupersische Grammatik: Mit Berücksichtigung der historischen En twicklung. Indogermanische Bibliothek / 1 / 1 22. Heidelberg: Winter.
  42. Johanson, Lars. 1999. The dynamics of code-copying in language encounters. In Lan guage Encounters across Time and Space: Studies in Language Contact, edited by Bernt Brendemoen, Elizabeth Lanza, and Else Ryen, 37-62. Oslo: Novus forlag.
  43. Johanson, Lars. 2008. Remodeling grammar: Copying, conventionalization, grammatical ization. In Language Contact and Contact Languages, edited by Peter Siemund and Noe mi Kintana, 61-79. Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 7. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  44. Johanson, Lars, and Martine I. Robbeets (eds.). 2012. Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
  45. Kossmann, Maarten. 2010. Parallel System Borrowing: Parallel morphological systems due to the borrowing of paradigms. Diachronica 27(3): 459-487.
  46. Kossmann, Maarten. 2013. The Arabic Influence on Northern Berber. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 67. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
  47. Laca, Brenda. 2001. Derivation. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 1, edited by Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible, 1214-1227. Handbücher zur Sprach-und Kommunikationswissenschaft 20. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter. (p. 120) Law, Danny. 2013. Inherited similarity and contact-induced change in Mayan Lan guages. Journal of Language Contact 6(2): 271-299.
  48. Maiden, Martin, and Paul O'Neill. 2010. On morphomic defectiveness: Evidence from the Romance languages of the Iberian Peninsula. In Defective Paradigms: Missing Forms and What They Tell Us, edited by Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett, and Dunstan Brown, 103-124. Proceedings of the British Academy 163. Oxford; New York: Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press.
  49. PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 05 February 2020
  50. Matras, Yaron. 2002. Romani: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge Universi ty Press.
  51. Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  52. Matras, Yaron, and Jeanette Sakel (eds.). 2007. Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguis tic Perspective. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  53. McConvell, Patrick. 1988. MIX-IM-UP: Aboriginal code-switching, old and new. In Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives, edited by Monica Heller, 97-150. Contributions to the Sociology of Language 48. Berlin: Mouton de
  54. Gruyter. McConvell, Patrick, and Felicity Meakins. 2005. Gurindji Kriol: A mixed language emerges from code-switching. Australian Journal of Linguistics 25(1): 9-30.
  55. Meakins, Felicity. 2011a. Borrowing contextual inflection: Evidence from northern Aus tralia. Morphology 21(1): 57-87.
  56. Meakins, Felicity. 2011b. Case-Marking in Contact: The Development and Function of Case Morphology in Gurindji Kriol. Creole Language Library 39. Amsterdam; Philadel phia: John Benjamins.
  57. Meakins, Felicity. 2013. Mixed languages. In Contact Languages: A Comprehensive Guide, edited by Yaron Matras and Peter Bakker, 159-228. Language Contact and Bilingualism 6. Boston; Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  58. Menovshchikov, G. A. 1968. Aleutskij jazyk. In Jazyki narodov SSSR, Vol. 5: Mongol'skie, tunguso-man'chzhurskie i paleoaziatskie jazyki, edited by P. J. Skorik, 386-406. Leningrad: Nauka.
  59. Mithun, Marianne. 2013. Challenges and benefits of contact among relatives: Morphologi cal copying. Journal of Language Contact 6(2): 243-270.
  60. Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. Language contact. In Universals of Human Language: Method and Theory, edited by Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson, and Edith A. Moravcsik, 93-122. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  61. Mumm, Peter-Arnold. 2007. Strukturkurs Neupersisch. Universität München.
  62. Myers-Scotton, Carol. 2002. Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
  63. Myers-Scotton, Carol. 2006. Multiple Voices: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  64. Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2009. Intensive contact and the copying of paradigms: An Ėven di alect in contact with Sakha (Yakut). Journal of Language Contact 2(2): 85-110.
  65. PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 05 February 2020
  66. Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2014. Paradigm copying in Tungusic: The Lamunkhin dialect of Ėven and beyond. In Paradigm Change: In the Transeurasian Languages and Beyond, edited by Martine I. Robbeets and Walter Bisang, 287-310. Studies in Language Companion Series 161. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  67. Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2015. A comparison of copied morphemes in Sakha (Yakut) and Ėven. In Borrowed Morphology, edited by Francesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev, and Nino Amiridze, 157-188. Language Contact and Bilingualism 8. Boston; Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. (p. 121) Plank, Frans. 1994. Inflection and derivation. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3, 1st edition, edited by R. E. Asher, 1671-1678. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  68. Robbeets, Martine. 2012. Shared verb morphology in the Transeurasian languages: Copy or cognate? In Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology, edited by Lars Johanson and Martine I. Robbeets, 427-446. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
  69. Robbeets, Martine. 2015. Common denominal verbalizers in the Transeurasian lan guages: Borrowed or inherited? In Borrowed Morphology edited by Francesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev, and Nino Amiridze, 137-154. Language Contact and Bilingualism 8. Boston and Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  70. Roseano, Paolo. 2014. Can morphological borrowing be an effect of codeswitching? Evi dence from the inflectional morphology of borrowed nouns in Friulian. Probus 26(1): 1- 57. Sakel, Jeanette. 2007. Types of loan: Matter and pattern. In Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, edited by Yaron Matras and Jeanette Sakel, 15-29. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  71. Sakel, Jeanette, and Yaron Matras. 2008. Modelling contact-induced change in grammar. In Aspects of Language Contact: New Theoretical, Methodological and Empirical Find ings with Special Focus on Romancisation Processes, edited by Thomas Stolz, Dik Bakker, and Rosa S. Palomo, 63-87. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  72. Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Har court, Brace.
  73. Schuchardt, Hugo. 1884. Dem Herrn Franz von Miklosich zum 20. Nov. 1883. Slawo- Deutsches und Slawo-Italienisches. Graz: Leuschner & Lubensky.
  74. Schuchardt, Hugo. 1928. Hugo Schuchardt-Brevier. 2nd edition. Halle: Niemeyer.
  75. Seifart, Frank. 2013. AfBo: A World-Wide Survey of Affix Borrowing. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://afbo.info.
  76. PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 05 February 2020
  77. Seifart, Frank. 2015. Does structural-typological similarity affect borrowability? A quanti tative study on affix borrowing. Language Dynamics and Change 5(1): 92-113.
  78. Singh, Rajendra. 2010. Multilingualism, sociolinguistics and theories of linguistic form: Some unfinished reflections. Language Sciences 32(6): 624-637.
  79. Tadmor, Uri. 2009. Loanwords in the world's languages: Findings and results. In Loan words in the World's Languages: A Comparative Handbook, edited by Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tadmor, 55-75. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  80. Thomason, Sarah. 2008. Social and linguistic factors as predictors of contact-induced change. Journal of Language Contact 2(1): 42-56.
  81. Thomason, Sarah G. 1997. Mednyj Aleut. In Contact Languages: A Wider Perspective, edited by Sarah G. Thomason, 449-468. Creole Language Library 17. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  82. Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh; Washington, DC: Edinburgh University Press and Georgetown University Press.
  83. Thomason, Sarah G. 2003. Social factors and linguistic processes in the emergence of sta ble mixed languages. In The Mixed Language Debate: Theoretical and Empirical Ad vances, edited by Yaron Matras and Peter Bakker, 21-39. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 145. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  84. Thomason, Sarah G. 2015. When is the diffusion of inflectional morphology not dispre ferred? In Borrowed Morphology, edited by Francesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev, and Nino Amiridze, 27-46. Language Contact and Bilingualism 8. Boston; Berlin: De Gruyter Mou ton. (p. 122) Thomason, Sarah G., and Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creoliza tion, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  85. Tsitsipis, Lukas D. 1998. A Linguistic Anthropology of Praxis and Language Shift: Arvaníti ka (Albanian) and Greek in Contact. Oxford Studies in Language Contact. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.
  86. van Coetsem, Frans. 1988. Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Types in Language Con tact. Publications in Language Sciences 27. Dordrecht; Providence, RI: Foris Publications.
  87. van Coetsem, Frans. 1990. Review of Thomason and Kaufman (1988);
  88. Lehiste (1988);
  89. Wardhaugh (1987). Language in Society 19(2): 260-268.
  90. van Coetsem, Frans. 2000. A General and Unified Theory of the Transmission Process in Language Contact. Monographien zur Sprachwissenschaft 19. Heidelberg: Winter.
  91. Vanhove, Martine, Thomas Stolz, Aina Urdze, and Hitomi Otsuka (eds.). 2012. Morpholo gies in Contact. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
  92. PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 05 February 2020
  93. Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact, Findings and Problems. New York: Linguis tic Circle of New York.
  94. Weinreich, Uriel. 2011. Languages in Contact: French, German and Romansch in Twenti eth-Century Switzerland. Based on Weinreich's 1951 dissertation at Columbia University. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  95. Whaley, Lindsay. 2012. Deriving insights about Tungusic classification from derivational morphology. In Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology, edited by Lars Johanson and Martine I. Robbeets, 395-409. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
  96. Wilkins, David P. 1996. Morphology. In Kontaktlinguistik: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. Halbband 1, edited by Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Zdeněk Starý, and Wolfgang Wölck, 109-117. Handbücher zur Sprach-und Kommunikationswis senschaft 12.1. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter.
  97. Winford, Donald. 2005. Contact-induced changes: Classification and processes. Diachroni ca 22(2): 373-427.
  98. Wohlgemuth, Jan. 2009. A Typology of Verbal Borrowings. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 211. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  99. PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 05 February 2020 ( 5 ) Note that some nouns have variants, such as poeta -ae and poetes -ae 'playwright,' from the Ancient Greek poietés -oũ.
  100. Estrada Fernández and Guerrero (2007: 421) explain this case in terms of semantic bleaching of the Spanish plural suffix, which can be best captured by the analysis in (4b). See Gómez-Rendón (2007: 488) for parallel cases in Imbabura Quichua.
  101. Data collected in a cross-linguistic study confirm the long-held generalization that nouns are more borrowable than verbs (31% vs. 14% of total loanwords) (Tadmor 2009:
  102. With respect to loan verbs, Wohlgemuth (2009: 94) terms this strategy "direct inser tion."
  103. In the case of English impetus-impetuses, nativization via plural suffixation in -es is vir tually compulsory, because the original Latin plural form impetūs wouldn't be able to con vey any number value opposition in English.
  104. While Berber conveys aspectual and modal distinctions by stem allomorphy, Arabic- borrowed verbs have two paradigms, one for perfective inflection and one for imperfec tive inflection (for more details, see Kossmann 2010: 473 and Kossmann 2013: 270-271; but note that Kossmann mistakenly labels perfective the imperfective paradigm and vice versa; I owe thanks to Skye Anderson for pointing that out to me, July 9, 2015). Note that the striking similarity between the Berber prefixes and the Arabic prefixes of the perfec tive paradigm, in the 2SG, 3SG.m, 3SG.f, 1PL, and 2PL, is either due to chance or Afro- Asiatic heritage (Maarten Kossmann, personal communication, Febraury 9, 2014).
  105. The same observation is valid for derivational morphemes, as well.
  106. A weaker version of this constraint would include extension to loanwords from other source languages, too. This usually happens in languages that have different strata of lex ical borrowings (cf. example (17)).
  107. There is no disguising the fact that the distinction between inflection and derivation is neither obvious nor uncontroversial. Born out in linguistic studies focusing on Indo-Eu ropean languages, the distinction between inflection and derivation has proved "particu larly elusive" to capture (Laca 2001: 1215). Some scholars (e.g., Bybee 1985; Dressler 1989; Plank 1994) have advocated a non-discrete, gradual distinction along a continuum which matches that ranging from the syntax to the lexicon, whereas others (e.g., Behrens 1996; Haspelmath 2013) challenge the validity of this distinction as a universally applica ble comparative concept (see Laca 2001: 1215-1218, for an insightful discussion).
  108. Inherent inflection is context-free, that is, it depends on the free speech intention of the speaker. Features of inherent inflection include number, gender, inherent cases, and negation, in the NP; degree, in the AP; tense (except consecutio temporum), aspect, nega tion, and mood, in the VP. Contextual inflection is context-sensitive, that is, it occurs when particular forms of a word are required by the syntactic context. Features of contextual