this paper. Another, and perhaps even more important problem area is the definition of words.The classical definition `maximal domains between potential pauses' appeals directly to the intuition of the speakers: this can be supplemented by the investigation of the domains of various phonological processes like stress placement, vowel harmony, etc. The phonological words defined this way usually happen to be (1) A) minimal free forms (Bloomfield 1926) B) maximal stable forms (Bloch, cited in Hockett 1958:19.4) C) maximal fixed internal order domains (see e.g. Matthews 1974:162ff) D) maximal non-recursive domains (see e.g. Matthews 1974 loc. cit.) E) anaphoric islands (Postal 1969) There is no logical reason for these domains to coincide: theoretically, it should be possible to find phonological words that satisfy A), C), and E), but not B) and D); or to find constituents satisfying A)-E) that do not happen to be phonological words. But of the 64 theoretical possibilities, only five or six are attested, and with the introduction of a few supplementary concepts like compounding, cliticization, and bracket retention (tmesis), this variety can be reduced even further: the remaining types are frequently called `morphological word', `lexeme', etc. Now, it is precisely this `coincidence' that makes it possible to organize the grammar in the following manner: Morphology Synta
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.