Pár slov k životnímu jubileu Sylvy Hamplové

15615

Canonical typology and mixed perfective auxiliation systems in romance

The aim of this paper is twofold: firstly it provides a detailed overview of the canonical approach to inflection (following Corbett 2007; 2009; 2015); secondly it attempts to analyze, within this approach, a typologically interesting phenomenon of mixed perfective auxiliation systems attested in a wide array of Italo-Romance dialects. First, the paper introduces the key notions of Canonical Typology (cf. Bond 2019) applied to inflectional morphology, along with a proposed working Czech terminology of basic terms such as requirements of form etc. Second, the paper proceeds to show that mixed systems, where two auxiliary verbs (corresponding to the derivatives of the Latin verbs habere/ esse) alternate within one and the same paradigm, representing a further way in which periphrastic exponence “splits” the inflectional realization of a lexeme. These systems thus constitute yet another interesting non-canonical inflectional phenomenon worth exploring from the perspective of Canonical Typology.213

M. Silvia Micheli, La formazione delle parole. Italiano e altre lingue

10310

Editorial announcement

5

Sulla diacronia della composizione verbo-nominale in italiano

719

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology

The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology

After being dominant during about a century since its invention by Baudouin de Courtenay at the end of the nineteenth century, morpheme is more and more replaced by lexeme in contemporary descriptive and theoretical morphology.  The notion of a lexeme is usually associated with the work of P. H. Matthews (1972, 1974), who characterizes it as a lexical entity abstracting over individual inflected words. Over the last three decades, the lexeme has become a cornerstone of much work in both inflectional morphology and word formation (or, as it is increasingly been called, lexeme formation). The papers in the present volume take stock of the descriptive and theoretical usefulness of the lexeme, but also adress many of the challenges met by classical lexeme-based theories of morphology