English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Since at least Kruszewski (1881) it has been taken as an important task to sort out the alternations that involve morphology from those that are purely phonological. This dichotomy is largely followed by Natural Phonology (NP, cf. Donegan and Stampe 2009 for example), and by Generative Phonotactics (Singh 1987). Both these approaches insist on a strict delimitation (not a gradient one) between phonological and morphological phenomena. In this paper, I will first re-examine the problem of domain delimitation (Singh 1991) within NP by bringing in a more systematic use of the criterion of semioticity, which is not as often cited (but see Dressler 1980; Zwicky 1982; Ford and Singh 1983) but deserves attention. In order to do this, it will help to look at a case that is universally deemed to be clear: Final Devoicing in German. Because the delimitation of phonology from morphology is essential both for synchrony and diachrony (to classify alternations and to understand their transitions from one module to the other), I will then turn to diachrony for additional support for the criterion of semioticity as well as spell out how it can help us understand the phenomenon of morphologization.

The distributional residue in Natural Phonology and its implications for morphologization