Separation hypothesis - Revision history

NBlöcher: Edited the format, removed the block {{cats}}

2014-10-28T19:11:08Z

Edited the format, removed the block {{cats}}

Haspelmath at 18:56, 15 July 2009

2009-07-15T18:56:36Z

Wohlgemuth at 16:13, 8 July 2009

2009-07-08T16:13:46Z

Haspelmath at 15:54, 2 March 2009

2009-03-02T15:54:24Z

Haspelmath at 18:04, 26 February 2009

2009-02-26T18:04:00Z

Wohlgemuth: utrecht

2009-02-21T19:27:16Z

utrecht

New page

The '''Separation Hypothesis''' is a hypothesis due to Robert Beard, which entails that the [[form]] of [[inflection]]al and [[derivation]]al [[affix]]es is separated from their [[function]]. Beard distinguishes [[L-rule]]s and [[M-rule]]s, and assumes that L-rules are grammatical processes which change or add information about grammatical functions (e.g. 'plural' or 'agent noun'), while M-rules are affixation rules which spell out the grammatical functions.

=== Example ===

English plurals are formed in a number of ways, as is shown in (i):

(i) cat-cats, bus-busses, alga-algae, paramecium-paramecia, goose-geese

Under the separation hypothesis there is a single L-rule of pluralization which simply adds the feature [plural]. The resulting abstract morpheme is input to different M-rules, and these rules spell out the actual phonological form of the plurals in (i). On the other hand, [[conversion]] can be seen to be simply the situation which arises when an L-rule applies, but no M-rule gets the chance of giving phonological content to the function supplied by the L-rule.

=== Links ===

[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Separation+Hypothesis&lemmacode=221 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]

=== References ===

* Ackema & Don 1992. ''Splitting morphology,'' Linguistics in the Netherlands 1992, pp. 1-12
* Beard, R. 1988. ''On the Separation of Derivation From Morphology Toward a Lexeme/Morpheme-Based Morphology,'' Quaderni di Semantica a. IX, n. 1, pp.3-59
* Beard, R. 1987. ''Morpheme Order in a Lexeme/Morpheme-Based Morphology,'' Lingua 72, pp. 1-44
* Beard, R. 1982. ''Is separation natural,'' Studia Gramatycne VII, 119-133
* Don, J. 1993. ''Morphological Conversion,'' PhD diss. Utrecht University.
* Sproat, R. 1985. ''On Deriving the Lexicon,'' PhD diss. MIT.

{{dc}}
[[Category:Morphology]]

{{stub}}{{cats}}

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 {{dc}}
 [[Category:Morphology]]
-[[Category:Hypothesis]]
+[[Category:HYPO]]
 {{stub}}{{cats}}

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 {{dc}}
 [[Category:Morphology]]
-[[Category:HYPO]]
+[[Category:Hypothesis]]
 {{stub}}{{cats}}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 In morphological theory, the '''Separation Hypothesis''' (originally formulated by [[Robert Beard]]) is the claim that that the [[form]] of [[inflection]]al and [[derivation]]al [[affix]]es is separated from their [[function]]. Beard distinguishes [[L-rule]]s and [[M-rule]]s, and assumes that L-rules are grammatical processes which change or add information about grammatical functions (e.g. 'plural' or 'agent noun'), while M-rules are affixation rules which spell out the grammatical functions.
-=== Example ===
+== Example ==
 English plurals are formed in a number of ways, as is shown in (i):
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 Under the separation hypothesis there is a single L-rule of pluralization which simply adds the feature [plural]. The resulting abstract morpheme is input to different M-rules, and these rules spell out the actual phonological form of the plurals in (i). On the other hand, [[conversion]] can be seen to be simply the situation which arises when an L-rule applies, but no M-rule gets the chance of giving phonological content to the function supplied by the L-rule.
-=== Links ===
+== Links ==
 [http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Separation+Hypothesis&lemmacode=221 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]
-=== References ===
+== References ==
 * Ackema &amp; Don 1992. ''Splitting morphology,'' Linguistics in the Netherlands 1992, pp. 1-12
 * Beard, R. 1988. ''On the Separation of Derivation From Morphology Toward a Lexeme/Morpheme-Based Morphology,'' Quaderni di Semantica a. IX, n. 1, pp.3-59
@@ Line 24: / Line 22: @@
 {{dc}}
 [[Category:Morphology]]