{"title":"标记性无法解释补充范式中的替换模式","authors":"Matthew L. Juge","doi":"10.3765/plsa.v8i1.5639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Claims that markedness influences morphological change do not fit attested patterns of suppletive replacement in verb paradigms. Examination of all suppletion types and sources reveals that markedness considerations are weaker predictors of suppletion patterns than interparadigmatic relationships, intraparadigmatic relationships, and semantic connections.","PeriodicalId":299752,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America","volume":"55 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Markedness can’t explain replacement patterns in suppletive paradigms\",\"authors\":\"Matthew L. Juge\",\"doi\":\"10.3765/plsa.v8i1.5639\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Claims that markedness influences morphological change do not fit attested patterns of suppletive replacement in verb paradigms. Examination of all suppletion types and sources reveals that markedness considerations are weaker predictors of suppletion patterns than interparadigmatic relationships, intraparadigmatic relationships, and semantic connections.\",\"PeriodicalId\":299752,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America\",\"volume\":\"55 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v8i1.5639\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v8i1.5639","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Markedness can’t explain replacement patterns in suppletive paradigms
Claims that markedness influences morphological change do not fit attested patterns of suppletive replacement in verb paradigms. Examination of all suppletion types and sources reveals that markedness considerations are weaker predictors of suppletion patterns than interparadigmatic relationships, intraparadigmatic relationships, and semantic connections.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
