Advertisement

Morphology

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 271–292 | Cite as

Some sources of apparent gaps in derivational paradigms

  • Gregory StumpEmail author
Article

Abstract

Derivational paradigms sometimes present gaps (e.g. capitalcapitalistcapitalistic but charactergap: *characteristcharacteristic). In many cases, gaps in derivational paradigms are merely apparent: on closer scrutiny, they prove not to be gaps at all. In some instances, an apparent gap is in reality the reflection of a morphological rule’s versatility; in such instances, a single rule serves either to mark the derivation of one lexeme from another or to define the relation between two stems of the same lexeme. In other instances, an apparent gap is actually the reflection of an independently motivated principle of rule conflation. The conflation of rule B with rule A yields an apparent gap in a lexeme’s derivational paradigm in one of two ways: (i) in some instances, the conflation’s domain of application is a subset of that of rule A but the conflation nevertheless exhibits greater productivity than rule A on its own; (ii) in other instances, the conflation’s domain of application is not a subset of that of rule A. Once the effects of rule versatility and rule conflation are taken into account, numerous apparent gaps prove not to be gaps at all, a fact with significant implications for understanding the architecture of a language’s morphology.

Keywords

Derivation Gap Paradigm Rule conflation Rule versatility 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank several members of the audience whose comments have contributed to the realization of the present version; thanks also to Nabil Hathout, Fiammetta Namer, and two anonymous referees for numerous constructive suggestions.

References

  1. Ackerman, F., & Malouf, R. (2013). Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language, 89, 429–464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, L. (1988). A descriptive gap in morphology. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1 (pp. 17–27). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  5. Bauer, L. (1997). Derivational paradigms. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1996 (pp. 243–256). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bochner, H. (1992). Simplicity in generative morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  8. Bonami, O., Boyé, G., & Kerleroux, F. (2009). L’allomorphie radicale et la relation flexion-construction. In B. Fradin, F. Kerleroux, & M. Plénat (Eds.), Aperçus de morphologie du français (pp. 103–126). Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. Google Scholar
  9. Booij, G. (2005). The grammar of words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  10. Booij, G. (2008). Paradigmatic morphology. In B. Fradin (Ed.), La raison morphologique. Hommage à la mémoire de Danielle Corbin (pp. 29–38). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  12. Booij, G. (2017). Construction morphology. In A. Hippisley & G. Stump (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology (pp. 424–448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  13. Corbin, D. (1980). Contradictions et inadéquations de l’analyse parasynthétique en morphologie dérivationnelle. In A.-M. Dessaux-Berthonneau (Ed.), Théories linguistiques et traditions grammaticales (pp. 181–224). Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille. Google Scholar
  14. Corbin, D. (1987). Morphologie dérivationelle et structuration du lexique. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Darmesteter, A. (1875). Traité de la formation des mots composés dans la langue française comparée aux autres langues romanes et au latin. París: Librairie A. Franck. Google Scholar
  16. Davies, M. (2008). The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words. 1990–present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.
  17. Dixon, R. M. W. (2014). Making new words: Morphological derivation in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fradin, B. (2003). Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaeta, L., & Ricca, D. (2006). Productivity in Italian word-formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics, 44(1), 57–89. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hathout, N. (2011). Chapter 6: Une approche topologique de la construction des mots: propositions théoriques et application à la préfixation en anti-. In M. Roché, G. Boyé, N. Hathout, S. Lignon & M. Plénat (Eds.), Des unités morphologiques au lexique (pp. 251–318). Paris: Lavoisier. Google Scholar
  21. Hathout, N., & Namer, F. (2014a). Démonette, a French derivational morpho-semantic network. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, 11(5), 125–168. Google Scholar
  22. Hathout, N., & Namer, F. (2014b). Discrepancy between form and meaning in word formation: The case of over- and under-marking in French. In F. Rainer, W. U. Dressler, F. Gardani, & H. C. Luschützky (Eds.), Morphology and meaning (selected papers from the 15th international morphology meeting, Vienna, February 2010), (pp. 177–190). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luís, A., & Spencer, A. (2005). A paradigm function account of ‘mesoclisis’ in European Portuguese. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2004 (pp. 177–228). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marchand, H. (1966). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Google Scholar
  25. Pounder, A. (2000). Processes and paradigms in word-formation morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Raffelsiefen, R. (1992). A nonconfigurational approach to morphology. In M. Aronoff (Ed.), Morphology now (pp. 133–162). Albany: SUNY Press. Google Scholar
  27. Roché, M. (2011). Chapter 1: Quelle morphologie? In M. Roché, G. Boyé, N. Hathout, S. Lignon & M. Plénat (Eds.), Des unités morphologiques au lexique (pp. 15–39). Paris: Lavoisier. Google Scholar
  28. Serrano-Dolader, D. (2015). Parasynthesis in Romance. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe (Vol. 1, pp. 524–536). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar
  29. Spencer, A. (2013). Lexical relatedness: A paradigm-based model. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stump, G. (1991). A paradigm-based theory of morphosemantic mismatches. Language, 67, 675–725. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stump, G. (2017a). Polyfunctionality and the variety of inflectional exponence relations. In F. Kiefer, J. P. Blevins, & H. Bartos (Eds.), Perspectives on morphological organization: Data and analyses (pp. 11–30). Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar
  32. Stump, G. (2017b). Rule conflation in an inferential-realizational theory of morphotactics. Acta Linguistica Academic, 64(1), 79–124. http://akademiai.com/loi/2062. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stump, G. (2017c). Rules and blocks. In C. Bowern, L. Horn, & R. Zanuttini (Eds.), On looking into words (and beyond) (pp. 421–440). Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar
  34. van Marle, J. (1985). On the paradigmatic dimension of morphological creativity. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  35. Williams, E. (1981). On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 245–274. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EnglishUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations