Advertisement

Morphology

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 153–165 | Cite as

Paradigms in word formation: what are we up to?

  • Nabil Hathout
  • Fiammetta NamerEmail author
Article
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

Paradigm is a notion closely related to morphology, and more particularly to inflection. However, the paradigmatic approach is gaining in popularity in derivational morphology even if many consider paradigms to be unfit for derivation because of the gaps and mismatches that occur with derivational processes. This results in a lack of consensus on the relevance of derivational paradigms and in a lack of a clear definition of this notion. Therefore, derivational paradigms remain mostly unknown objects that should be studied in greater depth. This is the very goal of the special issue introduced by this paper, namely to define paradigms for derivation, illustrate them with various examples from different languages, and evaluate them in order to assess their psycholinguistic relevance. In this way, the papers in the issue show that paradigms are as operational, valid and useful tools in derivation as they are in inflection. Moreover, a better characterization of this notion will provide new insights into the organization of lexical morphology and new perspectives on the differences and similarities between inflection and derivation.

Keywords

Paradigms Word formation Inflection Derivational families Arrangement relations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank our handling editor Ingo Plag for his support. This work is a follow-up to the Workshop “Paradigmatic Approaches to Word-Formation: what are we up to?”, organized in Neaples as part of the 2016 Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea.

References

  1. Ackerman, F., & Malouf, R. (2013). Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language, 89(3), 429–464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackerman, F., Blevins, J. P., & Malouf, R. (2009). Parts and wholes: Implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. In J. P. Blevins & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition (pp. 54–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antoniova, V., & Štekauer, P. (2015). Derivational paradigms within selected conceptual fields – contrastive research. Facta Universitatis, Series: Linguistics and Literature, 13(2), 61–75. Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, L. (1997). Derivational paradigms. In Yearbook of morphology 1996 (pp. 243–256). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blevins, J. P. (2016). Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bochner, H. (1993). Simplicity in generative morphology. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonami, O., & Beniamine, S. (2016). Joint predictiveness in inflectional paradigms. Word Structure, 9(2), 156–182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonami, O., & Strnadová, J. (2018). Paradigm structure and predictability in derivational morphology. Morphology 1–31. Google Scholar
  9. Booij, G. E. (1997). Autonomous morphology and paradigmatic relations. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1996 (pp. 35–53). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  11. Booij, G. (2017). Inheritance and motivation in second orders schemata in construction morphology. In N. Gisborne & A. Hippisley (Eds.), Defaults in morphological theory (pp. 18–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  12. Booij, G., & Masini, F. (2015). The role of second order schemas in the construction of complex words. In L. Bauer, L. Körtvélyessy, & P. Štekauer (Eds.), Semantics of complex words (Vol. 47, pp. 47–66). Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar
  13. Boyé, G., & Schalchli, G. (2016). The status of paradigms. In A. Hippisley & G. Stump (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of morphology, chap. 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  14. Boyé, G., & Schalchli, G. (2018). Realistic data and paradigms: The Paradigms Cell Finding Problem. Morphology 1–50. Google Scholar
  15. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1994). Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language, 737–788. Google Scholar
  16. Dal Maso, S., & Giraudo, H. (2019). On the interplay between family and series effects in masked-priming. Morphology 1–23. Google Scholar
  17. Fradin, B. (2018). Paradigms and the role of series in derivational morphology. Lingue e Linguaggio, 2(2018), 155–172. Google Scholar
  18. Gaeta, L., & Angster, M. (2018). Stripping paradigmatic relations out of the syntax. Morphology 1–22. Google Scholar
  19. Hathout, N. (2009). Contributions à la description de la structure morphologique du lexique et à l’approche extensive en morphologie. Toulouse: Université de Toulouse 2 – Le Mirail Habilitation à diriger des recherches. Google Scholar
  20. Hathout, N. (2011). Une approche topologique de la construction des mots: propositions théoriques et application à la préfixation en anti-. In Roché et al. (2011) 251–318. Google Scholar
  21. Hathout, N., & Namer, F. (2014). Démonette, a French derivational morpho-semantic network. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, 11(5), 125–168. Google Scholar
  22. Jackendoff, R. (1975). Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 51(3), 639–671. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moscoso del Prado Martin, F., Kostić, A., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Putting the bits together: An information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition, 94, 1–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M., & Ferrand, L. (2004). Lexique 2: A new french lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 516–524. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pounder, A. (2000). Process and paradigms in word-formation morphology (Vol. 131). Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roché, M. (2008). Structuration du lexique et principe d’économie: le cas des ethniques. In J. Durand, B. Habert, & B. Laks (Eds.), 1er congrès mondial de linguistique française (pp. 1559–1573). Paris: ILF. Google Scholar
  27. Roché, M. (2010). Base, thème, radical. Revue linguistique de Vincennes, 39, 95–134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roché, M. (2011a). Quel traitement unifié pour les dérivations en -isme et en -iste ? In Roché et al. (2011) 69–143. Google Scholar
  29. Roché, M. (2011b). Quelle morphologie ? In Roché et al. (2011) 15–39. Google Scholar
  30. Roché, M., & Plénat, M. (2014). Le jeu des contraintes dans la sélection du thème présuffixal. In Actes du congrès mondial de linguistique française (cmlf-2014) (pp. 1863–1878). Paris: ILF. Google Scholar
  31. Roché, M., Boyé, G., Hathout, N., Lignon, S., & Plénat, M. (2011). Des unités morphologiques au lexique. Paris: Hermès Science-Lavoisier. Google Scholar
  32. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1997). How simplex complex words can be. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 118–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spencer, A. (2013). Lexical relatedness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Štekauer, P. (2014). Derivational paradigms. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology (pp. 354–369). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  35. Stump, G. T. (1991). A paradigm-based theory of morphosemantic mismatches. Language 675–725. Google Scholar
  36. Stump, G. T. (2017a). Rule conflation in an inferential-realizational theory of morphotactics. Acta Linguistica Academica, 64(1), 79–124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stump, G. T. (2017b). 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
  38. Stump, G. T. (2018). Some sources of apparent gaps in derivational paradigms. Morphology 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-018-9329-z.
  39. Thornton, A. M. (2012). Reduction and maintenance of overabundance. a case study on italian verb paradigms. Word Structure, 5(2), 183–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Marle, J. (1984). On the paradigmatic dimension of morphological creativity. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wunderlich, D., & Fabri, R. (1995). Minimalist morphology: An approach to inflection. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 14(2), 236–294. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UMR 5263 CLLE-ERSS, CNRS & Université Toulouse Jean-JaurèsToulouseFrance
  2. 2.UMR 7118 ATILF, Université de Lorraine & CNRSNancyFrance

Personalised recommendations