Skip to main content
Log in

Word construction: tracing an optimal path through the lexicon

  • Published:
Morphology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Optimal Construction Morphology (OCM) is a new construction-based theory of morphology that selects the optimal combination of lexical constructions to best achieve a target meaning. OCM combines elements of realizational and item-based morphological theories. It is realizational, in that words are constructed in response to a given meaning target. It is incremental in that words are built from lexical structures, one layer at a time. It is optimizing in that, in response to a meaning target, the morphological grammar dips into the lexicon, building and assessing morphological constituents incrementally until the word being built optimally matches the target meaning. In this paper OCM is shown to illuminate a vexing optimization puzzle confronted by all theories of morphology: why is redundancy in morphology rejected as ungrammatical in some situations (“blocking”), but absolutely required in others (“multiple/extended exponence”)? The OCM analysis incorporates two notions of morphological strength that have been proposed in the literature: stem type, on a scale from root (weakest) to word (strongest), and exponence strength, related to productivity and parsability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerman, F., & Stump, G. (2004). Paradigms and periphrastic expression: a study in realization-based lexicalism. In A. Spencer & L. Sadler (Eds.), Projecting morphology (pp. 111–157). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, S. R. (2001). On some issues in morphological exponence. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2000 (pp. 1–17). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, A. (1990). Unification and morphological blocking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 8(4), 507–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anttila, A. (1997). Deriving variation from grammar. In F. Hinskens, R. Van Hout, & W. L. Wetzels (Eds.), Variation, change and phonological theory (pp. 35–68). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anttila, A. (2002). Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 20(1), 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, E. O. (1947). Swahili grammar including intonation. London: Longmans. Second edition published in 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastin, Y. (1986). Les suffixes causatifs dans les langues bantoues. Africana Linguistica X. Série IN-8. Sciences Humaines. N. 121.55–145.

  • Bergen, B. K. (2004). The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language, 80, 290–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bermudez-Otero, R., & McMahon, A. (2006). English phonology and morphology. In B. Aarts & A. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (pp. 382–410). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blevins, J. (2003). Stems and paradigms. Language, 79, 737–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobaljik, J. (2000). The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. In K. K. Grohmann & C. Struijke (Eds.), University of Maryland working papers in linguistics (Vol. 10, pp. 35–71).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobaljik, J. (2005). Itelmen plural diminutives: a belated reply to Perlmutter 1988. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2004 (pp. 317–319). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Booij, G. (2007). Construction morphology and the lexicon. In F. Montermini, G. Boyé, & N. Hathout (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 5th décembrettes: morphology in Tolouse (pp. 34–44). Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burani, C., & Thornton, A. M. (2003). The interplay of root, suffix and whole-word frequency in processing derived words. In R. H. Baayen & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 157–208). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caballero, G. (2008). Choguita Rarámuri Tarahumara phonology and morphology. University of California, Berkeley dissertation.

  • Caballero, G., & Harris, A. C. (2010). A Working typology of multiple exponence: cross-linguistic variation and theoretical implications. Paper presented at the XIV international morphology meeting, Budapest.

  • Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dimmendaal, G.J. (1983). The Turkana language. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donohue, M. (2003). Agreement in the Skou language: a historical account. Oceanic Linguistics, 42, 479–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downing, L. (2001). Ungeneralizable minimality in Ndebele. Studies in African Linguistics, 30, 33–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downing, L. (2005). Jita causative doubling provides optimal paradigms. In L. Downing, T. Hall, & R. Raffelsiefen (Eds.), Paradigms in phonological theory (pp. 122–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressler, W. (2004). Hypercharacterization and productivity in inflectional morphology. In U. M. T. Krisch & T. Lindner (Eds.), Analecta Homimi Universali Dicata: Festschrift für Oswald Panagl zum 65. Geburtstag (pp. 515–524). Stuttgart: Heinz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Embick, D., & Halle, M. (2005). On the status of stems in morphological theory. In T. Geerts & H. Jacobs (Eds.), Proceedings of Going Romance 2003, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabb, N. (1988). English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 64, 527–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnanadesikan, A. (1997). Phonology with ternary scales. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Linguistics.

  • Good, J. (2005). Reconstructing morpheme order in Bantu: the case of causativization and applicativization. Diachronica, 22, 55–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurevich, O. (2006). Constructional morphology: the Georgian version. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20 (pp. 111–176). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hankamer, J., & Mikkelsen, L. (2005). When movement must be blocked: a reply to Embick and Noyer. Linguistic Inquiry, 361, 85–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargus, S. (1988). Outstanding dissertations in linguistics series. The lexical phonology of sekani. New York: Garland Publishing. 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A. (2008). Explaining exuberant agreement. In T. Eythorsson (Ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: the rosendal papers (pp. 265–283). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, J. (2002). From speech perception to morphology: affix ordering revisited. Language, 78(3), 527–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay, J., & Baayen, H. (2002). Parsing and productivity. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2001 (pp. 203–235). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hay, J., & Baayen, H. (2005). Trends in cognitive sciences: Vol. 9. Shifting paradigms: gradient structure in morphology (pp. 342–348).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, J., & Plag, I. (2004). What constrains possible suffix combinations? On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 22, 565–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hippisley, A. (1997). Declarative derivation: a network morphology account of Russian word formation with reference to nouns denoting ‘person’. PhD thesis, University of Surrey.

  • Hippisley, A. (2001). Word formation rules in a default inheritance framework: a network account of Russian personal nouns. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1999 (pp. 221–261). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, L. M. (2003a). Sound change, misanalysis and analogy in the Bantu causative. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 24, 55–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, L. M. (2003b). Suffix ordering in Bantu: a morphocentric approach. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2002 (pp. 245–281). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, L. M., Inkelas, S., & Galen, S. (2009). A subtree correspondence theory of reduplication in Ndebele. In K. Hanson & S. Inkelas (Eds.), The nature of the word: essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky (pp. 273–310). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, L., & Mchombo, S. (1992). Morphotactic constraints in the Chichewa verb stem. In Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society (Vol. 18, pp. 350–364).

    Google Scholar 

  • Inkelas, S. (1989). Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. PhD thesis, Stanford University.

  • Inkelas, S. (1993). Nimboran position class morphology. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 11, 559–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inkelas, S. (1998). The theoretical status of morphologically conditioned phonology: a case study from dominance. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1997 (pp. 121–155). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Inkelas, S., & Orgun, O.C. (1995). Level ordering and economy in the lexical phonology of Turkish. Language, 71, 763–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inkelas, S., & Orgun, O.C. (1998). Level nonordering in recursive morphology: evidence from Turkish. In S. Lapointe, D. Brentari, & P. Farrell (Eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax (pp. 360–405). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inkelas, S., & Zoll, C. (2005). Reduplication: doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Inkelas, S., & Zoll, C. (2007). Is grammar dependence real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics, 45, 133–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kibrik, A. (1991). Organising principles for nominal paradigms in Daghestan languages: comparative and typological observations. In F. Plank (Ed.), Paradigms (pp. 255–274). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky, P. (1982a). Word-formation and the lexicon. In F. Ingemann (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1982 mid-America linguistics conference (pp. 3–29). Lawrence: Department of Linguistics, University of Kansas

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky, P. (1982b). Lexical morphology and phonology. In I.-S. Yang (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 3–91). Seoul: Hanshin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky, P. (1984). On the lexical phonology of Icelandic. In C.-C. Elert, I. Johnson, & E. Stangert (Eds.), Umeå studies in the humanities: Vol. 59. Nordic prosody III (pp. 135–164). Stockholm: Almqvist och Wiksell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 2, 85–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky, P. (2000). Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review, 17, 351–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky, P. (2005). Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2004 (pp. 113–135). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky, P. (2008). Fenno-swedish quantity: contrast in stratal OT. In B. Vaux & A. Nevins (Eds.), Rules, constraints and phonological phenomena (pp. 185–219). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kirchner, R. (1996). Synchronic chain shifts in optimality theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 27, 341–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudanna, A., & Burani, C. (1995). Distributional properties of derivational affixes: implications for processing. In L. F. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 345–364). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, C. (2005). Pleonasm and hypercharacterisation. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2005 (pp. 119–154). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lieber, R. (1980). On the organization of the lexicon. PhD thesis, Masachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

  • Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Second edition published in 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. (2002). A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. (2005). Optimal paradigms. In L. Downing, T. A. Hall, & R. Raffelsiefen (Eds.), Paradigms in phonological theory (pp. 170–210). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. (2008). The gradual path to cluster simplification. Phonology.

  • McFarland, T. (2009). The phonology and morphology of Filomeno Mata Totonac. PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Michael, L. (2008). Nanti evidential practice: Language, knowledge, and social action in an Amazonian society. PhD thesis, University of Texas, Austin.

  • Mohanan, K. P. (1986). Lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortensen, D. (2006). Formal and substantive scales in phonology. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Müller, G. (2006). Extended exponence by enrichment: argument encoding in German, Archi and Timucua. Unpublished manuscript, University of Leipzig.

  • Nash, D. (1986). Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngunga, A. (1997). Lexical phonology and morphology of the Ciyao verb stem. PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Noyer, R. (1992). Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. PhD thesis, MIT.

  • Noyer, R. (1993). Optimal Words: towards a declarative theory of word formation. Paper presented at Rutgers Optimality Workshop-1, Rutgers University. Downloadable from ftp://babel.ling.upenn.edu/facpapers/rolf_noyer/optimal_words.ps.

  • Orgun, C. O. (1996). Sign-based morphology and phonology: with special attention to Optimality Theory. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Orgun, C. O., & Inkelas, S. (2002). Reconsidering bracket erasure. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2001 (pp. 115–146). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Paster, M. (2006). Phonological conditions on affixation. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Paster, M. (2007). Aspects of Maay phonology and morphology. Studies in African Linguistics, 35, 73–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, D. (1993). Multiple exponence and morphosyntactic redundancy. In E. Duncan & P. S. Donka Farkas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th West coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 83–100). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poser, W. J. (1992). Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In I. A. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters (pp. 111–130). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulleyblank, D. (1986). Tone in lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pycha, A. (2008). Morphological sources of phonological length. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Reid, A. A., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2003). Lexical representation of morphologically complex words: evidence from Polish. In R. H. Baayen & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 287–336). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, A. A., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2001). A constructional approach to idioms and word formation. PhD thesis, Stanford University.

  • Riehemann, S. (2001). A constructional approach to idioms and word formation. PhD thesis, Stanford University.

  • Ryan, K. (2010). Variable affix order: grammar and learning. Language, 86, 758–791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidenberg, M. (1987). Sublexical structures in visual word recognition: access units or orthographic redundancy. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII (pp. 245–264). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, E. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibanda, G. (2004). Verbal phonology and morphology of Ndebele. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Stump, G. (1991). A paradigm-based theory of morphosemantic mismatches. Language, 67, 675–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology: a theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taft, M. (1981). Prefix stripping revisited. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 289–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M. (2008). Optimal interleaving: serial phonology-morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Wurm, L. H. (1997). Auditory processing of prefixed English words is both continuous and decompositional. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 438–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Z., & Aronoff, M. (2011). A realization Optimality Theory approach to blocking and extended morphological exponence. Journal of Linguistics, 47, 673–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, A. C. L. (2007). A natural history of infixation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, A. C. L. (2000). Stress assignment in Tohono O’odham. Phonology, 17, 117–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriela Caballero.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Caballero, G., Inkelas, S. Word construction: tracing an optimal path through the lexicon. Morphology 23, 103–143 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-013-9220-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-013-9220-x

Keywords

Navigation