Skip to main content

Paradigms in word formation: what are we up to?

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    confidee and confidable are attested in English, but do not have the same meaning as the other lexemes in columns 4 and 5 of Table 2. confidee is a recipient and not a patient while confidable is a property of a person which one can confide to and not a property of a secret that one can confide.

  2. 2.

    A bey is a governor of a district or province in the Ottoman Empire.

  3. 3.

    These nouns respectively belong to the derivational family (inspect, inspector, inspection), (teach, teacher, teaching) and (guard, guard, ∅).

References

  1. Ackerman, F., & Malouf, R. (2013). Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language, 89(3), 429–464.

    Article  Google 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.

    Chapter  Google 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Blevins, J. P. (2016). Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Bochner, H. (1993). Simplicity in generative morphology. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Bonami, O., & Beniamine, S. (2016). Joint predictiveness in inflectional paradigms. Word Structure, 9(2), 156–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bonami, O., & Strnadová, J. (2018). Paradigm structure and predictability in derivational morphology. Morphology 1–31.

  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.

    Chapter  Google 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.

  15. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1994). Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language, 737–788.

  16. Dal Maso, S., & Giraudo, H. (2019). On the interplay between family and series effects in masked-priming. Morphology 1–23.

  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.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pounder, A. (2000). Process and paradigms in word-formation morphology (Vol. 131). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Roché, M. (2011a). Quel traitement unifié pour les dérivations en -isme et en -iste ? In Roché et al. (2011) 69–143.

  29. Roché, M. (2011b). Quelle morphologie ? In Roché et al. (2011) 15–39.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Spencer, A. (2013). Lexical relatedness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google 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.

  36. Stump, G. T. (2017a). Rule conflation in an inferential-realizational theory of morphotactics. Acta Linguistica Academica, 64(1), 79–124.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Van Marle, J. (1984). On the paradigmatic dimension of morphological creativity. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Wunderlich, D., & Fabri, R. (1995). Minimalist morphology: An approach to inflection. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 14(2), 236–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fiammetta Namer.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hathout, N., Namer, F. Paradigms in word formation: what are we up to?. Morphology 29, 153–165 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-019-09344-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Paradigms
  • Word formation
  • Inflection
  • Derivational families
  • Arrangement relations