Projections and constructions in functional morphology: the case of Old English HRĒOW (original) (raw)
Related papers
The aim of this article is to apply the framework of the Layered Structure of the Word (LSW) to the derivational paradigm of Old English HRĒOW, thus contributing to the debate over morphology in structural-functional models of language such as Role and Reference Grammar. In general, the line is taken that, although full regularity is an unattainable aim in morphological analysis, a combination of projections and constructions on the explanatory side and syntagmatic as well as paradigmatic analysis on the descriptive side can explain certain synchronic regularities in derivational morphology and take a new look at some unproductive patterns. In synchronic analysis, this research concentrates on processes that apply regularly if the definitions of the source and target category of the derivation are taken into account. In this framework, functional categories may undergo functional adjustment and produce, through linking meaning-form that operates on lexical structures, fully specified words represented by means of the LSW. In diachronic analysis, the derivational paradigm states morphological relatedness both in the synchronic and the diachronic axis. At the same time, the Nuclear Shell Principle stipulates that the Nucleus of the LSW isolates opaque non-productive stem formations that are recoverable in the diachrony only, thus distinguishing unproductive from productive processes in the synchrony. A discussion of the relevance of the LSW to cross-linguistic analysis yields the conclusions that the layered morphological structure and the morphological template are applicable to non-Indo-European languages and that lexical negation, modification, causativity and relators, are leading candidates for universal lexical operators.
The aim of this journal article is to study recursivity in terms of morphological process feeding in the formation of Old English, thus dealing with the relationship that holds among the major lexical creation processes of affixation (suffixation and prefixation), compounding and zero-derivation. The analysis is based on the ascription of each of the predicates to one of the morphological processes and the identification of the base and adjunct constituents of each complex predicate. Two main conclusions can be drawn from this research. First, that no relative ordering of processes can be established, and second, that recursive word-formation in Old English outnumbers non-recursive wordformation.
The Lexical Semantic Framework (LSF, Lieber, 2004) is concerned with the study of the semantics of word-formation processes. The central goal of LSF is to characterize the meaning of simple lexemes and affixes and to show how these meanings can be integrated in the creation of complex words. LSF offers a systematic treatment of issues that figure prominently in the study of word formation: (a) The polysemy question: why do derivational affixes often exhibit polysemy (e.g. agent, instrument, experiencer, stimulus, patient/theme nouns in-er, as in driver, opener, hearer, pleaser, keeper)? (b) The multiple-affix question: why are there affixes that create the same kind of derived words (i.e. bother and-ant create agent nouns, e.g. writer, accountant)? (c) The zero-derivation question: how do we account for zero-affixation, that is, semantic change with no (overt) formal change (i.e. " conversion ")? (d) The form and meaning mismatches question: why are there instances where the form and meaning correlation is often not one-to-one? LSF has its source in a confluence of research approaches that follow a decompositional approach to meaning and, thus, defines simple lexemes and affixes by way of a systematic representation that is achieved via a constrained formal language that enforces consistency of annotation. Lexical-semantic representations in LSF consist of two parts: the Semantic/Grammatical Skeleton and the Semantic/Pragmatic Body (henceforth 'skeleton' and 'body' respectively). The skeleton is comprised of features that are of relevance to the syntax. These features act as functions and may take arguments. Functions and arguments of a skeleton are hierarchically arranged. The body encodes all those aspects of meaning that are perceptual, cultural, and encyclopedic. Features in LSF are used in (a) a cross-categorial, (b) an equipollent, and (c) a priva-tive way. This means that they are used to account for the distinction between the major ontological categories, may have a binary (i.e. positive or negative) value and may or may not form part of the skeleton of a given lexeme. In order to account for the fact that several distinct parts integrate into a single referential unit that projects its arguments to the syntax, LSF makes use of the Principle of Co-indexation. Co-indexation is a device needed in order to tie together the arguments that come with different parts of a complex word to yield only those arguments that are syntactically active. LSF has an important impact on the study of the morphology-lexical semantics interface and provides a unitary theory of meaning in word formation.
This journal article takes issue with the morphological structure of complex nouns in Old English. This stage of the language is characterised by a rich morphology and, with most of its lexemes being morphologically complex, Old English provides a fertile field of study for the kind of analysis here undertaken. The present study analyses the interaction between affixation, compounding, zero-derivation and inflection in terms of the feeding of the morphological processes, that is, the successive order in which they appear, thus allowing for the establishment of regular patterns of noun formation and generalizations on lexical creation. Overall, 119 different word structures have been identified, depending on the type and number of morphological processes involved. The conclusion is reached that non-basic nouns in Old English contain up to six levels of complexity, with the bulk of the formations consisting of three and four levels, that is, with three or four derivational steps taking place.
The Derivational Map of Old English and the Limits of Gradual Derivation
This journal article deals with Old English word-formation as represented by a derivational map. In a derivational map, lexical derivation applies gradually, so that a process only occurs at a time and affixes are attached one by one. This theoretical and methodological stance holds good for most derivations but there is also evidence of non-gradual formations with the prefixes ǣ-, ge-, or-, twi-, ðri-, and un-. After discussing the relevant derivatives with each of the aforementioned affixes, the conclusions are reached that non-gradual formations arise in frequent word-formation patterns; they constitute, with few exceptions, an adjectival phenomenon; and they are mainly associated with secondary derivational functions. Regarding the derivational map of Old English, the conclusion is drawn that non-gradual formations have to be represented by means of reconstructed forms so that each node represents one lexeme and each edge marks one morphological process.
Morphological theory and English
This paper presents a review of a number of recent issues in the field of generative morphology, with their implications for the description of English. After an introduction to the field two types of question are considered. First, 1 examine the nature of word structure and illustrate two competing approaches, one of which assurnes that words have a constituent structure (much like the phrase structure of syntax) and the other of which rejects this assumption. Then we look at the way morphologicai structure interacts with syntax. We examine the extent to which syntactic principles can account for the behaviour of certain types of compounds and aiso the expression of syntactic arguments in nominaiizations.
FORM AND MEANING IN MORPHOLOGY. Linguistics 24 (1986), 503-518
1986
Some morphologists have proposed the separation of form and meaning in morphology because of the lack of a one-to-one correspondence between them. In this paper it is shown that this position is ill-advised since it impedes a deeper insight into the systematics of the interpretation of complex words. This is demonstrated by a detailed study of one affix, the déverbal suffix -er in Dutch, which creates subject names. The apparent polysemy of this suffix appears to follow from independent, nonlinguistic principles.