A typology of morphological constructions

Abstract

This article is a contribution to the development of the theory of morphology of Role and Reference Grammar in line with the more central role that constructions play in the latest version of this linguistic theory. In order to propose a principled definition of morphological processes that is not dependent on fuzzy notions like class membership, this article applies the distinction between constructions and constructional schemas to morphology in the following way. As regards morphological constructions, which are typologically relevant, the defining criterion is the distribution of markedness, that is, whether the morphologically relevant features are in the Nucleus or not. Two possibilities arise in this respect: the nuclear element or one or more non-nuclear elements are marked. If the nuclear element is marked, there is projection of morphological features. If the non-nuclear elements are marked, there is percolation as well as projection of features. Regarding constructional schemas, which are language-specific instantiations of constructions and can combine with one another, they fall into the following types: recursive/non-recursive, analytic/synthetic and continuous/discontinuous. After an application to the language of analysis, Pitjantjatjara/Yankunytjatjara, the conclusion is drawn that derivation (including compounding and affixation) can be endocentric or exocentric, whereas inflection is endocentric. Inflection and derivation can be analytic and synthetic as well as continuous and discontinuous. Unlike derivation, inflection is typically non-recursive, but the evidence provided by double case in Pitjantjatjara/Yankunytjatjara is relevant for this question.

Old English Adjectival Affixation: Structure and Function

“…To summarize, this work has drawn on the structural-functional model of morphology put forward by Martín Arista (2008Arista ( , 2009Arista ( , 2011aArista ( , 2012b regarding two theoretical questions. In the first place, the defining properties of derivational morphology are recategorization and recursivity.…”

“…The Nerthus group has made several contributions to the field, including Martín Arista & Martín de la Rosa (2006), de la Cruz Cabanillas (2007), García García (2012), González Torres (2010aTorres ( , 2010b, Guarddon Anelo (2009, forthcoming), Pesquera Fernández (2011), Torre Alonso (2011aAlonso ( , 2011b, Martín Arista (2008Arista ( , 2009Arista ( , 2011aArista ( , 2011bArista ( , 2011cArista ( , 2012aArista ( , 2012bArista ( , 2013 and Martín Arista & Cortés Rodríguez (forthcoming). However, neither Kastovsky nor the Nerthus group have paid special attention to the lexical class of the adjective.…”

“…The model of structural-functional morphology proposed by Martín Arista (2008Arista ( , 2009Arista ( , 2011aArista ( , 2012b, forthcoming) rests on the concept of morphological contrasts as taking place on two different axes. At the paradigmatic axis, morphological contrasts that involve units not more complex than a phrase are established in an open paradigm, namely the derivational paradigm.…”

“…In this respect, I draw on the foundations of a structural-functional theory of morphology as laid out by Martín Arista (2008Arista ( , 2009Arista ( , 2011aArista ( , 2012b concerning the concept of the word as a field of categories and functions at different levels and recursivity as a defining property of derivational morphology. This research is also based on the paradigmatic model of morphology put forward by Pounder (2000) as regards the notion of the derivational paradigm as comprised of a dynamic (morphological) and a static (lexical) part as well as the inventory of lexical functions, which ultimately dwells on Mel'čuk's (1996Mel'čuk's ( , 2006 structural morphology.…”

The derivational map of Old English and the limits of gradual derivation

“…While the study of the derivational morphology of Old English has been focused on the typological changes relating to the rise of word-formation from stem-formation (Kastovsky 2006) and the growing importance of analytic tendencies (Haselow 2011), Martín Arista (2008, 2009, 2010a, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2012a, 2012b, 2013 has put forward a model of derivational morphology based on the structural-functional theory of language called Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997;Van Valin 2005) and applied it to Old English. Among other results of this research programme, the lexical derivation of Old English has been described in terms of variation, so that different lexical layers comprising various word-formation processes coexist and interact (Martín Arista 2011b).…”