Unification and separation in a functional theory of morphology

Abstract

This paper offers the initial design for a functional theory of morphology and addresses the question of how much unification or separation of domains and units is required in such a theory. Given that morphology is largely driven by principles that also rule syntax and semantics, the main thrust of this proposal is that the interaction between morphology and other areas of the theory can be adequately accounted for by the combination of three descriptive-explanatory resources: layered structures, templates and constructions. Other descriptiveexplanatory principles such as feature percolation and the characteristics of bases and adjuncts remain specifically morphological. Unification and separation in morphology must be carried out on functional grounds. Moreover, Old English evidence shows that no strict separation can be postulated, either between morphology and the rest of the theory or among the different morphological processes.

Old English Adjectival Affixation: Structure and Function

“…To conclude, the analysis of recursivity shows that there is no double recursivity in prefixation, which conforms to the maximal degree of complexity in Old English derivational morphology found by Martín Arista (2008), whereas there is double recursivity in suffixation, as in dēawigendlic 'dewy; moist'.…”

“…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.…”