Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The article presents a morphemic account of transcategoriality, with detailed illustrations (e.g. English and , French , , meme, Latin to French morpheme //) of the approach. After making explicit the paradigmatic differences between exoskeletal and endoskeletal approaches, and showing that ultimately it can be summarized in terms of existence or not of grammar-free morphemes becoming lexemes through grammatical and contextual insertion, it turns to the issue of knowing what an exoskeletal non-categorial meaning can be. It introduces at this stage the notion of fractality, before making explicit and detailing the method which allows isolation of a morpheme’s indicational semantics. The whole approach is finally illustrated with the study of the whole distribution of French //, first semantically in synchrony before extending the tests to Latin data, showing that polysemy, transcategoriality and plurisemy are various forms of the same issue.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anderson, S.
    (1992) A-Morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511586262
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511586262 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aronoff, M.
    (1976) Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge (Ma): the MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aronoff, M. & Anshen, F.
    (1998) Morphology and the lexicon. In Spencer Andrew & Zwicky, A. (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp.248–271). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baudouin de Courtenay, J.
    (1895) Versuch einer Theorie phonetischer Alternationen: Ein Kapitel aus der Psychophonetik. Strassburg/Crakow.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Beck, D.
    (2002) The typology of parts of speech system: The markedness of adjectives. New York & London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Benveniste, E.
    (1966) Problèmes sémantiques de la reconstruction. Problèmes de linguistique générale, 1, 289–307.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Blakemore, D.
    (1989) Denial and contrast: A relevance theoretic analysis of but . Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 15–37.10.1007/BF00627397
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627397 [Google Scholar]
  8. Borer, H.
    (2003) Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In Moore, J. and M. Polinsky (Eds.), The nature of explanation in linguistic theory (pp.31–65). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bouchard, D.
    (1995) The semantics of syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Broschart, J.
    (1997) Why Tongan does it differently?: Categorial distinctions in a language without nouns and verbs. Linguistic typology, 1, 123–165.10.1515/lity.1997.1.2.123
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.2.123 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cadiot, P. & Visetti, Y. M.
    (2001) Pour une théorie des formes sémantiques. Paris: PUF.10.3917/puf.cadi.2001.01
    https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.cadi.2001.01 [Google Scholar]
  12. Di Sciullo, A. M. & Williams, E.
    (1987) On the definition of Word. Cambridge: MIT press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dixon, R. & Aikhenvald, A.
    (2002) Word: A cross-linguistic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fraser, B.
    (1998) Contrastive discourse markers in English. In A. H. Jucker and Y. Ziv , (eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.57.15fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.15fra [Google Scholar]
  15. Gaffiot, F.
    (2016 [1934]) Dictionnaire Latin-Français. Gréco, G. (Dir). E-editing.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gasiglia, N. , Nemo, F. & Cadiot, P.
    (2001) Meaning and the generation of reference. In Bouillon, P. (ed.), Generative approaches to the lexicon. Université de Genève.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Heine, B. & Kilian-Hatz, C.
    (1994), Polysemy in African languages: An example from Baka. In Geider, T. & Kastenholz, R. (eds), Sprachen un Sprachzeugnisse in Afrika. Köln: Rudiger Köppe Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hengeveld, K.
    (1992) Non-verbal predication: Theory, typology, diachrony. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110883282
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883282 [Google Scholar]
  19. Horchani, B.
    (2018) Le complexe sémantique tant en français. PhD Thesis. Universitéd de Orléans.
  20. Kay, P.
    (1990) Even. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 59–111.10.1007/BF00630517
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630517 [Google Scholar]
  21. Launey, M.
    (1994) Une grammaire onmiprédicative. Paris: CNRS éditions.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Mosegaard-Hansen, M. B.
    (2009) Particles at the semantics/pragmatics interface: Synchronic and diachronic issues. A Study with special reference to the French phrasal adverb. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Nemo, F.
    (1999) The pragmatics of signs, the semantics of relevance, and the semantic/pragmatic interface. In K. Turner (ed.), The semantics-pragmatics interface from different points of view (pp.343–417). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2001a) Pour une approche indexicale (et non procédurale) des instructions sémantiques. Revue de Sémantique et de Pragmatique, 9–10, 195–218.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2001b) Morpheme semantics and the autonomy of morphology: The stable semantics of (apparently) unstable constructions. In Mary Andronis , Christopher Ball , Heidi Elston , and Sylvain Neuvel (eds.), CLS 37: The Panels. Papers from the 37th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol.2. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2002) But (and mais) as morpheme(s). Delta (Sao Paulo), 18–2.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2003) Indexicalité, unification contextuelle et constitution extrinsèque du référent. Langages, 150, 88–105.10.3406/lgge.2003.917
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.2003.917 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2005) Morphemes and lexemes versus morphemes or lexemes. In G. Booij , E. Guevara , A. Ralli , S. Sgroi & S. Scalise (Eds.), Morphology and linguistic typology. Siculorum gymnasium (pp.253–272). Université de Catania.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2006) Discourse particles as morphemes and as constructions. In Kerstin Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp.415–448). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2007) Reconsidering the discourse marking hypothesis. In A. Celle & R. Huart (Eds.), Connectives as discourse landmarks (pp.195–210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.161.17nem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.161.17nem [Google Scholar]
  31. (2014) Interprétabilité ou grammaticalité ? Les listèmes comme interface entre sémantique et morphologie. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique, 35–36, 105–144.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Petit, M.
    (2009) Discrimination prosodique et représentation du lexique: application aux emplois des connecteurs discursifs. PhD Thesis, University of Orléans.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Pustet, R.
    (2000) How arbitray is lexical categorization ? verbsvs adjectives. Linguistic typology, 4–2, 175–212.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Robert, S.
    (2003) Vers une typologie de la transcatégorialité. In S. Robert (ed.), Perspectives synchroniques sur la grammaticalisation: Polysémie, transcatégorialité et échelles syntaxiques (pp.255–270). Louvain: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (2003) Polygrammaticalisation, grammaire fractale et propriétés d’échelle. In S. Robert (ed.), Perspectives synchroniques sur la grammaticalisation: Polysémie, transcatégorialité et échelles syntaxiques (pp.85–120). Louvain: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2004) The challenge of polygrammaticalization for linguistic theory: Fractal grammar and transcategorial functioning. In Z. Frajzyngier , A. Hodges , and D. Rood (Eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories (pp.119–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Scalise, S. & Guevara, E.
    (2005) The lexicalist approach to word-formation and the notion of the lexicon. In Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber (Eds.), The handbook of word formation (pp.147–187). Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/1‑4020‑3596‑9_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3596-9_7 [Google Scholar]
  38. Vogel, P. & Comrie, B.
    (Eds.) (2000) Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110806120
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110806120 [Google Scholar]
  39. Wartburg, W. V. & Bloch, O.
    (2009 [2002]) Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue française. Paris: PUF.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Wilson, D. & Sperber, D.
    (1990) Forme linguistique et pertinence. Cahiers de linguistique française, 11, 13–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (1993) Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 1–25.10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90058‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): endoskeletal lexemes; exoskeletal morphemes; fractality; plurisemy; transcategoriality
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error