1887
Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00014.nem
2018-08-30
2019-08-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00014.nem
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00014.nem
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): endoskeletal lexemes , exoskeletal morphemes , fractality , plurisemy and 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