Cover not available

In:Morphology and Meaning: Selected papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2012
Edited by Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Hans Christian Luschützky and Wolfgang U. Dressler
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 327] 2014
► pp. 177–190

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Discrepancy between form and meaning 
in word-formation

The case of over- and under-marking in French

 | CLLE-ERSS, CNRS & University of Toulouse Le Mirail
 | University of Lorraine & ATILF - UMR 7118
Published online: 27 February 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.327.12hat
Most word-formation theories assume that derivatives in general tend towards canonicity, i.e. one-to-one correspondence between form and meaning and thus full morphosemantic transparency. However, form-meaning mismatches actually are widespread, both in terms of languages and word-formation rules. These mainly fall into two types: over-marking and under-marking. In this paper we propose a classification of these deviations, distinguishing between a derivational and a lexical level. We illustrate this classification with examples from French and other languages (English, Italian and Dutch). We sketch a unified analysis of these deviations within a word-based framework. We propose to analyse the relative importance of canonicity and discrepancies in word formation from the perspective of the interaction between the speaker and the hearer.
References (32)
References
Adams, Valerie. 2001. Complex Words in English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allen, Andrew S. 1981. “The Development of Prefixal and Parasynthetic Verbs in Latin and Romance”. Romance Philology 35.79–88.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Based Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Becker, Thomas. 1993. “Back-Formation, Cross-Formation, and ‘Bracketing Paradoxes’ in Paradigmatic Morphology”. Yearbook of Morphology 1992 ed. by Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle, 1–27. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2002. The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 2010. “Canonical Derivational Morphology”. Word Structure 3.141–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corbin, Danièle. 2001. “Du nouveau sur beurre laitier. Note sur une fausse conversion”. Par monts et par vaux. Itinéraires linguistiques et grammaticaux ed. by Claude Buridant, Georges Kleiber & Jean-Christophe Pellat, 127–143. Louvain & Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Darmesteter, Arsène. 1894 [1875]. Traité de la formation des mots composés dans la langue française comparée aux autres langues romanes et au latin. 2nd edition. Paris: Bouillon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2000. “Extragrammatical vs Marginal Morphology”. Marginal and Extragrammatical Morphology ed. by Ursula Doleschal & Anna M. Thornton, 1–10. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fradin, Bernard. 2000. “Combining Forms, Blends and Related Phenomena”. Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology, ed. by Ursula Doleschal & Anna M. Thornton, 11–59. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hathout, Nabil. 2011. “Une analyse unifiée de la préfixation en anti-”. Roché, Boyé, Hathout, Lignon & Plénat, eds. 2011, 251–318.
Iacobini, Claudio. 2004. “Parasintesi”. La formazione delle parole in italiano ed. by Maria Grossmann & Franz Rainer, 165–188. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koehl, Aurore. 2009. “Are French ité Suffixed Nouns Property Nouns?”. Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux ed. by Fabio Montermini, Gilles Boyé & Jesse Tseng, 95–110. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Steven C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindsay, Mark & Mark Aronoff. 2013. “Natural Selection in Self-Organizing Morphological Systems”. Morphology in Toulouse ed. by Nabil Hathout, Fabio Montermini & Jesse Tseng, 133–153. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nagano, Akiko. 2007. “Marchand’s Analysis of Back-Formation Revisited: Back-Formation as a Type of Conversion”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 54.33–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Namer, Fiammetta. 2013. “Adjectival Bases of French aliser and ariser Verbs: Syncretism or Under-Specification?”. Morphology in Toulouse ed. by Nabil Hathout, Fabio Montermini & Jesse Tseng, 185–210. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piantadosi, Steven, Harry Tily & Edward Gibson. 2012. “The Communicative Function of Ambiguity in Language”. Cognition 122:3.280–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plénat, Marc. 2009. “Les contraintes de taille”. Aperçus de Morphologie du français ed. by Bernard Fradin, Françoise Kerleroux & Marc Plénat, 47–64. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plénat, Marc & Michel Roché. 2004. “Entre morphologie et phonologie: la suffixation décalée”. Lexique 16.159–198.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory. Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. RuCCS Technical Report 2. Piscataway: Rutgers Center for Cognitive Sciences, Rutgers University, and Boulder : Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roché, Michel. 2011a. “Quel traitement unifié pour les dérivations en isme et en iste”. Roché, Boyé, Hathout, Lignon & Plénat, eds. 2011, 69–143.
. 2011b. “Quelle morphologie?”. Roché, Boyé, Hathout, Lignon & Plénat, eds. 2011, 15–39.
. 2011c. “Pression lexicale et contraintes phonologiques dans la dérivation en aie du français”. Linguistica 51.5–22.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roché, Michel, Gilles Boyé, Nabil Hathout, Stéphanie Lignon & Marc Plénat. 2011. Des unités morphologiques au lexique. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio. 1994. Morfologia. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Serrano Dolader, David. 1995. Las formaciones parasintéticas en español. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shimamura, Reiko. 1983. “Backformation of English Compound Verbs”. Papers from the Parasession on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology and Syntax ed. by John F. Richardson, Mitchell Marks & Amy Chukerman, 271–282. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szymanek, Bogdan. 2005. “The Latest Trends in English Word-Formation”. Handbook of Word-Formation ed. by Pavel Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber, 429–448. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thornton, Anna M. 2012. “Reduction and Maintenance of Overabundance. A Case Study on Italian Verb Paradigms”. Word Structure 5:2.183–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warren, Beatrice. 1990. “The Importance of Combining Forms”. Contemporary Morphology ed. by Wolfgang U. Dressler, Hans Christian Luschützky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & John R. Rennison, 111–132. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zipf, George K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Copot, Maria & Olivier Bonami
2024. Baseless derivation: the behavioural reality of derivational paradigms. Cognitive Linguistics 35:2 ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Khazhieva, Zilya, Olga Novikova, Andrey Belyaev & Larisa Ivanova
2023. The Word-building Category Potential in the Analysis of the Names of Persons in the Russian and Bashkir Languages. <i>WORD</i> 69:2 ► pp. 160 ff. DOI logo
Hathout, Nabil & Fiammetta Namer
2022. ParaDis: a family and paradigm model. Morphology 32:2 ► pp. 153 ff. DOI logo
Laks, Lior & Fiammetta Namer
2022. Hebrewnette – A New Derivational Resource for Non-concatenative Morphology: Principles, Design and Implementation . Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 118:1 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Namer, Fiammetta & Nabil Hathout
2020. ParaDis and Démonette – From Theory to Resources for Derivational Paradigms. Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 114:1 ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo
Stump, Gregory
2019. Some sources of apparent gaps in derivational paradigms. Morphology 29:2 ► pp. 271 ff. DOI logo
Shalal, Fadhel Abbas
2018. Morpheme-based approach versus word-based approach: classifying derivative words with respect to their bases. Russian Linguistics 42:2 ► pp. 237 ff. DOI logo
Efthymiou, Angeliki, Georgia Fragaki & Angelos Markos
2015. Exploring the polysemy of the Modern Greek prefix iper-. Morphology 25:4 ► pp. 411 ff. DOI logo
Namer, Fiammetta & Florence Villoing
2015. Sens morphologiquement construit et procédés concurrents : les noms de spécialistes en -logue et -logiste. Revue de sémantique et pragmatique 35-36:35-36 ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue