In:The Form of Structure, the Structure of Form: Essays in honor of Jean Lowenstamm
Edited by Sabrina Bendjaballah, Noam Faust, Mohamed Lahrouchi and Nicola Lampitelli
[Language Faculty and Beyond 12] 2014
► pp. 235–252
On templates
Published online: 17 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.12.18kih
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.12.18kih
Severe limitations apply to the sound shape of roots and stems, yielding ‘templates’ (in one sense of the term). Templaticity is a property of human language. Two kinds, default and nondefault, ought to be distinguished, however. Default templaticity amounts to keeping the bulk and phonetic complexity of roots and stems within narrow limits. Nondefault templaticity is more specific (cf. Semitic roots) and often considered to partake of the grammatical kit that builds up the elements of the language. The present paper challenges this view. Adopting a Word and Paradigm perspective, it argues that nondefault templates do not belong to the grammars children acquire, but they are abstracted from the paradigms they assimilate in order to master the word-forms realizing the lexemes of their language.
References (26)
Aronoff, Mark. 1992. “Stems in Latin Verbal Morphology.” In Morphology Now, ed. by Mark Aronoff, 5–32. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Bat-El, Outi. 2003. “The Fate of the Consonantal Root and the Binyan in Optimality Theory.” Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 32: 31–60.
Benjaballah, Sabrina. 2012. La grammaire des gabarits: sur la segmentation et la linéarisation des marqueurs non-concaténatifs. Habilitation à diriger des recherches, Université Paris-Diderot.
Benjaballah, Sabrina, and Martin Haiden. 2003. “Templatic Architecture.” Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 32: 157–168.
Blevins, James P., and Juliette Blevins. 2009. “Introduction: Analogy in Grammar.” In Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, ed. by James P. Blevins, and Juliette Blevins, 1–12. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bonami, Olivier, and Gregory T. Stump. To appear. “Paradigm Function Morphology.” In The Handbook of Morphology, ed. by Andrew Spencer. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dell, François, and Mohamed Elmedlaoui. 1988. “Syllabic Consonants in Berber: Some New Evidence.” Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 10: 1–17.
Galit, Adam, and Outi Bat-El. 2008. “Morphological Knowledge Without Morphological Structure: Morphology-prosody Interface in the First Hebrew Verbs.” In Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics, ed. by Sharon Armon-Lotem, Gabi Danon, and Susan Rothstein, 197–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hoenigswald, Henry M., Roger D. Woodard, and James P.T. Clackson. 2008. “Appendix 1: Indo-European.” In The Ancient Languages of Europe, ed. by Roger D. Woodard, 230–246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jasanoff, Jay H. 2008. “Gothic.” In The Ancient Languages of Europe, ed. by Roger D. Woodard, 189–214. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kihm, Alain. 2006. “Nonsegmental Concatenation: A Study of Classical Arabic Broken Plurals and Verbal Nouns.” Morphology 16: 69–105.
Lowenstamm, Jean. 2002. “A Note on the Segmental Identification of Templatic Sites.” Ms., Université Paris-Diderot.
Matthews, Peter Hugoe. 1974. Morphology: An Introduction to the Theory of Word-structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mithun, Marianne. 2012. “The Deeper Regularities behind Irregularities.” In Irregularity in Morphology (and beyond), ed. by Thomas Stolz, Hitomi Otsuka, Aina Urdze, and Johan van der Auwera, 39–59. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Sag, Ivan A. 2012. “Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An Informal Synopsis.” In Sign-Based Construction Grammar, ed. by Hans C. Boas, and Ivan A. Sag, 69–202. Stanford: CSLI Publications.