Cover not available

In:Lexical Polycategoriality: Cross-linguistic, cross-theoretical and language acquisition approaches
Edited by Valentina Vapnarsky and Edy Veneziano
[Studies in Language Companion Series 182] 2017
► pp. 79–97

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

Categorial flexibility as an emergent phenomenon

A comparison of Arabic, Wolof, and French

 | CNRS & Université Paris-Diderot
Published online: 1 November 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.182.04lio
The present paper takes the view that categorial flexibility (CF, also called polycategoriality), i.e. having the “same” items function both as nouns and verbs, is not a possible substantial property of lexemes. Given the semantic quirks that often characterize such alternative uses (e.g. a tree vs. to tree), assuming CF leads one to posit roots endowed with general and vague meanings, the grammatical and cognitive reality of which appears highly dubious. Lexemes ought therefore to be viewed as rigidly categorized with precise meanings. CF is an emergent phenomenon that results when nouns and verbs share more or less loose semantic networks with the language-particular morphological property that they do not or minimally differ in their forms.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1What is categorial flexibility?
    • 1.2Where could categorial flexibility be found?
    • 1.3Are roots real?
    • 1.4Categorial flexibility as an emergent phenomenon
  • 2.A first test: Standard Arabic
  • 3.A second test: Wolof
  • 4.A third test: French
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (33)
References
Ackema, P. & Neeleman, A. 2004. Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, S. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arad, M. 1999. On ‘little v’. In Papers on Morphology and Syntax, Cycle One [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 33], K. Arregi, B. Bruening, C. Krause & V. Lin (eds), 1–25. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morphosyntax. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. 1992. Stems in Latin verbal morphology. In Morphology Now, Mark Aronoff (ed.), 5–32. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Badawi, E., Carter, M.G. & Gully, A. 2004. Modern Written Arabic: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blevins, J.P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42: 531–573. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York NY: Henry Holt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bonami, O. & Webelhuth, G. 2012. Inflectional periphrasis as collocation. Paper presented at the HPSG Workshop , Frankfurt, May.
Booij, G. 2002. The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J.L. 2000. The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In Usage-Based Models of Language, Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), 65–85. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carter, R. 2006. Polycategoriality and predictability: Problems and prospects. In Lexical Categories and Root Classes in Amerindian Languages, X. Lois & V. Vapnarsky (eds), 343–389. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Church, E. 1981. Le système verbal du wolof. Dakar: Université de Dakar.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, N. & Osada, T. 2005. Mundari: The myth of a language without word classes. Linguistic Typology 9(3): 351–390.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fal, A., Santos, R. & Doneux, J.-L. 1990. Dictionnaire wolof-français. Paris: Karthala.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fradin, B. 2003. Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: PUF. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Marantz, A. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20: Linguistic Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, K. Hale & S.J. Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. & Rijkhoff, J. 2005. Mundari as a flexible language. Linguistic Typology 9(3): 406–431.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kerleroux, F. 1996. La coupure invisible. Lille: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Identification d’un procédé morphologique: La conversion. Faits de langues 14: 79–100.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Launey, M. 1994. Une grammaire omniprédicative. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieber, R. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lois, X. & Vapnarsky, V. 2006. Root indeterminacy and polyvalence in Yukatekan Mayan languages. In Lexical Categories and Root Classes in Amerindian Languages, X. Lois & V. Vapnarsky (eds), 69–115. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Penn Linguistics Colloquium. UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics, A. Dimitriadis, L. Siegel, C. Surek-Clark & A. Williams (eds), 201–225. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthews, P.H. 1974. Morphology: An Introduction to the Theory of Word-structure. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I.A. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prunet, J.-F. 2007. La racine sémitique dans les sciences cognitives. In La formation des mots dans les langues sémitiques, P. Cassuto & P. Larcher (eds), 53–80. Aix-en-Provence: Presses de l’Université de Provence.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prunet, J.-F, Béland, R. & Idrissi, A. 2000. The mental representation of semitic words. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 609–648. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robins, R.H. 1959. In defence of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society 58(1): 116–144. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sag, I.A. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: A synopsis. In Sign-Based Construction Grammar, H.C. Boas & I.A. Sag (eds), 69–202. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sag, I.A. & Wasow, T. 1999. Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stump, G.T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wehr, H. 1974. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Edited by J. Milton Cowan. Beirut: Librairie du Liban – London: Macdonald & Evans.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue