1932

Abstract

In recent years, construction-based approaches to morphology have gained ground in the research community. This framework is characterized by the assumption that the mental lexicon is extensive and richly structured, containing not only a large number of stored words but also a wide variety of generalizations in the form of schemas. This review explores two construction-based theories, Construction Morphology and Relational Morphology. After outlining the basic theoretical architecture, the article presents an array of recent applications of a construction-based approach to morphological phenomena in various languages. In addition, it offers reflections on challenges and opportunities for further research. The review highlights those aspects of the theory that have proved particularly helpful in accommodating both the regularities and the quirks that are typical of the grammar of words.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-115118
2022-01-14
2024-06-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/8/1/annurev-linguistics-031120-115118.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-115118&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ackerman F, Blevins JP, Malouf R 2009. Parts and wholes: implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. Analogy in Grammar JP Blevins, J Blevins 54–82 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Appah CKI. 2017. Exocentric compounds in Akan. Word Struct 10:2137–72
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arcodia GF. 2011. A Construction Morphology account of derivation in Mandarin Chinese. Morphology 21:89–130
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Arcodia GF. 2012. Constructions and headedness in derivation and compounding. Morphology 22:3365–97
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Arcodia GF, Basciano B. 2018. The Construction Morphology analysis of Chinese word formation. See Booij 2018 219–53
  6. Audring J. 2019. Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. See Hilpert 2019 274–96
  7. Audring J, Booij G. 2016. Cooperation and coercion. Linguistics 54:4617–37
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Audring J, Masini F 2019. The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bagasheva A. 2015. On verbocentric nominal compounds denoting humans in Bulgarian. SKASE J. Theor. Linguist. 12:374–104
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Baker BJ. 2018. Super-complexity and the status of “word” in Gunwinyguan languages of Australia. See Booij 2018 255–86
  11. Barlow M, Kemmer S 2000. Usage-Based Models of Language Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bauer L, Lieber R, Plag I 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Beuls K. 2012. Inflectional patterns as constructions: Spanish verb morphology in Fluid Construction Grammar. Construct. Frames2231–52
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Blevins JP. 2006. Word-based morphology. J. Linguist. 42:3531–73
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Blevins JP. 2016. Word and Paradigm Morphology Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Blevins JP, Ackerman F, Malouf R. 2019. Word and paradigm morphology. See Audring & Masini 2019 265–84
  17. Bochner H. 1993. Simplicity in Generative Morphology Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Booij G 1998. Prosodic output constraints in morphology. Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages W Kehrein, R Wiese 143–63 Tübingen, Ger: Niemeyer
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Booij G. 2010. Construction Morphology Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Booij G 2017. Inheritance and motivation in Construction Morphology. Defaults in Morphological Theory N Gisborne, A Hippisley 18–39 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Booij G 2018. The Construction of Words: Advances in Construction Morphology. Cham, Switz: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Booij G, Audring J. 2017. Construction Morphology and the Parallel Architecture of Grammar. Cogn. Sci. 41:Suppl. 2277–302
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Booij G, Audring J. 2018a. Partial motivation, multiple motivation: the role of output schemas in morphology. See Booij 2018 59–80
  24. Booij G, Audring J. 2018b. Category change in Construction Morphology. See Van Goethem et al. 2018 209–28
  25. Booij G, Masini F 2015. The role of second order schemas in the construction of complex words. Semantics of Complex Words 3 L Bauer, L Körtvélyessy, P Štekauer 47–66 Cham, Switz: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Bybee JL. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Bybee JL. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. See Hoffmann & Trousdale 2013 49–69
  28. Bybee JL, Beckner C 2010. Usage-based theory. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis B Heine, H Narrog 827–55 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Cetnarowska B. 2018. Phrasal names in Polish: A+N, N+A and N+N units. See Booij 2018 287–313
  30. Cetnarowska B 2020. Competition between synthetic NN compounds and NN.gen phrasal nouns in Polish: semantic niches, hapax legomena and low-level construction schemas. Complex Words: Advances in Morphology L Körtvélyessy, P Štekauer 241–59 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Davis S, Tsujimura N 2018. Arabic non-concatenative morphology in Construction Morphology. See Booij 2018 315–39
  32. de Saussure F.1959 1915. Course in General Linguistics, transl W Baskin. New York: Philos. Libr. (From French)
    [Google Scholar]
  33. De Smet H. 2016. The root of ruthless: individual variation as a window on mental representation. Int. J. Corpus Linguist. 21:2250–71
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Diessel H. 2019. The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Diewald G. 2020. Paradigms lost—paradigms regained: paradigms as hyper-constructions. See Sommerer & Smirnova 2020 278–315
  36. Fillmore CJ, Kay P, O'Connor MC 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of ‘let alone. ’. Language 64:3501–38
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Gaeta L, Angster M. 2019. Stripping paradigmatic relations out of the syntax. Morphology 28:249–70
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Gaeta L, Zeldes A. 2017. Between VP and NN: on the constructional types of German -er compounds. Construct. Frames 9:11–40
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Gisborne N. 2019. Word grammar morphology. See Audring & Masini 2019 327–45
  40. Goldberg AE. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Goldberg AE. 2019. Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Goldberg AE. 2003. Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7:5219–24
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Good J. 2016. The Linguistic Typology of Templates Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Good J. 2018. Modelling signifiers in constructional approaches to morphological analysis. See Booij 2018 19–57
  45. Gurevich O. 2006. Constructional Morphology: the Georgian version PhD Thesis, Univ. Calif., Berkeley
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Hartmann S. 2019. Compound worlds and metaphor landscapes: affixoids, allostructions, and higher-order generalizations. See Hilpert 2019 297–333
  47. Hilpert M 2019. Higher-order schemas in morphology. Word Struct 12:3)
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Höder S. 2019. Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: a diasystematic perspective on lexical form. See Hilpert 2019 334–52
  49. Hoeksema J. 2012. Review of Geert Booij, Construction Morphology. Language 88:183–85
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Hoffmann T, Trousdale G. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Hudson R. 1984. Word Grammar Oxford, UK: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Hüning M. 2009. Semantic niches and analogy in word formation: evidence from contrastive linguistics. Lang. Contrast 9:2183–201
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Hüning M, Booij G. 2014. From compounding to derivation: the emergence of derivational affixes through “constructionalization. Folia Linguist 48:579–604
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Inkelas S, Zoll C. 2005. Reduplication: Doubling in Morphology Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Jackendoff R. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51:3639–71
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Jackendoff R. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Jackendoff R. 2002. Foundations of Language Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Jackendoff R. 2013. Constructions in the parallel architecture. See Hoffmann & Trousdale 2013 70–92
  59. Jackendoff RS, Audring J. 2020. The Texture of the Lexicon: Relational Morphology in the Parallel Architecture Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Jurado AB. 2019. A study on the ‘wordgasm’: the nature of blends’ splinters. Lexis 14: https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.3916
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. Kapatsinski V. 2013. Conspiring to mean: experimental and computational evidence for a usage-based harmonic approach to morphophonology. Language 89:1110–48
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Kapatsinski V, Vakareliyska CM. 2013. [N][N] compounds in Russian: a growing family of constructions. Construct. Frames 5:169–87
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Kenesei I. 2007. Semiwords and affixoids: the territory between word and affix. Acta Linguist. Hung. 54:263–93
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Lamberty A, Schmid H-J. 2013. Verb compounding in English: a challenge for usage-based models of word formation?. Angl. Z. Engl. Philol 131:4123–58
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Langacker RW. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Langacker RW. 2019. Morphology in cognitive grammar. See Audring & Masini 2019 346–64
  67. Masini F, Audring J. 2019. Construction morphology. See Audring & Masini 2019 365–89
  68. Masini F, Iacobini C. 2018. Schemas and discontinuity in Italian: the view from Construction Morphology. See Booij 2018 81–109
  69. Masini F, Micheli SM. 2020. The morphological expression of approximation: the emerging simil- construction in Italian. Word Struct 13:3371–402
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Michel S 2013. Affixoide revisited. Zum konstruktionsgrammatischen Status von Prä- und Suffixoidkandidaten. Wenn die Ränder ins Zentrum drängen…”: Außenseiter in der Wortbildung(sforschung) J Born, W Pöckl 213–39 Berlin: Frank & Timme
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Michel S 2014. Konstruktionsgrammatik und Wortbildung: theoretische Reflexionen und praktische Anwendungen am Beispiel der Verschmelzung von Konstruktionen. Grammatik als Netwerk von Konstruktionen. Sprachwissen im Fokus der Konstruktionsgrammatik A Lasch, A Ziem 139–56 Berlin: de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Norde M, Sippach S. 2019. Nerdalicious scientainment: a network analysis of English libfixes. See Hilpert 2019 353–84
  73. Nordlinger R, Sadler L. 2019. Morphology in Lexical-Functional Grammar and Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. See Audring & Masini 2019 212–43
  74. Orgun CO. 1996. Sign-based morphology and phonology with special attention to Optimality Theory PhD Thesis, Univ. Calif. Berkeley:
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Petermann C 2018. A brief overview of total reduplication in Modern Japanese. Exact Repetition in Grammar and Discourse R Finkbeiner, U Freywald 110–26 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Politt K 2019. Verbale Konstruktionen in grammatischen Paradigmen. Konstruktionsgrammatik, Vol. VI: Varianz in der Konstruktionalenschematizität D Czicza, V Dekalo, G Diewald 217–36 Tübingen, Ger: Stauffenburg
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Radimský J 2020. A paradigmatic account of lexical innovation: the role of repeated components in French N+N compounds. Rules, Patterns, Schemas, and Analogy: MMM12 Online Proceedings J Audring, N Kousoukos, C Manouilidou 77–91 Patras, Greece: Univ. Patras
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Ralli A. 2019. Affixoids and Verb Borrowing in Aivaliot Morphology: The Morphology of Asia Minor Greek Leiden, Neth: Brill
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Rhodes RA 1992. What is a morpheme? A view from Construction Grammar. Proceedings of the 18th Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society LA Buszard-Welcher, L Wee, W Weigel 409–23 Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Riehemann SZ. 1998. Type-based derivational morphology. J. Comp. Ger. Linguist. 2:149–77
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Riehemann SZ. 2001. A constructional approach to idioms and word formation PhD Thesis Stanford Univ. Stanford, CA:
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Shieber S. 1986. An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Sims AD. 2015. Inflectional Defectiveness Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Sommerer L, Smirnova E 2020. Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar Construct. Approaches Lang . Vol. 27 Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Van Goethem K, Norde M, Coussé E, Vanderbauwhede G 2018. Category Change in a Constructional Perspective Construct. Approaches Lang . Vol. 20 Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. van der Spuy A. 2017a. Construction Morphology and inflection. Lingua 199:60–71
    [Google Scholar]
  87. van der Spuy A. 2017b. A Construction Grammar account of Zulu singular/plural inflection. Nord. J. Afr. Stud. 26:3191–214
    [Google Scholar]
  88. van der Spuy A. 2020. English plurals in Construction Morphology. Lang. Sci. 77:101240
    [Google Scholar]
  89. van de Weijer J, Wei W, Wang Y, Ren G Ran Y 2020. Words are constructions, too: a construction-based approach to English ablaut reduplication. Linguistics 58:61701–35
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Zeschel A 2009. What's (in) a construction? Complete inheritance versus full-entry models. New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics V Evans, S Pourcel 185–200 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-115118
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-115118
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error