Chapter published 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

Categorial flexibility as an emergent phenomenon

A comparison of Arabic, Wolof, and French

| CNRS & Université Paris-Diderot
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.
Keywords: categorial flexibility, Word and Pardigm, conversion, lexical network, lexical root
Published online: 01 November 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.182.04lio
References

References

Ackema, P. & Neeleman, A.
2004 Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S.
1992 A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle 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
2007 Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morphosyntax. Dordrecht: Springer.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
Badawi, E., Carter, M.G. & Gully, A.
2004 Modern Written Arabic: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blevins, J.P.
2006 Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42: 531–573. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L.
1933 Language. New York NY: Henry Holt.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
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
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
Church, E.
1981 Le système verbal du wolof. Dakar: Université de Dakar.Google Scholar
Evans, N. & Osada, T.
2005 Mundari: The myth of a language without word classes. Linguistic Typology 9(3): 351–390.Google Scholar
Fal, A., Santos, R. & Doneux, J.-L.
1990 Dictionnaire wolof-français. Paris: Karthala.Google Scholar
Fradin, B.
2003 Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: PUF. CrossrefGoogle 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
Hengeveld, K. & Rijkhoff, J.
2005 Mundari as a flexible language. Linguistic Typology 9(3): 406–431.Google Scholar
Kerleroux, F.
1996 La coupure invisible. Lille: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
2000 Identification d’un procédé morphologique: La conversion. Faits de langues 14: 79–100.Google Scholar
Launey, M.
1994 Une grammaire omniprédicative. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
Lieber, R.
1992 Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.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
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
Matthews, P.H.
1974 Morphology: An Introduction to the Theory of Word-structure. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I.A.
1994 Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.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
Prunet, J.-F, Béland, R. & Idrissi, A.
2000 The mental representation of semitic words. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 609–648. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robins, R.H.
1959 In defence of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society 58(1): 116–144. CrossrefGoogle 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
Sag, I.A. & Wasow, T.
1999 Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Stump, G.T.
2001 Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wehr, H.
1974 A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Edited by J. Milton Cowan. Beirut: Librairie du Liban – London: Macdonald & Evans.Google Scholar