The Construction of Words: Introduction and Overview

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Morphology book series (SUMO, volume 4)

Abstract

In Construction Morphology, morphological patterns are expressed by constructional schemas that motivate properties of existing complex words, and state how new complex words can be formed. This article briefly summarizes a number of theoretical assumptions of Construction Morphology, and how they play a role in the various contributions to this volume on advances in Construction Morphology. Key features of this theory are that morphology is word-based, that morphological patterns are interpreted as constructions (form-meaning pairs), and that there is no strict separation of grammar and lexicon. Paradigmatic relationships play an essential role in structuring lexical and grammatical knowledge. These ideas can be applied fruitfully to the study of sign language, visual language, language change, language acquisition, and language processing.

Keywords

Constructicon Construction morphology Motivation Paradigmatic relations Word-based morphology 

References

  1. Audring, J., and G. Booij. 2016. Cooperation and coercion. Linguistics 54: 617–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauer, L., R. Lieber, and I. Plag. 2013. The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Booij, G. 2005. Compounding and derivation: Evidence for construction morphology. In Morphology and its demarcations, ed. W.U. Dressler, F. Rainer, D. Kastovsky, and O. Pfeiffer, 109–132. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ———. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2013. Morphology in CxG. In The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, ed. Th. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale, 255–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2015. Word formation in construction morphology. In Word formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe, ed. P.O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, and F. Rainer, vol. 1, 188–202. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2016. Construction morphology. In The Cambridge handbook of morphology, ed. A. Hippisley and G. Stump, 424–448. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2017. The construction of words. In The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics, ed. B. Dancygier, 229–245. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Booij, G., and J. Audring. 2017. Construction morphology and the parallel architecture of grammar. Cognitive Science 41 (S2): 277–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ———. to appear. Category change in construction morphology. In Category change from a constructional perspective, ed. E. Coussé, K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, and G. Vanderbauwhede. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  11. Booij, G., and F. Masini. 2015. The role of second order schemas in word formation. In Semantics of complex words, ed. L. Bauer, L. Körtvélyessy, and P. Štekauer, 47–66. Cham etc: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Bybee, J. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10: 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Culicover, P., R. Jackendoff, and J. Audring. 2017. Multiword constructions in the grammar. Topics in Cognitive Science 9: 552–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dancygier, B. 2017. Introduction. In The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics, ed. id, 1–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoffmann, Th., and G. Trousdale, eds. 2013. The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Inkelas, S. 2014. The interplay of morphology and phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 2011. What is the human language faculty? Two views. Language 87: 586–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackendoff, R., and J. Audring. 2016. Morphological schemas: Theoretical and psycholinguistic issues. The Mental Lexicon 11: 467–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Spencer, A. 2013. Lexical relatedness. A paradigm-based model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Trommer, J., ed. 2012. The morphology and phonology of exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Van der Spuy, A. 2017. Construction morphology and inflection. Lingua 199: 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.07.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leiden University Center of LinguisticsUniversity of LeidenLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations