Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:28:27.256Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Morphology in RRG

The Layered Structure of the Word, Inflection and Derivation

from Part Two - Topics in RRG: Simple Sentences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2023

By
Francisco J. Cortés-Rodríguez
Edited by
Delia Bentley ,
Ricardo Mairal Usón ,
Wataru Nakamura  and
Robert D. Van Valin, Jr
Delia Bentley
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Ricardo Mairal Usón
Affiliation:
Universidad National de Educación a Distancia, Madrid
Wataru Nakamura
Affiliation:
Tohoku University, Japan
Robert D. Van Valin, Jr
Affiliation:
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf
Get access

Summary

This chapter discusses the place of inflectional and derivational morphology in Role and Reference Grammar (RRG). After describing how inflection is encoded in the layered structure of the word, the chapter offers an explanatory account of the factors that motivate inflectional marking. The functional orientation of RRG presupposes a view of morphology distributed throughout the different components of the grammatical model. Additionally, the typological commitment of RRG requires paying close attention to the role of inflectional processes not only in dependent-marking languages but also in head-marking languages, since the interface between inflectional morphology and syntax is much tighter in the latter type of language. The chapter then reflects on word formation as a lexicological process which involves the interaction of lexical semantics and morphology. The approach to derivational morphology can be said to be markedly motivated by semantics.

Keywords

the layered structure of the wordinflectionderivationnumbergendercasedependent markinghead markingword formation
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar , pp. 368 - 402
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackema, P. and Neeleman, A.. 2003. Syntactic atomicity. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6: 93–128.Google Scholar
Alonso Ramos, M. and Tutin, A.. 1996. A classification and description of lexical functions for the analysis of their combinations. In Wanner, L. (ed.), Lexical Functions in Lexicography and Natural Language Processing, 146–167. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. and Fudeman, K.. 2011. What Is Morphology? (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2003. Lexical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Batiukova, O. 2008. Morfología: del léxico a la sintaxis oracional. In Actas del VIII Congreso de Lingüística General. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. www.lllf.uam.es/clg8/actas/index.html.Google Scholar
Bentley, D. 2018. Monotonicity in word formation: The case of Italo-Romance result-state adjectives. Transactions of the Philological Society 116(3): 285–319.Google Scholar
Bentley, D. 2019. The logical structure of verbs of quantized and non-quantized change. Paper delivered at the 2019 International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar. The State University of New York, University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar
Bosque, I. 2012. On the lexical integrity hypothesis and its (in)accurate predictions. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4(1): 140–173.Google Scholar
Boutin, M. 2011. Towards a realizational approach to morphology in RRG. In Nakamura, W. (ed.), New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar, 2–34. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (ed.). 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cortés-Rodríguez, F. J. 2006a. Derivational morphology in Role and Reference Grammar: A new proposal. RESLA: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 19: 41–66.Google Scholar
Cortés-Rodríguez, F. J. 2006b. Negative affixation within the Lexical Grammar Model. RÆL: Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada 5: 27–56.Google Scholar
Cortés-Rodríguez, F. J. 2009. The inchoative construction: Semantic representation and unification constraints. In Butler, C. S. and Martín Arista, J. (eds.), Deconstructing Constructions, 247–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cortés-Rodríguez, F. J. and Sosa, E.. 2008. The morphology–semantics interface in word-formation. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 57: 91–108.Google Scholar
Cortés-Rodríguez, F. J. and Sosa, E.. 2012. La morfología derivativa. In Mairal, R. Usón, Guerrero, L. and González, C. (eds.), El funcionalismo en la teoría lingüística: La Gramática del Papel y la Referencia, 19–42. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. M. and Williams, E.. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. 2011. The layered structure of the German word: An RRG approach to inflectional morphology. Ms. Paper delivered at the 2011 International Course and Conference on Role and Reference Grammar. The Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. and Nolan, B.. 2011. The syllable in the LSW: A proposal for an RRG morphophonological interface. Ms. paper delivered at the 2011 International Course and Conference on Role and Reference Grammar. The Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. 2 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Everett, D. 2002. Towards an RRG theory of morphology. Lecture given at the 2002 International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar, Universidad de La Rioja, Logroño, Spain.Google Scholar
Faber, P. and Mairal Usón, R.. 1999. Constructing a Lexicon of English Verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. and Van Valin, R. D. Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. 1989. Layers and operators in Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 25: 127–157.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2009. Compounding in the Parallel Architecture and conceptual semantics. In Lieber, R. and Štekauer, P. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, 105–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, M. and Busa, F.. 1999. Qualia structure and the compositional interpretation of compounds. In Viegas, E. (ed.), Breadth and Depth of Semantic Lexicons, 167–187. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Lapointe, S. 1981. A lexical analysis of the English auxiliary verb system. In Hoekstra, T., van der Hulst, H. and Moortgat, M. (eds.), Lexical Grammar, 215–254. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M 2001. Morphology and lexical semantics. In Spencer, A. and Zwicky, A. M. (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, pp. 248–271. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. 1980. On the Organization of the Lexicon. PhD dissertation, MIT (published by Garland Press, New York, 1994).Google Scholar
Lieber, R. 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. 2009. A lexical semantic approach to compounding. In R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, 78–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, R. and Cortés-Rodríguez, F. J. 2000–2001. Semantic packaging and syntactic projections in word formation processes: The case of agent nominalizations. RESLA (Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada) 14: 271–294.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, R. and Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.. 2008. New challenges for lexical representation within the Lexical-Constructional Model. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 57: 137–158.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, R. and Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.. 2009. Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In Butler, C. S. and Martín Arista, J. (eds.), Deconstructing Constructions, 153–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, R., Periñán-Pascual, C. and Pérez Cabello de Alba, M. B.. 2012. La representación léxica: Hacia un enfoque ontológico. In Mairal, R. Usón, Guerrero, L. and González, C. (eds.), El funcionalismo en la teoría lingüística: La Gramática del Papel y la Referencia, 85–102. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word Formation, 2nd ed. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Martín Arista, J. 2008. Unification and separation in a functional theory of morphology. In Valin, R. D. Van Jr. (ed.), Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface, 85–115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Martín Arista, J. 2009. A typology of morphological constructions, In Butler, C. S. and Martín Arista, J. (eds.), Deconstructing Constructions, 85–116. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
Martín Arista, J. 2011. Projections and constructions in functional morphology: The case of Old English HRĒOW. Language and Linguistics 12(2): 393–425.Google Scholar
Martín Arista, J. 2012. La morfología flexiva. In Mairal, R. Usón, Guerrero, L. and González, C. (eds.), El funcionalismo en la teoría lingüística: La Gramática del Papel y la Referencia, 43–58. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Martín Mingorance, L. 1998 [1985]. Bases metodológicas para un estudio contrastivo del léxico derivado. In Rubiales, A. Marín (ed.), El Modelo Lexemático Funcional, 61–82. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, I. 1989. Semantic primitives from the viewpoint of the Meaning-Text Linguistic Theory. Quaderni di Semantica 10(1): 65–102.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, I. and Wanner, L.. 1996. Lexical functions and lexical inheritance for emotion lexemes in German. In Wanner, L. (ed.), Recent Trends in Meaning-Text Theory, 209–227. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Möllemann, R. 2016. Implications of German Word Formation Processes for a Role and Reference Grammar Approach to Morphology. MSc, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf. www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Implications-of-German-word-formation-processes-for-Mollemann/fcc1cf700f876136c0300269f5391671155c3be1.Google Scholar
Nolan, B. 2011. Meaning construction and grammatical inflection in the Layered Structure of the Modern Irish word: An RRG account of morphological constructions. In Nakamura, W. (ed.), New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar, 64–101. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. 2008. Historische Sprachwissenschaft des Deutschen (2nd ed.). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Pavey, E. L. 2010. The Structure of Language: An Introduction to Grammatical Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Periñán-Pascual, C. and Mairal Usón, R.. 2009. Bringing Role and Reference Grammar to natural language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 43: 265–273.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. et al. 2001. Advances in Generative Lexicon Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. and Baitukova, O.. 2019. The Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, J. 2002. The Noun Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. R. 2015. Distributives in Amele. A Role and Reference Grammar analysis. SIL Electronic Working Papers 2015–001. www.sil.org/system/files/reapdata/16/20/84/162084215824434557688405164453437430340/silewp2015_001.pdf.Google Scholar
Roberts, T. 1999. Grammatical relations and ergativity in Sta’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). International Journal of American Linguistics 65: 275–302.Google Scholar
Rosen, S. T. 1989. Two types of noun incorporation: A lexical analysis. Language 65: 294–317.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. 2013. Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E. (eds.), Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics, 231–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and Mairal Usón, R.. 2007a. High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In Radden, G., Köpcke, K., Berg, T. and Siemund, P. (eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction, 33–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and Mairal Usón, R.. 2007b. Levels of semantic representation: Where lexicon and grammar meet. Interlingüística 17: 26–47.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. 1998. Morphophonological operations. In Spencer, A. and Zwicky, A. M. (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 123–143. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. 2004. Morphology: An overview of central concepts. In Sadler, L. and Spencer, A. (eds.), Projecting Morphology, 67–109. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P. 2005a. Meaning Predictability in Word Formation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P. 2005b. Onomasiological approach to word-formation. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 207–232. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Stump, G. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. 2005. The Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface: An Introduction to Role and Reference Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. 2008. RPs and the nature of lexical and syntactic categories in Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (ed.), Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface, 161–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. 2013. Head-marking languages and linguistic theory. In Bickel, B., Grenoble, L. A., Peterson, D. A. and Timberlake, A. (eds.), Language Typology and Historical Contingency, 91–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. and Wilkins, D. P.. 1996. The case for ‘effector’: Case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In Shibatani, M. and Thompson, S. (eds.), Grammatical Constructions, 289–322. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. and LaPolla, R.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, E. 1981. On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry 12(2): 245–274.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×