Instantiating variables in schemas within Relational Morphology

Petr Kos (University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice)

FULL TEXT

ABSTRACT (en)

The article deals with the instantiation of variables in schemas within the Relational Morphology theory. On the basis of an approach to word-formation from concept to form, the article argues that for the question of what lexemes are retrieved from the lexicon to instantiate the variables in schemas in order to achieve the required meaning of the resulting word within the generative role of schemas, it is important to distinguish different functions of word-formation, namely those that provide mere variations on existing lexemes in contrast to the function of word-formation that provides names for concepts in the extra-linguistic world. In the first case, the variables in schemas are instantiated with lexemes on which we perform the variation, whereas, in the second case, the lexemes result from prior mental processing of the concept to be named. The paper thus also provides the description of the process of conceptualization within the naming function of word-formation and demonstrates the principles of conceptualization on various examples.

KEYWORDS (en)

conceptualization, instantiation of variables, Relational Morphology, schemas, word-formation

DOI

https://doi.org/10.14712/18059635.2024.2.1

REFERENCES

Booij, G. (2000). Inflection and derivation. In G. Booij, C., Lehman & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation Vol. 1 (pp. 360–369). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Cienki, A. (2010). Frames, Idealized Cognitive Models, and Domains. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 171–187). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.

Dokulil, M. (1962). Tvoření slov v češtině I. Teorie odvozování slov. Praha: ČAV.

Dokulil, M. (1982). K otázce slovnědruhových převodů a přechodů, zvl. transpozice. Slovo a slovesnost, 43(4), 257–271.

Dokulil, M. (1986). III Tvoření slov. In J. Petr (Ed.), Mluvnice češtiny 1 (pp. 191–526). Praha: Academia.

Grandi, N. & Körtvélyessy, L. (2015). Introduction: why evaluative morphology? In N. Grandi & L. Körtvélyessy (Eds.), Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology (pp. 3–20). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Grzega, J. (2007). Summary, supplement and index for Grzega, Bezeichnungswandel, 2004. Onomasiology Online (pp. 5–10). Retrieved from https://www1.ku.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/OnOnTotal.pdf

Hacken, P. ten (2015). Transposition and the limits of word formation. In L. Bauer, L. Körtvélyessy & P. Štekauer (Eds.), Semantics of complex words (pp. 187–216). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jackendoff, R. & Audring, J. (2020a). The Texture of the Lexicon: Relational Morphology and the Parallel Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J. (2020b). Relational Morphology: A Cousin of Construction Grammar. Frontiers in Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/ articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02241/full

Körtvélyessy, L., Štekauer, P. & Zimmermann, J. (2015). Word-Formation Strategies: Semantic Transparency vs. Formal Economy. In L. Bauer, L. Körtvélyessy & P. Štekauer (Eds.), Semantics of complex words (pp. 85–113). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Körtvélyessy, L., Štekauer, P. & Kačmár, P. (2021). On the role of creativity in the formation of new complex words. Linguistics, 59(4), 1017–1055.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, R. W. (1987, 1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. W. (1999). Correspondences, Compositionality, and Grammar. Manusya: Journal of Humanities, 2(2), 61–76.

Nesset, T. (2010). The art of being negative: Metonymical morphological constructions in contrast. Oslo Studies in Language, 2, 261–279.

Panther, K. U. & Thornburg, L. L. (2000). A conceptual analysis of English -er nominals. Essen: LAUD.

Panther, K. U. & Thornburg, L. L. (2002). The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 279–319). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Radden, G. & Panther, K. U. (2004). Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In G. Radden & K. U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation (pp. 1–46). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Shieber, S. (1986). An Introduction to Unificationbased Approaches to Grammar. Stanford: CSLI.