Where is morphology?
Henryk Kardela
Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Lublin
Assuming the validity of Ronald Langacker's (1990) thesis that "the lexicon and grammar form a continuum of linguistic units," the paper seeks to answer Stephen Anderson’s (1982) question "Where is morphology [in grammar]?" (cf. also Jensen and Stong-Jensen 1984), claiming that "Morphology is "all over"." In particular, taking grammatical categories to be organized around prototypical centers and non-prototypical peripheries as described by prototype theory (cf. Rosch 1978) and assuming that linguistic units have a bipolar structure conforming to the [SEMANTICS/phonology] templets (cf. Langacker 1987 and subsequent work), we claim that all "levels of linguistic description", including morphophonemics, morphology "proper", syntax, semantics and pragmatics conspire to yield linguistic wholes or "gestalts". Armed with analytical tools such as lexical blends, the A/D asymmetry principle, the principles of compositionality and analyzability, the degree of semantic specialization and other theoretical constructs, we claim that linguistic gestalts are organized along parametrized continua involving the compositionality/ analyzability scale, the A/D asymmetry parameter, the degree of semantic specialization scale and others. We thus reject any modular approach to morphology, sharing Susan Kemmer’s (2003: 92) belief that "the building block model [of morphology] (including any structuralist and generative model=H.K.) tends to downplay the extent of non-concatenative morphological phenomena, which comprise a wide range of phenomena including not only fusion at morpheme boundaries, but also 'cranberry morphs', stem-changing morphology such as umlaut and ablaut, and Semitic-type root pattern morphology."
As an example of a "cross-modular" morphological process consider, for example, the expression Blairusowe zwycięstwo 'the Blairrhic victory' (title of an article in Gazeta Wyborcza, 31 January 2004), which is a blend of two component structures: Blair and Pyrrusowe (zwycięstwo). In order to fully understand this expression we have to combine into one blend two semantic spaces in the sense of Gilles Fauconner (1997), namely, the semantic space for the Prime Minister Tony Blair and the semantic space for the Greek ruler and commander Pyrrhus. Because both Tony Blair and Pyrrhus won their respective battles (Blair by being acquitted, albeit at a considerable political cost, of the BBC charges of having "twisted" the intelligence sources with a view to going to war with Iraq and Pyrrhus by defeating the Romans at the cost of enormous human losses inflicted on his army), the process of blending of the two spaces can be said to properly sanction the lexical expression Blairusowe zwycięstwo. The blending is done across the morphological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic "levels of linguistic description".
Or consider the striking parallels involving the derivatives in (1a-d) and the idiomatic expressions in (2a-d):
1. a. northbound b. worker c. drawer d. conceive
2. a. make hay while the sun shines b. turn off the water c. shoulder responsibility d. kick the bucket
The (a-d) examples in (1) and (2) respectively form what might be called a “morphological transparency scale”. Based on the analyzability/compositionality principle, the scale accounts for the diminishing degree of the meaning transparency in the derivatives. Thus, while (1a) shows the greatest degree of transparency (i.e. its meaning is fully compositional) and (1c) exhibits a very low degree of transparency (which is documented by the inadequacy of the paraphrase: drawer = ‘sth that draws (or being drawn)’, (1d) is the least compositional of the four (i.e. there is no meaningful English morpheme *ceive (cf. *cran in cranberry). The same is true of the examples in (2), which are traditionally held to represent units going beyond morphology “proper”. Thus the meaning of the proverb in (2a) exhibits almost total transparency (i.e. its meaning is self-explanatory and requires almost no contextual reinterpretation in the sense of Geeraerts 2003). The idiom in (2c) is much less transparent: although reference to shoulder may be helpful in guessing its idiomatic meaning, still a great deal of contextual reinterpretation has to be done in this case as well. (Many learners of English, for instance, tend to interpret this expression erroneously as ‘getting rid of responsibility’ rather than ascribing it the (correct) meaning ‘not avoid responsibility’.) Finally, the “opaque” idiom in (2d) is entirely non-transparent and non-compositional: one has to learn the meaning of this expression as a whole.
By rejecting the strict modular corset of linguistic description, cognitive grammar is thus able to provide a viable unitary account of what appear to be totally disparate and unrelated morphological, syntactic and semantic phenomena.
References:
Anderson, S. 1982. “Where is Morphology.” Linguistic Inquiry 13, 571-613.
Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambrigde: CUP.
Geeraerts, D. 2003. “Metaphor and Metonymy in Composite Expressions.” In R. Dirven and R. Pörings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jensen, J. and M. Stong-Jensen. 1984. “Morphology IS in the Lexicon.” Linguistic Inquiry 15, 474-499.
Kemmer, S. 2003. “Schemas and lexical Blends.” In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, K-U Panther (eds.), Motivation in Language, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical Prerequisites, Stanford University Press, California.
Langacker, R. 1990. Concept, Image and Symbol. The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rosch, E. 1978, “Principles of Categorization.” In E. Rosch and B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.