FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W12671680> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W12671680 startingPage "177" @default.
• W12671680 abstract "ABSTRACT Some colleagues of younger generation may accuse me of being too faithful to traditionalism in observing linguistic phenomena. May I argue, frankly indeed, I do appreciate the contemporary modern computerising trends in collecting and analysing language data; yet I still believe in a peaceful meditation as a counter-balance to technical-like approaches, finding the results fairly efficient and, hopefully, significant enough for both theoretical and applied linguistics. One of my little ideas is to show that the traditionally as well as newly established categories, however much useful notions these may be, are not clear-cut ones but rather represent cardinal, i.e. supporting, even extreme points in a spectrum. (1) All kinds of transitions are observed, the properties of respective categories oscillating around the hopefully well-defined points and merging into one another. Examples can be found in all spheres of language analysis, from phonetics to semantics, and so also in morphology. Any reader linguistically oriented will have noticed that there have been scholars who zeroed in on morphology as well as those who doubted, as it were, the place of this discipline in the overall organisation of grammar. The question reads whether there is any need for a truly morphological component in language at all. Does anything like a morphological component exist, in the sense of a parallel to what everybody generally acknowledges as a phonological and a syntactic component--this is the question that some linguists tackle. TG grammar proponents, for example, are those who dispute the existence of morphology, claiming that all the work of assembling words can be performed by principles of semantics, syntax and phonology. Representatives of so-called lexical hypothesis, or, on the other hand, those who believe in omnipotence of syntax in word-formative issues, they all seem to be convinced that they got rid of the problems involved, the problems which exist objectively all the same, irrespective of the satisfaction-giving oversight. I have been looking for a resolution of some of the many remaining issues, believing, of course, in the existence of morphological component in grammar description. To my knowledge, the discussions are still far from being finished: even the recent Optimality Theory seems to fail in bringing a satisfactory agreement on how the morphological component interacts with the other components. Following Russell (1998: 128-30), for example, one of the unresolved questions, which depend largely on the overall approach to grammar and to morphology in particular, is the difference between inflection and derivation (or word-formation). In other words, the issue reads whether inflectional morphology and derivational morphology operate on different principles, namely, whether the two types of morphology, as distinguished traditionally, are fundamentally different. Or do we only look for problems where there are none? In the following I am going to opt in favour of keeping inflectional and derivational morphology apart, although, as I will try to argue, these cannot well be viewed as clear-cut categories, or types. The reader will, hopefully, understand that the feasibility of one type being drifted over to another is not the same as considering the whole morphology to be either fully inflectional or fully derivational, i.e. lexical. As a matter of fact, what I take into account is the functional characteristic of formatives, or morphemes, these being referred to as inflectional or derivational, respectively. Yet it would be wrong, as I argue, to assume that there are languages (English included) the morphemes of which are exclusively inflectional or exclusively derivational: there are, no doubt, morphemes that are endowed with either function, in dependence on the type of operations they enter. Here the interaction of the morphological component with the components of syntax and even semantics must be taken into account and explained in a satisfactory way. …" @default.
• W12671680 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W12671680 creator A5076020908 @default.
• W12671680 date "2003-01-01" @default.
• W12671680 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W12671680 title "Inflectional And/versus Derivational Morphology: Clear-Cut Types or Continua?" @default.
• W12671680 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W12671680 type Work @default.
• W12671680 sameAs 12671680 @default.
• W12671680 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W12671680 countsByYear W126716802018 @default.
• W12671680 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W12671680 hasAuthorship W12671680A5076020908 @default.
• W12671680 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W12671680 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W12671680 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W12671680 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W12671680 hasConcept C168167062 @default.
• W12671680 hasConcept C26022165 @default.
• W12671680 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W12671680 hasConcept C499950583 @default.
• W12671680 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W12671680 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W12671680 hasConcept C97355855 @default.
• W12671680 hasConceptScore W12671680C111472728 @default.
• W12671680 hasConceptScore W12671680C121332964 @default.
• W12671680 hasConceptScore W12671680C138885662 @default.
• W12671680 hasConceptScore W12671680C144024400 @default.
• W12671680 hasConceptScore W12671680C168167062 @default.
• W12671680 hasConceptScore W12671680C26022165 @default.
• W12671680 hasConceptScore W12671680C41895202 @default.
• W12671680 hasConceptScore W12671680C499950583 @default.
• W12671680 hasConceptScore W12671680C54355233 @default.
• W12671680 hasConceptScore W12671680C86803240 @default.
• W12671680 hasConceptScore W12671680C97355855 @default.
• W12671680 hasLocation W126716801 @default.
• W12671680 hasOpenAccess W12671680 @default.
• W12671680 hasPrimaryLocation W126716801 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W1527946064 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W1552940948 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W1914643253 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W1969762243 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W1984943388 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W2002040604 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W2012206447 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W2084730104 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W2119813520 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W2188753679 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W2331193701 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W2486155790 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W2489888259 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W2576320234 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W2602275921 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W308122504 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W314494392 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W658532612 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W979875907 @default.
• W12671680 hasRelatedWork W2575599122 @default.
• W12671680 hasVolume "39" @default.
• W12671680 isParatext "false" @default.
• W12671680 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W12671680 magId "12671680" @default.
• W12671680 workType "article" @default.