Workshop on Paradigmatic Word-Formation Modeling (Updated) 2020

Страна: Франция

Город: Bordeaux

Тезисы до: 13.10.2019

Даты: 11.06.20 — 12.06.20

Область наук: Филологические;

Е-мейл Оргкомитета: paradigmo2020@gmail.com

Организаторы: Bordeaux University

 

The goal of the ParadigMo workshops is to identify and discuss fundamental issues of paradigm-based approaches to Word-Formation modeling. 

Obviously, the first issue is the notion of paradigm itself. Paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes were both fundamental components of modern linguistics at the beginning of the 20th century (e.g. Saussure 1916). Despite the central part of the notion of paradigm, it almost entirely disappeared under the influence of Generative Grammar and maintained only a niche position in inflectional morphology (Matthews 1974, Corbett & Fraser 1993, Carstairs-McCarthy 1994, Stump 2001). 
However with van Marle (1985) and Bauer (1997), paradigms were progressively reintroduced in derivational morphological models and are now on their way to become a key concept (Bochner 1993, Becker 1993). In recent years, several morphology meetings have focused on this topic, two workshops at SLE in Naples (August 2015), the ParadigMo workshop in Toulouse (June 2017), and another one at Word-Formation Theories III in Košice (June 2018) with corresponding thematic volumes : Hathout & Namer (2018, 2019), Fernández-Domínguez, Bagasheva & Lara-Clares (in press). 

The first edition of ParadigMo called for contributions that would discuss paradigmatic approaches to word-formation in general. On the one hand, several lines of argumentation for the use of paradigms in word-formation emerged from the workshop: 

- paradigms are needed for particular word-formation data sets 
French deanthroponyms (Huguin), morphosemantic mismatches (Stump), Turkish word-formation (Aksehirli), French demonyms (Schalchli & Boyé) 

- inflection and word-formation interact 
Hebrew passivation (Laks), NN compounds inflection (Radimsky) 

- inflection and word-formation can be described with the same concepts 
predictibility (Bonami, Bauer) 

- common correlations with other linguistic domains 
L1/L2 learning (Piccinin & al.), frequency effects (Ferro & al.), borrowings (Gaeta), nonce discrimination (Rodriguès & Rodriguès) 


On the other hand, several papers addressed differences between word-formation and inflection relative to paradigms: 

- word-formation focuses on series and inflection on cells (Fradin) 
- word-formation networks vs inflection tables (Spencer) 
- semantic relations heterogeneity/homogeneity (Bonami & Paperno) 

Among the difficulties particular to the introduction of paradigms in word-formation, the diversity of their shapes contrasts strongly with their canonical uniformity in inflection (Corbett 2007, 2010). For non-canonical inflectional paradigms, Stump (2006) proposed paradigm linkage as a way to capture paradigmatic irregularities with an intermediate level of organization between the syntactic/semantic dimension and the stem/exponent realization. Paradigm linkage has been adapted by Stekauer (2014) for derivational families.

Источник:https://mycore.core-cloud.net/index.php/s/IZkH8di9378lgyl#pdfviewer

Веб-сайт конференции: https://linguistlist.org/issues/30/30-2551.html