Cover not available
Part of
Category Change from a Constructional Perspective
Edited by Kristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé and Gudrun Vanderbauwhede
[Constructional Approaches to Language 20] 2018
► pp. 209–228

Chapter 8
Category change in construction morphology

Morphological constructions can be formalized as schemas that specify semantic and formal output properties of complex words. Such schemas impose these output properties on their constituent words through various coercion mechanisms. In this article we focus on coercion-by-override and the concomitant category change. Our data are mainly from Dutch.

The meaning of a syntactic or morphological construction can override the lexical meaning of a word in that construction. Morphological schemas may therefore change the semantic class of the base word. Semantic coercion may be accompanied by changes in word class.

Morphological schemas may receive a higher degree of productivity within certain syntactic constructions, a phenomenon known as embedded productivity. Thus, morphological schemas contribute to the creativity and flexibility of the language system.

Keywords: coercion, construction-dependent morphology, construction morphology, conversion, embedded productivity, lexical integrity, override, particle verbs
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Override constructions
  • 2.Coercion by morphological constructions
    • 2.1Coercion in word formation: change of semantic class
    • 2.2Category change through inflection
  • 3.Construction-dependent morphology and category change
    • 3.1The op het A-e af construction
    • 3.2The aan de [V]N construction
    • 3.3The [voor de N]PP-construction
    • 3.4Category change in verbal constructions
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20.08boo
References
Audring, J., & Booij, G.
(2016) Cooperation and coercion. Linguistics, 54(4), 617–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I.
(2013) The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G.
(2002) The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) Lexical integrity as a morphological universal, a constructionist view. In S. Scalise, E. Magni, & A. Bisetto (Eds.), Universals of language today (pp. 83–100). Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media B.V. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G., & Audring, J.
(2007) Uitgezwaaid en aangezwaaid: Participiumconstructies in het Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 12(1), 52–62.Google Scholar
Booij, G., & Hüning, M.
(2014) Affixoids and constructional idioms. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp. 77–105). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H.
(2013) The syntax of Dutch: Adpositions and adpositional phrases. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grandi, N.
(2009) When morphology ‘feeds’ syntax: Remarks on noun adjective conversion in Italian appositive compounds. In F. Montermini, G. Boyé, & J. Tseng (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 6th décembrettes (pp. 111–123). Somerville Mass.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Grandi, N., Nissim, M., & Tamburini, F.
(2011) Noun-clad adjectives: On the adjectival status of non-head constituents of Italian attributive compounds. Lingue e linguaggio, 10(1), 161–176.Google Scholar
Hüning, M., & Booij, G.
(2014) From compounding to derivation: The emergence of derivational affixes through ‘constructionalization’. Folia Linguistica, 48(2), 579–604. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lauwers, P.
(2014) Between adjective and noun: Category/function mismatch, constructional overrides and coercion. In R. Simone, & F. Masini (Eds.), Word classes: Nature, typology and representations (pp. 203–226). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A.
(2004) Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, A.
(2014) The survival and use of case morphology in Modern Dutch. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp. 107–137). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Spencer, A.
(2013) Lexical relatedness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K.
(2015)  Cette mesure, est-elle vraiment clé? A constructional approach to categorial gradience. Journal of French Language Studies, 25(1), 115–142.
Van Goethem, K., & De Smet, H.
(2013) How nouns turn into adjectives: The emergence of new adjectives in Dutch, English and French through debonding processes. Languages in Contrast, 14(2), 251–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K., & Hiligsmann, Ph.
(2014) When two paths converge: Debonding and clipping of Dutch reuze . Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 26(1), 31–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Audring, Jenny
2022. Advances in Morphological Theory: Construction Morphology and Relational Morphology. Annual Review of Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 39 ff. DOI logo
Batiukova, Olga
2021. Compositional mechanisms and selectional constraints in syntax and word formation. The Linguistic Review 38:2 ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo
Coussé, Evie, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson
2018. Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar. In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21], ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Diez-Arroyo, Marisa
2020. The pragmatics of luxury. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 83 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Kotowski, Sven
2023. Modeling locative prefix semantics. A formal account of the English verbal prefix out-. Morphology 33:2 ► pp. 115 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.