Cover not available
Part of
Lexical Polycategoriality: Cross-linguistic, cross-theoretical and language acquisition approaches
Edited by Valentina Vapnarsky and Edy Veneziano
[Studies in Language Companion Series 182] 2017
► pp. 59–78

Derivationally based homophony in French

| Université Paris Nanterre,
French reveals many cases of homophony, which raise the question of categorial flexibility. This paper analyses Verb/Noun pairs with identical form and compares them to Verb/Noun pairs with overt derivation. It is argued that French homophony phenomena are based on non-affixal derivational morphology (conversion). The study is conducted within the framework of lexical constructional morphology, with the underlying hypothesis that lexical units or lexemes used in the construction of complex lexemes are characterised by three correlated properties – phonological form, semantic interpretation and category. In this framework, the affixal formants are regarded as exponents of the derivation rules. The analysis concludes by returning to Saussure’s key proposals about the sign and its differential.
Keywords: French, homophony, conversion, lexical morphology, derivation
Article outline
  • 1Non-affixal derivation in French
    • 1.1Deverbal process nominals
    • 1.2Deverbal nominals designating objects
    • 1.3Denominal verbs
  • 2.Analysis of homophonic lexemes as derived deverbal Noun and denominal Verb
    • 2.1Non-affixal derivation or conversion
    • 2.2The arbitrariness of the sign
    • 2.3The problem of derivation in the morphological component of language
    • 2.4The hypothesis of lexical derivation as a property of lexical expansion
      • 2.4.1The simple lexicon, the constructed lexicon
      • 2.4.2Prototypical relations between semantic class and discourse pragmatic function
      • 2.4.3Definition of the categorial property
    • 2.5Function-Changing Morphology
  • 3.On the properties of lexical items
    • 3.1Only three distinct properties
    • 3.2Factors of individualisation for lexical entities
    • 3.3Conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.182.03ker
References (20)
References
Anderson, S. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. & Fudeman, K. 2005. What is Morphology ? Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 2005. The Grammar of Words. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago IL: The University Press of Chicago.Google Scholar
Evans, N. 2000. Word classes in the world languages. In Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation, C. Lehmann, G. Booij & J. Mugdan (eds), 708–732. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fradin, B. 2003. Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grevisse, M. [1936]. 1969. Le bon usage. Paris: Hatier.Google Scholar
Kerleroux, F. 1999. Identification d’un procédé morphologique: La conversion. Faits de Langue 14: 89–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Des noms indistincts. In La Raison morphologique. Hommage � la m�moire de Danielle Corbin, B. Fradin, (ed.), 113–132. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. La morphologie constructionnelle: Quel(s) programme(s)? Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris XVII: 49–63.Google Scholar
Maniglier, P. 2006. La vie énigmatique des signes. Paris: Editions Léo Scheer.Google Scholar
Matthews, P.H. 1974. Morphology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 1991. Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milner, J.-C. 2002. Le périple structural. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
Plénat, M. & Roché, M. 2012. Tous les déverbaux en -at sont-ils des conversions du thème 13? In SHS Web of Conferences, Volume 1 (3° Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française 2012), 557–575. Red Hook NY: Curran Associates.Google Scholar
Rancière, J. 2004. Le maître ignorant. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Roché, M. 2009. Pour une morphologie lexicale. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris XVII: 65–87.Google Scholar
de Saussure, F. 1967. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Tribout, D. 2010. Les conversions de nom à verbe et de verbe à nom en français. PhD dissertation, University of Paris Diderot-Paris 7.Google Scholar