La connaissance morphologique définit-elle un domaine linguistique autonome dans la grammaire ou est-ce plutôt le sous-produit de principes et représentations basés sur la syntaxe ? Nous traitons la question en prenant en considération un grand ensemble de preuves linguistiques et cognitives, en nous fondant sur la manière dont les locuteurs apprennent, structurent, ont accès et utilisent leur lexique mental pour analyser et produire des mots. Conformément à l'idée que l'observation empirique de productions linguistiques concrètes peut donner des indications sur des domaines spécifiques à l'intérieur de la grammaire, nous concluons qu'il est difficile de concilier les preuves linguistiques fondées sur l'usage avec une approche qui consisterait à voir la morphologie comme la syntaxe des morphèmes. Cependant, il serait également erroné et inutile du point de vue logique de caractériser l'autonomie fonctionnelle de la morphologie par rapport à la syntaxe en termes de modularité de procès.
Does morphological knowledge define an autonomous domain of grammar or is it rather the by-product of syntax-based principles and representations? We address this question by tapping a large body of cognitive language evidence, focusing on what is known about the way speakers learn, structure, access and use their mental morphological lexicon to parse and produce words. In line with the assumption that empirical evidence of concrete language usage can shed light on issues of domain-specificity in grammar, we conclude that it is difficult to reconcile usage-based language facts with the view that morphology is the syntax of morphemes. However, it would be equally misleading and logically unnecessary to characterise the functional autonomy of morphology from syntax in terms of processing modularity.
On the cognitive autonomy of morphological processing
Pirrelli Vito
2007
Abstract
Does morphological knowledge define an autonomous domain of grammar or is it rather the by-product of syntax-based principles and representations? We address this question by tapping a large body of cognitive language evidence, focusing on what is known about the way speakers learn, structure, access and use their mental morphological lexicon to parse and produce words. In line with the assumption that empirical evidence of concrete language usage can shed light on issues of domain-specificity in grammar, we conclude that it is difficult to reconcile usage-based language facts with the view that morphology is the syntax of morphemes. However, it would be equally misleading and logically unnecessary to characterise the functional autonomy of morphology from syntax in terms of processing modularity.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.