Call for papers

[Submissions are closed]

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

  • Predictability (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.

This second edition will welcome papers on all aspects of paradigms in word-formation. And since the non-uniformity of paradigms in word-formation seems to be one of the handicaps that prevent the adoption of paradigms in word-formation, we propose a thematic session that would explore different aspects of this problem.

• What kind of shapes for word-formation paradigms (tables, graphs, networks, …)?

• What empirical data underlie the difference of treatment of non-uniformity in inflection and word-formation: defectivity/productivity, suppletion/blocking, syncretism/polysemy?

• How uniform are the syntactic/semantic relations between elements of paradigms in inflection and word-formation?

Confirmed Invited Speakers

Andrew Spencer (University of Essex)

Jesús Fernández Domínguez (University of Granada)

Submission Guidelines
We invite submissions for talks (20’ presentation + 10’ discussion) and posters. All papers must be original and not simultaneously submitted to another journal or conference. Abstracts must be anonymous and not exceed 3 pages (excluding bibliography) in classical format 12pt Times, 1.5 linespace, PDF. Papers will be reviewed anonymously by at least three members of the program committee. 

Abstract submission: easychair.org/conferences/?conf=paradigmo22021

Important dates
Submission deadline: January 15, 2021
Notification: March 15, 2021
Revised abstracts: April 15, 2021
Workshop: June 3-4, 2021 

References
Bauer, L. (1997). Derivational paradigms. Yearbook of Morphology, 1996, 243– 256.
Becker, T. (1993). Back-formation, cross-formation, and ‘bracketing paradoxes’ in paradigmatic morphology. In G. Booij and J. van Marle, editors, Yearbook of Morphology 1993, pages 1–25. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Bochner, H. (1993). Simplicity in Generative Morphology. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1994). Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language, 70(4), 737–788.
Corbett, G. G. (2007). Canonical typology, suppletion and possible words. Language, 83(1), 8–42.
Corbett, G. G. (2010). Canonical derivational morphology. Word Structure, 3(2), 141–155.
Corbett, G. G. and Fraser, N. M. (1993). Network morphology: a DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics, 29(01), 113–142.
Fernández-Domínguez, J., Bagasheva, A., and Lara-Clares, C. (in press). Paradigmatic relations in derivational morphology. Leiden: Brill.
Hathout, N. and Namer, F. (2018). Special issue: Paradigms in word formation. Morphology, 29(2).
Hathout, N. and Namer, F. (2019). Defining paradigms in word formation: concepts, data and experiments. Lingue e linguaggio, 2018(2).
Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Payot, Paris.
Štekauer, P. (2014). Derivational paradigms. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Stump, G. T. (2001). Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Van Marle, J. (1985). On the paradigmatic dimension of morphological creativity. Foris Publications, Dordrecht—Holland.

Contact
All questions about submissions should be emailed to paradigmo2020@gmail.com