The paper discusses Tullio De Mauro’s positions in the fields of morphology and lexeme formation, as presented in his Minisemantica (1982) and Linguistica elementare (1998). De Mauro had essentially an item and arrangement view of morphology, and was scarcely interested in inflection and morpho-phonology. He analyzed morphological phenomena with the aim of comparing properties of natural languages to those of other semiotic codes. His main field of interest was lexeme-formation: in this area, he defended a view that stressed the unpredictability of possible and impossible formations, and the possibility of creatively violate supposed restrictions on lexeme formation rules; his own practice as a speaker and writer offers several cases of creative coinages that violate existing restrictions.
L’articolo discute le posizioni di Tullio De Mauro nel campo della morfologia e formazione dei lessemi, come emergono dai suoi Minisemantica (1982) e Linguistica elementare (1998). De Mauro aveva una visione della morfologia essenzialmente ad item and arrangement, ed era scarsamente interessato alla flessione e a fenomeni morfofonologici. La sua analisi dei fenomeni morfologici è condotta nel quadro della comparazione tra le proprietà delle lingue storico-naturali e quelle di altri codici semiologici. Il suo interesse principale era la formazione dei lessemi: in questo campo, sosteneva l’impossibilità di prevedere formazioni possibili e impossibili, e la possibilità di violare creativamente supposte restrizioni su regole di formazione di lessemi; la sua prassi di parlante/scrivente presenta diversi casi di neo-coniazioni creative che violano restrizioni.
Tullio De Mauro e la morfologia
A. M. Thornton
2018-01-01
Abstract
The paper discusses Tullio De Mauro’s positions in the fields of morphology and lexeme formation, as presented in his Minisemantica (1982) and Linguistica elementare (1998). De Mauro had essentially an item and arrangement view of morphology, and was scarcely interested in inflection and morpho-phonology. He analyzed morphological phenomena with the aim of comparing properties of natural languages to those of other semiotic codes. His main field of interest was lexeme-formation: in this area, he defended a view that stressed the unpredictability of possible and impossible formations, and the possibility of creatively violate supposed restrictions on lexeme formation rules; his own practice as a speaker and writer offers several cases of creative coinages that violate existing restrictions.Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.