Author

Morfologia Construcional: Linguística Cognitiva ou Linguística Gerativa?

Introduction

Morfologia construcional: linguística cognitiva ou linguística gerativa?. Este artigo explora a Morfologia Construcional de Geert Booij, debatendo se sua filiação é à Linguística Cognitiva ou Gerativa. Compara modelos de Bybee e Langacker usando dados do português.

Abstract

A multiplicidade de teorias linguísticas dificulta a identificação de continuidades e descontinuidades entre elas, seus ramos, modelos de gramática e procedimentos de análise. No VI CBM, um dos modelos empregados foi a Morfologia Construcional, formulada por Geert Booij. Neste artigo, defendo um entendimento divergente do que identifica nesse modelo filiação epistemológica à Linguística Cognitiva. Minha conclusão é por sua caracterização como um modelo gerativo, se não ateórico. Para tanto, comparo o modelo de Geert Booij com o modelo de Joan Bybee (funcionalista) e o modelo de Ronald Langacker (cognitivista) e exemplifico o poder descritivo e explicativo de cada modelo com dados do português brasileiro e do português europeu.

Review

This article addresses a highly pertinent issue within theoretical linguistics: the accurate classification of theoretical models, specifically focusing on Geert Booij's Constructional Morphology (CM). The author challenges a prevailing understanding that affiliates CM with Cognitive Linguistics, arguing instead for its characterization as a Generative model, or potentially even atheoretical. This critical re-evaluation is presented through a comparative analysis, pitting Booij's framework against established models from Joan Bybee (functionalist) and Ronald Langacker (cognitivist), and grounded with empirical data from both Brazilian and European Portuguese. The paper makes a valuable contribution by engaging directly with the complexities of theoretical lineage and terminology, an area often fraught with ambiguity and differing interpretations. By meticulously comparing the analytical procedures and underlying assumptions of these diverse morphological theories, the author sheds light on the specific features that distinguish them, particularly in relation to their epistemological foundations. The use of Portuguese data to exemplify the descriptive and explanatory power of each model is a strong point, providing concrete illustrations for what might otherwise remain abstract theoretical discussions, thereby enhancing the article's accessibility and practical relevance. While the central argument is compelling, a deeper exploration of certain aspects could further strengthen the paper. The nuanced distinction between CM being "generative" and "if not atheoretical" warrants additional clarification, as these labels carry significant theoretical implications that might benefit from more explicit definition within the context of the comparison. Furthermore, the criteria used to delineate what constitutes a "generative" model in this specific analysis, especially given the broad spectrum of generative approaches, would be a valuable addition for readers less familiar with the specific nuances of Generative Grammar as applied to morphology. Elucidating these points would undoubtedly enhance the article's already significant contribution to the ongoing debate on theoretical categorization in linguistics.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.