Acceso usuarios
Conceptual subtlety in science demands clarity. The significance of universality rests on the fact that concepts do not overlap with each other. Nonetheless, clarity is a target and, as such, it should not be confused with the method by which we try to attain it. The binary method (0/1, yes/no) is "a" method, but not "the" method. It would be fruitful to apply a "fuzzy" method in addition to -or even instead of- the binary method. Every explanation tries to approach reality, and it is obvious that reality sometimes does not display clearcut boundaries. I would rather claim that many facts of reality show fuzzy, continuous profiles. In such cases, would it not be legitimate to approach fuzzy facts from a continuous -not discrete- perspective? In the present paper I shall present some underpinnings of a continuous perspective in linguistics and the main morphological issues for which such a perspective is particularly suitable. In the literature on Morphology we often encounter hesitating, sometimes even contradictor/ explanations that fluctuate between different categorizations of certain linguistic units. Doubt of thought is an indication that "the thing meant" is not discontinuous of nature. Many categories, subcategories, etc., are not perfectly separated from one another, but they lie at different positions of a continuous scale.
