Reiner, TabeaTabeaReiner0000-0002-1657-12412023-08-292023-08-292022978-3-98554-022-8978-3-96110-326-3https://fis.uni-bamberg.de/handle/uniba/90231This paper sketches the current status of morphology and paradigms in linguistic theorising. In particular, it is shown that from a constructionist as well as from a compositional perspective, morphology including paradigms tends to dissolve. The former might be less obvious; however the paper argues that a constructional deconstruction of paradigms and morphology follows directly from Haspelmath’s (2011) take on Booij (2010) and related approaches in the realm of Construction Morphology (CxM). The latter is more obvious; in particular, proponents of Distributed Morphology (DM) regularly emphasise that morphology is but an interface and paradigms are epiphenomenal. Throughout the paper I assume some familiarity with Construction Morphology and Construction Grammar more generally whereas I introduce DM specifically. However, the paper is not intended as a thorough discussion of the approaches presented (nor do I take sides); rather it is their shared detachment from paradigms that is at stake here. Consequently, also what is sometimes called Autonomous Morphology is addressed in the paper: a rather recent approach that advocates morphology as an irreducible level of description and upholds the paradigm as a format of description in its own right. The balance of the paper is rather pessimistic for morphology and paradigms but eventually I come up with a presumably new argument in favour of regarding paradigms as fundamental: restrictions on inflectional recursion fall out naturally from them.engrecursionparadigm400bookpart10.5281/zenodo.5675846urn:nbn:de:kobv:188-refubium-34041-0