Morphology 3 Cagliari Handout - Surrey Morphology Group

Greville G. Corbett Morphology III: Cagliari: June 2016

Research support from AHRC

1

Greville G. CorbettSurrey Morphology Group University of Surrey

Morphology III: Second level canonicity

The support of the European Research Councilthe AHRC and the ESRC is gratefully acknowledged

1. Reminders and introduction

• Canonicity in typology

• ‘Canonical inflection’

• Second level canonicity:–higher order exceptionality–syncretism, deponency, and the intervening area–canonical inflectional classes

2

3

Canonical inflectional paradigms

FEATURE 1: values: a, b, c FEATURE 2: values: x, y, z PARADIGM

a b c x y z

4

Canonical inflection: criteria comparison

across cells of a lexeme

comparison across lexemes

composition/ feature signature same same

lexical material (≈shape of stem) same different

inflectional material (≈shape of inflection) different same

outcome: realization of morphosyntactic specification

different different

5

Deviations: first in terms of cells (of a single lexeme)

cells

(canonical deviation) deviations

composition/ feature signature same different

fused exponence periphrasis defectiveness

lexical material (≈shape of stem) same different alternations

suppletion inflectional material (≈shape of inflection) different same syncretism

uninflectability

6

Deviations:second in terms of comparison across lexemes

lexemes (canonical deviation)

deviations

composition/ feature signature same different overdifferentiation

anti-periphrasis lexical material (≈shape of stem) different same homonymy

inflectional material (≈shape of inflection) same different

inflectional classes heteroclisis deponency



7

Both types of deviation

canonical situation deviations cells lexemes cells lexemes composition/ feature signature

same same fused exponence periphrasis defectiveness

overdifferentiation anti-periphrasis

lexical material same different alternations suppletion homonymy

inflectional material different same

syncretism uninflectability


2. Higher order exceptionality

Published in Corbett (2011)

8

9

2.1 Syncretism/suppletion: first the regular paradigm: Slovene kot ‘corner’

SINGULAR DUAL PLURALNOM kot kota kotiACC kot kota koteGEN kota kotov kotovDAT kotu kotoma kotomINS kotom kotoma kotiLOC kotu kotih kotih

Priestly, T. M. S. 1993. Slovene. In: Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett (eds) The Slavonic Languages, 388-451. London: Routledge. [pp. 400-402]

10

Syncretism/suppletion: Slovene človek ‘man, person’

SINGULAR DUAL PLURALNOM človek človeka ljudjeACC človeka človeka ljudiGEN človeka ?? ljudiDAT človeku človekoma ljudemINS človekom človekoma ljudmiLOC človeku ?? ljudeh

Priestly (1993: 401), Plank (1994), Corbett & Fraser (1997), Evans, Brown & Corbett (2001: 215)

11

Syncretism/suppletion: Slovene človek ‘man, person’

SINGULAR DUAL PLURALNOM človek človeka ljudjeACC človeka človeka ljudiGEN človeka ljudi ljudiDAT človeku človekoma ljudemINS človekom človekoma ljudmiLOC človeku ljudeh ljudeh

Priestly (1993: 401), Plank (1994), Corbett & Fraser (1997), Evans, Brown & Corbett (2001: 215)

Demonstrative ‘this’ in Modern Hebrew

SINGULAR PLURALMASCULINE ze

eleFEMININE zot



Norwegian (East Norwegian dialect, Hans-Olav Enger p.c.)

(1) en lit-en guttART.M.SG.INDF small-M.SG.INDF boy(M)[SG.INDF] ‘a small boy’

(2) den vesle gutt-enART.M/F.SG.DEF small.SG.DEF boy(M)-SG.DEF ‘the small boy’

(3) ei lit-a jent-eART.F.SG.INDF small-F.SG.INDEF girl(F)-SG.INDF ‘a small girl’

(4) den vesle jent-aART.M/F.SG.DEF small.SG.DEF girl(F)-SG.DEF ‘the small girl’

2.2 Suppletion/overdifferentiation

13

Norwegian (East Norwegian dialect, Hans-Olav Enger p.c.)

(5) et lit-e barnART.N.SG.INDEF small-N.SG.INDF child(N)[SG.INDF]‘a small child’

(6) det vesle barn-etART.N.SG.DEF small.SG.DEF child(N)-SG.DEF‘the small child’

14

15

2.3 Overdifferentiation/syncretism

Russiankisel ‘kissel’ čaj ‘tea’

vkus kiselja ‘taste of kissel’

vkus čaja ‘taste of tea’

stakan kiselja ‘glass of kissel’

stakan čaju ‘glass of tea’

16

GEN

GEN 2

kiselju DAT čaju

2.4 (Partial) suppletion, (semi-)deponency and overdifferentiation

17

First a reminder about deponency

normal verbACTIVE PASSIVE

1SG amo amor2SG amas amaris3SG amat amatur1PL amamus amamur2PL amatis amamini3PL amant amantur

‘love’

Latin deponent (present indicative)Matthew Baerman

18



normal verb deponent verbACTIVE PASSIVE ACTIVE PASSIVE

1SG amo amor miro miror2SG amas amaris miras miraris3SG amat amatur mirat miratur1PL amamus amamur miramus miramur2PL amatis amamini miratis miramini3PL amant amantur mirant mirantur

‘love’ ‘admire’

Latin deponent (present indicative): with “virtual” formsMatthew Baerman

19





20




Latin deponent (present indicative)Matthew Baerman 21


ACTIVE1SG amo amor miro miror2SG amas amaris miras miraris3SG amat amatur mirat miratur1PL amamus amamur miramus miramur2PL amatis amamini miratis miramini3PL amant amantur mirant mirantur



22

Deponency, broadly construed:

a morphological mismatch where

•There is some morphology xwhich realizes feature X in domain 1.

•There is some morphology ywhich realizes feature Y in domain 1.

•In some domain 2, morphology x realizes feature Y.

Matthew Baerman23

consonant stem a-stemSINGULAR PLURAL SINGULAR PLURAL

NOM det-e detet-a dec-a dec-e ACC det-e detet-a dec-u dec-e GEN detet-a detet-a dec-e dec-a DAT/LOC detet-u detet-ima dec-e dec-ama INS detet-om detet-ima dec-om dec-ama

‘child’

Number

Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian dete with “virtual” forms 24




NOM det-e detet-a dec-a dec-eACC det-e detet-a dec-u dec-eGEN detet-a detet-a dec-e dec-aDAT/LOC detet-u detet-ima dec-e dec-amaINS detet-om detet-ima dec-om dec-ama

‘child’

Number

Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian 25


PLURAL

NOM det-e detet-a dec-a dec-eACC det-e detet-a dec-u dec-eGEN detet-a detet-a dec-e dec-aDAT/LOC detet-u detet-ima dec-e dec-amaINS detet-om detet-ima dec-om dec-ama

‘child’

Number

Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian 26

2.5 Conclusion on exceptionality

• an attempt to bring the phenomena of inflection into a coherent scheme

• some lexemes are more than merely exceptional, they represent a higher order of exceptionality

• extremes of inflection: of interest to linguists and to psycholinguists

27

3. Deponency, syncretism, and what lies between

28

29

3.1 Introduction

• ‘Canonical inflection’ as the basis for a typology of possible words

• Goals: • intellectual housekeeping• seeing deponency in its context• recognizing new phenomena

30

Reminder: Paradigm of Slovene kot ‘corner’

Priestly, T. M. S. 1993. Slovene. In: Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett (eds) The Slavonic Languages, 388-451. London: Routledge. [pp. 400-402]

SINGULAR DUAL PLURALNOM kot kota kotiACC kot kota koteGEN kota kotov kotovDAT kotu kotoma kotomINS kotom kotoma kotiLOC kotu kotih kotih



31

Part of the paradigm of a deponent Latin verb

32

Both types of deviation








33

3.2 Extremes which have no name:deponency or syncretism?

34

syncretism vs deponency

35

Tsez ergative (Bernard Comrie p.c.)‘fish’ ‘apricot’ ‘water’

absolutive besuro kukum łi

genitive 1 besuro-s kukum-yo-s ł-a-s

inessive besur-ā kukum-y-ā none, other local case used

ergative besur-ā kukum-yo / kukum-y-ā

ł-ā / łiy-ā

ł = voiceless lateral fricative;; note that a vowel is dropped before a following vowel 36




37

Slovene syncretism (grad ‘castle’)’

‘generalized referral’ in Network Morphology38


39

Tsez

Regular noun besuro ‘fish’

Recall that a vowel drops before another vowel.(Bernard Comrie, personal communication) 40

paradigm of Tsez xexbi ‘child’

SINGULAR PLURAL

ABSOLUTIVE xex-bi xex-bi

GENITIVE 1 xex-za-s xex-za-s

INESSIVE/ERGATIVE

xex-z-ā xex-z-ā

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

41

Gender and number in Tsez

SINGULAR PLURAL

I Ø- b-

II y-

III b- r-

IV r-

42



43 44

Xexbi as syncretic or deponent?

45

Xexbi as syncretic or deponent? Xexbi: syncretic or deponent?

Syncretism Deponency Tsez xexbi

1 Syncretic form retains ‘original’ function.

Deponent form does not retain ‘original’function.

Retains original function (syncretic).

2 If the form is from the ‘real’ paradigm, paradigm remains complete.

If the form is from the real paradigm, then paradigm will be defective.

From real paradigm, remaining complete (syncretic).

3 Refers to single cell as source and as goal (so refers to more than one feature).

Takes ‘slab’ as source and goal (refers to a single feature).

Takes slab (deponent).

4 Generalizes across lexemes (so: few cells, many items)

Generalizes across cells (so: few items, many cells).

Few items (two), many cells (deponent).

Irrelevant 2.1 and 3.1 omitted. 46

47

where this fits 3.3 Conclusion on deponency/syncretism

• Syncretism and deponency typically show a clustering of properties

• By separating these out, we find a theoretically available space, one which is rarely occupied

48



49

4. Canonical inflectional classes








50

Canonical inflectional classes

An example (a carefully selected segment of two actual paradigms)

I II

zakon komnata

zakonu komnate

zakonom komnatoj

51

Definitions

‘An inflectional class is a set of lexemes whose members each select the same set of inflectional realizations.’

(Aronoff 1994: 64)

(From the other perspective): ‘The lexical entry for the noun must therefore bear some sort of flag to assure that it will manifest the appropriate set of inflections. This flag is the inflectional class.’ (Aronoff 1994: 65)

In this sense, inflectional class = morphological feature (Corbett & Baerman 2006)

52

PRINCIPLE I (distinctiveness)

Canonical inflectional classes are fully comparable and are distinguished as clearly as is possible.

53

Criterion 1

In the canonical situation, forms differ as consistently as possible across inflectional classes, cell by cell.

I II

zakon komnata

zakonu komnate

zakonom komnatoj

54

Criterion 1

In the canonical situation, forms differ as consistently as possible across inflectional classes, cell by cell.note: the larger the paradigm the more obvious the effectweakening: the existence of shared or default forms for some cells gives reduced canonicity



55

Russian: Main patterns of noun inflection

SINGULAR ‘law’ ‘room’ ‘bone’ ‘wine’ NOM zakon komnata kost´ vino ACC> zakon komnatu kost´ vino GEN>> zakona komnaty kosti vina DAT> zakonu komnate kosti vinu INS zakonom komnatoj kost´ju vinom LOC zakone komnate kosti vine PLURAL NOM zakony komnaty kosti vina ACC zakony komnaty kosti vina GEN zakonov komnat kostej vin DAT>>>>>>>>>>> zakonam komnatam kostjam vinam INS zakonami komnatami kostjami vinami LOC zakonax komnatax kostjax vinax No.>of>nouns> 20,850> 16,050> 5,150> 11,050>

56

I II

zakon komnata

zakonu komnate

zakonom komnatoj

Criterion 2

NOM SG

DAT SG

INS SG

56

Canonical inflectional classes realize the same morphosyntactic or morphosemantic distinctions (they are of the same structure).

57

Criterion 2

Canonical inflectional classes realize the same morphosyntactic or morphosemantic distinctions (they are of the same structure).

weakenings: paradigms may be reduced for semantic reasons (e.g. number differentiability) or may be overdifferentiated (e.g. Russian second locative). In the more canonical situation, such weakenings extend across the classes.

58

Nouns with the second locative (Ilola & Mustajoki1989: 42-43) from Zaliznjak (1977)

inflectional class

example nouns with second locative available

of these, second locative optional

I na beregú ‘on the bank’

128 33

III v stepí ‘ in the steppe’

31 8

minor case value

59

[A relevant criterion for canonical morphosyntactic features]

Canonical features and their values are distinguished consistently across lexemes within relevant parts of speech

Corbett (2012: criterion 4)

Compare Stump & Hippisley (2008) on Shughni60

Criterion 3

Within a canonical inflectional class each member behaves identically.

note: this implies that there are no stem differences, alternants or other subclasses.

60



stem differences

Russian nouns with different stems

61 62

Criterion 4

Within a canonical inflectional class each paradigm cell is of equal status.

note: this implies that there will be no paradigm-structure conditions (Wurzel 1984: 118), or equivalent.

consequence: in the canonical situation, where all forms are distinct between classes, the form for each cell predicts all the others within a class (this matches Finkel & Stump’s 2009 notion of maximal transparency).

63

A consequence of Principle I (Criteria 1-4):

(i) identical content paradigms;;(ii) completely distinct form paradigms.

canonical inflectional classes would have (in Stump’s 2006 terms):

64

PRINCIPLE II (independence):

The distribution of lexical items over canonical inflectional classes is synchronically unmotivated.

65

Criterion 5

The larger the number of members of an inflectional class (up to an equal ‘share’ of the available items) the more canonical that class.

weakenings:(i) if a class had a small number of members, this could

allow listing of the forms for each item.(ii) a small number of items showing combinations of

forms from other classes can be treated asheteroclites.

Heteroclisis

66



Heteroclisis in Russian: put´ ‘road, way’(singular forms)

67 68

Criterion 6

In the canonical situation, the distribution of lexical items over inflectional classes is not phonologically motivated.

Criterion 7

In the canonical situation, the distribution of lexical items over inflectional classes is not syntactically motivated.

69

Criterion 8

In the canonical situation, the distribution of lexical items over inflectional classes is not motivated by Part of Speech.

Russian inflectional class available for different parts of speech

komnata‘room’

stolovaja‘dining room’

staraja‘old’ (F SG)

NOM komnata stolovaja staraja

ACC komnatu stolovuju staruju

GEN komnaty stolovoj staroj

DAT komnate stolovoj staroj

INS komnatoj stolovoj staroj

LOC komnate stolovoj staroj

71

Criterion 9

In the canonical situation, the distribution of lexical items over inflectional classes is not motivated by pragmatics (including information structure).

72

Outward prediction

Canonical inflectional classes allow the prediction of other information from the inflectional class specification. This is of two types:

(i) lexical information;;(ii) derivational potential.



73

Prediction of gender from inflectional class in Russian

(for nouns of the semantic residue)

inflectional class:

I II III IV

gender: masculine feminine neuter

74

Motivation for the possessive adjective in Slavonic

inflectional class:

I II II

gender: M M FRussian(original)

Ivan ‘Ivan’> Ivanov

papa ‘daddy’> papin

mama ‘mummy’

> maminUpper Sorbian(innovative)

Jan ‘Jan’> Janowy

starosta‘headman’

> starostowy

sotra ‘sister’> sotřiny

Corbett (1987: 325-326)

75

Canonical inflectional classesPrinciple I: Canonical inflectional classes are fully comparable and are distinguished as clearly as is possible.

Principle II: The distribution of lexical items over canonical inflectional classes is synchronically unmotivated.

• Surely, then, there can be no canonical inflectional classes?

Reference: Corbett (2009)

75Map of the Is land of New Guinea (Wikimedia Commons)

76

Burmeso

77

Verbal form classes in Burmeso

78

assignment inflectional class 1 inflectional class 2e.g. -ihi- ‘see’ e.g. -akwa- ‘bite’

SG PL SG PLI male j- s- b- t-II female, animate g- s- n- t-III miscellaneous g- j- n- b-IV mass nouns j- j- b- b-V banana, sago tree j- g- b- n-VI arrows, coconuts g- g- n- n-

Donohue (2001: 100, 102), discussed in Corbett (2009)

Donohue (2001: 101) states explicitly: ‘… there are no obvious semantic correlations for verbs which take the different sets of prefixes, and both sets of verbs are of approximately equal size.’ 78



5. Conclusions

• Canonical typology: general method, but here looking at canonical instances of non-canonical phenomena

• Interactions give rise to higher level exceptionality

• Recognition of new phenomena

• Surprising instance where unlikely canonical instance is actually found

79 80

ReferencesA working bibliography on canonical typology can be found at:

http://www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/approaches/canonical-typology/bibliography/Aronoff, Mark 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes.

Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Comrie, Bernard. 2001. How independent is Tsezic morphology? In: Mary

Andronis, Christopher Ball, Heidi Elston and Sylvain Neuvel (eds) CLS 37: The Panels: 2001: Proceedings from the Parasessions of the 37th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Volume 37-2, 367-383. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society

Corbett, Greville G. 1987. The morphology/syntax interface: evidence from possessive adjectives in Slavonic. Language 63, no. 2, 299-345.

Corbett, Greville G. 2007a. Canonical typology, suppletion and possible words. Language 83.8-42

Corbett, Greville G. 2007b. Deponency, syncretism and what lies between. In: Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett, Dunstan Brown and Andrew Hippisley (eds) Deponency and Morphological Mismatches (Proceedings of the British Academy, 145), 21-43. Oxford: British Academy and Oxford University Press.

81

References

Corbett, Greville G. 2009. Canonical inflectional classes. In: Fabio Montermini, Gilles Boyé and Jesse Tseng (eds) Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux, 1-11. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Available at: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/decemb/6/abstract2231.html

Corbett, Greville G. 2011. Higher order exceptionality in inflectional morphology. In: Horst J. Simon & Heike Wiese (eds) Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 216), 107-126. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [With comments by Stephen Anderson.]

Corbett, Greville G. 2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Corbett, Greville G. & Matthew Baerman. 2006. Prolegomena to a typology of morphological features. Morphology 16.231-246.

Corbett, Greville G. & Norman M. Fraser. 1997. Defaults in Arapesh. Lingua 103. 25–57.

82

ReferencesDonohue, Mark. 2001. Animacy, class and gender in Burmeso. In: Andrew Pawley, Malcolm Ross & Darrell Tryon (eds) The boy from Bundaberg: Studies in Melanesian linguistics in honour of Tom Dutton (Pacific linguistics 514), 97–115. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Evans, Nicholas, Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett. 2001. Dalabon pronominal prefixes and the typology of syncretism: a Network Morphology analysis. In: Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds) Yearbook of Morphology 2000, 187-231. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Finkel, Raphael & Gregory Stump. 2009. Principal parts and degrees of paradigmatic transparency. In: James P. Blevins & Juliette Blevins (eds) Analogy in Grammar: Form and acquisition, 13-53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ilola, Eeva & Arto Mustajoki. 1989. Report on Russian Morphology as it appears in Zaliznyak’s Grammatical Dictionary (=Slavica Helsingiensia 7). Helsinki: Department of Slavonic Languages, University of Helsinki.

Plank, Frans. 1994. Homonymy vs. suppletion: A riddle (and how it happens to be solved in ...) Agreement gender number genitive & (EUROTYP Working Papers VII/23) 81-86. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.

83

ReferencesPriestly, T. M. S. 1993. Slovene. In: Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett (eds), The Slavonic Languages, 388-451. London: Routledge.

Stump, Gregory T. 2006. Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language82.279-322.

Stump, Gregory T. & Andrew Hippisley. 2008. Periphrasis in Shughniverb inflection. Paper given at the Southeast Seminar on Morphology, University of Surrey, 26 September 2008.

Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. [Translated by Manfred Schentke: Wolfgang U. Wurzel. 1989. Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory). Dordrecht: Kluwer.]

Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1977. Grammatičeskij slovar´ russkogo jazyka: slovoizmenenie. Moscow: Russkij jazyk. [A fourth, corrected edition appeared in 2003, Moscow: Russkie slovari.]

84

Morphology 3 Cagliari Handout - Surrey Morphology Group

Documents

Transcript of Morphology 3 Cagliari Handout - Surrey Morphology Group