Morphology - UZH › vangijn › teaching › ... · Paradigmatic structure is particularly...

Morphology

Class 12

Paradigms

FS 2014

Rik van Gijn

You will learn

√ About paradigms

√ About inflectional classes

√ About syncretism

√ About deponency

√ About defectiveness

√ About periphrasis

√ About eidemic resonance

Goal of this class

Syntagmatic relations: relations between units that (potentially) follow

each other in speech

Syntagmatic versus paradigmatic relations in morphology

Paradigmatic relations: relations between units that could (potentially)

occur in the same slot and are mutually exclusive

house s work s

ø ø

ed

ing

syntagmatic dimension

paradigmatic dimension

Remember Fictivese?

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

root (V)AspectValency

Subject agreement

Mood

IntensityTenseObject

agreement

Remember Fictivese?

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

root (V)AspectValency

Subject agreement

Mood

IntensityTenseObject

agreement

indicative vs. subjunctive

past vs. present vs. future

You have to choose between values. An event cannot be past and

future, or indicative and subjunctive at the same time. They are

mutually exclusive.

Paradigms are usually represented in the form of a table.

The representation of paradigms

singular ø

plural -s

If an inflectional form represents two orthogonal (i.e. logically

independent) features, one way of dealing with that is by reserving the

rows for one feature, and the columns for another. Usually, the feature

with the most values is represented in the rows. An alternative is to

reserve the rows for a combined feature value set (to the right)


singular plural

1 -y -tu

2 -m -p

3 -ø -w

Yurakaré subject agreement

1sg -y

2sg -m

3sg -ø

1pl -tu

2pl -p

3pl -w

This solution is particularly

common for the person+number

combination

For more than two orthogonal features, tables are often simply

multiplied, and juxtaposed


.. but check out this three-dimensional solution by Haspelmath & Sims


Many of the typological parameters we have discussed mainly deal

with syntagmatic structure, though some have a paradigmatic

dimension

Syntagmatic versus paradigmatic relations in morphology

Position deals with the syntagmatic position wrt the root of a morphological

marker

Fusion deals with how tightly bound a marker is to its syntagmatic surroundings

(their base)

Exponence (cumulative vs. separative) is in principle a statement about

syntagmatic separability of form-meaning units, but requires paradigmatic

(substitution) evidence

Flexivity has both a syntagmatic (selection) and a paradigmatic (competition)

dimension.

Paradigmatic structures

Paradigmatic structure is particularly important for inflection, and within

inflection in particular to tackle allomorphy, homonymy, and zero

morphology.

Inflection classes

Paradigmatic structure is particularly important for inflection, and within

inflection in particular to tackle allomorphy, homonymy, and zero

morphology.

One crucial concept in this respect is inflection class

An inflection class is a set of lexemes that exhibit the same inflectional

pattern.

nominal inflection classes are generally called declension classes

verbal inflection classes are generally called conjugation classes

Inflection classes

One crucial concept in with respect to the paradigmatic approach to

allomorphy (flexivity) is inflection class

Simple case: Yurakaré subject inflection

-y

-m

V -ø

-tu

-p

-w

Simple case: Yurakaré subject inflection

-y

-m

V -ø

-tu

-p

-w

Inflection classes

any verb



Latin subject inflection

-ō -iō

-ās -īs

V1 -at V2 -it

-āmus -īmus

-atis -ītis

-ant -iunt

Inflection classes

amō

amās

amat

amāmus

amātis

amant

audiō

audīs

audit

audīmus

audītis

audiunt



Inflection classes

Inflection classes

- are item-based

- can be very large and very small (though >1)

- are not gradual (i.e. an item can only choose between ‘packages’ of

inflectional endings).

Haspelmath & Sims 2010

Inflection class assignment

SemanticMorphologicalPhonological


Phonological (Haspelmath & Sims 2010)

E.g. Welsh plurals


Morphological (Haspelmath & Sims 2010)


Semantic (Haspelmath & Sims 2010)

E.g.

German masculine -n declension nouns are almost all animate (and

usually restricted to male gender)

Hase, Junge, Schwede, Löwe

Elefant, President, Kommunist

Bauer, Nachbar, Idiot

There are a few exceptions (Buchstabe, Planet, Wille)


Semantic (Haspelmath & Sims 2010)

E.g. Ossetic person inflection in the past tense (intransitive versus

transitive)

Inflection class and gender


Inflection class and language change

Inflection classes are not necessarily stable. Some classes are more

productive than others in that they can accommodate loan words

and/or attract words from other classes or newly coined words.

Inflection class and language change

Inflection class change

senatusexercitusfructus

One generalization

that has been

made is that, in

situations of shift

from one class to

another, the shift

will be to the

classes with more

members.

Shifts are often ‘helped’ by

formal overlap between

paradigms or by semantic

considerations.


Paradigms and homonymy: syncretism

One other problem that can be tackled by making reference to

paradigmatic structure is certain types of homonymy.

Der Mann rennt [NOM.MASC.SG]

Ich habe der Frau geholfen [DAT.FEM.SG]

Das ist die Tasche der Frau [GEN.FEM.SG]

Das sind die Schuhe der Kinder [GEN.PL]




masc neut fem pl

Nom der das die die

Gen des des der der

Dat dem dem der den

Acc den das die die




masc neut fem pl

Nom der das die die

Gen des des der der

Dat dem dem der den

Acc den das die die

There isn’t a single unique form! And yet it is impossible to

reduce the schema


For such cases, we need a special type of rule that says that several

forms in the paradigm are identical. Such rules are called rules of

referral. RoR are about defaults, so they generalize over inflection

classes.



Syncretism is systematic homonymy within an inflectional paradigm

What do we mean by systematic?

value 1 value 2 value 3

value 1 A B C

value 2 D E F

value 3 G H I


value 1 A B C

value 2 D F

value 3 G H I


value 1 A B C

value 2 DE

F

value 3 G I


Syncretism is systematic homonymy within an inflectional class

Tests of systematicity

1. recurring patterns across inflection classes

2. syntactic functionality

3. naturalness


Recurrence in several inflectional classes

1sg (ich) spiele

2sg (du) spielst

3sg (er/sie) spielt

1pl (wir) spielen

2pl (ihr) spielt

3pl (sie) spielen


Recurrence in several inflectional classes

1sg (ich) falle

2sg (du) fällst

3sg (er/sie) fällt

1pl (wir) fallen

2pl (ihr) fallt

3pl (sie) fallen

In fact, the 1pl-3pl syncretism in German verb inflection is maintained in all

contexts. If it is that systematic, one can start to wonder whether this is

syncretism or whether German verb inflection has a category ‘non-second

person plural’


Syntactic functionality: Syncretic forms can be used in situations where

two conflicting syntactic requirements must be fulfilled simultaneously.



naturalness: the homonymy can be described by a single feature value

singular plural

1st supu supame

2nd supi supate

3rd supa

Lithuanian verb paradigm

(Haspelmath & Sims 2010)

Zero morphology

One argument that is sometimes given for a zero marker is that it is the

only cell in a paradigm that is unmarked. Depending on the

obligatoriness of the inflectional ending, one can set up an argument

that the absence of marking is in fact meaningful, and should therefore

be represented by a zero (but there is a lot of disagreement here!)

1sg -y

2sg -m

3sg -ø

1pl -tu

2pl -p

3pl -w

Once again: the (obligatory)

Yurakaré subject inflection.

Defectiveness

A lexeme is defective when it lacks the inflectional forms that other

lexemes do have so that that particular feature value cannot be

expressed for the defective lexeme.

Examples

- Impersonal verbs like German regnen which cannot take any

personal endings in the indicative except for the third sg.

- Nouns like Leute (which lacks a singular) or Schnee (which lacks a

plural)

Defectiveness

A lexeme is defective when it lacks the inflectional forms that other

lexemes do have so that that particular feature value cannot be

expressed for the defective lexeme.

Defectiveness can also be completely arbitrary


Periphrasis

Often if there is an empty cell somewhere in a paradigm, it is not

completely empty, because there is an alternative way to express the

same thing.

See for instance the decrees of comparison paradigm in English

positive -ø

comparative -er

superlative -(e)st

Periphrasis



same thing.

long-ø beautiful-ø

long-er *beautiful-er

long-est *beautiful-est

Is beautiful a defective adjective when it comes to marking degree of comparison?

Periphrasis



same thing.

long-ø beautiful-ø

long-er *beautiful-er

long-est *beautiful-est

Is beautiful a defective adjective when it comes to marking degree of comparison?

Most morphologists would argue against that conclusion because there

is a well-established alternative with more X / more Y. Such a well-

established alternative non-morphological pattern that ‘fills’ the empty

cells of an inflectional paradigm is referred to as periphrasis.

Periphrasis

Linguists also talk about categorial periphrasis, where a feature value

is always expressed with a multi-word construction (but contrasting

with inflectionally expressed feature values)

e.g. English future with will (versus morphologically marked past)

Periphrasis

Linguists also talk about categorial periphrasis, where a feature value

is always expressed with a multi-word construction (but contrasting

with inflectionally expressed feature values)

e.g. English future with will (versus morphologically marked past)

A related, but slightly different phenomenon is paradigmatic

periphrasis where it is the combination of two normally

morphologically expressed categories that yields a multi-word

construction.


Deponency

A deponent lexeme takes the “wrong” inflectional forms. There is a

“mismatch” between form on the one hand and meaning and syntax on

the other.

Especially common with verbs, and especially in relation to voice

e.g. Latin luctor et emergo ‘I struggle and emerge’

Deponency

nempe patr-em sequ-untur liber-i.

of.course father-ACC.SG follow-3PL-PRES.PASS child-NOM.SG

’Of course, the children follow the father.’

Bermudez-Otero (2007:231), cited in Weisser (2010)

A deponent lexeme takes the “wrong” inflectional forms. There is a

“mismatch” between form on the one hand and meaning and syntax on

the other

Eidemic resonance

One interesting aspect of many paradigms is that the forms in a

paradigm often resonate in different ways, e.g. through aliteration,

rhyme etc. This can be termed eidemic resonance (eidemes are

predictable but meaningless patterns)

Also observed in other paradigms or ‘families’ than inflectional ones:

Eng. this, that, those, these, there etc.

Eng. what, where, why, who etc.

Eidemic resonance





Chechen deictic prefixes, partly inflectional

hwa- toward speaker

dwa- away from speaker

hwal- up

wa- down

Bickel & Nichols 2007

Eidemic resonance

Yurakaré shows that paradigm-internal structures may be indicated by

eidemic resonance

default person markers comitative person markers

ti- të-

mi- më-

ka- ku-

ta- tu-

pa- pu-

ma- mu-





Summary

Paradigms are structured sets of mutually exclusive inflectional forms of a lexeme.

An inflection class is a set of lexemes that exhibit the same inflectional pattern. Different

inflectional classes -> allomorphy

Syncretism is systematic homonymy within an inflectional paradigm

A lexeme is defective when it lacks the inflectional forms that other lexemes do have so

that that particular feature value cannot be expressed for the defective lexeme.

Periphrasis: a well-established alternative non-morphological pattern that ‘fills’ the empty

cells of an inflectional paradigm.

A deponent lexeme takes the “wrong” inflectional forms.

Eidemic resonance is the meaningless sound resonation that characterizes the

inflectional forms in some paradigms

Morphology - UZH › vangijn › teaching › ... · Paradigmatic structure is particularly...

Documents

Transcript of Morphology - UZH › vangijn › teaching › ... · Paradigmatic structure is particularly...