The Application of Distributed Morphology to the Lithuanian First Accent Noun Declension Paradigm

Ling404: Morphological Theory Adrian Lin

1

The Application of Distributed Morphology to

the Lithuanian First Accent Noun Declension Paradigm

Distributed Morphology – Introduction and concepts:

Distributed Morphology (hereafter DM) as a morphological theory is based on three main concepts:

Late Insertion, Underspecification, and Syntactical Hierarchical Structure All the Way Down (Noyer).

Late Insertion envisions the morpheme as abstract bundles of semantic features that are realized with the

help of vocabulary item insertion. The vocabulary item insertion gives the morpheme a phonological

expression after the structure has been built syntactically. In DM, full specification of vocabulary items is

not needed. Instead, their phonological exponents can apply to many morphemes on words through

Underspecification, which often accounts for observed syncretisms1. Underspecification is also used

analogously in other linguistic fields such as phonology as the basis of generalized models of linguistic

phenomena. Finally, syntactical structures in DM are seen as extending beyond the sentential realm and

into the morphological realm, i.e the syntactical structure extends all the way down. As such, DM

assumes that processes and representations (such as trees consisting of individual “pieces”) in syntax can

and do often affect and are used in morphology.

This contrasts with other theories of morphology that often view morphology and syntax as operating

with different rules, such as the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis, thus suggesting a theory of theoretical

linguistic representation that is less unified than that of DM’, which unifies various fields of theoretical

linguistics with common processes. This paper will attempt to apply DM to a paradigm of words and

explain the various morphological phenomena observed in the paradigm.

1 A syncretism is “the situation where one morphological form corresponds to two or more morphosyntactic descriptions.” (Glottopedia)


2

The Lithuanian First Accent Noun Declension Paradigm:

I chose Lithuanian and extracted a segment of the first accent noun declension paradigm data from the

University of Texas at Austin’s Linguistics Research Center site. As a Balto-Slavic language, it has

fusional2 rather than agglutinative3 morphology. Therefore it has a complex case system with many

vocabulary items and syncretisms. The paradigm and its syncretisms are marked in (1). As the website

does not explain the bracketed parts, I included these as a part of the word. I ignored the consistent first-

syllable stress marks and wrote ą and ų as aː and uː, complying with the pronunciation.

(1) "Leg" “Needle” “Peel”

Singular Plural Singular Plural Singular Plural

Nominative koja kojos adata adatos lupena lupenos

Genitive kojos kojuː adatos adatuː lupenos lupemuː

Dative kojai kojom(s) adatai adatom(s) lupenai lupenom(s)

Accusative kojaː kojas adataː adatas lupenaː lupenas

Instrumental koja kojom(is) adata adatom(is) lupena lupenom(is)

Locative kojoj(e) kojose adatoj(e) adatose lupenoj(e) lupenose

Vocative koja kojos adata adatos lupena lupenos

Observed Syncretism:

At first glance, it appears the syncretisms in this paradigm can be summarized as in (2).

(2) Nominative singular = Instrumental singular = Vocative singular

Nominative plural = Genitive singular = Vocative plural

However, there appears to be several recurring elements, such as -o-, -m-, and -s in certain words. A

proposed segmentation scheme will be discussed in (4), (5), and (8) below.

2 In fusional languages, a single morpheme may contain many semantic features and grammatical functions. 3 In agglutinative languages, morphemes are more numerous but each contain fewer semantic features.


3

Posited Features:

I used semantic features for classification because they are shown to correlate with morphological

classification (Comrie, 1978). Frank (1995) provides a useful framework for case classification by

semantic features4 where he adapts Jakobson’s (1936) system of case system feature classification that

used three features: [± quantified], [±directional], and [±marginal]. Frank refers to Jakobson’s definition

of these ‘“semantic marks” as how significant the role of the entity in the message is, ““signalizing the

goal of an event,” and “assigning to the entity an accessory place in the message,” respectively’. Frank’s

addition and adaptation of the system results in:[±oblique], whether a noun can be the object of a verb or

preposition; [±marginal], as above; [±nonascriptive], a version of Jakobson’s (1958) ascriptiveness,

which Worth (1984) describes as “[ascribing] to the object a quality or state resulting from action directed

at the object;” and [±phrasal],which Frank describes as being or not being “associated with (not

necessarily maximal) phrasal projections.” In addition, [±singular] is also a part of this system.

I applied this system to Lithuanian because it is related to Russian and both language have many cases

suggesting shared features and classification. However, Jakobson and Frank list two genitives and two

locatives; whereas in the Lithuanian paradigm, it is unclear which would apply. Therefore, during the

course of the analysis, I tested both out to see which fit better. In addition, my Lithuanian paradigm

contained one extra case that was unaccounted for in the book – the Vocative. I eventually settled on the

feature matrices for the Lithuanian locative, genitive, and vocative exhibited along with others in (3).

4 Semantic features are qualities that indicate category membership and enable systematic linguistic classification.

Nom Gen Dat Acc Inst Loc Voc

± phrasal + - + - + - -

± nonascriptive + - - - + + +

± marginal - - + - + + -

± oblique - + + - + + -

(3)


4

€

ROOT − agr1[±sg]− agr2

±phrasal±nonascriptive±marg inal±oblique

However, because no underspecified set of these semantic features can exclusively account for the

syncretism pattern in (2) without referring to other cases, I conclude that there must be several

morphemes, as will be discussed below.

Posited Structure:

Because Lithuanian is a fusional language, I assumed fewer pieces in the morphosyntactical tree (4).

Part of my reasoning for having two agreement morphemes, despite the fusional nature of this language,

stemmed from my observation that certain post-root vowel distributions of the declensions were

correlated with plurality. As visible in (5), which shows the overall pattern I observed in the paradigm,

[-round] vowels (in blue) tended to be found in this position in the singular, while [+round] vowels (in

green) were found in the plural. This suggested two vocabulary items for this morpheme. I therefore

envisioned agr[+sg] to correspond to -a and agr[-sg] to correspond to -o and perhaps some

impoverishment rules5 to account for the appearance of unexpected morpheme.

5 An impoverishment rule is a rule that eliminates a feature altogether, allowing a less specified feature to surface.

(5)

Singular Plural

Nominative √ROOT-a-Ø √ROOT-o-s

Genitive √ROOT-o-s either √ROOTj-uː-Ø or √ROOT-u-u

Dative √ROOT-a-i √ROOT-o-m(s)

Accusative either √ROOT-aː-Ø or √ROOT-a-a √ROOT-a-s

Instrumental √ROOT-a-Ø √ROOT-o-m(is)

Locative √ROOT-o-j(e) √ROOT-o-se

Vocative √ROOT-a-Ø √ROOT-o-s

(4)


5

!"#$%&%'()*+,-*.*$"/0.(1-2*+3(

(45+"0#(!"#(

(6(

Me

tho

do

log

y:

Th

e In

th

e ch

art

in (

6),

th

e tw

o g

rey

sec

tio

n h

ead

ing

s la

bel

ed A

gr1

[±sg

] an

d A

gr2

[±p

hr

±n

asc

r ±

ma

rg ±

ob

l] r

epre

sen

t th

e tw

o m

orp

hem

es t

hat

are

atta

ched

to

th

e !

RO

OT

(h

ere,

!K

OJ)

. T

he

vo

cab

ula

ry i

tem

s ar

e li

sted

in

ord

er o

f sp

ecif

icit

y w

ith

th

e m

ost

sp

ecif

ic t

o l

east

fro

m t

op

to

bo

tto

m.

In

DM

, m

ore

sp

ecif

ic v

oca

bu

lary

ite

ms

pre

ven

t th

e p

ho

no

log

ical

ex

po

nen

ts o

f o

ther

les

s-sp

ecif

ic v

oca

bu

lary

ite

ms

fro

m b

ein

g g

ener

ated

du

e to

th

e

assu

mp

tio

n t

hat

eac

h s

yn

tact

ic t

erm

inal

no

de

can

ho

ld o

ne

ph

on

olo

gic

al e

xp

on

ent

and

th

at m

ore

sp

ecif

ic i

tem

s ar

e ap

pli

ed f

irst

. In

ch

art

(5)

bel

ow

,

the

emb

old

ened

rep

rese

nt

the

resp

ecti

ve

ph

on

olo

gic

al f

orm

s re

aliz

ed t

hro

ug

h t

his

pri

nci

ple

of

spec

ific

ity

. H

ow

ever

, fo

rms

in r

ed w

ith

cu

rly

bra

cket

s { }

rep

rese

nt

the

form

s th

at w

ere

no

t se

lect

ed,

des

pit

e b

ein

g m

ore

sp

ecif

ic,

du

e to

im

po

ver

ish

men

t ru

les,

wh

ich

are

lis

ted

un

der

nea

th.

Fin

ally

, se

ctio

ns

lab

eled

Sp

ell-

ou

t re

sult

bef

ore

ph

on

olo

gy a

nd

Ph

on

olo

gic

al

rule

s sh

ow

th

e p

roce

ss t

hat

cre

ates

th

e o

bse

rvab

le S

urf

ace

fo

rms.

(6)


6

Vocabulary Item List:

From my analysis, I identified the following vocabulary items which the chart (7) below highlights. Many

of these vocabulary items are conditional, depending on the presence and form of adjacent morphemes.

Resulting chart and segmentation:

This analysis results in the following segmentation chart (8).



Nominative √KOJ-a-Ø √KOJ-o-s √ADAT-a-Ø √ADAT-o-s √LUPEN-a-Ø √LUPEN-o-s

Genitive √KOJ-o-s √KOJ-Ø-uː √ADAT-o-s √ADAT-Ø-uː √LUPEN-o-s √LUPEN-Ø-uː

Dative √KOJ-a-i √KOJ-om-s √ADAT-a-i √ADAT-om-s √LUPEN-a-i √LUPEN-om-s

Accusative √KOJ-Ø-aː √KOJ-a-s √ADAT-Ø-aː √ADAT-a-s √LUPEN-Ø-aː √LUPEN-a-s

Instrumental √KOJ-a-Ø √KOJ-om-is √ADAT-a-Ø √ADAT-om-is √LUPEN-a-Ø √LUPEN-om-is

Locative √KOJ-o-je √KOJ-o-se √ADAT-o-je √ADAT-o-se √LUPEN-o-je √LUPEN-o-se

Vocative √KOJ-a-Ø √KOJ-o-s √ADAT-a-Ø √ADAT-o-s √LUPEN-a-Ø √LUPEN-o-s

Agr1[±sg]

[- sg] <-> -om / [__][+phr +mar]

[+sg] <-> -a

[ ] <-> -o

Agr2[±phr ±nascr ±mar ±obl]

[+phr +nascr +mar] <-> -is / [-sg][__]

[-phr +nascr +mar] <-> -je / [+sg][__]

[-phr +nascr +mar] <-> -se

[-phr -nascr] <-> -as / [-sg] [__]

[-marg +obl] <-> -uː / [-sg] [__]

[+phr -nascr]<-> -i / [+sg] [__]

[-phr -nascr] <-> -aː

[+nascr] <-> -Ø

[ ] <-> -s

(7)


7

Problems:

The phonological exponents of Agr1[±sg], -om and -o, presented a possible problem due to the similarity

in distribution – both are associated with the feature [-sg] and the presence of /m/ in both is the only

differentiator between having both be -o. Attaching the /m/ to Agr2[±phr ±nascr ±mar ±obl] requires the

creation of two new vocabulary items with the phonological exponent of /-ms/ and /-mis/. Also, another

problem arises with the ability of agr1[±sg] to reference other morphemes, because it is the first in the

sequence to be constructed. Normally, it is expected and empirically observed that in a sequence √ROOT-

X-Y-Z, morpheme Z can reference Y and X and morpheme Y can reference X, but morpheme X, being

the first to be built, can not reference any subsequently-built morphemes.

Possible Solutions:

If we posit a mystery morpheme X[±F] in a revised structure as in (9), then a modified set of vocabulary

items for the morphemes Agr1[±sg] and X[±F] in (10) emerges. Thus, [-sg] <-> -om/[__][+phr +mar] can

be removed unifying the exponents expressing [-sg]. This segmentation is expressed in chart (11).

Agr1[±sg]

[+sg] <-> -a

[ ] <-> -o

X[±F]

X[ ] <-> -m / agr1[-sg]X[__]agr2[+phr +mar]

X[ ] <-> Ø

(9)

(10) €

ROOT − agr1[±sg]− X[±F]− agr

±phrasal±nonascriptive±marg inal±oblique


8



Nominative √KOJ-a-Ø-Ø √KOJ-o-Ø-s √ADAT-a-Ø-Ø √ADAT-o-Ø-s √LUPEN-a-Ø-Ø √LUPEN-o-Ø-s

Genitive √KOJ-o-Ø-s √KOJ-Ø-Ø-uː √ADAT-o-Ø-s √ADAT-Ø-Ø-uː √LUPEN-o-Ø-s √LUPEN-Ø-Ø-uː

Dative √KOJ-a-Ø-i √KOJ-o-m-s √ADAT-a-Ø-i √ADAT-o-m-s √LUPEN-a-Ø-i √LUPEN-o-m-s

Accusative √KOJ-Ø-Ø-aː √KOJ-a-Ø-s √ADAT-Ø-Ø-aː √ADAT-a-Ø-s √LUPEN-Ø-Ø-aː √LUPEN-a-Ø-s

Instrumental √KOJ-a-Ø-Ø √KOJ-o-m-is √ADAT-a-Ø-Ø √ADAT-o-m-is √LUPEN-a-Ø-Ø √LUPEN-o-m-is

Locative √KOJ-o-Ø-je √KOJ-o-Ø-se √ADAT-o-Ø-je √ADAT-o-Ø-se √LUPEN-o-Ø-je √LUPEN-o-Ø-se

Vocative √KOJ-a-Ø-Ø √KOJ-o-Ø-s √ADAT-a-Ø-Ø √ADAT-o-Ø-s √LUPEN-a-Ø-Ø √LUPEN-o-Ø-s

Conclusion and Areas for Further Investigation:

Still, the mystery morpheme analysis presents its own problems. First of all, an extra morpheme requires

semantic features, which may require moving some from agr2[ ], but it is unclear which. Secondly, it is

somewhat suspicious that a morpheme would be realized as -Ø most of the time. Rather than three

morphemes with the exponents -m, -s, and -is, a third analysis may conceive two exponents, -mis, and

-ms. However this would not address the suspicious presence of /m/ in the two morphemes.

An area for further investigation could be extending and adapting this analysis to more noun declension

paradigms in Lithuanian, such as the entire first accent noun class and the second accent noun class as

listed on the University of Texas at Austin’s Linguistics Research Center site. Still, DM proves useful in

handling the syncretisms and similar elements of this paradigm through its vocabulary item

underspecification and order of specificity. In this manner, it unifies the system and conforms to linguistic

assumptions of storing as few mental representations as possible for the necessary meanings by creating

more generalized, underspecified pieces and processes.


9

Bibliography:

Comrie, B. (1978). Morphological Classification of Cases in the Slavonic Languages. The

Slavonic East European Review, 56(2), 177-190.

Franks, S. (1995). Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Syncretism (n.d.). Retrieved from Wiki: http://www.glottopedia.de/index.php/Syncretism

Noyer, R. (N.D.). Distributed Morphology: Frequently Asked Questions List. Retrieved, 10/12/10 from:

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/dm/

Vasiliauskiene, V. & Slocum, J. (2009). Baltic Online: Lesson 3: Lithuanian. Retrieved, 17/12/10 from:

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/litol-3-X.html

Worth, D. S. (1984). Russian Gen2, Loc2 Revisited. In van Baak, J.J. (Ed.), Signs of Friendship: To

Honour A.G.F. van Holk, Slavist, Linguist, Semiotician (295-306). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi B.V.

The Application of Distributed Morphology to the Lithuanian First Accent Noun Declension Paradigm

Education

Transcript of The Application of Distributed Morphology to the Lithuanian First Accent Noun Declension Paradigm