Greville G. Corbett Morphology III: Cagliari: June 2016 Research support from AHRC 1 Greville G. Corbett Surrey Morphology Group University of Surrey Morphology III: Second level canonicity The s upport of the European Res earch Council the 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 (canonicaldeviation) deviations composition/ feature signature samedifferent fused exponence periphrasis defectiveness lexical material (≈shape of stem) samedifferent alternations suppletion inflectional material (≈shape of inflection) differentsame syncretism uninflectability 6 Deviations: second in terms of comparison across lexemes lexemes (canonicaldeviation) deviations composition/ feature signature samedifferent overdifferentiation anti-periphrasis lexical material (≈shape of stem) differentsame homonymy inflectional material (≈shape of inflection) samedifferent inflectional classes heteroclisis deponency
14
Embed
Morphology 3 Cagliari Handout - Surrey Morphology Group
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
Greville G. Corbett Morphology III: Cagliari: June 2016
same same fused exponence periphrasis defectiveness
overdifferentiation anti-periphrasis
lexical material same different alternations suppletion homonymy
inflectional material different same
syncretism uninflectability
inflectional classes heteroclisis deponency
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
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
same same fused exponence periphrasis defectiveness
overdifferentiation anti-periphrasis
lexical material same different alternations suppletion homonymy
inflectional material different same
syncretism uninflectability
inflectional classes heteroclisis deponency
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
Greville G. Corbett Morphology III: Cagliari: June 2016
Research support from AHRC
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
Greville G. Corbett Morphology III: Cagliari: June 2016
Research support from AHRC
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
Greville G. Corbett Morphology III: Cagliari: June 2016
Research support from AHRC
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:
Greville G. Corbett Morphology III: Cagliari: June 2016
Research support from AHRC
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
Greville G. Corbett Morphology III: Cagliari: June 2016
Research support from AHRC
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.]