Yearbook of Morphology 2005 PDF
Preview Yearbook of Morphology 2005
YEARBOOKOFMORPHOLOGY2005 Yearbook of Morphology Editors: GeertBooij JaapvanMarle ConsultingEditors: StephenAnderson(Yale) MarkAronoff(StonyBrook,N.Y.) MarkBaker(NewBrunswick,N.J.) LaurieBauer(Wellington) JoanBybee(Albuquerque,N.M.) AndrewCarstairs-McCarthy(Christchurch) GrevilleCorbett(Guildford,U.K.) WolfgangDressler(Wien) IngoPlag(Siegen,Germany) JackHoeksema(Groningen) RochelleLieber(Durham,N.H.) PeterMatthews(Cambridge,U.K.) FranzRainer(Wien) SergioScalise(Bologna) HenkSchultink(Utrecht) AndrewSpencer(Colchester,U.K.) GregoryStump(Lexington,Kentucky) Editorialaddress: Prof.IngoPlag EnglishLinguistics,Fachbereich3 Universita¨tSiegen Adolf-Reichwein-Str.2 Siegen D-57068 Germany e-mail:[email protected] YEARBOOK OF MORPHOLOGY 2005 Editedby GEERTBOOIJ LeidenUniversity TheNetherlands and JAAPVANMARLE OpenUniversity Heerlen,TheNetherlands AC.I.P.CataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheLibraryofCongress. ISBN-101-4020-4065-2(HB) ISBN-13978-1-4020-4065-8(HB) ISBN-101-4020-4066-0(e-book) ISBN-13978-1-4020-4066-5(e-book) PublishedbySpringer, P.O.Box173300AADordrecht,TheNetherlands. www.springeronline.com Printedonacid-freepaper Allrightsreserved. (cid:1)C 2005Springer Nopartofthematerialprotectedbythiscopyrightnoticemaybereproducedor utilizedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronicormechanical, includingphotocopying,recordingorbyanyinformationstorageand retrievalsystem,withoutwrittenpermissionfromthecopyrightowner. PrintedintheNetherlands. Table of Contents Articles JAMESP.BLEVINS/ Word-baseddeclensionsinEstonian 1 HANS-OLAVENGER/ Doaffixeshavemeaning?PolarityintheTotendialectof Norwegianmeetsmorphologicaltheory 27 JANETGRIJZENHOUTandMARTINAPENKE/ Ontheinteractionofphonologyandmorphologyinlanguage acquisitionandGermanandDutchBroca’sAphasia:thecase ofinflectedverbs 49 ANDREWKOONTZ-GARBODEN/ Onthetypologyofstate/changeofstatealternations 83 CHRISTIANLEHMANN/ Pleonasmandhypercharacterisation 119 MARYPASTER/ Pulaarverbalextensionsandphonologicallydrivenaffixorder 155 ANDREAD.SIMS/ DeclensionhoppingindialectalCroatian:Twopredictions offrequency 201 GREGORYT.STUMP/ ReferralsandmorphomesinSoraverbinflection 227 Discussion:ParadigmFunctionMorphology ANDREWCARSTAIRS-McCARTHY/ Affixes,stemsandallomorphicconditioninginparadigm functionmorphology 253 GREGORYT.STUMP/ SomecriticismsofCarstairs-McCarthy’sconclusions 283 Bookreviews PaulBoucher(ed.),ManyMorphologies(PeterArkadiev) 305 DanielleCorbin,PierreCorbinandMartineTemple(eds.),Lexique16 (ClaudioIacobini) 309 LaurieBauer,AGlossaryofMorphology(GeertBooij) 313 PietvanSterkenburg(ed.)LinguisticsToday—FacingaGreater Challenge(GeertBooij) 314 Bookinformation Proceedingsofthe4thMediterraneanMorphologyMeeting,Catania, 21–23September2004 315 ∗ Word-based declensions in Estonian JAMESP.BLEVINS 1. INTRODUCTION The declensional system of modern Estonian exhibits a highly uniform word- based structure. The system is essentially tripartite, comprising a set of singu- lar grammatical cases, a set of plural grammatical cases and a set of semantic cases. The subsystem of singular grammatical cases consists of isolable stems andthemevowels.Yetitisparticularstem-vowelcombinationsthataredistinc- tive, as neither stems nor vowels can be assigned case properties in isolation. Thepluralgrammaticalcasesareinturn‘parasitic’formations(Matthews1972), based purely on the form of the singular cases. The semantic cases are then based on the form of the corresponding genitive. Within each subsystem, case and other grammatical properties are associated with whole word forms, but theseword-levelpropertiescannotbeapportionedtosmallerunits. This paper suggests that a traditional word and paradigm (WP) model of- fersanilluminatingperspectiveontheorganizationofthissystem.Recognizing wordsas‘minimalmeaningfulunits’directlycapturesthefactthatcaseisconsis- tentlyassociatedwithwords,butnotwithsub-wordunits.Thetraditionalview that words ‘are not wholes composed of simple parts but are themselves the partswithinacomplexwhole’(Matthews1991:204)likewisebringsouttheim- plicationalstructureofdeclensions.Thisstructureincludesthepatternsofstem syncretisminFigure1,alongwithinterdependenciesbetweengrammaticalcases, suchasthegeneralpredictabilityofthenominativesingularfromthepartitiveor genitivesingular.Thenetworkofrelationsbetweentheformsofanoundefine a paradigmatic context for the interpretation of individual forms that supplies informationthatisnotrepresentedintheirsyntagmaticstructure. NOMINATIVE SG PARTITIVE SG GENITIVE SG ➥ GENITIVE PL ➥ PARTITIVE PL ➥ SEMANTIC PL ➥ NOMINATIVE PL ➥ SEMANTIC SG Figure1. GeneralpatternsofparasiticstemsyncretisminEstoniandeclensions A WP analysis of Estonian declensions also clarifies the challenge that word-based patterns present for post-Bloomfieldian models that assume a bi- unique correspondence between units of content (‘morphemes’) and units of form (‘morphs’). Following Matthews (1972), much of the WP literature has GeertBooijandJaapvanMarle(eds),YearbookofMorphology2005,1–25. (cid:1)C 2005Springer.PrintedinTheNetherlands. 2 JamesP.Blevins focussed on cases of ‘cumulative exponence’, in which there are more units of contentthanunitsofform,andoncasesof‘extendedexponence’,inwhichthere aremoreunitsofformthanunitsofcontent.Theemphasisonmissingandextra units has fostered the idea that property-form mismatches are the main chal- lengeposedbyword-basedpatterns.However,anexaminationoftheEstonian declensional system shows that a shortfall or excess of units is merely a symp- tom of a more general problem of morphological ‘overextraction’, in which a property-formrelationisextendedtounitsthatdonotfunctionasSaussurean ‘signs’. In particular cases, notably in flexional languages, overextraction leads toanapparentmismatchbetween‘unitsofform’and‘unitsofcontent’.Yet,as Estonianshows,overextractionmayalsocharacteriseanalysesinwhichthereis noshortageofformunitsorcontentunits.Recurrentunitsofformcanbeidenti- fiedateverylevelinEstonian,fromthesingulargrammaticalcasesthroughtothe semanticcases.Butsub-wordunitscannotbebroughtintocorrespondencewith grammaticalpropertiesbecausestems,themevowelsandparasiticbasesbearno consistentmeaninginisolation.Imposingamorpheme-baseddescriptiononto such a word-based system simply ‘creates gratuitous problems of analysis and gratuitousproblemsofexplanation’(Matthews1991:174). 1.1. Morphomicstemsyncretism Noun paradigms that exhibit productive ‘weakening’ gradation (Erelt et al. 2000:255, Viitso 2003a:27) offer a striking illustration of the challenge posed byword-basedpatternsofexponence.Inthepartialparadigmsofhekk‘hedge’ andkool‘school’inTable1,thenominativesingulars`hekkand`kool,andthe partitivesingulars`hekkiand`kooliarestrong,basedonthe‘overlong’or‘Q3’ (kolmasva¨lde‘thirdquantity’)stems`hekk-and`kool-.Thecorrespondinggen- itive singulars heki and kooli are weak, based on the non-overlong stems hek- andkool-.1Therearethusthreegrade-alternatingcasesinTable1:nominative, partitiveandgenitivesingular.Thesecasesarerealisedbymeansofthreedistinct formatives:thestrongstems`hekk-and`kool-,theweakstemshek-andkool-, andthethemevowel-i.Thereisno‘mismatch’betweenunitsofformandcontent, becausethereareexactlyasmanycasevaluesasexponents.Butinsteadofabiu- niquecorrespondence,theseelementsexhibittheoverlappingpatterninTable1. Table1. Overlappingexponenceinweakeningdeclensions Case Form Stem Exponent NominativeSg `hekk `kool strong — PartitiveSg `hekki `kooli theme GenitiveSg heki kooli weak vowel Word-baseddeclensionsinEstonian 3 Thereisnoelementthatfunctionsasacasemarkerinthissubsystem.Thereis,in particular,nosub-wordformativeinTable1thatsignalspartitivesingularcase. Thestemofthepartitivesingular,`hekk-or`kool-,alsorealisesthenominative singular.Thethemevowel-i,whichdistinguishesthepartitiveandnominative singular,alsomarksthegenitivesingular.Inshort,‘partitivesingular’isaword- levelpropertythatcannotbeassociatedwithanysub-wordunit.Theweakstem likewisedoesnotsignalgenitivecaseinisolation,butonlyincontrasttoastrong partitive, as many nouns are weak through their full paradigm. Moreover, it is precisely the lack of a theme vowel or case exponent that unambiguously identifies `hekk as a nominative singular. A noun that ends in -k can only be nominativesingular,becauseeveryothercaseforminEstonianendsinavowel oracaseexponent.Theinterpretationof`hekkcannotbeestablishedbyisolating anysyntagmatic‘part’,butonlybycontrasting`hekkwiththesetofalternative caseforms. Weakening declensions are remarkably efficient, yet in ways that defy de- scription in agglutinative terms. The subsystem in Table 1 maximises the case contrasts that can be expressed by means of a strong stem, a weak stem and a themevowel.Fromtheelements`hekk,hek-and-i or`kool-,kool-and-i,one can define the forms `hekk, `hekki, heki and hek, and `kool, `kooli, kooli and kool.Thefirstthreeelementsoftheseseriesareacceptablewords,whichrealize nominative, partitive and genitive singular in Table 1. But a weak stem in iso- lation,hekorkool,isnotacceptable,becausewordsareminimallybimoraicin Estonian,andonly‘Q3’monosyllablescontaintwomoras(cf.Prince1980and section2.2).SothethreedistinctcaseformsinTable1representthemaximum thatcanbedefinedfromtheformativesinTable1.Theparadigmsofhekkand koolthusexploitefficientcombinations,whichisorthogonaltoproperty-form biuniqueness. Unlikecasesofcumulativeorextendedexponencethatmightbedescribedin termsofthe‘empty’or‘portmanteau’morphsinHockett(1947),thedescriptive challengeillustratedinTable1isnotthatparticularformativesrealize‘toofew’ or ‘too many’ properties. The problem is that the sole function of individual formativesistodistinguishthewordformsthatrealisecasevalues.Amorpheme- based analysis of the pattern in Table 1 is confronted with the fact that none of the individual formatives function as case morphemes. Case properties are realisedbythewordformsinTable1,andwordsarecharacterisedbydistinctive combinationsofformatives.Butthatisasfarasonecanextendaproperty-form relationwithoutcreatinggratuitousproblemsofanalysis. Apportioning case properties to individual formatives in Table 1 not only misidentifies the locus of the property-form correspondence, but also applies thewronglogictotheanalysisofthissubsystem.Thepost-Bloomfieldianmodel doesnotseekminimalelementspurelyfortheirownsake,butbecauseitassumes thattheirpropertiescanbe‘summed’togivethepropertiesofotherformsthat are composed of the same elements. This analytic technique is based on the 4 JamesP.Blevins assumption that recurrent elements will make a consistent contribution to the formsthattheyunderlie.ButthisassumptionispatentlyfalseinEstonian.One canidentifycontrastivepropertiesandrecurrentformativesinTable1.However, individualformativescannotbeassignedagrammaticalmeaningfromwhichthe meaningsofwordformscanbedetermined.Thisis,ofcourse,typicaloftheme vowels.WhatdistinguishesEstonianisthatstemsare‘sub-meaningful’inmuch thesameway,sothatastem‘canbedefined...intermsofwhichformsarebuilt on it, which is to say in terms of its place in the morphological system of the language’(Aronoff1994:167). This ‘morphomic’ pattern is propagated through a system of stems based ultimately on the formatives in Table 1. The chart in Table 2 exhibits the stem syncretisminweakeningdeclensionsthough,aswillbecomeclearbelow,many ofthesepatternsapplymoregenerallywithinEstonian. Table2. Stemsyncretisminweakeningdeclensions Singular Plural GrammaticalCases ‘Fusional’Cases GrammaticalCases Nom Gen Part Illa2Sg Part2Pl Nom Gen Part Form `hekk heki `hekki `hekki `hekke hekid `hekkide `hekkisid `kool kooli `kooli `kooli `koole koolid `koolide `koolisid Stem Strong Weak Strong PartSg PartSg GenSg PartSg PartSg AsinTable1,thenominativeandpartitivesingulararebasedonthestrong stem, and the genitive singular is based on the weak stem. Nouns with vowel- finalpartitivesusuallyhavetwoadditionalformsbasedonthepartitivesingular, designated ‘illa2’ and ‘part2’ in Table 2. The first is a ‘short’ illative singular, whichisidenticaltothepartitivesingularinthecaseof`hekkiand`kooli.The second is a ‘stem’ partitive plural, which preserves the stem of the partitive singularbutendsinadifferent—andgenerallypredictable—thematicvowel,-e inthecaseof`hekkeand`koole. Thesingularcaseformsalsoprovidebasesforthepluralgrammaticalcases. Thepartitivesingulars`hekkiand`kooliunderliethepartitiveplurals`hekkisid and `koolisid, as well as the genitive plurals `hekkide and `koolide. The geni- tivesingularshekiandkoolilikewiseunderliethenominativepluralshekidand koolid.Ingeneral,boththecaseandnumberpropertiesofabase:genitivesingu- larheki/kooliorpartitivesingular`hekki/`kooli,maydifferfromtheproperties of a form that it underlies: nominative plural hekid/koolid or genitive plural `hekkide/`koolide.Thesepatternsarestrikingly‘parasitic’or‘Priscianic’,inthe senseofMatthews(1972),inthatthepluralgrammaticalcasesarebasedonthe form,nottheentry,ofasingulargrammaticalcase. This Priscianic pattern is propagated through the system of 11 ‘semantic’ cases.Eachsemanticcaseformismarkedbyanumber-neutralcaseexponent.
The list of books you might like
