Greville G.(Corbett

Greville G. Corbett Morphology V: Cagliari: June 2016

Supported by AHRC 1

1

Greville G. CorbettSurrey Morphology GroupUniversity of Surrey

Morphology V: Conditions on inflection

The support of the ERC, the AHRC andthe ESRC is gratefully acknowledged

Outline

1. The task of inflectional morphology2. Dimensions of generalization3. A clear example of a condition4. Types of conditions5. Complex conditions6. Conclusion

2

This will be Chapter 5 in: Baerman, Matthew, Greville G. Corbett & Dunstan Brown. In preparation. Morphological Complexity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1. The task of inflectional morphology Generalizations over lexemes

Generalizations over contexts

2. Dimensions of generalization

• inflection classes

• conditions on inflection

6


Supported by AHRC 2

Burmeso

An illustration of the two dimensions

7

Verb forms in Burmeso (Donohue 2001)

(1) da nawak g-ihi-maru1SG woman(II).SG II.SG-see-TODAY’S.PAST

‘I saw a woman.’

(2) da mibo j-ihi-maru1SG banana(V).SG V.SG-see-TODAY’S.PAST‘I saw a banana.’

(3) jamo nawak n-akwa-ru dog.SG woman(II).SG II.SG-bite-TODAY’S.PAST‘The dog bit a woman.’

8

Verbal form classes in BurmesoVerbal inflection classes in Burmeso

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

GENDER

gender assignmentinflection class 1 inflection 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: 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.’

9

3. A clear example of a condition: number differentiability in Russian

See Zaliznjak (1967/2002: 57-58), Corbett (2000: 171-175), Brown, Corbett, Fedden, Hippis ley & Marriott (2013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8NOM tramvaj laj knig-a skuk-a kost' gordost’ bolot-o molok-oACC tramvaj laj knig-u skuk-u kost' gordost' bolot-o molok-o

SG GEN tramvaj-a laj-a knig-i skuk-i kost-i gordost-i bolot-a molok-aDAT tramvaj-u laj-u knig-e skuk-e kost-i gordost-i bolot-u molok-uINS tramvaj-em laj-em knig-oj skuk-oj kost’-ju gordost’-ju bolot-om molok-omLOC tramvaj-e laj-e knig-e skuk-e kost-i gordost-i bolot-e molok-e

NOM tramva-i knig-i kost-i bolot-aACC tramva-i knig-i kost-i bolot-a

PL GEN tramvaj-ev knig kost-ej bolotDAT tramvaj-am knig-am kostj-am bolot-amINS tramvaj-ami knig-ami kostj-ami bolot-amiLOC tramvaj-ax knig-ax kostj-ax bolot-ax

‘tram’ ‘bark(ing)’ ‘book’ ‘boredom’ ‘bone’ ‘pride’ ‘bog’ ‘milk’

I II III IV

10

The number condition

if a noun is low on the Animacy Hierarchy[antecedent]

it lacks a plural sub-paradigm [consequent]

11

The condition: advantages formalthere are four major inflection classes and each of them includes count nouns and singularia tantum

semanticthe distinction goes across the different classes

12


Supported by AHRC 3

1 > 2 > 3 > kin > human > animate > inanimate

number marking: obligatory optional

number agreement: obligatory excluded

The Animacy Hierarchy

Marking and agreement in Miya (Chadic)

(Corbett 2000: 56, following Smith-Stark 1974 for hierarchy and Schuh 1998 for Miya)

Hierarchy constrains other values too

Ranges of number values in Slovene (Corbett 2000: 94):

1 > 2 > 3 > kin > human > animate > inanimaterange of plural nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnoo

range of dual nnnnnnnnnnoo

‘1’, ‘2’ and ‘3’ are the respective pronouns here.Key: n = obligatory;; = facultative;; o= not available

14

But also the language-specific dimension: (i) number orientedness

Russian (Kulikov 2004: 127, following Polivanova 1983)(4) rep-a doroža-et

turnip-SG.NOM get.dearer-3SG‘turnips are getting dearer’

(5) ogurc-y dorožaj-utcucumber-PL.NOM get.dearer-3PL‘cucumbers are getting dearer’

15

0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

1901-1905

1906-1910

1911-1915

1916-1920

1921-1925

1926-1930

1931-1940

1941-1950

1951-1970

1971-1980

1981-1990

1991-1995

1996-2000

2001-2005

2006-2010

% plura l 1 .28%1.25%1.90%3.81%0.00%0.46%0.64%1.38%0.47%0.74%0.94%1.07% 16.14 35.52 32.24

Percentage

prodaža 'sale'

(ii) use of plural forms of two Russian abstract nouns

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1901-1920

1921-1930

1931-1940

1941-1950

1951-1960

1961-1970

1971-1980

1981-1990

1991-1995

1996-2000

2001-2005

2006-2010

% plural 2.42% 1.01% 0 0 0 0.43% 0 0 4.36% 6.79% 28.36%29.02%

Percentage

risk 'risk'

Source: Gorbov (2014: 31, 37)

16

4. Types of condition

17

Animacy condition in Russian

‘factory’ ‘boy’ ‘country’ ‘uncle’ ‘bone’ ‘mouse’ ‘deed’ ‘monster’

SG

NOM zavod mal´čik stran-a djadj-a kost´ myš´ del-o čudovišč-e ACC zavod mal´čik-a stran-u djadj-u kost´ myš´ del-o čudovišč-e GEN zavod-a mal´čik-a stran-i djad-i kost-i myš-i del-a čudovišč-a DAT zavod-u mal´čik-u stran-e djad-e kost-i myš-i del-u čudovišč-u INS zavod-om mal´čik-om stran-oj djad-ej kost´-ju myš-ju del-om čudovišč-em LOC zavod-e mal´čik-e stran-e djad-e kost-i myš-i del-e čudovišč-e

PL

NOM zavod-y mal´čik-i stran-i djad-i kost-i myš-i del-a čudovišč-a ACC zavod-y mal´čik-ov stran-i djad-ej kost-i myš-ej del-a čudovišč GEN zavod-ov mal´čik-ov stran djad-ej kost-ej myš-ej del čudovišč DAT zavod-am mal´čik-am stran-am djadj-am kostj-am myš-am del-am čudovišč-am INS zavod-ami mal´čik-ami stran-ami djadj-ami kostj-ami myš-ami del-ami čudovišč-ami LOC zavod-ax mal´čik-ax stran-ax djadj-ax kostj-ax myš-ax del-ax čudovišč-ax

I II III IV

1. class II: unique accusative singular in –u2. animate masculine nouns and plural nouns: ACC=GEN3. otherwise: ACC=NOM

18


Supported by AHRC 4

The animacy condition (partial)

if a noun denotes an animate, and is masculine or plural

[antecedent]

its accusative will be syncretic with its genitive[consequent]

For full details see Corbett & Fraser (1993), see also Müller (2007: 10-11).

Syllable count in Serbo-Croat nouns

‘window’ ‘city’

SG

NOM prozor grad VOC prozor-e grad-e ACC prozor grad GEN prozor-a grad-a DAT prozor-u grad-u INS prozor-om grad-om LOC prozor-u grad-u

PL

NOM/VOC prozor-i grad-ov-i ACC prozor-e grad-ov-e GEN prozor-a grad-ov-a DAT prozor-ima grad-ov-ima INS prozor-ima grad-ov-ima LOC prozor-ima grad-ov-ima

(Browne 1993: 319-320)

ovovovovovov

20

The syllable counting condition

if a noun is of the zakon inflection class, and its stem is monosyllabic

[antecedent]

it will take the augment –ov- in the plural[consequent]

Note: there are exceptions in both directions;; some are discussed later. 21

Comparing the conditions

antecedent consequentRussian countability semantic feature signature,

abstract content of paradigm

Russian animacy semantic pattern of syncretism

Burmeso syncretism part of speech pattern of syncretism

syllable count in SC phonological realization of form

22

Canonical approach

• the problem of clustering

• look for variation according to different criteria

• convergence at canonical point

23

Canonical approach

• this gives a large theoretical space, in which we can make sense of the clusters we find

• canonical is a logical construct: it does NOT imply ‘usual’, ‘normal’, ‘frequent’, ‘expected’, ‘unmarked’, ‘prototypical’

• see the Working Bibliography on the SMG website: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/LIS/SMG/canonical_bibliography.htm

24


Supported by AHRC 5

Possible antecedents

• semantic

• syntactic (part of speech)

• morphological

• phonological

25

f i

g i

h j

k n

l o

m o

p s

q t

r t

a d

b d

c e

content paradigm

form paradigm

realization

Compare Stump (2012)

Paradigm types (=possible consequents)

26

Typology of conditions

consequent

antecedent content paradigm form paradigm realization

semantic

part of speech

morphological

phonological

Russian countability Russian animacy

Burmeso syncretism

syllable count in SC

27

Typology of conditionsconsequent

antecedent content paradigm form paradigm realization

semantic Russian countability Russian animacy Polish consonant alternation, M PERS

part of speech German: only verbs have tense

Burmeso syncretismLak : pronouns have distinct ergative;; for nouns =GEN

Archi: verb takes set II infixes, other PoS set I

morphological Latin transitive deponents are defective

Archi: verb with prefix~infix: depends on which stem

Russian ethonyms in -inCzech augment -et- / -at-German noun: -er+umlaut PL⊃ GEN SG in -(e)s

phonological Russian: monosyllabic IMPFV gerund ⊃ *?

Archi prefixalmarking if V-

Slovak INS pluralRussian nouns in –Vsyllable count in SC

Sources: Baerman, Corbett, Donohue, Short, Spencer, Worth, Wurzel 28

Chiquihuitlán Mazatec

But note: realization may be multi-dimensional Overlaid inflection classes in Mazatec(Otomanguean language of Oaxaca, Mexico)

‘gather’ 1SG hba3 ya1 2SG čha2 ye2 3 hba3 ya2 1INCL čha 2 yã2 1PL čha 2 yĩ24 2PL čha 2 yũ2

‘return’ ‘pull out’ ‘take out’ 1SG bu1 ya1 hba3 nẽ1 ba3šæ1 2SG bo3 ye2 čha3 nĩ1 nã2še2 3 bu3 ya2 hba3 nẽ1 ba3šæ2 1INCL bu3 yã2 čha3 nẽ31 nã2šẽ 2 1PL bu3 yĩ24 čha3 nĩ14 na2šĩ24 2PL bu3 yũ2 čha 3nũ1 na2šũ2

prefix final vowel tone

Chiquihuitlán Mazatec: source: Jamieson (1982: 152, 166-7);; thanks to Matthew Baerman30


Supported by AHRC 6

5. Complex conditions: the SC augment –ov-, the basics

Morphologicalif a noun is of the zakon inflection class

Phonologicaland its stem is monosyllabic

it takes the augment –ov- in the plural: grad ~ gradovi

BUT:Semantice.g. ethonyms do not: Grk ~ Grci ‘Greek(s)’

Sources: Ivić (1972: 26-28), Samardžija (1988), Nikolić (2013)

31

The rise of the long plural in monosyllabic nouns

Orlandi (1963: 20-21)

Nikolić (2013) talks of hundreds of nouns, with only the long plural (there areothers which allow both)

author dates plural forms long plural % long pluralB. Zuzzeri 1682-1762 375 73 19.5%A. Kačić –Miošić 1704-1760 1091 426 39.0%M. A. Reljković 1732-1788 472 248 52.5%D. Obradović 1742-1811 470 281 59.8%

32

The SC augment –ov- : complications

• issues of syllable counting:auto-dijeloviSG: auto-dio

• counter-examples in both directions–motivated groups: ethonyms

measure terms• considerable variation

33

Why the Serbo-Croat augment is interesting

• it affects (most dialects of) Serbo-Croat, versus all

other Slavonic languages

• a tiny class has become the majority class

• a series of unpredictable analogies

• a “poor” condition: numerous overrides and hardly

orthogonal to inflection class34

6. Conclusions

• conditions have an interesting typology

• they vary from obviously motivated to opaque

• understudied and under-reported

35

References

Baerman,Matthew.2014.Covertsystematic ity in a distributionally complex system.Journal ofLinguistics 50.1-47.

Baerman, Matthew, Greville G. Corbett & Dunstan Brown. In preparation. MorphologicalComplexity .Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Brown, Dunstan, Greville G. Corbett, Sebastian Fedden, Andrew Hippis ley & Paul Marriott.2013.Grammatical typology and frequency analysis:Number availability and number use.Journal ofLanguage Modelling 1.227-241.

Browne, Wayles. 1993. Serbo-Croat. In: Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett (eds) TheSlavonic Languages,306-387.London:Routledge.

Corbett, Greville G. 1982. Gender in Russian: an account of gender specification and itsrelationship to declension.Russian Linguistics,6.197-232 .

Corbett,Greville G.2000.Number.Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress.Corbett,Greville G.2009.Canonical inflectional c lasses. In:Fabio Montermini,Gilles Boyé and

Jesse Tseng (eds) Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes: Morphology inBordeaux, 1-11. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Available at:http://www.lingref.com/cpp/decemb/6/abstract2231.html

Corbett, Greville G. & Norman M. Fraser. 1993.Network Morphology: A DATR account ofRussian inflectional morphology. Journal of Linguistics 29.113–42. [Reprinted 2003 in:Francis X.Katamba (ed.) Morphology:CriticalConcepts in Linguistics:VI:Morphology: ItsPlace in the Wider Context,364-396.London:Routledge.]

36


Supported by AHRC 7

References

Donohue, Mark. 2001. Animacy,class and gender in Burmeso. In: Andrew Pawley, MalcolmRoss &Darrell Tryon (eds) The Boy fromBundaberg:Studies in Melanesian Linguistics inHonour ofTomDutton (Pacific linguistics514),97–115.Canberra:PacificLinguistics.

Gorbov,Andrej A.2014.Čislovye paradigmy abstraknyx suščestvitel nyx v russkom jazyke XXveka: tendencii razvitija i vlijanieanglijskogo jazyka.Russian Linguistics 38.23–46

Ivić, Pavle. 1972. Sistema padežnyx okončanij suščestvitel nyx v serboxorvatskomliteraturnom jazyke. In: F. P. Filin (ed.) Russkoe i s lavjanskoe jazykoznanie: K 70-letijučlena-korrespondenta AN SSSR R. I .Avanesova,106-121.Moscow:Nauka.

Jamieson, Carol. 1982. Conflated subsystems marking person and aspect in ChiquihuatlanMazatec. International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics 48.139-176.

Kulikov,Leonid.2004.ReviewofNumber.SouthwestJournal ofLinguistics 23.124-129.Müller,Gereon.2007.Notes onparadigmeconomy.Morphology17.1-38.Nikolić, Miroslav B. 2013. Imenice koje u srpskom književnom jeziku proširuju osnovu

morfemom -ov- u množini.Južnoslovenski filolog 69.277-318.Polivanova, A. K. 1983. Vybor čis lovyx form suščestvitel nogo v russkom jazyke. In: V. P .

Grigor´ev(ed.) Problemystrukturnoj lingvistik i,130-145.Moscow:Nauka.Samardžija,Marko.1988.Duga i kratka množina u hrvatskomknјiževnom jeziku Jezik 35,no.

5,129-136.Schuh, Russell G. 1998. A Grammar of Miya (University of California Publications in

Linguistics 130).Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

37

ReferencesShort, David. 1993. Slovak. In: Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett (eds) The Slavonic

Languages,533-592.London:Routledge.Smith-Stark, T. Cedric. 1974. The plurality split. In: Michael W. La Galy, Robert A. Fox &

Anthony Bruck (eds) Papers from the Tenth RegionalMeeting,Chicago Linguistic Society,April 19-21,1974,657-671.Chicago:Chicago LinguisticSociety.

Spencer,Andrew.1991.Morphological Theory:An introduction to word structure in generativegrammar.Oxford:Blackwell.

Stump, Gregory. 2012. The formal and functional architecture of inflectional morphology. InAngela Ralli,GeertBooij,Sergio Scalise &Athanasios Karasimos (eds.),Morphology andthe Architecture of Grammar: On-line Proceedings of the Eighth MediterraneanMorphology Meeting (MMM8), Cagliari, Italy, 14-17 September 2011, 255-271. URL:http://lmgd.philology.upatras.gr/en/research/downloads/MMM8_Proceedings.pdf.

Worth, Dean S. 1966. On the stem/ending boundary in Slavic indeclinables. Zbornik zafilologiju I lingvistiku 9.11-16.

Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Naturlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.[Translated by Manfred Schentke:Wolfgang U.Wurzel.1989. InflectionalMorphology andNaturalness (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory).Dordrecht:Kluwer.Pagereferencesto the 1989 translation.]

Zaliznjak,Andrej A.1967/2002.Russkoe imennoeslovoizmenenieMoscow:Nauka. [Reprintedin: Andrej A. Zaliznjak.2002. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie:s priloženiem izbrannyxrabotpo sovremennomu russkomu jazyku i obščemu jazykoznaniju,1-370.Moscow:Jazykis lavjanskoj kul tury.] [Page references to 2002edition.]

38

39

Notes on Slavonic conditions

• Polish masculine personal (Rothstein 1993: 698, 700)student NOM PL: studenci;; poeta NOM PL: poeciNB the condition cuts across inflection classes

• Russian ethonyms (Baerman 2014: 7)armjan-in, armjan-e ‘Armenian(s)’ (truncation of augment)gruzin, gruzin-y ‘Georgian(s)’ (no truncation)

• Russian imperfective gerund If monosyllabic, usually not found (verb is defective)*vrja ‘lying, telling untruths’, ?ždja ‘waiting’

40

Notes on Slavonic conditions (continued)• Czech augment (Spencer 1991: 226) a subclass of nouns with ‘soft’ stems, have -et- in oblique cases singular and -at- in all cases plural. This is biconditional.kuře ‘chicken’, GEN SG: kuřete, NOM PL: kuřata.

• Slovak instrumental plural (Short 1993: 541)Inflection class I: INS PLURAL: unless the stem ends in a single consonant other than –m, use the default –ami:

dub ~ dub-mi ‘oak(s)’, but most ~ most-ami ‘bridge(s)’, and dom ~ dom-ami ‘house(s)’

• Russian nouns in –V (Worth 1966, Corbett 1982: 218)uninflectable: kenguru, taksi, kino, gnu

41

Greville G.(Corbett

Documents

Transcript of Greville G.(Corbett