Abstract
Overabundance is defined as the situation in which two (or more) inflectional forms are available to realize the same cell in an inflectional paradigm. The paper presents a general introduction to overabundance, using the Canonical Typology framework. After an overview of ways in which overabundance can occur in paradigms, several criteria are introduced and discussed that allow us to establish a canonical typology of overabundance. Furthermore, various types of conditions on the selection of one or another of the forms in a relation of overabundance are reviewed. Studies of several cases from different languages are used to illustrate more and less canonical, and more or less conditioned, cases of overabundance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
For detailed presentations I refer to Baerman et al. eds. (2010) on defectiveness, Baerman et al. (2005) on syncretism, Corbett (2007a) on suppletion, Corbett (2009) on inflectional classes, Stump (2006) on heteroclisis, Baerman et al. eds. (2007) on deponency, Chumakina and Corbett eds. (2012) on periphrasis, and Stump (2016) for an overview of all non-canonical phenomena in inflectional paradigms within Paradigm-linkage theory.
- 4.
This paper was written before the appearance of Stump (2016), which refines the theory by introducing three levels of paradigms (content paradigms, form paradigms and realized paradigms) rather than two. I have not attempted to recouch completely Stump’s (2012) examples in the new, updated theoretical framework: such a task is beyond the scope of the present paper. The point I wish to make can be easily understood already in the 2012 version of Paradigm Function Morphology, which only distinguishes content and form paradigms.
- 5.
In this table and the following ones, L stands for a lexeme, X stands for a stem, and Greek letters stand for the sets of morphosyntactic feature values that characterize a cell.
- 6.
In earlier models of Paradigm Function Morphology, a paradigm function was defined as a function which, applied to a lexeme L paired with a set of morphosyntactic properties, determines “the word form occupying the corresponding cell in L’s paradigm” (emphasis mine); in more recent models, consideration of overabundance has led to the hypothesis that the mapping between the different paradigms is not a function, but a relation, as first proposed by Bonami and Boyé (2010) and further elaborated by Bonami and Stump (2016), Stump (2016: 150–151). Besides, Stump (personal communication, email of 15 December 2017) observes that another alternative is “assuming that a paradigm function is a function whose value is always a set of realizations, with unit sets (sets with a single member) being the most usual kind of value”.
- 7.
Examples given in this section may differ in terms of the rate of actual interchangeability between the cell mates; some cell mates have a highly conditioned distribution. Conditions on the selection of cell mates will be discussed in Sect. 4.4.
- 8.
Despite a suggestion by Bolinger (1956) that there is some subtle semantic difference between the two sets of forms, contemporary descriptions agree that “these two sets of forms are interchangeable” (Butt and Benjamin 2000: 167; see also Rojo and Veiga (1999: 2910): “las formas en -ra y -se son hoy por hoy perfectamente equivalentes”). The recent corpus-based analysis by Guzmán Naranjo (2017) uncovers certain lexical conditions on the use of the two forms, but confirms interchangeability in several contexts.
- 9.
The reviewers ask why this Spanish case differs from case (6b), and why it concerns the mapping from form cells to realizations, rather than the mapping from content cells to form cells. The difference lies in the fact that the examples in (6b) are analysed as having two form cells, in which the same stem is treated as belonging to two different inflectional classes, in correspondence to a single content cell; this happens for some lexemes in some languages (e.g., the English verb spoil), not uniformly across the whole set of lexemes in a given part of speech and language. In the Spanish example, instead, all verbs behave the same, so the appearance of double realizations cannot be analysed as an effect of different inflectional classes in two form cells; a single content cell maps to a single form cell (containing a single stem), but this form cell then undergoes two different operations (realization rules), yielding different realizations.
- 10.
There is some discussion on how periphrasis should be treated in Paradigm Function Morphology and related theories (cf. Bonami and Stump 2016; Bonami 2015). Since the formal treatment of periphrasis is not immediately relevant to the issues discussed in this paper, and would take up considerable space, I will not recapitulate this discussion here.
- 11.
Note that -t (preceded by a linking vowel with stems ending in certain consonants, and sometimes accompanied by other phonological alterations) is the default accusative ending, used in nouns and adjectives (Rounds 2001: 89, 155–159).
- 12.
- 13.
It is not clear whether the definition satisfies requirement iv., nor is it clear what kind of evidence from other sub-disciplines would satisfy this requirement in the case of overabundance. Bond (2013: 25) admits that this requirement may be too strong to be satisfied in most domains.
- 14.
These criteria were inspired by Corbett’s (2007a: 27) criterion 12 for canonical suppletion: unique > non unique. See also Corbett’s (2015: 158) observation that “the ideal irregular instance would involve a single lexical item”. The similarity or identity between criteria used in canonical typologies of different phenomena is welcome and meets the requirements of the Recyclability Precept (Brown and Chumakina 2013: 11), according to which “Criteria for one typology should be created with their recyclability for others in mind”. Notice that criteria 1 and 2 for overabundance do not at first sight seem to lend themselves well to being reduced to a binary opposition. This issue will be discussed further below, in Sect. 5.
- 15.
Davide Ricca (personal communication) observes that when overabundance occurs in a single cell that constitutes also a morphomic partition within a paradigm (like the pst.ptcp or inf cell in Italian verbs), the noncanonicity is weakened. This is correct, and in line with the fact that different criteria interact in defining degrees of (non)canonicity. The question of the respective canonicity of morphomic vs. morphosyntactic distribution of overabundant cells will not be discussed here for lack of space; see Thornton (2011: 370–375) for some data and discussion of a possible additional criterion, inspired by Corbett’s (2007a) criterion 5 for canonical suppletion (morphological distribution > morphosyntactic distribution). Another issue raised by Ricca is whether we should recognize, besides morphosyntactically defined and morphomically defined sets of cells, also “purely random” sets of cells: e.g., it can be argued that the 1sg and 3pl cells of Present Indicative which are overabundant in some Italian verbs (e.g., dovere ‘must’; cf. Thornton 2012c) do not constitute an independently defined morphomic partition, but belong to a bigger partition, which includes the sg and 3pl Present Subjunctive; however, it can also be argued that the fact that only these two cells are overabundant in certain verbs defines them as a morphomic partition (called R-pattern by Thornton 2011: 370). This point deserves further consideration, but will not be developed here for reasons of space.
- 16.
Greville Corbett (personal communication) suggests that at this point we enter another dimension of variation, such as that found in differences between men’s and women’s speech in certain speech communities, or between forms used in standard vs. polite register, or in diatopic variation.
- 17.
In Thornton (2011: 378) I tentatively proposed the parallelism (or lack thereof) between the formal make-up of two cell mates as base for a further canonicity criterion: “unparalleled doublets > parallel doublets in several paradigms”.
- 18.
Grossmann and Thornton (2018) is a short case-study of overabundance in Hungarian accusative pronouns.
- 19.
An obvious drawback of this way of operationalizing the criterion is that when there are more than two cell mates the data are not immediately comparable. But in practice the case is so rare that it can be disregarded.
- 20.
Data cannot be given for other major contemporary Romance languages, where the verb for ‘bury’ has been substituted by a parasynthetic coinage: French enterrer, Spanish/Catalan/Portuguese enterrar (from terre/terra/tierra ‘earth, soil’), Rumanian îngropa (from groapa ‘pit, hole’) and înmormîntâ (from mormant ‘tomb, grave’). For Spanish, however, Cappellaro (2018: 141) observes that older editions of the Gramática de la lengua castellana by the Real Academia Española mention the archaic verb sepelir as having a double past participle sepelido/sepulto; besides, the verb sepultar (pst.ptcp sepultado) also exists in Spanish (but is less frequent than enterrar).
- 21.
These constructions are coded “no verb” in Table 5, because there is no finite verb form in the phrase in which the participle appears.
- 22.
It must be observed that the ratios between the frequency of cell mates based on the two stems sepolt- and seppellit- are in any case relatively low, in the range of units in all conditions but one. Thornton (2012c: 189) proposed that the order of magnitude of the ratio between cell mates could give an indication of the strength of overabundance in that cell, with ratios in the order of units indicating strong, lively overabundance, and higher ratios indicating that overabundance is declining. Precise mathematical implementation of such a measure awaits further research; the measure certainly depends on the size of the corpus from which the data are drawn.
- 23.
- 24.
Many thanks to Maria Grossmann for classifying the data from the Hungarian National Corpus (http://mnsz.nytud.hu/, accessed November 2010).
- 25.
Lyons (1968: 405–406) summarizes the problem in the following way: “How different must the meanings associated with a given form be before we decide that they are sufficiently different to justify the recognition of two, or more, different words? […] The distinction between homonymy and multiple meaning is, in the last resort, indeterminate and arbitrary”. For further discussion of this issue and some case studies, see Thornton (2014, 2018).
- 26.
I am indebted to the late Françoise Kerleroux for drawing my attention to this example.
- 27.
The picture is complicated by several facts. The forms guardi, senta exist as sg.prs.sbjv forms (with syncretism of the three singular person values), which are used with the same function of imperatives in polite speech. However, they are not imperative forms. Besides, according to Serianni and Castelvecchi (1988), the forms in (17a–b) are originally 2sg.prs.ind forms, with and without apocope of the final vowel, which substituted the original 2sg.imp forms in nineteenth century Florentine. Whatever the analysis one subscribes to, however, the forms in (17a–b) are synchronically analyzed as imperative forms, and only verbs which have an asyllabic stem have overabundance in the 2sg.imp cell.
- 28.
Pragmatic conditioning will not be addressed in this paper for lack of space. For an example of pragmatically conditioned overabundance (Hungarian 2sg Imperatives) see Carstairs-McCarthy (1998: 9).
- 29.
A comparable situation holds for Russian let / godov ‘year. gen.pl’.
- 30.
A representative sample of further quotes (emphasis always mine): “As always, we should be wary of stating that two forms are in free variation; for present purposes, I merely note that this is what authorities on medieval Occitan claim [about second person subject pronouns; references omitted]. Detailed analysis of texts might reveal stylistic or sociolinguistic differences.” (Smith 2006: 186); “Les différentes formes négatives [of the present tense of Nepali verbs] sont en variation libre, d’après les descriptions existantes; il est probable qu’une étude sociolinguistique révélerait des conditions d’emploi différenciées, mais toutes les formes sont disponibles pour au moins une partie des locuteurs.” [The different negative forms [of the present tense of Nepali verbs] are in free variation, according to existing descriptions; it is likely that a sociolinguistic study would reveal different conditions of usage, but all the forms are available for at least part of the speakers; translation AMT] (Bonami and Boyé 2010: 26); “Si deve pensare che Boccaccio disponesse delle due filiere [3pl.cond endings -ero and -ono] equamente, quasi del tutto indifferentemente, al massimo avvertendo tra di esse una piccola differenza sociolinguistica” [One must suppose that Boccaccio had both possibilities [3pl.cond endings -ero and -ono] equally available, almost completely indifferently, at most sensing a small sociolinguistic difference between them; translation AMT] (Coletti 2012: 73).
- 31.
- 32.
“If we consider the features of the settings in which the great majority of linguists and linguistic anthropologists (as the likeliest describers of the languages in question and the communities in which they are spoken) are socialized, the list consists of precisely the opposite characteristics: social stratification is a prominent feature of our urbanized societies, and the various expressions of linguistic variables are strongly correlated with class and/or ethnic group membership, for which reason they also evoke strong social evaluations” (Dorian 2010: 287).
- 33.
‘The fact that in practice in research it might quite often happen that we find apparently free variation, residual variation not correlated with anything, is to be considered a limit of the research itself, and not empirical proof of the high frequency of free variation: it is often the case that we are not (yet) able to establish correlations, because of the relatively small amount of data available, or because one doesn’t know where to look’ [translation AMT].
References
Abondolo, Daniel Mario. 1988. Hungarian Inflectional Morphology. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Anoé, Gianluca. 2014. Paradigmi sovrabbondanti. Il participio passato nel dialetto di Noale. Quaderni di lavoro ASIt 18: 53–71. Available at http://asit.maldura.unipd.it/documenti/ql18/ASIt18_anoe.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2016.
Aronoff, Mark, and Mark Lindsay. 2014. Partial Organization in Languages: La langue est un système où la plupart se tient. Carnets de Grammaire 22 [Proceedings of the Décembrettes 8th International Conference of Morphology], 1–14.
Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown, and Greville G. Corbett. 2005. The Syntax-Morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baerman, Matthew, Greville G. Corbett, Dunstan Brown, and Andrew Hippisley, eds. 2007. Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, Proceedings of the British Academy 145. Oxford: Oxford University Press & the British Academy.
Baerman, Matthew, Greville G. Corbett, and Dunstan Brown, eds. 2010. Defective Paradigms. Missing Forms and What They Tell Us, Proceedings of the British Academy 163. Oxford: Oxford University Press & the British Academy.
Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown, and Greville G. Corbett. 2017. Morphological Complexity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bermel, Neil, and Luděk Knittl. 2012. Morphosyntactic Variation and Syntactic Constructions in Czech Nominal Declension: Corpus Frequency and Native-Speaker Judgments. Russian Linguistics 36: 91–119.
Berruto, Gaetano. 1995. Fondamenti di sociolinguistica. Roma & Bari: Laterza.
Bickel, Balthasar, Goma Banjade, Martin Gaenszle, Elena Lieven, Netra Prasad Paudyal, Ichchha Purna Rai, Manoj Rai, Novel Kishore Rai, and Sabine Stoll. 2007. Free Prefix Ordering in Chintang. Language 83 (1): 43–73.
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1956. Subjunctive -ra and -se: “Free Variation”? Hispania 39: 345–349.
Bonami, Olivier. 2015. Periphrasis as Collocation. Morphology 25: 63–110.
Bonami, Olivier, and Gilles Boyé. 2010. La morphologie flexionnelle est-elle une fonction? In Typologie et comparatisme. Hommages offerts à Alain Lemaréchal, ed. Injoo Choi-Jonin, Marc Duval, and Olivier Soutet, 21–35. Leuven: Peeters.
Bonami, Olivier, and Ana R. Luís. 2014. Sur la morphologie implicative dans la conjugaison du portugais: une étude quantitative. In Morphologie flexionnelle et dialectologie romane. Typologie(s) et modélisation(s), ed. Jean-Léonard Léonard, 111–151. Leuven: Peeters.
Bonami, Olivier, and Gregory T. Stump. 2016. Paradigm Function Morphology. In The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, ed. Andrew Hippisley and Gregory T. Stump, 449–481. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bond, Oliver. 2013. A Base for Canonical Negation. In Canonical Morphology and Syntax, ed. Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina, and Greville G. Corbett, 20–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2018. Canonical Typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory, ed. Jenny Audring and Francesca Masini, 409–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, Dunstan, and Marina Chumakina. 2013. What There Is and What There Might Be: An Introduction to Canonical Typology. In Canonical Morphology and Syntax, ed. Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina, and Greville G. Corbett, 1–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Butt, John, and Carmen Benjamin. 20003 [19881]. A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish. London: Arnold.
Cappellaro, Chiara. 2018. Genesis and Diachronic Persistence of Overabundance: Data from Romance Languages. In Reorganising Grammatical Variation. Diachronic Studies in the Retention, Redistribution and Refunctionalisation of Linguistic Variants, ed. Antje Dammel, Matthias Eitelmann, and Mirjam Schmuck, 119–148. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1998. How Lexical Semantics Constrains Inflectional Allomorphy. In Yearbook of Morphology 1997, ed. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 1–24. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chumakina, Marina. 2011. Nominal Periphrasis: A Canonical Approach. Studies in Language 35 (2): 247–274.
Chumakina, Marina, and Greville G. Corbett. 2012. Periphrasis. The Role of Syntax and Morphology in Paradigms, Proceedings of the British Academy 180. Oxford: Oxford University Press & British Academy.
Chumakina, Marina, Andrew Hippisley, and Greville G. Corbett. 2004. исторические изменения в русской лексике: случай чередующегося супплетивизма. Russian Linguistics 28: 281–315.
Coletti, Vittorio. 2012. I problemi dell’abbondanza. La polimorfia verbale in italiano. In Eccessi di parole. Sovrabbondanza e intemperanza lessicale in italiano dal Medioevo a oggi, by Vittorio Coletti, 61–87. Firenze: Cesati.
Comrie, Bernard. 1991. Form and Function in Identifying Case. In Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection, ed. Frans Plank, 41–55. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2005. The Canonical Approach in Typology. In Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories, Studies in Language Companion Series 72, ed. Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges, and David S. Rood, 25–49. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
———. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2007a. Canonical Typology, Suppletion, and Possible Words. Language 83 (1): 8–41.
———. 2007b. Deponency, Syncretism and What Lies Between. In Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, Proceedings of the British Academy 145, ed. Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett, Dunstan Brown, and Andrew Hippisley, 21–43. Oxford: British Academy & Oxford University Press.
———. 2009. Canonical Inflectional Classes. In Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes, ed. Fabio Montermini, Gilles Boyé, and Jesse Tseng, 1–11. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
———. 2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2015. Morphosyntactic Complexity: A Typology of Lexical Splits. Language 91 (1): 145–193.
Crysmann, Berthold, and Olivier Bonami. 2016. Variable Morphotactics in Information-Based Morphology. Journal of Linguistics 52: 311–374.
Da Tos, Martina. 2012. Il Participio Perfetto a Venezia: forme concorrenti. Quaderni di Lavoro ASIt 14: 141–154. Available at http://asit.maldura.unipd.it/documenti/ql14/ASIt14_7datos.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2016.
Dorian, Nancy C. 1994. Varieties of Variation in a Very Small Place: Social Homogeneity, Prestige Norms and Linguistic Variation. Language 70: 631–696.
———. 2010. Investigating Variation. The Effects of Social Organization and Social Setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fehringer, Carol. 2004. How Stable Are Morphological Doublets? A Case Study of /ə/ ∼ Ø Variants in Dutch and German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 16 (4): 285–329.
Grossmann, Maria, and Anna M. Thornton. 2018. Overabundance in Hungarian Accusative Pronouns. In Structuring Variation in Romance Linguistics and Beyond. In Honour of Leonardo M. Savoia, ed. Mirko Grimaldi, Rosangela Lai, Ludovico Franco, and Benedetta Baldi, 223–239. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Guzmán Naranjo, Matías. 2017. The se-ra Alternation in Spanish Subjunctive. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 13 (1): 97–134.
Harris, Alice C. 2017. Multiple Exponence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hasse, Anja. 2016. Overabundance or Conditioned Allomorphy in Zurich German? A Closer Look. In Booklet of Abstracts – 17th International Morphology Meeting (18–21 February 2016, Vienna), 49–50. Available at https://www.wu.ac.at/fileadmin/wu/o/imm17/Booklet_of_abstracts_IMM17.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2016.
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. The English Comparative – Language Structure and Language Use. English Language and Linguistics 12: 395–417.
Hoberman, Robert D. 2007. Maltese Morphology. In Morphologies of Asia and Africa, ed. Alan S. Kaye, 257–281. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Kaye, Alan S. 2007. Arabic Morphology. In Morphologies of Asia and Africa, ed. Alan S. Kaye, 211–247. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Kenesei, Istvan, Robert M. Vago, and Anna Fenyvesi. 1998. Hungarian. London: Routledge.
Kypriotaki, Lyn. 1974. Acquisition of AUX. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 8: 87–103.
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol I: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lečić, Dario. 2015. Morphological Doublets in Croatian: The Case of the Instrumental Singular. Russian Linguistics 39: 375–393.
Loporcaro, Michele, Lorenza Pescia, and Maria Ana Ramos. 2004. Costrutti dipendenti participiali e participi doppi in portoghese. Revue de linguistique romane 68: 15–46.
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maschi, Roberta, and Nicoletta Penello. 2004. Osservazioni sul participio passato in veneto. Quaderni di lavoro ASIt 4: 21–35. Available at http://asit.maldura.unipd.it/documenti/ql4/maschi_penello.pdf. Accessed 28 Nov 2016.
Moravcsik, Edith. 2003. Inflectional Morphology in the Hungarian Noun Phrase: A Typological Assessment. In Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe, ed. Frans Plank, 113–252. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Priscian. Institutiones grammaticae. In Grammatici latini, ed. Heinrich Keil. Hildesheim: Olms [1961]. First published Leipzig: Teubner [1855–1878]. Available at http://htl2.linguist.jussieu.fr:8080/CGL/text.jsp?id=T43.
Rojo, Guillermo, and Alexandre Veiga. 1999. El tiempo verbal. Los tiempos simples. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, vol. 2, 2867–2934. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
Rounds, Carol. 2001. Hungarian: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.
Serianni, Luca, and Alberto Castelvecchi. 1988. Grammatica italiana. Italiano comune e lingua letteraria. Turin: UTET.
Smith, John Charles. 2006. How to Do Things Without Junk: The Refunctionalization of a Pronominal Subsystem Between Latin and Romance. In New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics: Phonetics, Phonology and Dialectology, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 276, ed. Jean-Pierre Y. Montreuil, vol. 2, 183–205. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Spencer, Andrew J. 2008. Does Hungarian Have a Case System? In Case and Grammatical Relations: Studies in Honor of Bernard Comrie, ed. Greville G. Corbett and Michael Noonan, 35–56. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Spencer, Andrew J., and Gregory T. Stump. 2013. Hungarian Pronominal Case and the Dichotomy of Content and Form in Inflectional Morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 1207–1248.
Squartini, Mario. 1999. Voice Clashing with Aspect: The Case of Italian Passives. Rivista di Linguistica 11: 341–365.
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2006. Heteroclisis and Paradigm Linkage. Language 82: 279–322.
———. 2012. The Formal and Functional Architecture of Inflectional Morphology. In On-line Proceedings of the Eighth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM8), ed. Angela Ralli, Geert Booij, Sergio Scalise, and Athanasios Karasimos, 255–271.
———. 2016. Inflectional Paradigms. Content and Form at the Syntax-Morphology Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Théocharopoulos, Georges. 1830. Grammaire grecque universelle, ou Méthode pour étudier la langue grecque ancienne et moderne. Paris: Firmin Didot Frères.
Thornton, Anna M. 2010–2011 [published 2013]. La non canonicità del tipo it. braccio//braccia/bracci: Sovrabbondanza, difettività o iperdifferenziazione? Studi di grammatica italiana 29–30: 419–477.
———. 2011. Overabundance (Multiple Forms Realizing the Same Cell): A Non-Canonical Phenomenon in Italian Verb Morphology. In Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology, ed. Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach, and Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, 358–381. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2012a. Overabundance in Italian Verb Morphology and Its Interactions with Other Non-Canonical Phenomena. In Irregularity in Morphology (and Beyond), ed. Thomas Stolz, Hitomi Otsuka, Aina Urdze, and Johan van der Auwera, 251–269. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
———. 2012b. La sovrabbondanza nei paradigmi verbali dell’italiano contemporaneo. In La variazione nell’italiano e nella sua storia. Varietà e varianti linguistiche e testuali. Atti dell’XI Congresso SILFI (Napoli, 5–7 ottobre 2010), ed. Patricia Bianchi, Nicola De Blasi, Chiara De Caprio, and Francesco Montuori, 445–456. Firenze: Franco Cesati Editore.
———. 2012c. Reduction and Maintenance of Overabundance. A Case Study on Italian Verb Paradigms. Word Structure 5: 183–207.
———. 2013. Compagni di cella in una gabbia dorata: sull’uso di vo vs. vado nell’italiano contemporaneo. In Actes du XXVIe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes (València, 6–11 de septembre de 2010), ed. Cesáreo Calvo Rigual and Emili Casanova, 1190–1201. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
———. 2014. Risposta n. 7 [le membre del comitato]. La Crusca per voi 49: 14–15.
———. 2016. Un capitolo di storia della terminologia grammaticale italiana: il termine sovrabbondante. In Categorie grammaticali e classi di parole. Statuto e riflessi metalinguistici, ed. Francesco Dedè, 289–309. Rome: Il Calamo.
———. 2018. Troubles with Flexemes. In The Lexeme in Descriptive and Theoretical Morphology, ed. Olivier Bonami, Gilles Boyé, Georgette Dal, Hélène Giraudo, and Fiammetta Namer, 303–321. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Thuilier, Juliette. 2012. Contraintes préférentielles et ordre des mots en français. Thèse de Doctorat, Université Paris-Diderot – Paris VII. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00781228. Accessed 10 May 2015.
Trépos, Pierre. 1980. Grammaire bretonne. Rennes: Ouest France.
Vietti, Alessandro, and Anna M. Thornton. In preparation. Italian sepolto/seppellito [working title].
Weiss, Michael L. 2009. Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor/New York: Beech Stave Press.
Corpora and Web Resources
Canonical Typology: http://www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/approaches/canonical-typology/
Google books Ngram Viewer: https://books.google.com/ngrams
Hungarian national corpus: http://mnsz.nytud.hu
la Repubblica 1985–2000: http://dev.sslmit.unibo.it/corpora/corpus.php?path=&name=Repub- blica
Acknowledgements
This paper presents research conducted mostly thanks to a visiting research fellowship at the Surrey Morphology Group, University of Surrey, from 2010 onwards. I thank Greville G. Corbett and all other members of the SMG for stimulating discussion on all aspects of the research; Olivier Bonami, Davide Ricca and Chiara Cappellaro, who have provided extremely valuable comments on a first draft; the reviewers of the submitted version (Francesco Gardani and Rossella Varvara), whose suggestions have helped to improve the clarity of the text; and, last but not least, Gregory Stump, who kindly discussed with me some technicalities of the paradigm-linkage model. Thanks are also due to the organizers of IMM 17 (Vienna 2016) for inviting me to give a plenary talk at the conference and to contribute to the present volume, and to the following colleagues who have provided data and/or useful indications, or discussed with me specific points: Mark Aronoff, Matthew Baerman, Barend Beekhuizen, Oliver Bond, Dunstan Brown, Maris Camilleri, Chiara Cappellaro, Lucio Ceccarelli, Marina Chumakina, Greville G. Corbett, Tullio De Mauro†, Tim Feist, Maria Grossmann, Anja Hasse, Petros Karatsareas, Françoise Kerleroux†, Alexander Krasovitsky, Maria-Rosa Lloret, Michele Loporcaro, Martin Maiden, Enrique Palancar, Gregory T. Stump, Alessandro Vietti. Of course, all shortcomings and remaining errors are entirely my own responsibility.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thornton, A.M. (2019). Overabundance: A Canonical Typology. In: Rainer, F., Gardani, F., Dressler, W., Luschützky, H. (eds) Competition in Inflection and Word-Formation . Studies in Morphology, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02550-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02550-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02549-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02550-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)