Abstract
In canonical typology, a phenomenon that involves several dimensions of potential variation is seen as subsuming a range of deviations from a canonical ideal based on the definitional extremes of those dimensions. The canonical case of morphotactic competition is one in which (i) two rules of affixation are both eligible to apply in the realization of some word form w; (ii) the set of morphosyntactic properties realized by one rule is a subset of that realized by the other rule; (iii) the two rules compete for the same position in the sequence of rule applications defining w’s morphology—that is, they belong to the same block of disjunctive rules; and (iv) the competition is resolved in favor of the rule with the narrower domain of application. One apparent deviation from this canonical pattern is the competition of a single rule application with that of a sequence of rules. In some such cases, the single rule application overrides that of the sequence of rules; in others, the sequence of rule applications overrides that of the single rule. Instances of both kinds are widely observable; Swahili verb inflection exemplifies both patterns. Various approaches to this sort of deviation can be shown to be stipulative or simply unworkable. By contrast, the independently motivated notion of rule conflation makes it possible to assimilate the apparently deviant patterns of morphotactic competition exemplified by Swahili to the canonical pattern.
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
Notes
- 1.
The focus here is on rules of inflectional affixation. Nevertheless, I assume that nonconcatenative rules of inflection may compete with rules of inflectional affixation or with one another, and that rules of inflectional stem selection likewise enter into competition. These kinds of competition involving nonaffixational rules of inflection should not necessarily be seen as noncanonical; that is, the properties listed in (1) should be viewed as a particular subset of the canonical patterns of competition into which the full range of inflectional rules may enter.
- 2.
Throughout, I regard competition as a relation among rules, where a rule that prevails in a given instance is said to override its competitors. But competition is sometimes alternatively seen as a relation among expressions (whole words or parts of words), where an expression that prevails in a given instance is said to “block” its competitors; see e.g. the chapters by Aronoff, Masini, and Varvara & Zamparelli. However one conceives of it, competition isn’t invariably resolved canonically, by a prevailing competitor. In the case of dreamed/dreamt, neither competitor prevails, so that competition is resolved not by override/blocking but by overabundance (see Thornton 2012 as well as her chapter “Overabundance: A Canonical Typology”, in this volume); according to (1), overabundance is a noncanonical resolution of competition among rules of inflectional affixation.
- 3.
There is a Block A whose application precedes that of Block B. Block A houses rules of object concord, which are irrelevant to the forms in (2) and (3); these will nevertheless become relevant below, at which point Block A will be introduced.
- 4.
The assumed definition of extension is as in (i); cf. Gazdar etal. (1985: 27), Stump (2001: 41).
(i)
Given two sets σ, τ: σ is an extension of τ [notationally, τ ⊑ σ] if and only if for each property P ∈ τ,
either
(i)
P ∈ σ
or
(ii)
P is a set such that for some set Q ∈ σ, Q is an extension of P.
Examples:
{pl} ⊑ {1, pl}
{prs, {obj, 1}} ⊑ {prs, {obj, 1, pl}}
- 5.
In this respect, Swahili relative concord present a problem that is in some ways reminiscent of that posed by Wackernagel affixes (Nevis and Joseph 1992).
- 6.
The assumed definition of unification is as in (i); cf. Gazdar etal. (1985: 27), Stump (2001: 41). This definition depends on the assumed definition of extension noted above.
(i)
The unification of ρ and σ [i.e. ρ ⊔ σ] is the smallest well-formed extension of both ρ and σ.
Example:
{{sbj, 3, sg}, {obj, pl}} ⊔ {prs, {obj, 1}}
= {{sbj, 3, sg}, prs, {obj, 1, pl}}
- 7.
Here I ignore the additional block that determines a verb stem’s final vowel, which varies with the morphosyntactic property set being realized.
- 8.
According to the Identity Function Default (IFD), the value of [Block n: 〈Z, σ〉] is 〈Z, σ〉 if Block n lacks any rule realizing σ (Stump 2016: 51).
- 9.
One might question this principle of pre-emption on the grounds that it systematically excludes the possibility of extended exponence. This, however, is not the case. Note first that when the si- rule C.c pre-empts the conflation of the ha- rule C.b with the ni- rule (20), it does not thereby block an instance of extended exponence; forms like *ha-ni-ta-taka, if they occurred, simply wouldn’t involve any extended exponence. In addition, genuine instances of extended exponence are not necessarily pre-empted. In Hungarian, for instance, first- and second-person singular personal pronouns exhibit overabundance, since their accusative forms engem ‘me’ and téged ‘you (acc)’ may both optionally take the regular accusative suffix -et: engemet, tégedet. Although the forms with -et exhibit extended exponence of accusative case, they do not involve competition of a conflated rule with a simple rule belonging to the same block, hence the pre-emption principle can have no effect on them.
Abbreviations
- fg :
-
Final glottalization (in Fula)
- fut:
-
Future tense
- ind:
-
Indicative mood
- neg:
-
Negative polarity
- obj:
-
Object
- pl:
-
Plural
- pnc :
-
Category of person-number concord
- pol :
-
Polarity category
- pos:
-
Positive polarity
- prs:
-
Present tense
- pst:
-
Past tense
- rel:
-
Relativized argument
- rlt:
-
Relative mood
- sbj:
-
Subject
- sg:
-
Singular
- tns :
-
Tense category
References
Anderson, Stephen R. 1977. On the Formal Description of Inflection. In Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Woodford A. Beach, Samuel E. Fox, and Shulamith Philosoph, 15–44. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
———. 1982. Where’s Morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13: 571–612.
———. 1984a. On Representations in Morphology: Case Marking, Agreement and Inversion in Georgian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 157–218.
———. 1984b. Rules as ‘Morphemes’ in a Theory of Inflection. In Mid-America Linguistics Conference Papers, ed. David S. Rood, 3–21. Boulder: University of Colorado.
———. 1986. Disjunctive Ordering in Inflectional Morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 1–31.
———. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arnott, D.W. 1970. The Nominal and Verbal Systems of Fula. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ashton, E.O. 1944. Swahili Grammar. Harlow: Longman.
Bochner, Harry. 1992. Simplicity in Generative Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, Dunstan, Marina Chumakina, and Greville G. Corbett, eds. 2013. Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corbett, Greville G. 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: John Benjamins.
———. 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.
Crysmann, B., and O. Bonami. 2016. Variable Morphotactics in Information-Based Morphology. Journal of Linguistics 52: 311–374.
Gardani, Francesco. 2015. Affix Pleonasm. In Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, ed. Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, and Franz Rainer, vol. 1, 537–550. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey Pullum, and Ivan Sag. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Harris, Alice C. 2009. Exuberant Exponence in BATSBI. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27: 267–303.
———. 2017. Multiple Exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Luís, Ana, and Andrew Spencer. 2005. A Paradigm Function Account of ‘Mesoclisis’ in European Portuguese. In Yearbook of Morphology, ed. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, vol. 2004, 177–228. Dordrecht: Springer.
Nevis, Joel A., and Brian D. Joseph. 1992. Wackernagel Affixes: Evidence from Balto-Slavic. In Yearbook of Morphology, ed. Geert E. Booij and Jaap van Marle, vol. 3, 93–111. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rainer, Franz. 2016. Blocking. In Oxford Research Encyclopedias/Linguistics, ed. Mark Aronoff, 1–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.33.
Scatton, Ernest A. 1984. A Reference Grammar of Modern Bulgarian. Columbus: Slavica.
Stump, Gregory. 1993. Position Classes and Morphological Theory. In Yearbook of Morphology, ed. Geert E. Booij and Jaap van Marle, vol. 1992, 129–180. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
———. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2016. Inflectional Paradigms: Content and Form at the Syntax-Morphology Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2017a. Polyfunctionality and the Variety of Inflectional Exponence Relations. In Perspectives on Morphological Organization: Data and Analyses, ed. Ferenc Kiefer, James P. Blevins, and Huba Bartos, 11–30. Leiden: Brill.
———. 2017b. Rule Conflation in an Inferential-Realizational Theory of Morphotactics. Acta Linguistica Academica. 64 (1): 79–124. http://akademiai.com/loi/2062.
———. 2017c. Rules and Blocks. In On Looking into Words (and Beyond), ed. Claire Bowern, Laurence Horn, and Raffaella Zanuttini, 421–440. Berlin: Language Science Press.
———. In preparation. The Logic of Morphotactics.
Thornton, Anna M. 2012. Reduction and Maintenance of Overabundance: A Case Study on Italian Verb Paradigms. Word Structure 5: 183–207.
van Driem, George. 1987. A Grammar of Limbu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Whitney, W.D. 1889. Sanskrit Grammar. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the Notions “Lexically Related” and “Head of a Word”. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 245–274.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank Francesco Gardani and Anna Thornton for helpful comments and suggestions.
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
Stump, G. (2019). An Apparently Noncanonical Pattern of Morphotactic Competition. 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_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02550-2_10
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)