Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 1015–1066 | Cite as

Explaining the structure of case paradigms by the mechanisms of Nanosyntax

The Classical Armenian nominal declension
  • Pavel CahaEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper looks in detail at the Classical Armenian nominal declension. I highlight several generalizations that can be read off the surface paradigms, including restrictions on syncretism, fusional vs. agglutinative expression of categories and the emergence of unexpected thematic vowels. Subsequently, I explain these generalizations within the framework of Nanosyntax (Starke 2009, 2011).

The defining features of the account are fine-grained syntactic representation (a single feature per syntactic terminal) and phrasal spell-out. I argue that these two tools allow us to replace a separate level of morphological (paradigm specific) structure by a syntactic tree.

Keywords

Case Case syncretism Classical Armenian Paradigm Phrasal spell-out Nanosyntax Agglutination Fusion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

A number of people gave me comments and suggestions concerning the material presented here. I started working on the topic as a part of my dissertation-related research, and my supervisor Michal Starke has substantially influenced the initial stage of work. Jonathan Bobaljik and Hilda Koopman (in their capacity as committee members) have left their mark on this work as well, for which I am very grateful. In addition, a very early version of the paper was presented at WOTM 4 in Leipzig (2008), and I thank the audience there for feedback and interesting discussions.

Subsequently, Gillian Ramchand and Peter Svenonius have provided me with detailed comments on a draft of this material as it appeared in Nordlyd (Tromsø working papers in linguistics, 2009). Major changes have occurred in the first draft submitted to NLLT due to the comments from three anonymous reviewers, accompanied by an additional review by the handling NLLT editor, Gereon Müller. For the final round of comments, I am indebted to Marcel den Dikken. A very special thanks to Marina Pantcheva, who has read and commented on all these various versions.

I thank all these people for bringing up empirical challenges, pointing out problems of analysis, finding better ways of putting things, removing typos, correcting my English, and asking some big picture questions.

References

  1. Abraham, Werner. 2003. The myth of doubly governing prepositions in German. In Motion, direction and location in languages: In honor of Zygmunt Frajzyngier, eds. Erin Shay and Uwe Seibert, 19–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  2. Ackema, Peter, and Ad Neeleman. 2007. Morphology ≠ syntax. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, eds. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 325–353. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  3. Baerman, Matthew. 2008. Case syncretism. In The handbook of case, eds. Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, 219–230. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  4. Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown, and Greville G. Corbett. 2005. The syntax-morphology interface. A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  6. Baker, Mark C., and Ruth Kramer. 2010. “Prepositions” as case morphemes inserted at PF in Amharic. Handout of a talk at the BCGL5 conference, 2–3 December, at CRISSP, Brussels. Google Scholar
  7. Baltin, Mark. 2006. The non-unity of VP-preposing. Language 82: 734–766. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bittner, Maria, and Ken Hale. 1996. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27(1): 1–68. Google Scholar
  9. Blake, Barry J. 1994. Case, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  10. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2002. Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. In Yearbook of morphology 2001 eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 53–86. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  12. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2007. On comparative suppletion. Ms., University of Connecticut. Google Scholar
  13. Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense: An exo-skeletal trilogy. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  14. Caha, Pavel. 2009. The Nanosyntax of case. PhD thesis, CASTL, University of Tromsø. Google Scholar
  15. Caha, Pavel. 2011a. Case in adpositional phrases. Ms., CASTL, Tromsø. Google Scholar
  16. Caha, Pavel. 2011b. The parameters of case marking and spell out driven movement. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2010 10: 33–78. Google Scholar
  17. Calabrese, Andrea. 2008. On absolute and contextual syncretism. In Inflectional identity, eds. Asaf Bachrach and Andrew Nevins, 156–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  18. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, ed. Henk van Riemsdijk, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar
  19. Carnie, Andrew. 2008. Constituent structure. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
  20. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  21. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, eds. Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  22. Cinque, Guglielmo, and Luigi Rizzi. 2010. The cartography of syntactic structures. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, eds. Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog, 51–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  23. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax–morphology interface. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, eds. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  24. Guerssel, Mohand, and Jean Lowenstamm. 1996. Ablaut in Classical Arabic measure I active verbal forms. In Studies in Afroasiatic grammar, eds. Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm, and Ur Shlonsky, 123–134. The Hague: HAG. Google Scholar
  25. Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to government and binding theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  26. Halle, Morris. 1997. Impoverishment and fission. In Papers at the interface, eds. Benjamin Bruening, Y. Kang, and Martha McGinnis. Vol. 30 of MITWPL, 425–449. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  27. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  28. Halle, Morris, and Bert Vaux. 1998. Theoretical aspects of Indo-European nominal morphology: The nominal declensions of Latin and Armenian. In Mir Curad: Studies in honor of Clavert Watkins. Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert, and Lisi Olivier. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 223–240. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Google Scholar
  29. Harley, Heidi. 2008. When is syncretism more than a syncretism? Impoverishment, metasyncretism and underspecification. In Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, eds. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 251–294. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  30. Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  31. Jakobson, Roman. 1962. Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. In Selected writings, Vol. 2, 23–71. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar
  32. Johnston, Jason Clift. 1996. Systematic homonymy and the structure of morphological categories. Some lessons from paradigm geometry. PhD thesis, University of Sydney. Google Scholar
  33. Julien, Marit. 2007. On the relation between morphology and syntax. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, eds. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 209–238. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  34. Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  35. Kayne, Richard S. 2005. Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, eds. Guglielmo Cinque and Richard S. Kayne, 3–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  36. Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, eds. Paul Kiparsky and Steven Anderson. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Google Scholar
  37. Koopman, Hilda, and Anna Szabolcsi. 2000. Verbal complexes. Vol. 34 of Current studies in linguistics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  38. Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. Building statives. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  39. Krause, Todd B., and Jonathan Slocum. no date. Classical Armenian online. http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/armol-0.html.
  40. Marantz, Alec. 1995. ‘Cat’ as a phrasal idiom: Consequences of late insertion in Distributed Morphology. Ms., MIT. Google Scholar
  41. McCawley, James D. 1968. Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without Deep Structure. In Papers from the fourth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, eds. B. J. Darden, C.-J. N. Bailey, and A. Davidson. Chicago: University of Chicago. Google Scholar
  42. McCreight, Katherine, and Catherine V. Chvany. 1991. Geometric representation of paradigms in a modular theory of grammar. In Paradigms: The economy of inflection, ed. Frans Plank, 91–112. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  43. McFadden, Thomas. 2007. Default case and the status of compound categories in Distributed Morphology. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of PLC 30) 13.1: 225–238. Google Scholar
  44. McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study on the syntax-morphology interface. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar
  45. Müller, Gereon. 2003. A Distributed Morphology approach to syncretism in Russian noun inflection. In Proceedings of FASL 12, eds. Olga Arnaudova, Wayles Browne, Maria Luisa Rivero, and Danijela Stojanovic, 353–374. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Google Scholar
  46. Muriungi, Peter. 2008. Phrasal movement inside Bantu verbs: Deriving affix scope and order in Kiitharaka. PhD thesis, CASTL, Tromsø. Google Scholar
  47. Neeleman, Ad, and Kriszta Szendrői. 2007. Radical pro-drop and the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 671–714. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Olsen, Birgit Anette. 1999. The noun in Biblical Armenian. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pantcheva, Marina. 2010. The syntactic structure of locations, goals, and sources. Linguistics 48: 1043–1081. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pantcheva, Marina. 2011. Decomposing Path. The Nanosyntax of directional expressions. PhD thesis, CASTL, Tromsø. Google Scholar
  51. Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Google Scholar
  52. Phillips, Colin. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 37–90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Plank, Frans. 1991. Rasmus Rask’s dilemma. In Paradigms: The economy of inflection, ed. Frans Plank, 161–196. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Plank, Frans. 1995. (Re-)introducing suffixaufnahme. In Double case: Agreement by suffixaufnahme, ed. Frans Plank, 3–112. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
  55. Plank, Frans. 1999. Split morphology: How agglutination and flexion mix. Linguistic Typology 3: 279–340. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Radkevich, Nina. 2009. Vocabulary insertion and the geometry of local cases. Ms., UConn, downloadable at: http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000958.
  57. Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Richards, Norvin. 2007. Lardil “case stacking” and the structural/inherent case distinction. Ms., MIT, downloadable at: http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000405.
  59. Schmitt, Rüdiger. 1981. Grammatik des Klassisch-Armenischen. Vol. 32 of Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Google Scholar
  60. Schütze, Carson. 2001. On the nature of default case. Syntax 4(3): 205–238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Starke, Michal. 2009. Nanosyntax. A short primer to a new approach to language. In Nordlyd 36: Special issue on Nanosyntax, eds. Peter Svenonius, Gillian Ramchand, Michal Starke, and Tarald Taraldsen. 1–6. Tromsø: University of Tromsø. Available at www.ub.uit.no/munin/nordlyd/. Google Scholar
  62. Starke, Michal. 2010. Universal grammar vs. lexically driven derivations, once more. Talk at the SmaSh workshop. České Budějovice: University of South Bohemia, June 23. Google Scholar
  63. Starke, Michal. 2005. Nanosyntax class lectures. Spring 2005, University of Tromsø. Google Scholar
  64. Starke, Michal. 2011. Towards elegant parameters: Language variation reduces to the size of lexically stored trees. Transcript from a talk at Barcelona Workshop on Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework. Available at http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001183.
  65. Šurkalović, Dragana. 2011. Modularity, linearization and phase-phase faithfulness in Kayardild. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 3(1): 81–118. Google Scholar
  66. Taraldsen, Tarald. 2010. The Nanosyntax of Nguni noun class prefixes and concords. Lingua 120(6): 1522–1548. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. PhD thesis, MIT. Google Scholar
  68. Vangsnes, Øystein A. 2013. Syncretism and functional expansion in Germanic wh-expressions. Language Sciences 36: 47–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weerman, Fred, and Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul. 2002. Pronouns and case. Lingua 112: 301–338. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wiese, Bernd. 2003. Zur lateinischen Nominalflexion: Die Form-Funktions-Beziehung. Ms., IDS Mannheim. Google Scholar
  71. Wiese, Bernd. 2004. Categories and paradigms. On underspecification in Russian declension. In Explorations in nominal inflection, eds. Gereon Müller, Lutz Gunkel, and Gisela Zifonun, 321–372. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word”. Linguistic Inquiry 12.2: 245–274. Google Scholar
  73. Williams, Edwin. 1994. Remarks on lexical knowledge. Lingua 92: 7–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CASTLUniversity of TromsøTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations