, 19:59 | Cite as

Where does heteroclisis come from? Evidence from Romanian dialects

Original Paper


This study examines some cases of heteroclisis in the history of Romanian dialects, and concludes that the data call for a reconsideration of Stump’s distinction (Language 82:279–322, 2006) between ‘cloven’ heteroclisis, where the intraparadigmatic ‘split’ is aligned with some morphosyntactic feature distinction, and ‘fractured’ heteroclisis, where this is not the case and the pattern of heteroclisis is purely morphological. Stump’s account creates the impression that the ‘cloven’ variety is universally predominant, and that the ‘fractured’ variety tends to follow very closely the available ‘cloven’ patterns of the language. I shall suggest, instead, that the ‘fractured-only’ situation may in fact underlie heteroclisis cross-linguistically, the phenomenon being in general sensitive not directly to morphosyntactic content, but rather to characteristic, and often purely ‘morphomic’, patterns of stem-allomorphy.


Heteroclisis Paradigm Inflection 


  1. Aronoff M. (1994) Morphology by itself. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Arquint J. (1964) Vierv ladin. Grammatica elemntara dal rumantsch d’Engiadina bassa. Tusan, Lia RumantschaGoogle Scholar
  3. Caragiu Marioţeanu M. (1975) Compendiu de dialectologie română. Editura ştiinţifică şi enciclopedică, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  4. Carstairs-McCarthy A. (1994) Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language 70: 737–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cazacu, B. (eds) (1967) Texte dialectale. Oltenia. Bucharest, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste RomâniaGoogle Scholar
  6. Conţiu M. (1971) Observaţii asupra accentuării formelor verbale in graiurile olteneşti. Fonetică şi dialectologie 7: 159–172Google Scholar
  7. Enger H.-O. (2007) The no blur principle meets Norwegian dialects. Studia Linguistica 61: 278–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gamillscheg E. (1936) Die Mundart von Serbăneşti-Tituleşti (Gerichtsbez. Olt, Kreis Vedea). Jena-Leipzig, GronauGoogle Scholar
  9. Halle M., Marantz A. (2008) Clarifying “Blur”: paradigms, defaults and inflectional classes. In: Bachrach A., Nevins A. (eds) Inflectional identtity. OUP, Oxford, pp 55–72Google Scholar
  10. Iordan I. (1935) Forme de conjugare mixtă în limba română. Buletinul Institutului de Filologie Romînă “Alexandru Philippide” 2: 47–127Google Scholar
  11. Juilland A., Edwards P.M.H., Juilland I. (1965) Frequency dictionary of Rumanian words. Mouton, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  12. Lombard A. (1955) Le Verbe roumain. Lund, GleerupGoogle Scholar
  13. Maiden M. (2000) Di un cambiamento intramorfologico: origini del tipo dissi dicestiecc., nell’italoromanzo. Archivio glottologico italiano 85: 137–71Google Scholar
  14. Maiden M. (2001) A strange affinity: perfecto y tiempos afines. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 58: 441–464Google Scholar
  15. Maiden M. (2004a) Verb augments and meaninglessness in early Romance morphology. Studi di Grammatica Italiana 22: 1–61Google Scholar
  16. Maiden, M. (2004b). Perfect pedigree. The ancestry of the Aromanian conditional. In R. Ashdowne & T. Finbow (Eds.), Oxford working papers in linguistics, Philology and Phonetics (Vol. 9, pp. 83–98). Oxford: Committee for Linguistics.Google Scholar
  17. Maiden M. (2004c) When lexemes become allomorphs: On the genesis of suppletion. Folia Linguistica 38: 227–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maiden M. (2005) Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004: 137–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maiden M. (2006) On Romanian imperatives. Philologica Jassyensia 2: 47–59Google Scholar
  20. Maiden M. (2007) La linguistica romanza alla ricerca dell’arbitrario. In: Trotter D. (eds) Actes du XXIVe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes. Tome II. Tubingen, Niemeyer, pp 506–518Google Scholar
  21. Maiden, M. (2009a). On the morphologization of some phonetic processes in the Oltenian Verb. In S. R. Râpeanu (Ed.), Studia linguistica in honorem Mariæ Manoliu (pp. 175–185). Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar
  22. Maiden M. (2009b) Un capitolo di morfologia storica del romeno: preterito e tempi affini. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie. 125: 273–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marin M. (1991) Morfologia verbului în graiurile munteneşti. Fonetică şi dialectologie 10: 45–65Google Scholar
  24. Marin, M. (2005–2007). Timpurile indicativului în graiurile dacoromâne actuale (II). Fonetică şi dialectologie, 24—27, 89–164.Google Scholar
  25. NALROltenia: See Teaha et al. 1984.Google Scholar
  26. Schulte K. (2005) Vowel centralization in Romanian verbs of Slavic origin: Deliberate exploitation of an indigenous sound change?. In: Geerts T., van Ginneken I., Jacobs H. (eds) Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003. Radboud University, Nijmegan, pp 311–325Google Scholar
  27. Spescha A. (1989) Grammatica sursilvana. Chur, Casa editura per mieds d’instrucziunGoogle Scholar
  28. Stump G. (2002) Morphological and syntactic paradigms: arguments for a theory of paradigm linkage. Yearbook of Morphology 2001: 147–180Google Scholar
  29. Stump G. (2005) Some criticisms of Carstairs-McCarthy’s conclusions. Yearbook of Morphology 2005: 283–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stump G. (2006) Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82: 279–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Teaha T., Ionică I., Rusu V. (1984) Noul atlas lingvistic român pe regiuni. Oltenia. Bucharest, Editura Academiei Republicii socialiste RomâniaGoogle Scholar
  32. Uriţescu D. (2007) Sincronie şi diacronie. Fonetismul unor graiuri di nordul Banatului. Cluj, ClusiumGoogle Scholar
  33. Zamfir D.-M. (2005) Morfologia verbului în dacoromâna veche (secolele al XVI-lea—al XVII-lea). Bucharest, Editura Academiei RomâneGoogle Scholar
  34. Zwanenburg W. (1999) Homonymie systématique en morphologie: les dérivés de forme participiale du roumain. Recherches de linguistique française et romane de l’Université d’Utrecht 18: 103–113Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Linguistics, Philology and PhoneticsUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations