Morphology

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 71–107 | Cite as

Restrictions on productivity: defectiveness in Swedish adjective paradigms

Original Paper

Abstract

A well-known phenomenon in Swedish is that some adjectives are ‘defective’ in the sense that they are not possible in neuter gender. In previous explanations, it has usually been argued that the defective forms could be distinguished from non-defective forms by phonological and/or semantic criteria. Showing that such proposals cannot account for the data, I will argue that the defective paradigms are caused by a number of phonological constraints which block morphological productivity not only in defective forms, but also in many nondefective forms. Thus, contrary to what has traditionally been assumed, common patterns of vowel shortening and dental assimilation in Swedish adjective paradigms are not the result of productivity, but the result of a type of creative generalization where new formations require a sufficient degree of communicative need in order to be perceived as grammatical.

Keywords

Productivity Defectiveness Transparency Creativity Constraints 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albright, A. (2003). A quantitative study of Spanish paradigm gaps. In G. Garding & M. Tsujimura (Eds.), WCCFL 22 proceedings, Somerville, MA (pp. 1–14). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baayen H., Lieber R. (1991) Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29: 801–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer L. (2001) Morphological productivity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berko J. (1958) The child’s acquisition of English morphology. Word 14: 150–177Google Scholar
  5. Bybee J., Newman J. (1995) Are stem changes as natural as affixes? Linguistics 33: 633–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daland, R., Sims, A., & Pierrehumbert, J. (2007). Much ado about nothing: A social network model of Russian paradigmatic gaps. In Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics in Prague, Czech Republic, June 24th–29th, 2007.Google Scholar
  7. Dressler W. (1985) On the predictiveness of natural morphology. Journal of Linguistics 21: 321–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dryer M. (2005a) Coding of nominal plurality. In: Haspelmath M., Dryer M., Gil D., Comrie B. (eds) The world atlas of language structures. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 138–141Google Scholar
  9. Dryer M. (2005b) Position of tense-aspect affixes. In: Haspelmath M., Dryer M., Gil D., Comrie B. (eds) The world atlas of language structures. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 282–285Google Scholar
  10. Eliasson, S. (1975). On the issue of directionality. In K.-H. Dahlstedt (Ed.), The nordic languages and modern linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 421–445). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
  11. Halle M. (1973) Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 3–16Google Scholar
  12. Hayes, B., Kirchner, R., Steriade, D. (eds) (2004) Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Hellberg S. (1974) Graphonomic rules in phonology. Studies in the expression component of Swedish. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, GöteborgGoogle Scholar
  14. Hetzron R. (1975) Where the grammar fails. Language 51: 859–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Iverson G. (1981) Rules, constraints, and paradigm lacunae. Glossa 15: 136–144Google Scholar
  16. Johansson C. (1999) Learning what cannot be by failing expectations. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 22: 61–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Löwenadler J. (2010) Relative acceptability of missing adjective forms in Swedish. In: Baerman M., Corbett G., Brown D. (eds) Defective paradigms. Missing forms and what they tell us. British Academy/Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 69–83Google Scholar
  18. McCarthy J. (2003) Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29: 1–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCarthy, J., & Wolf, M. (2005). Less than zero: Correspondence and the null output. Ms, Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
  20. Orgun C.O., Sprouse R. (1999) From MParse to control: Deriving ungrammaticality. Phonology 16: 191–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pettersson T. (1990) Varför barnet inte kan vara latt. In: Andersson E., Sundman M. (eds) Svenskans beskrivning 17. Åbo den 18-19 maj 1989. Åbo Academy Press, Åbo, pp 293–302Google Scholar
  22. Plag I. (1999) Morphological productivity. Structural constraints in English derivation. Mouton de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory. Ms, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  24. Sims, A. (in press). Avoidance strategies, periphrasis and paradigmatic competition in modern Greek. In J. Blevins, & F. Ackerman (Eds,), Periphrasis and paradigms. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Steriade D. (2008) The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. In: Hanson K., Inkelas S. (eds) The nature of the word: Studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 151–180Google Scholar
  26. Teleman U., Hellberg S., Andersson E. (1999) Svenska Akademiens Grammatik, Part 2. Svenska Akademien, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  27. van Marle, J. (1985). On the paradigmatic dimension of morphological creativity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Languages, Linguistics and CulturesThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations