Advertisement

Morphology

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 233–275 | Cite as

Defining ‘periphrasis’: key notions

  • Dunstan Brown
  • Marina ChumakinaEmail author
  • Greville Corbett
  • Gergana Popova
  • Andrew Spencer
Original Paper

Abstract

We examine the notion of ‘(inflectional) periphrasis’ within the framework of Canonical Typology, and argue that the canonical approach allows us to define a logically coherent notion of periphrasis. We propose a set of canonical criteria for inflectional morphology and a set of canonical criteria for functional syntax, that is, syntactic constructions which include functional elements and which express grammatical features. We argue that canonical periphrasis is exemplified in our theoretical space of possibilities whenever a cell in a (canonically morphological) inflectional paradigm (‘feature intersection’) is expressed by a multiword construction which respects the canonical properties of functional syntax. We compare our canonically-based approach with the approach of other authors, notably, Ackerman & Stump (2004), who argue for three sufficient conditions for a construction to be regarded as periphrastic: feature intersection, non-compositionality and distributed exponence. We argue that non-compositionality and distributed exponence, while sometimes diagnostic of periphrasis on a language-particular basis, do not constitute canonical properties of periphrasis. We also examine crucial but neglected syntactic aspects of periphrastic constructions: recursion of periphrases and headedness of periphrastic constructions. The approach we propose allows us to distinguish between constructions in actual languages which approximate the ideal of canonical periphrasis to various degrees without committing us to a categorical distinction between periphrastic and non-periphrastic constructions. At the same time we can capture the intuition that there is in some languages a distinct identifiable set of multiword constructions whose principal role is to realize grammatical features.

Keywords

Periphrasis Canonical Typology Inflectional morphology Syntax 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackerman, F. (2000). Lexical constructions: Paradigms and periphrastic expressions. Paper read at the LFG workshop on Morphosyntax.Google Scholar
  2. Ackerman F., Stump G., Webelhuth G. (2011) Lexicalism, periphrasis and implicative morphology. In: Borsley R., Börjars K. (eds) Non-transformational syntax: Formal and explicit models of grammar. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Ackerman F., Stump G.T. (2004) Paradigms and periphrastic expression: A study in realizationbased lexicalism. In: Sadler L., Spencer A. (eds) Projecting morphology. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford CA, pp 111–158Google Scholar
  4. Ackerman F., Webelhuth G. (1998) A theory of predicates. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. Aikhenvald, A., Dixon, R.M.W., Dixon, R.M.W. (eds) (2006) Serial verb constructions: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson G.D.S. (2006) Auxiliary verb constructions. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bach E. (1988) Categorial grammars as theories of language. In: Oehrle R., Bach E., Wheeler D. (eds) Categorial grammars and natural language structures. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 17–34Google Scholar
  8. Baerman M., Brown D., Corbett G.G. (2005) The syntax–morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonami O., Samvelian P. (2009) Inflectional periphrasis in Persian. In: Müller S. (ed) Proceedings of the HPSG 2009 conference. CSLI, Stanford, pp 26–46Google Scholar
  10. Bonami, O., & Webelhuth, G. (forthcoming). The phrase-structural diversity of periphrasis: A lexicalist account. In M. Chumakina & G. G. Corbett (Eds.), Periphrasis: The role of syntax and morphology in paradigms. Proceedings of the British Academy. Oxford: British Academy/Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Booij G. (1996) Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In: Booij G., Marle J. (eds) Yearbook of morphology 1995. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  12. Börjars K. (1998) Feature distribution in Swedish noun phrases. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Börjars K., Vincent N., Chapman C. (1997) Paradigms, pronominal inflection and periphrasis. In: Booij G., Marle J. (eds) Yearbook of morphology. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 155–180Google Scholar
  14. Bresnan J. (2001) Lexical functional syntax. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Bybee J.L., Perkins R.D., Pagliuca W. (1994) The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  16. Comrie B. (2003) agreement gets trigger-happy. In: Brown D., Corbett G.G., Tiberius C. (eds) Agreement: A typological perspective Special issue of Transactions of the Philological Society 101, no. 2. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 313–337Google Scholar
  17. Corbett G.G. (2003) Agreement: the range of the phenomenon and the principles of the Surrey Database of Agreement. In: Brown D., Corbett G.G., Tiberius C. (eds) Agreement: A typological perspective Special issue of Transactions of the Philological Society 101 no. 2. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 155–202Google Scholar
  18. Corbett G.G. (2006) Agreement. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Corbett G.G. (2007) Canonical typology, suppletion and possible words. Language 83: 8–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Corbett G.G. (2008) Determining morphosyntactic feature values: The case of case. In: Corbett G.G., Noonan M. (eds) Case and grammatical relations: Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 1–34Google Scholar
  21. Corbett, G. G. (2010a). Features: Essential notions. In A. Kibort & G. G. Corbett (Eds.), Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics (pp. 17–36). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Corbett G.G. (2010b) Canonical derivational morphology. Word Structure 3: 141–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Corbett, G. G. (forthcoming). Periphrasis and possible lexemes. In M. Chumakina & G. G. Corbett (Eds.), Periphrasis: The role of syntax and morphology in paradigms. Proceedings of the British Academy. Oxford: British Academy/Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Corbett, G.G., Fraser, N.M., McGlashan, S. (eds) (1993) Heads in grammatical theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Delsing, L. (1993). The internal structure of noun phrases in the Scandinavian languages. PhD dissertation, University of Lund.Google Scholar
  26. Enfield N.J. (2007) A grammar of Lao. Mouton de Gruyter, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Evans N. (1995) A grammar of Kayardild. Mouton de Gruyter, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Evans N. (2003) Typologies of agreement: Some problems from Kayardild. In: Brown D., Corbett G.G., Tiberius C. (eds) Agreement: A typological perspective Special issue of Transactions of the Philological Society 101 no. 2. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 203–234Google Scholar
  29. Everaert, M., Linden, E-J., Schenk, A., Schreuder, R. (eds) (1995) Idioms Structural and psychological perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  30. Hankamer J., Mikkelsen L. (2002) A morphological analysis of definite nouns in Danish. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14: 137–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hankamer J., Mikkelsen L. (2005) When movement must be blocked: A reply to Embick and Noyer. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 85–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hankamer J., Mikkelsen L. (2008) Definiteness marking and the structure of Danish pseudopartitives. Journal of Linguistics 44: 317–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Haspelmath, M. (2000). Periphrasis. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann, & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphology: A handbook on inflection and word formation (pp. 654–664). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  34. Heck F., Müller G., Trommer J. (2008) A phase-based approach to Scandinavian definiteness marking. In: Chang C.B., Haynie H.J. (eds) Proceedings of the 26th West Coast conference on formal linguistics. Cascadilla, Somerville, MA, pp 226–233Google Scholar
  35. Heine B., Kuteva T. (2002) World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Honda, I. (1996). Negation: A cross-linguistic study. PhD thesis, University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
  37. Hudson R.A. (1987) Zwicky on heads. Journal of Linguistics 23: 109–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Julien M. (2005) Nominal phrases from a Scandinavian perspective. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  39. Kahrel, P. (1996). Aspects of negation. PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  40. Matthews P.H. (1974) Morphology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Matthews P.H. (2007) Syntactic relations: A critical survey. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Nerbonne J. (1996) Computational semantics—Linguistics and processing. In: Lappin S. (eds) The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 461–484Google Scholar
  43. Nikolaeva, I. (forthcoming). Periphrasis in Nenets. In M. Chumakina & G. G. Corbett (Eds.), Periphrasis: The role of syntax and morphology in paradigms. Proceedings of the British Academy. Oxford: British Academy and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Nikolaeva, I., & Spencer, A. (2008). Nouns as adjectives and adjectives as nouns. ms.Google Scholar
  45. Nunberg G., Sag I.A., Wasow T. (1994) Idioms. Language 70: 491–538Google Scholar
  46. Plank, F. (1994). Inflection and derivation. In R. E. Asher & J. M. Y. Simpson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 3, pp. 1671–1678). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  47. Polinsky, M. (2003). Non-canonical agreement is canonical. In D. Brown, G. G. Corbett, & C. Tiberius (Eds.), Agreement: A typological perspective. Special issue of Transactions of the Philological Society 101 no. 2 (pp. 279–312). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  48. Popova G. (2010) Features in periphrastic constructions. In: Kibort A., Corbett G.G. (eds) Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 166–184Google Scholar
  49. Popova, G., & Spencer, A. (forthcoming). Relatedness in periphrasis: A paradigm-based perspective. In M. Chumakina & G. G. Corbett (Eds.), Periphrasis: The role of syntax and morphology in paradigms. Proceedings of the British Academy. Oxford: British Academy/Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Poser W.J. (1992) Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In: Sag I., Szabolcsi A. (eds) Lexical matters. CSLI, Stanford, CA, pp 111–130Google Scholar
  51. Rosch E. (1973) Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rounds C. (2001) Hungarian. An essential grammar. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Sadler L., Spencer A. (2001) Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. In: Booij G., Marle J. (eds) Yearbook of morphology 2000. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 71–96Google Scholar
  54. Salminen, T. (1997). Tundra Nenets inflection. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne (Vol. 227), Helsinki.Google Scholar
  55. Scatton E. (1984) A reference grammar of modern Bulgarian. Slavica Publishers, Columbus, OHGoogle Scholar
  56. Seifart, F. (2005). The structure and use of shape-based noun classes in Miraã (North West Amazon). PhD thesis, Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  57. Spencer A. (2001) The paradigm-based model of morphosyntax. Transactions of the Philological Society 99: 279–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Spencer A. (2003) Periphrastic paradigms in Bulgarian. In: Junghanns U., Szucsich L. (eds) Syntactic structures and morphological information. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 249–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Spencer, A. (2007). Extending deponency. In M. Baerman, G. G. Corbett, D. Brown, & A. Hippisley (Eds.), Deponency and morphological mismatches (pp. 45–70). Proceedings of the British Academy, 145. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Spencer A. (2008) Negation in Japanese: A case of morphosyntactic mismatch. Lingua 118: 997–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Spencer, A. (ms.). Sentence negation and periphrasis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Essex.Google Scholar
  62. Stump G.T. (1998) Inflection. In: Spencer A., Zwicky A.M. (eds) Handbook of morphology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 13–43Google Scholar
  63. Stump, G. T. (2001). Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge studies in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Stump G.T. (2005) Word-formation and inflectional morphology. In: Štekauer P., Lieber R. (eds) Handbook of word-formation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 49–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stump G.T. (2006) Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82: 279–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stump, G.T., & Finkel, R. (2008). Stem alternations and principal parts in French verb inflection. Paper presented at Décembrettes 6: Colloque International de Morphologie, “Morphologie et classes flexionnelles”, December 4–5, 2008. France: Université de Bordeaux.Google Scholar
  67. Suthar, B. K. (2006). Agreement in Gujarati. PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  68. Thornton, A. (2008). A non-canonical phenomenon in Italian verb morphology: Double forms realizing the same cell. Paper read at the first Oxford workshop on Romance verb morphology, 27–28 August 2008, Oxford.Google Scholar
  69. Thornton A. et al (2011) Overabundance (multiple forms realizing the same cell): A non-canonical phenomenon in Italian verb morphology. In: Goldbach M. (ed) Morphological autonomy: Perspectives from Romance inflectional morphology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 362–385Google Scholar
  70. Toivonen, I. (2003). Non-projecting words: A case study of Swedish particles. In Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 58. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  71. Vet, C. (2007). The descriptive inadequacy of Reichenbach’s tense system: A new proposal. In L. de Saussure, J. Moeschler, & G. Puskas (Eds.), Tense, Mood and aspect: Theoretical and descriptive issues (pp. 7–26). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  72. Westney P. (1995) Modals and periphrastics in English. Max Niemeyer Verlag, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  73. Zwicky A.M. (1985) Clitics and particles. Language 61(2): 283–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dunstan Brown
    • 1
  • Marina Chumakina
    • 1
    Email author
  • Greville Corbett
    • 1
  • Gergana Popova
    • 2
  • Andrew Spencer
    • 3
  1. 1.University of SurreySurreyUK
  2. 2.Goldsmiths, University of LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.University of EssexEssexUK

Personalised recommendations