Skip to main content

Defining ‘periphrasis’: key notions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Ackerman, F. (2000). Lexical constructions: Paradigms and periphrastic expressions. Paper read at the LFG workshop on Morphosyntax.

  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, Oxford

    Google 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 111–158

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ackerman F., Webelhuth G. (1998) A theory of predicates. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  5. Aikhenvald, A., Dixon, R.M.W., Dixon, R.M.W. (eds) (2006) Serial verb constructions: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson G.D.S. (2006) Auxiliary verb constructions. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google 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 17–34

    Google Scholar 

  8. Baerman M., Brown D., Corbett G.G. (2005) The syntax–morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Bonami O., Samvelian P. (2009) Inflectional periphrasis in Persian. In: Müller S. (ed) Proceedings of the HPSG 2009 conference. CSLI, Stanford, pp 26–46

    Google 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.

  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 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  12. Börjars K. (1998) Feature distribution in Swedish noun phrases. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google 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 155–180

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bresnan J. (2001) Lexical functional syntax. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google 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, Chicago

    Google 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 313–337

    Google 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 155–202

    Google Scholar 

  18. Corbett G.G. (2006) Agreement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  19. Corbett G.G. (2007) Canonical typology, suppletion and possible words. Language 83: 8–42

    Article  Google 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 1–34

    Google 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.

  22. Corbett G.G. (2010b) Canonical derivational morphology. Word Structure 3: 141–155

    Article  Google 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.

  24. Corbett, G.G., Fraser, N.M., McGlashan, S. (eds) (1993) Heads in grammatical theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  25. Delsing, L. (1993). The internal structure of noun phrases in the Scandinavian languages. PhD dissertation, University of Lund.

  26. Enfield N.J. (2007) A grammar of Lao. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Evans N. (1995) A grammar of Kayardild. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin

    Book  Google 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 203–234

    Google Scholar 

  29. Everaert, M., Linden, E-J., Schenk, A., Schreuder, R. (eds) (1995) Idioms Structural and psychological perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hankamer J., Mikkelsen L. (2002) A morphological analysis of definite nouns in Danish. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14: 137–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hankamer J., Mikkelsen L. (2005) When movement must be blocked: A reply to Embick and Noyer. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 85–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hankamer J., Mikkelsen L. (2008) Definiteness marking and the structure of Danish pseudopartitives. Journal of Linguistics 44: 317–346

    Article  Google 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.

  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 226–233

    Google Scholar 

  35. Heine B., Kuteva T. (2002) World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Honda, I. (1996). Negation: A cross-linguistic study. PhD thesis, University of Buffalo.

  37. Hudson R.A. (1987) Zwicky on heads. Journal of Linguistics 23: 109–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Julien M. (2005) Nominal phrases from a Scandinavian perspective. John Benjamins, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kahrel, P. (1996). Aspects of negation. PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

  40. Matthews P.H. (1974) Morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  41. Matthews P.H. (2007) Syntactic relations: A critical survey. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  42. Nerbonne J. (1996) Computational semantics—Linguistics and processing. In: Lappin S. (eds) The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 461–484

    Google 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.

  44. Nikolaeva, I., & Spencer, A. (2008). Nouns as adjectives and adjectives as nouns. ms.

  45. Nunberg G., Sag I.A., Wasow T. (1994) Idioms. Language 70: 491–538

    Google 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.

  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.

  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 166–184

    Google 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.

  50. Poser W.J. (1992) Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In: Sag I., Szabolcsi A. (eds) Lexical matters. CSLI, Stanford, CA, pp 111–130

    Google Scholar 

  51. Rosch E. (1973) Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Rounds C. (2001) Hungarian. An essential grammar. Routledge, London

    Google 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 71–96

    Google Scholar 

  54. Salminen, T. (1997). Tundra Nenets inflection. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne (Vol. 227), Helsinki.

  55. Scatton E. (1984) A reference grammar of modern Bulgarian. Slavica Publishers, Columbus, OH

    Google Scholar 

  56. Seifart, F. (2005). The structure and use of shape-based noun classes in Miraã (North West Amazon). PhD thesis, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

  57. Spencer A. (2001) The paradigm-based model of morphosyntax. Transactions of the Philological Society 99: 279–313

    Article  Google 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 249–282

    Chapter  Google 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.

  60. Spencer A. (2008) Negation in Japanese: A case of morphosyntactic mismatch. Lingua 118: 997–1017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Spencer, A. (ms.). Sentence negation and periphrasis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Essex.

  62. Stump G.T. (1998) Inflection. In: Spencer A., Zwicky A.M. (eds) Handbook of morphology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 13–43

    Google Scholar 

  63. Stump, G. T. (2001). Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge studies in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  64. Stump G.T. (2005) Word-formation and inflectional morphology. In: Štekauer P., Lieber R. (eds) Handbook of word-formation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 49–71

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  65. Stump G.T. (2006) Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82: 279–322

    Article  Google 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.

  67. Suthar, B. K. (2006). Agreement in Gujarati. PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

  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.

  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 362–385

    Google 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.

  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.

  72. Westney P. (1995) Modals and periphrastics in English. Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  73. Zwicky A.M. (1985) Clitics and particles. Language 61(2): 283–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marina Chumakina.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brown, D., Chumakina, M., Corbett, G. et al. Defining ‘periphrasis’: key notions. Morphology 22, 233–275 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-012-9201-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Periphrasis
  • Canonical Typology
  • Inflectional morphology
  • Syntax