Skip to main content

Paradigmatic generalization of morphemes

Abstract

Syncretism in inflectional paradigms corresponds often only partially to natural classes. In this paper, I propose Morpheme Generalization Grammars, a novel paradigm-based approach to this phenomenon where the morphosyntactic content of every affix corresponds to the maximal area of the paradigm where it regularly occurs, whereas additional Morpheme Generalization Rules selectively extend its paradigmatic coverage by deleting part of the featural content of affixes for specific paradigm cells. The resulting formalism maximizes the use of paradigmatic extension rules familiar from the Rules of Referral in Paradigm Function Morphology, but has also close parallels to Impoverishment rules in Distributed Morphology. By imposing inherent restrictions on the content of inflectional affixes, it substantially reduces the amount of analytic ambiguity in the modeling of inflectional morphology.

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

References

  1. Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Baković, E. (2011). Opacity and ordering. In J. A. Goldsmith, J. Riggle, & A. C. L. Yu (Eds.), The handbook of phonological theory (2nd ed., pp. 40–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Bobaljik, J. D. (2002). Syncretism without paradigms: remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. Yearbook of Morphology 2001, 53–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Embick, D. (2007). Blocking effects and analytic/synthetic alternations. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 25, 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Embick, D., & Marantz, A. (2008). Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry, 39, 1–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Frampton, J. (2002). Syncretism, impoverishment, and the structure of person features. In Proceedings of CLS (Vol. 38, pp. 207–222).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20 (pp. 111–176). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Harley, H. (2008). When is a syncretism more than a syncretism? Impoverishment, metasyncretism and underspecification. In D. Harbour, D. Adger, & S. Béjar (Eds.), Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics. Phi-theory: phi-features across modules and interfaces (pp. 251–294). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Henze, D. (2004). Syncretism in Kiranti. Ms., Leipzig University.

  10. Henze, D., & Zimmermann, E. (2010). Hierarchy-governed insertion and RFD-markers in Potawatomi. In S. Bank, D. Georgi, & J. Trommer (Eds.), Linguistische Arbeits Berichte: Vol. 88. 2 in agreement (pp. 23–63). Leipzig: Universität Leipzig, Institut für Linguistik.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Henze, D., & Zimmermann, E. (2011). Collateral feature discharge. In A. Black & M. Louie (Eds.), UBCWPL: Vol. 31. Proceedings of WSCLA 16 (pp. 74–91).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Keine, S. (2012). How complex are complex words? Evidence from linearization. Lingua, 122, 1268–1281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kiparsky, P. (1973). ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.) A festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 93–106). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  14. McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J. N. Beckman, L. W. Dickey, & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers Linguistics 18 (pp. 249–384). Amherst: GLSA.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Müller, G. (2003). On decomposing inflection class features: syncretism in Russian noun inflection. In L. Gunkel, G. Müller, & G. Zifonun (Eds.), Explorations in nominal inflection (pp. 189–228). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Müller, G. (2005). Syncretism and iconicity in Icelandic noun declensions: a distributed morphology approach. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 229–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Müller, G. (2006). Pro-drop and impoverishment. In P. Brandt & E. Fuss (Eds.), Form, structure, and grammar. A festschrift presented to Günther Grewendorf on occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 93–115). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Müller, G. (2007). Extended exponence by enrichment: argument encoding in German, Archi, and Timucua. In T. Scheffler, J. Tauberer, A. Eilam, & L. Mayol (Eds.), Penn Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 13. Proceedings of the 30th annual Penn linguistics colloquium (pp. 253–266).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Noyer, R. R. (1992). Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. PhD thesis, MIT.

  20. Ortmann, A. (1999). Affix repetition and non-redundancy in inflectional morphology. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 18, 76–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Stump, G. T. (1993). On rules of referral. Language, 69, 449–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Stump, G. T. (2001). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Tamura, S. (2000). The Ainu language. Tokyo: Sanseido.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tolsma, G. J. (2006). A grammar of Kulung. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Trommer, J. (2003a). Feature (non-)insertion in a minimalist approach to spellout. Proceedings of CLS, 39, 469–480.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Trommer, J. (2003b). The interaction of morphology and syntax in affix order. In Yearbook of morphology 2002 (pp. 283–324). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Trommer, J. (2006). Hierarchy-based competition and emergence of two-argument agreement in Dumi. Linguistics, 44, 1011–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wilbur, R. B. (1973). The phonology of reduplication. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club dissertation.

  29. Williams, E. (1994). Remarks on lexical knowledge. Lingua, 92, 7–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wunderlich, D. (2012). Polarity and constraints on paradigmatic distinctness. In J. Trommer (Ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence (pp. 160–194). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Wunderlich, D., & Fabri, R. (1994). Minimalist morphology: an approach to inflection. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 20, 236–294.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Zwicky, A. M. (1985). How to describe inflection. Proceedings of BLS, 11, 372–386.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jochen Trommer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Trommer, J. Paradigmatic generalization of morphemes. Morphology 23, 269–289 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-013-9226-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Inflectional paradigms
  • Syncretism
  • (Un)natural classes
  • Distributed morphology
  • Paradigm function morphology