A Construction-Based Approach to Multiple Exponence

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Morphology book series (SUMO, volume 4)

Abstract

This study brings to bear Optimal Construction Morphology (Caballero and Inkelas 2013) on the phenomenon of multiple exponence (ME), in which the same morphological property is exponed by more than one morphological component of a complex word. ME is a prevalent phenomenon that should receive central coverage in any morphological theory. OCM is well suited to capture ME through its intrinsic architecture of local optimization choices driven by the goal of achieving a target meaning for each word that the morphological grammar is tasked with producing. Each type of ME elucidated in Harris (Multiple exponence. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017) is discussed and shown to be emergent from existing principles of OCM; the article pays special attention to compounding-style ME, which is argued to draw upon the same basic construction type utilized by Inkelas and Zoll (Reduplication: doubling in morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005) in a construction grammar approach to reduplication.

Keywords

Phonology-morphology interface Typology Multiple exponence Compounding Stem-identity 

References

  1. Anderson, S.R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastin, Y. 1986. Les suffixes causatifs dans les langues bantoues. In Africana Linguistica X, 55–145 (Annales du Musée Royale de l’Afrique Centrale. Série IN-8, Sciences Humaines. N. 121. Tervuren).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bickel, B., and J. Nichols. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Language typology and syntactic description, ed. T. Shopen, 2nd ed., 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickel, B., G. Banjade, M. Gaenszle, E. Lieven, N. Prasad Paudyal, I. Purna Rai, M. Rai, N. Kishore Rai, and S. Stoll. 2007. Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language 83: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Booij, G. 2009. Compounding and construction morphology. In The Oxford handbook of compounding, ed. R. Lieber and P. Štekauer, 201–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Booij, G., and J. Audring. 2018. Partial motivation, multiple motivation: The role of output schemas in morphology. This volume.Google Scholar
  8. Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caballero, G. (2006). Templatic back-copying in Guarijío Abbreviated Reduplication. Morphology 16(2):273-289.Google Scholar
  10. Caballero, G. 2008. Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) phonology and morphology (University of California dissertation), Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  11. Caballero, G. and A.C. Harris. 2012. A working typology of multiple exponence. In Current issues in morphological theory: (Ir)Regularity, analogy and frequency, ed. F. Kiefer et al. Selected papers the14th International Morphology meeting, Budapest, 13–16 May 2010. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 163–188.Google Scholar
  12. Caballero, G., and S. Inkelas. 2013. Word construction: Tracing an optimal path through the lexicon. In New theoretical tools in the modeling of morphological exponence, ed. Jochen Trommer. Heidelberg: Springer. Special issue of Morphology 23(2): 103–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cruz, E. and A.C. Woodbury. 2013. Tonal complexity in San Juan Quiahije Eastern Chatino compound verb inflection. Presentation from LSA and SSILA Special Session on Inflectional Classes in the Languages of the Americas.Google Scholar
  14. Dahlstrom, A. 2000. Morphosyntactic mismatches in Algonquian: Affixal predicates and discontinuous verbs. In Proceedings from the panels of the Chicago Linguistic Society’s Thirty-sixth Meeting, ed. A. Okrent and J. Boyle, 63–87. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  15. Donohue, M. 2003. Agreement in the Skou language: A historical account. Oceanic Linguistics 42: 478–498.Google Scholar
  16. Downing, L., and S. Inkelas. 2015. What is reduplication? Typology and analysis part 2: The analysis of reduplication. Language and Linguistics Compass 9: 516–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dressler, W.U. 2004. Hypercharacterization and productivity in inflectional morphology. In Analecta Homimi Universali Dicata: Festschrift für, Oswald Panagl zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. U.M.T. Krisch and T. Lindner, 515–524. Stuttgart: Heinz.Google Scholar
  18. Durie, M. 1985. A grammar of Acehnese on the basis of a dialect of North Aceh. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  19. Ebert, K.H. 1997. Camling (Chamling). München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
  20. Gaby, A., E. König, and V. Gast. 2008. Distinguishing reciprocals from reflexives. In Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and typological explorations, ed. K. Thaayorre, 259–288. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  21. Good, J. 2005. Reconstructing morpheme order in Bantu: The case of causativization and applicativization. Diachronica 22: 55–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halle, M., and A. Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20, ed. K. Hale and S.J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Harris, A.C. 2009. Exuberant exponence in Batsbi. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27: 267–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ———. 2017. Multiple exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hay, J.B. 2002. From speech perception to morphology: Affix ordering revisited. Language 78: 527–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hay, J., and H. Baayen. 2002. Parsing and productivity. In Yearbook of morphology 2001, ed. G. Booij and J. van Marle, 203–235. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hay, J.B., and H.R. Baayen. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9: 342–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hay, J.B., and I. Plag. 2004. What constrains possible suffix combinations? On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 565–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hyman, L.M. 2003a. Sound change, misanalysis and analogy in the Bantu causative. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 24: 55–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. ———. 2003b. Suffix ordering in Bantu: A morphocentric approach. In Yearbook of morphology 2002, ed. G. Booij and J. van Marle, 245–281. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hyman, L., & S. Inkelas, (with F. Jenga). to appear. Multiple exponence in the Lusoga verb stem.Google Scholar
  32. Inkelas, S. 2016. Affix ordering in optimal construction morphology. In Morphological metatheory, ed. D. Siddiqi and H. Harley, 479–511. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Inkelas, S., and L. Downing. 2015. What is reduplication? Typology and analysis part 1: The typology of reduplication. Language and Linguistics Compass 9 (12): 502–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Inkelas, S., and Ch. Zoll. 2005. Reduplication: Doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Inkelas, S., C.O. Orgun, and C. Zoll. 1997. The implications of lexical exceptions for the nature of grammar. In Constraints and derivations in phonology, ed. I. Roca, 393–418. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  36. Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kibrik, A. 1991. Organising principles for nominal paradigms in Daghestan languages: Comparative and typological observations. In Paradigms, ed. F. Plank, 255–274. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  38. Kiparsky, P. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. S. Yang, 3–92. Hanshin: Seoul.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17: 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. ———. 2005. Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. In Yearbook of morphology 2004, ed. G. Booij and J. van Marle, 113–135. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. König, E., and S. Kokutani. 2006. Towards a typology of reciprocal constructions: Focus on German and Japanese. Linguistics 44: 271–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lehmann, Ch. 2005. Pleonasm and hypercharacterisation. In Yearbook of morphology 2005, ed. G. Booij and J. van Marle, 119–154. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Matthews, P.H. 1974. Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. McCarthy, J. 2000. Harmonic serialism and parallelism. In Proceedings of NELS 30, ed. M. Hirotani, A. Coetzee, N. Hall, and J.-Y. Kim, 501–524. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 2010. An introduction to harmonic serialism. Language and Linguistics Compass 4: 1001–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Menn, L., and B. MacWhinney. 1984. The repeated morph constraint: Toward an explanation. Language 60: 519–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mortensen, D. 2006. Logical and substantive scales in phonology. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  48. Müller, G. 2006. Extended exponence by enrichment: Argument encoding in German, Archi and Timucua. Unpublished manuscript. University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
  49. ———. 1997. Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  50. Orgun, C.O. 1996. Sign-based morphology and phonology: With special attention to Optimality Theory. PhD thesis. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  51. Ourn, N., and J. Haiman. 2000. Symmetrical compounds in Khmer. Studies in Language 24: 483–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Paster, M. 2007. Aspects of Maay phonology and morphology. Studies in African Linguistics 35: 73–120.Google Scholar
  53. ———. 2008. Optional multiple plural marking in Maay. In Variation and change in morphology, ed. F. Rainer, W.U. Dressler, D. Kastovsky, and H.Ch. Luschützky, 177–192. John Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  54. Pater, J. 2000. Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: The role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17: 237–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Riehemann, S. 1998. Type-based derivational morphology. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Selkirk, E. 1982. The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Siddiqi, D. 2006. Minimize exponence: Economy effects on a model of the morphosyntactic component of the grammar. PhD dissertation. University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  58. Soukka, M. 2000. A descriptive grammar of Noon: A Cangin language of Senegal. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
  59. Stump, G. 1991. A paradigm-based theory of morphosemantic mismatches. Language 67: 675–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. ———. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Topuria, V. 1967. Svanuri ena, I: Zmna [The Svan Language, I: The Verb]. [Published s volume I of his Šromebi [works]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba (First published 1931).Google Scholar
  62. Wiese, R. 1996. The phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  63. Wolf, M.A. 2008. Optimal interleaving: Serial phonology-morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of California San DiegoSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of California BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations