Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:55:44.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variable morphotactics in Information-based Morphology1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2015

BERTHOLD CRYSMANN  and
OLIVIER BONAMI
BERTHOLD CRYSMANN*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de linguistique formelle (CNRS & Université Paris Diderot)
OLIVIER BONAMI*
Affiliation:
Université Paris-Sorbonne Laboratoire de linguistique formelle (CNRS & Université Paris Diderot)
*
Author’s address: Laboratoire de linguistique formelle (CNRS & Université Paris Diderot), 5 rue Thomas Mann, Case 7031, F-75205 Paris cedex 13, Franceberthold.crysmann@gmail.com
Author’s address: Université Paris-Sorbonne, 1, rue Victor Cousin, 75005 Paris, Franceolivier.bonami@paris-sorbonne.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We address variable morphotactics, the phenomenon of order variability of morphs, in the context of inflectional morphology. Based on an extended discussion of cross-linguistic variation, including conjugation in Nepali, Fula, Swahili, Chintang and Italian, and nominal declension in Ostyak and Mari, we propose a canonical typology that identifies different deviations from strict ordering. Following a discussion of previous approaches to the problem, we propose Information-based Morphology, an inferential-realisational and model-theoretic approach to morphology couched in a logic of typed feature structures. Within this formal theory, we develop detailed analyses of the core cases in the typology and show how different types and degrees of deviation from the canon can be pin-pointed in the relative complexity of the rule type hierarchies that model the data. Furthermore, we show that complex deviations, as attested in Mari, can be understood as combinations of more basic deviations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , 01 July 2016 , pp. 311 - 374
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2000. Towards an optimal account of second-position phenomena. In Dekkers, Joost, Leeuw, Frank van der & Weijer, Jeroen van de (eds.), Optimality theory: phonology, syntax and acquisition, 302–333. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Avery. 1990. Unification and morphological blocking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8, 507–557.Google Scholar
Arnott, David W. 1970. The nominal and verbal systems of Fula. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Xu, Zheng. 2010. A realization optimality-theoretic approach to affix order. Morphology 20, 388–411.Google Scholar
Ashton, Eric O. 1947. Swahili grammar. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 373–461.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Banjade, Goma, Gaenzle, Martin, Lieven, Elena, Paudya, Netra Prasad, Rai, Ichchha Purna, Manoj, Rai, Rai, Novel Kishore & Stoll, Sabine. 2007. Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language 83, 43–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42, 531–573.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Boyé, Gilles. 2006. Deriving inflectional irregularity. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on HPSG, 39–59. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Boyé, Gilles. 2008. Paradigm shape is morphomic in Nepali. In 13th International Morphology Meeting. Vienna.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Crysmann, Berthold. 2013. Morphotactics in an information-based model of realisational morphology. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of HPSG 2013, 27–47. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1995, 1–16. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Boyé, Gilles. 1999. Nepali verb morphophonology. In Yogendra, P., Yavada, P. & Warren, W. (eds.), Topics in Nepalese linguistics. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan(ed.). 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina & Corbett, Greville G. (eds.). 2013. Canonical morphology and syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan & Evans, Roger. 2012. Morphological complexity and unsupervised learning: validating Russian inflectional classes using high frequency data. In Kiefer, F., Ladányi, M. & Siptár, P. (eds.), Current issues in morphological theory: (ir)regularity, analogy and frequency. 135–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan & Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network Morphology: a defaults based theory of word structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Caballero, Gabriela. 2010. Scope, phonology and morphology in an agglutinating language: Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) variable suffix ordering. Morphology 20, 165–204.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Bob. 1992. The logic of typed feature structures with applications to unification-based grammars, logic programming and constraint resolution (Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 32), New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in inflection. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Chumakina, Marina & Corbett, Greville G.. In press. Gender-number marking in Archi: small is complex. In Matthew Baerman, Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Understanding and measuring morphological complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2003. Agreement: the range of the phenomenon and the principles of the Surrey database of agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society 101, 155–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion and possible words. Language 83, 8–42.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. & Fraser, Norman M.. 1993. Network morphology: a DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29, 113–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crysmann, Berthold. 2000. Syntactic transparency of pronominal affixes. In Cann, Ronnie, Grover, Claire & Miller, Philip (eds.), Grammatical interfaces in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Studies in Constraint-based Lexicalism), 77–96. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Crysmann, Berthold. 2003. Constraint-based coanalysis. Portuguese cliticisation and morphology–syntax interaction in HPSG (Saarbrücken Dissertations in Computational Linguistics and Language Technology 15), Saarbrücken: Computational Linguistics, Saarland University and DFKI LT Lab.Google Scholar
Crysmann, Berthold. In press. Inferential-realisational morphology without rule blocks: an information-based approach. In A. Hippisley & N. Gisborne (eds.), Defaults in morphological theory. 32pp. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crysmann, Berthold & Bonami, Olivier. 2012. Establishing order in type-based realisational morphology. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of HPSG 2012, 123–143. Stanford: CSLI publications.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In Ramchand, Gillian & Reiss, C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: an archaeologist’s field trip. Papers from the regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 7, 394–415. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Goddard, Ives. 1990. Primary and secondary stem derivation in Algonquian. International Journal of American Linguistics 56, 449–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Pliny Earle. 1911. Athapascan (hupa). In Boas, Frans (ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages, 85–159. Washington, D. C.: BAE-B 40.Google Scholar
Good, Jeff. 2011. The typology of templates. Language & Linguistics Compass 5, 731–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grevisse, Maurice & Goosse, André. 2011. Le bon usage. quinzième édition. Louvain-la-neuve: Duculot.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alex. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from building 20, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halpern, Aaron. 1995. On the placement and morphology of clitics (Dissertations in Linguistics), Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2002. Endoclitics and the origins of Udi morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2009. Exuberant exponence in Batsbi. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27, 267–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman. 1986. Der Begriff Mittelfeld. Anmerkungen über die Theorie der Topologischen Felder. In Schöne, Albrecht (ed.), Kontroversen, alte und neue: Akten des 7. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses, Göttingen 1985, vol. 3, 329–340. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 2003. Suffix ordering in Bantu: A morphocentric approach. Yearbook of Morphology 2002, 245–281.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 1993. Nimboran position class morphology. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11, 529–624.Google Scholar
Kari, James. 1989. Affix positions and zones in the Athapaskan verb complex: Ahtna and Navajo. International Journal of American Linguistics 55, 424–454.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 2000. Linear syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Kim, Juni. 2010. Phonological and morphological conditions on affix order in Huave. Morphology 20, 133–163.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2, 83–136.Google Scholar
Klavans, Judith L. 1982. Some problems in the theory of clitics. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Klavans, Judith L. 1985. The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization. Language 61, 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1999. Lexical relations. Stanford: CSLI publications.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Jurafsky, Daniel. 1994. Type underspecification and online type construction in the lexicon. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, vol. 13, 270–285. Stanford: CSLI Publications/SLA.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine. 2000. Morphological and prosodic alignment of Bulgarian clitics. In Dekkers, J., van der Leeuw, F. & van de Weijer, J. (eds.), Optimality theory: Syntax, phonology, and acquisition, 423–462. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Luís, Ana & Spencer, Andrew. 2005. Paradigm function account of ‘mesoclisis’ in European Portuguese. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2004, 79–154. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Luutonen, Jorma. 1997. The variation of morpheme order in Mari declension. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1974. Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip. 1992. Clitics and constituents in phrase structure grammar. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Monachesi, Paola. 1999. A lexical approach to Italian cliticization. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Montermini, Fabio & Boyé, Gilles. 2012. Stem relations and inflection class assignment in Italian. Word Structure 5, 69–87.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan & Wechsler, Stephen.. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical linguistics 40, 1–76.Google Scholar
Nevis, Joel A. & Joseph, Brian D.. 1992. Wackernagel affixes: Evidence from Balto-Slavic. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992, 93–111. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
New, Boris & Spinelli, Elsa. 2013. Diphones-fr: A French database of diphones positional frequency. Behavior Research Methods 45, 758–764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999. Ostyak. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 2010. Verbal morphology in Murrinh-Patha: Evidence for templates. Morphology 20, 321–341.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. In press. Inflection in Murrinh-Patha. In Matthew Baerman (ed.), Handbook of inflection, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Orgun, Cemil Orham. (1996). Sign-based morphology and phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary. 2005. Pulaar verbal extensions and phonologically driven affix order. In Booij, Geert E. & Marle, Jaap van (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2005, 155–199. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Penn, Gerald. 1999. Linearization and WH-extraction in HPSG: Evidence from Serbo-Croatian. In Borsley, Robert D. & Przepiórkowski, Adam (eds.), Slavic in head-driven phrase structure grammar, 149–182. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan. 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics. vol. 1. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications; The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Technical Report 2, Rutgers University Center of Cognitive Science, Piscataway, New York.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Scholz, Barbara C.. 2001. On the distinction between model-theoretic and generative-enumerative syntactic frameworks. In de Groote, Philippe, Morrill, Glyn & Retoré, Christian (eds.), Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics: 4th International Conference, 17–43. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme order and semantic scope. Word formation in the Athabaskan verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2011. Principles of affix ordering: An overview. Word Structure 4, 169–200.Google Scholar
Riese, Timothy, Bradley, Jeremy, Yakimova, Emma & Krylova, Galina. (2010). Онай марий йюлме: A comprehensive introduction to the Mari language. Department of Finno-Ugric Studies, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon. 2013. The morphological structure of the Moro verb. In Blench, Roger & Schadeberg, Thilo (eds.), Nuba mountain language studies, 25–56. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Ryan, Kevin M. 2010. Variable affix order: Grammar and learning. Language 86, 758–791.Google Scholar
Samvelian, Pollet. 2007. What Sorani Kurdish absolute prepositions tell us about cliticization. Texas linguistics society ix, 265–285.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1982. The syntax of words. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. & Withgott, M.. 1986. Pronominal clitic clusters and templates. In Borer, Hagit (ed.), The syntax of pronominal clitics (SYNTAX and SEMANTICS), vol. 19, 149–174. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Slavin, Tanya. (2005). Preverb ordering in Ojibwe. MA Forum Paper. University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1997. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2003. Putting some order into morphology: reflections on Rice (2000) and Stump (2001). Journal of Linguistics 39, 621–646.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2013. Lexical relatedness: a paradigm-based model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1993. Position classes and morphological theory. In Booij, Geert E. & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992, 129–180. Kluwer.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1997. Template morphology and inflectional morphology. In Booij, Geert E. & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1996, 217–241. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology. a theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2006. Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82, 279–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2012a. Overriding default orderings in inflectional morphology. Paper presented at the Conference on Defaults in Morphological Theory, University of Kentucky, Lexington, May 21–22, 2012.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2012b. Variable affix order and the amorphousness hypothesis. Paper presented at the First American International Morphology Meeting (AIMM), University of Massachusetts, Amherst, September 22, 2012.Google Scholar
Thornton, Anna M. 2012. Reduction and maintenance of overabundance. a case study on Italian verb paradigms. Word Structure 5, 183–207.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen. 2003. The interaction of morphology and syntax in affix order. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2002, 283–324. Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, Géraldine. 2012. Fitting into morphological structure: accounting for Sorani Kurdish endoclitics. Proceedings of MMM8, 299–321.Google Scholar
Xu, Zheng & Aronoff, Mark. 2011. A realization optimality theory approach to blocking and extended morphological exponence. Journal of Linguistics 47, 673–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1990. Inflectional morphology as a (sub)component of grammar. In Dressler, Wolfgang U., Luschützky, Hans C., Pfeiffer, Oskar E. & Rennison, John R. (eds.), Contemporary morphology, 217–236. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar