Morphology
Class 12
Paradigms
FS 2014
Rik van Gijn
You will learn
√ About paradigms
√ About inflectional classes
√ About syncretism
√ About deponency
√ About defectiveness
√ About periphrasis
√ About eidemic resonance
Goal of this class
Syntagmatic relations: relations between units that (potentially) follow
each other in speech
Syntagmatic versus paradigmatic relations in morphology
Paradigmatic relations: relations between units that could (potentially)
occur in the same slot and are mutually exclusive
house s work s
ø ø
ed
ing
syntagmatic dimension
paradigmatic dimension
Remember Fictivese?
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
root (V)AspectValency
Subject agreement
Mood
IntensityTenseObject
agreement
Remember Fictivese?
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
root (V)AspectValency
Subject agreement
Mood
IntensityTenseObject
agreement
indicative vs. subjunctive
past vs. present vs. future
You have to choose between values. An event cannot be past and
future, or indicative and subjunctive at the same time. They are
mutually exclusive.
Paradigms are usually represented in the form of a table.
The representation of paradigms
singular ø
plural -s
If an inflectional form represents two orthogonal (i.e. logically
independent) features, one way of dealing with that is by reserving the
rows for one feature, and the columns for another. Usually, the feature
with the most values is represented in the rows. An alternative is to
reserve the rows for a combined feature value set (to the right)
The representation of paradigms
singular plural
1 -y -tu
2 -m -p
3 -ø -w
Yurakaré subject agreement
1sg -y
2sg -m
3sg -ø
1pl -tu
2pl -p
3pl -w
This solution is particularly
common for the person+number
combination
For more than two orthogonal features, tables are often simply
multiplied, and juxtaposed
The representation of paradigms
.. but check out this three-dimensional solution by Haspelmath & Sims
The representation of paradigms
Many of the typological parameters we have discussed mainly deal
with syntagmatic structure, though some have a paradigmatic
dimension
Syntagmatic versus paradigmatic relations in morphology
Position deals with the syntagmatic position wrt the root of a morphological
marker
Fusion deals with how tightly bound a marker is to its syntagmatic surroundings
(their base)
Exponence (cumulative vs. separative) is in principle a statement about
syntagmatic separability of form-meaning units, but requires paradigmatic
(substitution) evidence
Flexivity has both a syntagmatic (selection) and a paradigmatic (competition)
dimension.
Paradigmatic structures
Paradigmatic structure is particularly important for inflection, and within
inflection in particular to tackle allomorphy, homonymy, and zero
morphology.
Inflection classes
Paradigmatic structure is particularly important for inflection, and within
inflection in particular to tackle allomorphy, homonymy, and zero
morphology.
One crucial concept in this respect is inflection class
An inflection class is a set of lexemes that exhibit the same inflectional
pattern.
nominal inflection classes are generally called declension classes
verbal inflection classes are generally called conjugation classes
Inflection classes
One crucial concept in with respect to the paradigmatic approach to
allomorphy (flexivity) is inflection class
Simple case: Yurakaré subject inflection
-y
-m
V -ø
-tu
-p
-w
Simple case: Yurakaré subject inflection
-y
-m
V -ø
-tu
-p
-w
Inflection classes
any verb
One crucial concept in with respect to the paradigmatic approach to
allomorphy (flexivity) is inflection class
Latin subject inflection
-ō -iō
-ās -īs
V1 -at V2 -it
-āmus -īmus
-atis -ītis
-ant -iunt
Inflection classes
amō
amās
amat
amāmus
amātis
amant
audiō
audīs
audit
audīmus
audītis
audiunt
One crucial concept in with respect to the paradigmatic approach to
allomorphy (flexivity) is inflection class
Inflection classes
Inflection classes
- are item-based
- can be very large and very small (though >1)
- are not gradual (i.e. an item can only choose between ‘packages’ of
inflectional endings).
Haspelmath & Sims 2010
Inflection class assignment
SemanticMorphologicalPhonological
Inflection class assignment
Phonological (Haspelmath & Sims 2010)
E.g. Welsh plurals
Inflection class assignment
Morphological (Haspelmath & Sims 2010)
Inflection class assignment
Semantic (Haspelmath & Sims 2010)
E.g.
German masculine -n declension nouns are almost all animate (and
usually restricted to male gender)
Hase, Junge, Schwede, Löwe
Elefant, President, Kommunist
Bauer, Nachbar, Idiot
There are a few exceptions (Buchstabe, Planet, Wille)
Inflection class assignment
Semantic (Haspelmath & Sims 2010)
E.g. Ossetic person inflection in the past tense (intransitive versus
transitive)
Inflection class and gender
Haspelmath & Sims 2010
Inflection class and language change
Inflection classes are not necessarily stable. Some classes are more
productive than others in that they can accommodate loan words
and/or attract words from other classes or newly coined words.
Inflection class and language change
Inflection class change
senatusexercitusfructus
One generalization
that has been
made is that, in
situations of shift
from one class to
another, the shift
will be to the
classes with more
members.
Shifts are often ‘helped’ by
formal overlap between
paradigms or by semantic
considerations.
Haspelmath & Sims 2010
Paradigms and homonymy: syncretism
One other problem that can be tackled by making reference to
paradigmatic structure is certain types of homonymy.
Der Mann rennt [NOM.MASC.SG]
Ich habe der Frau geholfen [DAT.FEM.SG]
Das ist die Tasche der Frau [GEN.FEM.SG]
Das sind die Schuhe der Kinder [GEN.PL]
Paradigms and homonymy: syncretism
One other problem that can be tackled by making reference to
paradigmatic structure is certain types of homonymy.
masc neut fem pl
Nom der das die die
Gen des des der der
Dat dem dem der den
Acc den das die die
Paradigms and homonymy: syncretism
One other problem that can be tackled by making reference to
paradigmatic structure is certain types of homonymy.
masc neut fem pl
Nom der das die die
Gen des des der der
Dat dem dem der den
Acc den das die die
Paradigms and homonymy: syncretism
One other problem that can be tackled by making reference to
paradigmatic structure is certain types of homonymy.
masc neut fem pl
Nom der das die die
Gen des des der der
Dat dem dem der den
Acc den das die die
There isn’t a single unique form! And yet it is impossible to
reduce the schema
Paradigms and homonymy: syncretism
For such cases, we need a special type of rule that says that several
forms in the paradigm are identical. Such rules are called rules of
referral. RoR are about defaults, so they generalize over inflection
classes.
Haspelmath & Sims 2010
Paradigms and homonymy: syncretism
Syncretism is systematic homonymy within an inflectional paradigm
What do we mean by systematic?
value 1 value 2 value 3
value 1 A B C
value 2 D E F
value 3 G H I
value 1 value 2 value 3
value 1 A B C
value 2 D F
value 3 G H I
value 1 value 2 value 3
value 1 A B C
value 2 DE
F
value 3 G I
Paradigms and homonymy: syncretism
Syncretism is systematic homonymy within an inflectional class
Tests of systematicity
1. recurring patterns across inflection classes
2. syntactic functionality
3. naturalness
Paradigms and homonymy: syncretism
Recurrence in several inflectional classes
1sg (ich) spiele
2sg (du) spielst
3sg (er/sie) spielt
1pl (wir) spielen
2pl (ihr) spielt
3pl (sie) spielen
Paradigms and homonymy: syncretism
Recurrence in several inflectional classes
1sg (ich) spiele
2sg (du) spielst
3sg (er/sie) spielt
1pl (wir) spielen
2pl (ihr) spielt
3pl (sie) spielen
Paradigms and homonymy: syncretism
Recurrence in several inflectional classes
1sg (ich) falle
2sg (du) fällst
3sg (er/sie) fällt
1pl (wir) fallen
2pl (ihr) fallt
3pl (sie) fallen
In fact, the 1pl-3pl syncretism in German verb inflection is maintained in all
contexts. If it is that systematic, one can start to wonder whether this is
syncretism or whether German verb inflection has a category ‘non-second
person plural’
Paradigms and homonymy: syncretism
Syntactic functionality: Syncretic forms can be used in situations where
two conflicting syntactic requirements must be fulfilled simultaneously.
Haspelmath & Sims 2010
Paradigms and homonymy: syncretism
naturalness: the homonymy can be described by a single feature value
singular plural
1st supu supame
2nd supi supate
3rd supa
Lithuanian verb paradigm
(Haspelmath & Sims 2010)
Zero morphology
One argument that is sometimes given for a zero marker is that it is the
only cell in a paradigm that is unmarked. Depending on the
obligatoriness of the inflectional ending, one can set up an argument
that the absence of marking is in fact meaningful, and should therefore
be represented by a zero (but there is a lot of disagreement here!)
1sg -y
2sg -m
3sg -ø
1pl -tu
2pl -p
3pl -w
Once again: the (obligatory)
Yurakaré subject inflection.
Defectiveness
A lexeme is defective when it lacks the inflectional forms that other
lexemes do have so that that particular feature value cannot be
expressed for the defective lexeme.
Examples
- Impersonal verbs like German regnen which cannot take any
personal endings in the indicative except for the third sg.
- Nouns like Leute (which lacks a singular) or Schnee (which lacks a
plural)
Defectiveness
A lexeme is defective when it lacks the inflectional forms that other
lexemes do have so that that particular feature value cannot be
expressed for the defective lexeme.
Defectiveness can also be completely arbitrary
Haspelmath & Sims 2010
Periphrasis
Often if there is an empty cell somewhere in a paradigm, it is not
completely empty, because there is an alternative way to express the
same thing.
See for instance the decrees of comparison paradigm in English
positive -ø
comparative -er
superlative -(e)st
Periphrasis
Often if there is an empty cell somewhere in a paradigm, it is not
completely empty, because there is an alternative way to express the
same thing.
long-ø beautiful-ø
long-er *beautiful-er
long-est *beautiful-est
Is beautiful a defective adjective when it comes to marking degree of comparison?
Periphrasis
Often if there is an empty cell somewhere in a paradigm, it is not
completely empty, because there is an alternative way to express the
same thing.
long-ø beautiful-ø
long-er *beautiful-er
long-est *beautiful-est
Is beautiful a defective adjective when it comes to marking degree of comparison?
Most morphologists would argue against that conclusion because there
is a well-established alternative with more X / more Y. Such a well-
established alternative non-morphological pattern that ‘fills’ the empty
cells of an inflectional paradigm is referred to as periphrasis.
Periphrasis
Linguists also talk about categorial periphrasis, where a feature value
is always expressed with a multi-word construction (but contrasting
with inflectionally expressed feature values)
e.g. English future with will (versus morphologically marked past)
Periphrasis
Linguists also talk about categorial periphrasis, where a feature value
is always expressed with a multi-word construction (but contrasting
with inflectionally expressed feature values)
e.g. English future with will (versus morphologically marked past)
A related, but slightly different phenomenon is paradigmatic
periphrasis where it is the combination of two normally
morphologically expressed categories that yields a multi-word
construction.
Haspelmath & Sims 2010
Deponency
A deponent lexeme takes the “wrong” inflectional forms. There is a
“mismatch” between form on the one hand and meaning and syntax on
the other.
Especially common with verbs, and especially in relation to voice
e.g. Latin luctor et emergo ‘I struggle and emerge’
Deponency
nempe patr-em sequ-untur liber-i.
of.course father-ACC.SG follow-3PL-PRES.PASS child-NOM.SG
’Of course, the children follow the father.’
Bermudez-Otero (2007:231), cited in Weisser (2010)
A deponent lexeme takes the “wrong” inflectional forms. There is a
“mismatch” between form on the one hand and meaning and syntax on
the other
Eidemic resonance
One interesting aspect of many paradigms is that the forms in a
paradigm often resonate in different ways, e.g. through aliteration,
rhyme etc. This can be termed eidemic resonance (eidemes are
predictable but meaningless patterns)
Also observed in other paradigms or ‘families’ than inflectional ones:
Eng. this, that, those, these, there etc.
Eng. what, where, why, who etc.
Eidemic resonance
One interesting aspect of many paradigms is that the forms in a
paradigm often resonate in different ways, e.g. through aliteration,
rhyme etc. This can be termed eidemic resonance (eidemes are
predictable but meaningless patterns)
Chechen deictic prefixes, partly inflectional
hwa- toward speaker
dwa- away from speaker
hwal- up
wa- down
Bickel & Nichols 2007
Eidemic resonance
Yurakaré shows that paradigm-internal structures may be indicated by
eidemic resonance
default person markers comitative person markers
ti- të-
mi- më-
ka- ku-
ta- tu-
pa- pu-
ma- mu-
One interesting aspect of many paradigms is that the forms in a
paradigm often resonate in different ways, e.g. through aliteration,
rhyme etc. This can be termed eidemic resonance (eidemes are
predictable but meaningless patterns)
Summary
Paradigms are structured sets of mutually exclusive inflectional forms of a lexeme.
An inflection class is a set of lexemes that exhibit the same inflectional pattern. Different
inflectional classes -> allomorphy
Syncretism is systematic homonymy within an inflectional paradigm
A lexeme is defective when it lacks the inflectional forms that other lexemes do have so
that that particular feature value cannot be expressed for the defective lexeme.
Periphrasis: a well-established alternative non-morphological pattern that ‘fills’ the empty
cells of an inflectional paradigm.
A deponent lexeme takes the “wrong” inflectional forms.
Eidemic resonance is the meaningless sound resonation that characterizes the
inflectional forms in some paradigms