DOCSLIB.ORG

Syncretism (An Example of a Form-Meaning Mismatch) Andrea D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Syncretism (An Example of a Form-Meaning Mismatch) Andrea D Introduction to Morphology 2017 Linguistic Institute Syncretism (an example of a form-meaning mismatch) Andrea D. Sims The Ohio State University 1 Intro 2 ¡ Syncretism = When a single inflected form corresponds to more than one set of morphosyntactic values. ¡ A situation in which morphological form is insensitive to a morphosyntactic distinction. ¡ More than accidental homophony. A systematic generalization about the inner workings of the morphological system. Accidental homophony vs. syncretism 3 ¡ Some patterns of homophony don’t have anything to do with morphology Class IV Class IV MESTO VINO ‘place’ ‘wine’ Nom Sing [mjɛ́stə] [vjinó] Acc Sing [mjɛ́stə] [vjinó] Gen Sing [mjɛ́stə] [vjinɑ́] Homophony in forms of Russian noun MESTO 'place' (nom/acc sg vs. gen sg) (cf. VINO ‘wine’) Accidental homophony vs. syncretism 4 ¡ Others reflect identity within the morphological system Singular Plural 1st person spiele spielen 2nd person spielst spielt 3rd person spielt spielen Syncretism in forms of German verb SPIELEN 'play' (1pl – 3pl) Accidental homophony vs. syncretism 5 Singular Plural 1st person spiele spielen 2nd person spielst spielt 3rd person spielt spielen Syncretism?? in forms of German verb SPIELEN 'play' (3sg – 2pl) (Systematic) syncretism – criteria? 6 ¡ How can we distinguish between accidental homophony and (morphologically-relevant) syncretism? What descriptive criteria can we employ? Historical patterns of analogy 7 present perfect tense tense all reconstructed Central Sinti Welsh Northeast dialects Proto-Romani Finnish, Romani Romani Romani Balkan, & Vlax Romani 1st plural -as *-am -am -am -am -am 2nd plural -en *-an -an, -en -an -e, -an -e 3rd plural -en *-e -e -an -e -e Historical development of syncretism in various Romani dialects (2pl – 3pl) Russian ‘case matching’ effects 8 Ja ne mogla ponravit´sja tomui, kogoi on I not could please that.DATSG who.ACCSG he nenavidit. hates. ‘I could not please the one whom he hates.’ cf. *Ja ne mogla ponravit´sja kogo on nenavidit. ACC SG kogo ‘who’ ≠ DAT SG komu Russian ‘case matching’ effects 9 Ja kupila toi čtoi bylo v magazine. I bought that.ACCSG what.NOMSG was in store. ‘I bought that which was in the store.’ cf. Ja kupila čto bylo v magazine. cf. *Ja ne mogla ponravit´sja kogo on nenavidit. ACC SG čto ‘what’ = NOM SG čto More Russian ‘case matching’ effects 10 *On ne ostavil, tak kak emu nadoela, tarelk-u/a he not kept , as him sick.of , plate-ACC/NOM ACC NOM s čërnoj kaëmkoj. with black border ‘He did not keep, since he was sick of, the plate with the black border.’ cf. On ne ostavil, tak kak emu nadoela, bljudc-e s krasnoj kaëmkoj. ‘He did not keep, since he was sick of, the saucer with the red border.’ ACC SG tarelku ‘plate’ ≠ NOM SG tarelka ACC SG bljudce ‘saucer’ = NOM SG bljudce ‘Metasyncretism’ 11 I II III ‘window’ ‘chair’ ‘bone’ sing plur sing plur sing plur nom prozor prozori stolica stolice kost kosti acc prozor prozore stolicu stolice kost kosti gen prozora prozōrā stolicē stolīcā kosti kostī / kostijū dat/ prozoru prozor-ima stolici stolic-ama kosti kost-ima loc inst prozorom prozor-ima stolicom stolic-ama kosti / kost-ima košču voc prozore prozori stolico stolic kosti kosti Croatian nouns ‘Metasyncretism’ Singular Plural Singular Plural Nominave amīcus amīcī cursus cursūs Genive amīcī amīcōrum cursūs cursuum cursuī amīcō amīcīs cursibus Dave (cursū) Accusa.ve amīcum amīcōs cursum cursūs Abla.ve amīcō amīcīs cursū cursibus Vocave amīce amīcī -- -- Latin nouns AMĪCUS 'friend' (class II) and CURSUS 'course' (class IV) Syncretism + suppletion 13 singular dual plural nominative človek človeka ljudje accusative človeka človeka ljudi genitive človeka ljudi ljudi dative človeku človekoma ljudem locative človeku ljudeh ljudeh instrumental človekom človekoma ljudmi Slovenian noun ČLOVEK ‘person’ (Systematic) syncretism – some criteria 14 ¡ More likely within a conditioning morphosyntactic value (e.g. within plural, as in German) than across values ¡ Includes but not limited to natural classes ¡ Historical patterns of analogy ¡ Systematic at least at the time of the change ¡ Resolution of syntactic conflicts (‘case matching’) ¡ Repetition across the morphological system – multiple inflection classes/lexical categories/etc. ¡ Shared morphological idiosyncrasy (e.g. suppletion) Russian Adjectives 15 MASC INAN NEUT INAN FEM INAN ¡ Some NOM SG nov-yj nov-oe nov-aja syncretisms ACC SG nov-yj nov-oe nov-uju involve GEN SG nov-ogo nov-ogo nov-oj several DAT SG nov-omu nov-omu nov-oj paradigm LOC SG nov-om nov-om nov-oj cells. INST SG nov-ym nov-ym nov-oj ¡ How should NOM PL nov-ye we formally ACC PL nov-ye account for GEN PL nov-yx the one in DAT PL nov-ym bold? LOC PL nov-yx INST PL nov-ymi Russian adjectives (illustrated with NOVYJ ‘new’) Underspecification 16 ¡ Based on the given data, we can employ a classic kind of underspecification, within a realizational theory <NOVYJ, {CASE: GEN, NUM: SG, GEN: F}> <nov-, {CASE: GEN, NUM: SG, GEN: F}> Rules: {CASE: NOM, NUM: SG, GEN: F} à -aja {CASE: ACC, NUM: SG, GEN: F} à -uju {NUM: SG, GEN: F} à -oj Syncretism in Russian nouns 17 ¡ In inanimate nouns, all classes have acc = nom syncretism in the plural, and 3 of 4 in the singular but the inflectional form itself differs I IV II III zakáz bljúdo kómnata tetrád' 'order' 'dish' 'room' 'exercise book' nom zakáz bljúdo kómnata tetrád' acc zakáz bljúdo kómnatu tetrád' gen zakáza bljúda kómnaty tetrádi dat zakázu bljúdu kómnate tetrádi singular singular loc zakáze bljúde kómnate tetrádi inst zakázom bljúdom kómnatoj tetrád'ju nom zakázy bljúda kómnaty tetrádi acc zakázy bljúda kómnaty tetrádi gen zakázov bljúd kómnat tetrádej dat zakázam bljúdam kómnatam tetrádjam plural loc zakázax bljúdax kómnatax tetrádjax inst zakázami bljúdami kómnatami tetrádjami Syncretism in Russian nouns 18 ¡ In animate nouns, all classes have acc = gen syncretism in the plural, but only 1A has this pattern in the singular. I IV II III otec čudovišče ženščina mat’ ‘father’ ‘monster’ ‘woman’ ‘mother’ nom otec čudovišče ženščina mat' acc otca čudovišče ! ženščinu mat' ! gen otca čudovišča ženščiny materi dat otcu čudovišču ženščine materi singular singular loc otce čudovišče ženščine materi inst otcom čudoviščem ženščinoj mater'ju nom otcy čudovišča ženščiny materi acc otcov čudovišč ženščin materej gen otcov čudovišč ženščin materej dat otcam čudoviščam ženščinam materjam plural loc otcax čudoviščax ženščinax materjax inst otcami čudoviščami ženščinami materjami Thought Exercise 19 Are the mechanisms that we’ve seen so far sufficient to account for Russian noun metasyncretism? Why or why not? The Problem (as identified by Baerman 2004) 20 ¡ Some realizational rules that we need (ignoring accusative for the moment)… ¡ For nominative plural 1. {case: nom, num: pl, class: IV} à /-a/ 2. {case: nom, num: pl} à /-i/ ¡ Note: orthographically <y> or <i> ¡ For genitive plural 1. {case: gen, num: pl, class: I} à /-ov/ 2. {case: gen, num: pl, class: III} à /-ej/ ¡ Notice that classes II and IV have “zero endings” – a nice feature of realizational theories is that no rule at all is needed here! The ultimate default… ¡ Notice that these rules apply to both animate and inanimate nouns, so we don’t want our rules to include information about animacy! The Problem (as identified by Baerman 2004) 21 ¡ What about accusative plural? Two syncretisms, depends on animacy ¡ Animate accusative is like genitive ¡ Inanimate accusative is like nominative ¡ Can we handle this with underspecification + Paninian rule ordering? Not really… ¡ The crux of the problem: To capture syncretism across case, we underspecify for case. But we can’t capture both syncretisms at the same time! The Problem (as identified by Baerman 2004) 22 ¡ Possibility 1 (revising the nom rules): 1. {case: gen, num: pl, class: I} à /-ov/ 2. {case: gen, num: pl, class: III} à /-ej/ 3. {num: pl, class: IV} à /-a/ #Revised version ¡ Underspecified for case! Captures acc = nom syncretism 4. {num: pl} à /-i/ #Revised version ¡ Underspecified for case! Captures acc = nom syncretism ¡ What is the problem here? ¡ Answer: We are missing the acc = gen syncretism pattern (all animates)!. So we also need: 5. {case: acc, num: pl, anim: animate, class: I} à /-ov/ 6. {case: acc, num: pl, anim: animate, class: III} à /-ej/ The Problem (as identified by Baerman 2004) 23 ¡ What about the other way round? ¡ Possibility 2 (revising the gen rules): 1. {case: nom, num: pl, class: IV} à /-a/ 2. {case: nom, num: pl} à /-i/ 3. {num: pl, class: I} à /-ov/ #Revised version ¡ Underspecified for case! Captures acc = gen syncretism 4. {num: pl, class: III} à /-ej/ #Revised version ¡ Underspecified for case! Captures acc = gen syncretism ¡ But now we are missing the acc = nom syncretism pattern (all inanimates)!. So we also need: 5. {case: acc, num: pl, anim: inanimate, class: IV} à /-a/ 6. {case: acc, num: pl, anim: inanimate} à /-i The Problem (as identified by Baerman 2004) 24 ¡ So, either way, we have to treat one of the patterns of accusative syncretism as accidental ¡ Despite the fact that according to all relevant ‘tests’ for systematic syncretism, both patterns are systematic ¡ Within number ¡ Resolution of syntactic conflicts (‘case matching’) ¡ Repetition across the morphological system – multiple inflection classes/lexical categories/etc. ¡ Moreover, which pattern we treat as accidental is randomly chosen The Problem (as identified by Baerman 2004) 25 ¡ Towards a better solution… ¡ … known as rules of referral Another Thought Exercise 26 ¡ Descriptively, the Russian pattern is always described as acc looking like nom. Why not say that the nom looks like acc? (And why say that acc looks like gen, not that gen looks like acc?) I I IV IV inanimate animate inanimate animate nom Ø Ø -o -o acc Ø -a -o -o gen -a -a -a -a dat -u -u -u -u singular singular loc -e -e -e -e inst -om -om -om -om nom -y -y -a -a acc -y -ov / -ej -a Ø gen -ov / -ej -ov / -ej Ø Ø dat -am -am -am -am plural loc -ax -ax -ax -ax inst -ami -ami -ami -ami Answer 27 ¡ Nominative and genitive always have the same form (within a declension class), regardless of animacy ¡ E.g.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Deriving Inflectional Paradigms 1 Why Does Syncretism Occur?
    LINGUIST 216, Morphology, February 8, 2007, Anttila 1 Deriving inflectional paradigms 1 Why does syncretism occur? (1) A fairly transparent inflectional system: Turkish sg pl nom ev ev-ler ev ‘house’ acc ev-i ev-ler-i gen ev-in ev-ler-in dat ev-e ev-ler-e loc ev-de ev-ler-de abl ev-den ev-ler-den (2) A perfectly transparent inflectional system would be: (a) completely agglutinative, clear morpheme breaks (b) semantically completely compositional (c) no homonymy (d) no portmanteau-morphemes (e) no “zero morphemes” (f) no allomorphy (except maybe purely phonological) (g) no declensions or conjugations: all words inflect alike Systems like (2) are rare, maybe nonexistent. (3) Why should non-transparent inflectional systems exist at all? Answer (Kiparsky 2005): Inflectional paradigms emerge as a by-product of the optimal pairing of morphosyntactic categories and lexical items. The transparent one-meaning-one-form mapping can be suboptimal for at least four reasons: • Blocking, e.g. went / *go-ed. • Category hierarchy, e.g. the German genitive plural [–lr, +pl] unifies with both -es:[–lr]and-e:[+pl] and blocking does not help. Solution: Central categories beat peripheral categories, here number beats case, e.g. Arm-e (*Arm-es). • Lack of space, e.g. *Arm-e-es with both [+pl]and[–lr] is ruled out because there is space for only one suffix. Note how this is different from went /*go-ed where both competitors satisfy the category description perfectly. • No such lexical item, e.g. the English lexicon contains no morphemes for [pres.1.sg], [1.sg], [sg], etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Inheritance and Inflectional Morphology: Old High German, Latin, Early New High German, and Koine Greek
    Inheritance and Inflectional Morphology: Old High German, Latin, Early New High German, and Koine Greek By MaryEllen Anne LeBlanc A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in German in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Irmengard Rauch, Chair Professor Thomas Shannon Professor Gary Holland Spring 2014 1 Abstract Inheritance and Inflectional Morphology: Old High German, Latin, Early New High German, and Koine Greek by MaryEllen Anne LeBlanc Doctor of Philosophy in German University of California, Berkeley Professor Irmengard Rauch, Chair The inheritance framework originates in the field of artificial intelligence. It was incorporated first into theories of computational linguistics, and in the last two decades, it has been applied to theoretical linguistics. Inheritance refers to the sharing of properties: when a group of items have a common property, each item is said to inherit this property. The properties may be mapped in tree format with nodes arranged vertically. The most general (i.e. the most widely shared, unmarked) properties are found at the highest nodes, and the most specific (marked) information is found at the lowest nodes. Inheritance is particularly useful when applied to inflectional morphology due to its focus on the generalizations within and across paradigms. As such, it serves as an alternative to traditional paradigms, which may simplify the translation process; and provides a visual representation of the structure of the language's morphology. Such a mapping also enables cross- linguistic morphological comparison. In this dissertation, I apply the inheritance framework to the nominal inflectional morphology of Old High German, Latin, Early New High German, and Koine Greek.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Implicational Generalizations in Morphological Syncretism: the Role of Communicative Biases Benjamin Storme (Université De La
    1 Implicational generalizations in morphological syncretism: the role of communicative biases Benjamin Storme (Université de Lausanne) ABSTRACT Cross-linguistic generalizations about grammatical contexts favoring syncretism often have an implicational form. This paper shows that this is expected if (i) morphological paradigms are required to be both as small and as unambiguous as possible and languages may prioritize these requirements differently and (ii) probability distributions for grammatical categories interacting in syncretic patterns are fixed across languages. More specifically, this approach predicts that grammatical contexts that are less probable or more informative about a target grammatical category � should favor syncretism of � crosslinguistically. Four detailed case studies are shown to support these predictions. 1. INTRODUCTION Across languages, morphology often fails to mark grammatically relevant distinctions in some contexts. For instance, Danish marks the gender of third person pronouns’ referents in the singular (1a) but fails to do so in the plural, where a single form is used, whether the pronoun’s referent is a group containing only male individuals, female individuals or both (1b). (1) Gender syncretism in Danish pronouns a. hun ‘she’ han ‘he’ b. de ‘they’ Cases where morphological paradigms are less rich than what the free combination of grammatical features available in a language would lead us to expect are known as cases of syncretism (e.g. Greenberg 1966:27, Baerman et al. 2005): for instance, gender is syncretic in plural pronouns but not in singular pronouns in Danish. Interestingly, the range of attested syncretic patterns is more restricted than what is logically possible: across languages, some grammatical contexts favor the syncretic expression of other grammatical features and cross- linguistic generalizations about patterns of syncretism often have an implicational form (Greenberg 1963, 1966).
    [Show full text]
  • Verbal Morphological Syncretism in an Ergative Language
    VerbalMorphologicalSyncretisminanErgative Language JennyLee 1. Introduction This paper provides a syntactic account of morphological voice syncretism in Ranmo, a morphologi- cally ergative Papuan language belonging to the Morehead-Maro family, spoken in the Morehead District of southwest Papua New Guinea. Voice syncretisms, defined in (1), are prevalent crosslinguistically. (1) VOICE SYNCRETISMS: Situations in which distinct syntactic alternations (e.g., passive and reflexive) are realized with identical morphology. (Embick 1998) Much work on voice syncretisms has focused on well-studied accusative languages (especially the Indo-European). In Greek, for example, a number of syntactic alternations syncretize in the so-called Non-Active voice, which is in opposition to the morphologically unmarked Active voice. All passive verbs (2a) and certain reflexives (2b) appear in the Non-Active morphology. Another environment in which it appears is anticausative verbs (2c), which alternate with their transitive active counterparts. Finally, the Non-Active class also includes deponents, which lack their Active counterparts (also known as ‘non-oppositional middles’ for this reason) (2d). (2) a. Afto to vivlio dhiavas-tik-e xtes. this-NOM the-NOM book-NOM read-N/A-3S yesterday ‘This book was read yesterday.’ b. I Maria xtenize-te kathe mera. the-NOM Maria-NOM comb-N/A.3S every day ‘Maria combs herself every day.’ c. tsakizo-me break-N/A ‘break-Intransitive’ d. To kalokeri xriazo-maste pola ruxa. the summer need-N/A.1PL many clothes ‘During the summer we need many clothes.’ (Embick 2004:143) The occurrence of the syncretism between passives, reflexives, and anticausatives is prevalent across many unrelated language families, including the Indo-European, Uto-Aztecan, Athapaskan, Turkic, Ethiopian Semitic, and Dravidian (Embick 1998:4).
    [Show full text]
  • Possessed Properties in Ulwa
    Nat Lang Semantics (2010) 18:197–240 DOI 10.1007/s11050-010-9054-6 Possessed properties in Ulwa Andrew Koontz-Garboden Æ Itamar Francez Published online: 6 April 2010 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 Abstract This paper explores an understudied and poorly understood phenome- non of morphological syncretism in which a morpheme otherwise used to mark the head of a possessive NP appears on words naming property concept (PC) states (states named by adjectives in languages with that lexical category; Dixon, Where have all the adjectives gone? And other essays in Semantics and Syntax, 1982) in predicative and attributive contexts. This phenomenon is found across a variety of unrelated languages. We examine its manifestation in Ulwa, an endangered Misu- malpan language of Nicaragua, where diachronic evidence clearly shows that a single affix is involved. We propose an explanation for the syncretism based on an explicit syntactic and semantic analysis of the relevant constructions. On the pro- posed explanation, the syncretism arises out of a combination of semantic and morphosyntactic facts of Ulwa grammar. Specifically, we propose that the Ulwa pattern exemplifies a possessive strategy of predication. Intuitively, this strategy is a manifestation in grammar of the idiomatic equivalence between the property of being F and the property of having F-ness. Keywords Possession Á Predication Á Ulwa Á Adjectives Á Property theory Á Roots Á Syncretism Á Multifunctionalism A. Koontz-Garboden (&) Department of Linguistics and English Language, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected] I. Francez Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago, 1010 E 59th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, USA e-mail: [email protected] 123 198 A.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CATEGORY of ANMACY: a SEMANTIC FEATURE HIERARCWY? Marija Stefanovic a Thesis Submitted in Confomiity with the Requirements F
    THE CATEGORY OF ANMACY: A SEMANTIC FEATURE HIERARCWY? by Marija Stefanovic A thesis submitted in confomiity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Depanment of Slavic Languages and Literatwes University of Toronto O Copyright by Manja StefanoMc ZOO0 National Library Bibliotheque nationale 1*1 ofCanada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie SeNices servkes bibliqmphiques The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive Licence dowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or seii reproduire, prêter, distn'buer ou copies of this thesis in microfonn, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis oor substmtial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. THE CATEGORY OF ANIMACY: A SEMANTIC FEATURE HIERARCHY? Ph.D. Thesis Manj a Stefanovic Depanment of Slavic Languages and Literatures University of Toronto, 2000 This dissertation focuses on variation in the accusative form in Serbian and Russian that in much of the previous research has been ascribed to marking of the category of animacy in Slavic languages that have the case system. Analysis of data fiom these two languages suggests that the accusative-genitive syncretism, which the scholars traditiondly associated with marking of the object's animacy, in fact marks its atypicality.
    [Show full text]
  • From Possessor Agreement to Object Marking in the Evolution of the Udmurt -Jez Suffix: a Grammaticalization Approach to Morpheme Syncretism Katalin É
    FROM POSSESSOR AGREEMENT TO OBJECT MARKING IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE UDMURT -JEZ SUFFIX: A GRAMMATICALIZATION APPROACH TO MORPHEME SYNCRETISM KATALIN É. K ISS ORSOLYA TÁNCZOS Pázmány Péter Catholic University and Research Institute for Linguistics of the Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Hungarian Academy of Sciences This article argues that morpheme syncretism can arise as a result of structural and functional changes that display features of a grammaticalization process. Our claim is based on a case study analyzing the functional evolution of -jez , the third singular possessive agreement morpheme of Udmurt, which appears to function as a nominalizer, to mark contrast, to function as a kind of def - inite determiner, and to mark accusative case. We argue that these seemingly different roles are in - stantiations of three major functions: cross-referencing a possessor, encoding partitivity, and marking specific objects, which, in turn, represent subsequent stages of a grammaticalization path. Evidence for the hypothesized changes is provided by parallel developments in the sister lan - guages, primarily Hungarian, the sister language with the longest-documented history.* Keywords : grammaticalization, morpheme syncretism, Udmurt, Uralic morphosyntax, partitivity, differential object marking 1. Introduction. Systematic morpheme syncretism, attested most often in inflec - tional paradigms, is usually analyzed as feature underspecification. Accidental syn - cretism, that is, the homophony of unrelated morphemes, is generally attributed to some phonological coincidence. This article argues that morpheme syncretism can also arise as a consequence of a series of structural and functional changes that display character - istic features of a grammaticalization process, involving loss of semantic and structural weight and loss of variability (Fischer & Rosenbach 2000, Lehmann 2002:110).
    [Show full text]
  • Frequency As a Barrier to Learning Complex Nominal Morphology Sara
    Frequency as a Barrier to Learning Complex Nominal Morphology Sara Finley Pacific Lutheran University finleysr@ᶈlu.edu Acknowledgments I would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback on previous versions of this paper. I am also grateful for Jeffrey Parker, Vsevolod Kapatsinski, and other attendees of the 2017 Morphological Typology and Linguistic Cognition Workshop for thoughtful discussion. I am particularly grateful for Elizabeth Wiemers, Amanda-Fretland-Thomas, Paulin Schmidt, Saara Charania, Tiarra Lewis, Shelan Porter, Liza Radford, and Barbara Millward who provided help in developing stimuli, experimental design, implementation, and data collection. I am grateful to the Benson-Starkovich Faculty Development Award at Pacific Lutheran for providing financial support. I assume responsibility for any and all errors. Abstract Most languages with highly structed morphological systems show some degree of syncretism, where the same affix is used for multiple categories. The typology of syncretism has suggested that syncretism is most likely to occur for structurally and semantically marked categories, but are often confounded with frequency. In two artificial grammar learning experiments, English-speaking adults were exposed to a 3-gender x 3-number nominal system, where one number category (Singular, Dual, or Plural) showed syncretism across gender. In the experiment, the frequency of the syncretic morpheme was equal to non-syncretic morphemes, but there were 3x fewer items containing the syncretic morpheme. In Experiment 1, participants failed to learn the syncretic morpheme, with no biases for marked categories. In Experiment 2, when the low frequency category was always neuter, participants learned the category in all cases except the dual.
    [Show full text]
  • The World's Major Languages
    This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 28 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The World’s Major Languages Comrie Bernard Germanic Languages Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203301524.ch2 John A. Hawkins Published online on: 28 Nov 2008 How to cite :- John A. Hawkins. 28 Nov 2008, Germanic Languages from: The World’s Major Languages Routledge Accessed on: 28 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203301524.ch2 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 2 Germanic Languages John A. Hawkins The Germanic languages currently spoken fall into two major groups: North Germanic (or Scandinavian) and West Germanic. The former group comprises: Danish, Norwegian (i.e. both the Dano-Norwegian Bokmål and Nynorsk), Swedish, Icelandic, and Faroese.
    [Show full text]
  • How Animacy and Natural Gender Constrain Morphological Complexity: Evidence from Diachrony
    Open Linguistics 2018; 4: 438–452 Research Article Iván Igartua*, Ekaitz Santazilia How Animacy and Natural Gender Constrain Morphological Complexity: Evidence from Diachrony https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0022 Received October 31, 2017; accepted June 15, 2018 Abstract: In addition to its central role in the organization of gender systems and its numerous effects on different parts of the grammar, animacy reveals itself as a significant, sometimes even determinant factor in diachronic processes like the reduction of morphological complexity. Complexity in the realm of inflection may be defined as the extent to which formal distinctions in paradigms are semantically or phonologically unmotivated and therefore largely unpredictable on extramorphological grounds. Animacy and natural (or sex-based) gender emerge in certain cases as features capable of constraining this kind of complexity by offering a transparent semantic criterion that helps substantiate several formal distinctions in languages, thereby reducing the amount of morphological complexity or unpredictability inherited from earlier stages in the evolution of different linguistic systems. Keywords: Animacy, natural gender, morphological complexity, allomorphy, diachronic change, marginal gender, gender loss. 1 Introduction: Animacy in gender systems and beyond Animacy is a semantic feature multifariously expressed in languages, with asymmetries based on animacy affecting various grammatical levels and linguistic categorization devices. Even though a complete taxonomy of animacy-based effects encompassing all the grammatical phenomena associated with this feature is still lacking, there has been solid typological research on this matter (Comrie 1989: 185−200, Ortmann 1998, Dahl & Fraurud 1996, Dahl 2000a, Malchukov 2008, Kittilä, Västi & Ylikoski 2011, de Swart & de Hoop 2018).
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Syncretism, and Their Effects
    Types of Syncretism, and Their Effects May 18, 2010 The question in (2) has theoretical interest. The range of possibilities: No resolution: Feature conflicts are syntactically prohibited. ∗ Resolution by neutrality only: Feature conflicts are syntactically permitted. Analytical Types of Syncretism, and Their Effects distinction (neutral vs. ambiguous) is empirically significant. Resolution by neutrality and morphological identity: What is relevant is not the fea- Alya Asarina tures involved, but only the corresponding morpheme. Resolution by neutrality and ambiguity (both types): Resolution is a surface phe- May 18, 2010 nomenon. To answer the question in (2), I conducted an experiment on Russian case syncretism, which exemplifies all three types discussed above. 1 Introduction Pilot study results: Only neutrality helps resolve feature conflicts. Paper outline: Across a number of languages and constructions, feature conflicts can be resolved by syn- Section 2: Background on resolution by syncretism, and the neutrality vs. ambiguity de- cretism: bate. (1) a. *Either they or I are/am/is going to have to go. Section 3: Detailed discussion of the Russian nominal declension system, focusing on the b. Either they or you are going to have to go. three types of syncretism – neutrality, morphological identity, and phonological identity Section 4: Presentation of the experiment conducted and its results. Example (1) shows: Section 5: Analysis of feature conflict resolution by neutral forms. • feature conflict is not syntactically impossible ((1b)) Section 6: Conclusion. • syncretism is required ((1b) vs. (1a)) (2) Question: What kind of syncretism is good enough? 2 Background In this section: Two views: Section 2.1: The basics of resolution by syncretism (literature summary).
    [Show full text]
  • Middle High and New High German
    MIDDLE HIGH AND NEW HIGH GERMAN HUGO STEGER 0. INTRODUCTION The task of reporting on 'Current Trends' must, because of the variety of approaches and the mass of literature for Middle High German and New High German, be taken very literally. Thus, we can deal only with the basic directions, with regard to matter and methodology, in which linguistics is moving, and only very rarely can we discuss specific problems. The concept of linguistics is very broad for Middle High German; that is, the history of language is given a great deal of consideration. For New High German the range is rather more restricted to grammatical problems. In each of the individual sections, Middle High German is discussed and Early New High German and New High German are included, so that any overlapping towards the one side or the other is balanced out. Sections 1 and 2 are each divided into (1) Grammar and lexicology; (2) Language history; and (3) Further linguistic problems. Although, given the nature of the task, only selected literature can be brought to bear, I do use a relatively large number of quotes. Post-World War II efforts in the researching of the Middle High German and New High German linguistic systems are characterized by four methodological principles: 1. The form of research which is defined by historical, geographical, and com- parative philological methods, and which is rooted in the early nineteenth century, is still productive. The Romantics, with Jakob Grimm in the forefront, had fixed its direction. Through the Neo-Grammarians and the development of dialect geography, historical linguistics had, by the end of the nineteenth century, taken on new emphases which, with methodological refinements, are still influential today.
    [Show full text]