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 Nomina ve amīcus amīcī cursus cursūs Geni ve amīcī amīcōrum cursūs cursuum amīcō amīcīs cursuī cursibus Da ve (cursū) Accusa ve amīcum amīcōs cursum cursūs Abla ve amīcō amīcīs cursū cursibus Voca ve 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
{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 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 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
¡ 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 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. the Class I & IV form -a "belongs" to the genitive
¡ The accusative form thus seems to "borrow" the form of the nominative/genitive ¡ This is a directional syncretism Directional Syncretism 28 ¡ Directional syncretisms are not rare. Another example, from Bonan (an Altaic language of Mongolia):
nouns pronouns 'foliage' 'he' nominative labčoŋ ndžaŋ genitive labčoŋ-ne ndžaŋ-ne accusative labčoŋ-ne ndžaŋ-de dative-locative labčoŋ-de ndžaŋ-de ablative labčoŋ-se ndžaŋ-se instrum.-comitative labčoŋ-Gale ndžaŋ-Gale
¡ For each syncretism, which case does the “borrowing” and which does the “loaning”?
Directional Syncretism 29
I II III IV V Ergative -(ya)yalili -li ∅ -ndu -li Absolutive ∅ ∅ ∅ -ni -n̪a Accusative ∅ -n̪a -n̪a -n̪a -n̪a Locative -n̪i -ŋu -ŋu -n̪aŋu -ŋu Allative -ya -ŋu -ŋu -n̪aŋu -ŋu Dative -ya -ṇi -ṇi -n̪aŋka -ṇi Ablative -ndu -ŋundu -ŋundu -ŋundu -ŋundu Diyari noun case exponents (Pama-Nyungan language of Australia) Rules of referral 30 ¡ Referral = A rule stated at the level of morphosyntactic features, to the effect that two sets of morphosyntactic values have the same form ¡ A different kind of realizational rule (within inferential- realizational frameworks) ¡ Informally: ¡ {CASE: ACC, NUM: PL, ANIM: ANIM} à {CASE: GEN, NUM: PL} ¡ “The form of the accusative plural animate is the same as the form of the genitive plural, whatever that is.” ¡ {CASE: ACC, NUM: PL, ANIM: INAN} à {CASE: NOM, NUM: PL}
Rules of referral 31 ¡ Formally (nearly full Paradigm Function Morphology formalism):
Where σ = {CASE: ACC, NUM: PL, ANIM: ANIM}, RR(
Where σ = {CASE: ACC, NUM: PL, ANIM: INAN}, RR(
Rules of referral 32 ¡ Since the referral is written into realizational rules, referrals are ordered relative to other rules by Panini’s Principle (Elsewhere Ordering)
¡ In other words, they are formally just like other realizational rules, except that they require a ‘lookup’ to a different paradigm cell to get the morphophonological form ¡ A paradigmatic relation Big Picture 33 ¡ Syncretism is not a unitary phenomenon – it can range from a couple isolated forms to full neutralization throughout the inflectional system ¡ Correspondingly, different theoretical mechanisms are posited to account for syncretisms at different levels of generality ¡ There is ongoing debate about which mechanisms are best for handling the most stubborn cases of syncretism ¡ Much of the debate comes down to different evaluation metrics The End 34 ¡ Everything below this is ‘bonus content’ Impoverishment vs. Referrals 35 ¡ How should we formally account for directional syncretisms? What kind of mechanism should we add? ¡ Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment ¡ Inferential-Realizational Morphology: Referrals 36 Back to Russian… ¡ Can Impoverishment account for the Russian pattern of animacy-based syncretism? 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 plural loc zakázax bljúdax kómnatax tetrádjax inst zakázami bljúdami kómnatami tetrádjami Russian INANIMATE nouns Syncretism in Russian nouns 37 ¡ Can Impoverishment account for the Russian pattern of animacy-based syncretism? 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 plural loc otcax čudoviščax ženščinax materjax inst otcami čudoviščami ženščinami materjami Russian ANIMATE nouns Featural Decomposition 38 ¡ To be concrete, we can take Jakobson’s famous analysis of case subfeatures ¡ + means marked; - means unmarked Marginal Directional Quantificational (Peripheral) Nominative - - - Accusative - + - Genitive - + + Dative + + - Locative + + + Instrumental + - - Genitive 2 - - + Locative 2 + - + Jakobson’s case features for Russian nouns and adjectives (second version, 1958) Conclusions from Russian 39 ¡ The bidirectional nature of the syncretism makes it difficult to adequately account for Russian animacy-based syncretism in terms of Impoverishment Evaluation – a one-sided perspective 40
"... Noyer's proposal entails that in a directional syncretism, the determinant member's morphosyntactic property set should always be less marked than that of the dependent member (prior to impoverishment)... [which] contrasts starkly with the rule-of-referral approach, which makes no predictions about the relative markedness of a directional syncretism's dependent and determinant members... But the issue here is obviously an empirical one, namely: can one maintain Noyer's conjecture that universally, a directional syncretism's determinant member is less marked than its dependent member? The answer, clearly, is no. First, the very existence of bidirectional referrals is incompatible with Noyer's conjecture. Moreover, there are unidirectional syncretisms in which the dependent member is less marked..." (Stump 2001: 238). Exercise 41 ¡ What generalization(s) can be made about the forms that are boxed? How can you describe this formally? IA IB 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 plural loc zakázax bljúdax kómnatax tetrádjax inst zakázami bljúdami kómnatami tetrádjami Russian nouns Singular ones 42
1. {case, nom, num: sg, class: IV} à /-o/ ¡ Note: orthographically