Class Questions/Comments 3/13 Chapter 8 First, I'd Like to Comment
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
LING 650 - Class questions/comments 3/13 Chapter 8 First, I’d like to comment on the Zulu data p.162. I think I got a bit confused trying to understand it and get the difference between inflection class and gender agreement prefixes, and how they can be distinguished from each other. However, they are already different since one set simply attaches to nouns while the other attaches to verbs, one creates a sg/pl distinction, and the other creates a fem/masc distinction. I wonder why the book presents the data as “striking”. The same applies to the Italian data where inflection classes are for nouns while gender agreement is for adjectives. Regarding the Arabic data in the underspecification section, it makes more sense to me as a speaker of Arabic to posit that the case system in the singular is different from that of the plural ( I was taught both paradigms separately). A specific word would have 3 case markers in the singular, and only 2 in the plural. The example mentioned in the book is a sound feminine plural, and the final suffix is a case marker only. The following example is a sound masculine plural, and the final suffix marks both number and case. pl Mualim Sing Nom Mualim-uun Nom Mualim-un Gen/acc Mualm-iin Gen Mualim-an acc Mulima-in Since ‘mualim’ is masc, it gets a specific suffix which in this case subsumes both plurality and case, and it is a totally different paradigm from the singular. - Hana Baalousha In section 8.2.2, while discussing the relationship of inflection and gender, Haspelmath talked about Russian nouns of the second declension, which generally mark feminines but, on occasion, will be masculine. The thing I found interesting was his choice of example, sluga 'male servant'. This is a relatively uncommon example of a second declension masculine and does little to show why these nouns would not migrate over to the first declension and take a consonant-final form like *slug in order to pattern with other masculines. The answer is that the more common exponents of this pattern are all encountered on a regular basis: kinship terms and diminutives of masculine names. For example, the words papa 'daddy', d'ad'a 'uncle', and d'eduška 'grandpa' all decline as members of the second declension, as do common nicknames like Saša from Aleksandr, Miša from Mikhail, and Žen'a from Jevgenij. I really liked the inheritance hierarchies as a method for easily documenting the categories and subcategories to which different inflectional patterns belong. In section 8.7.2, Haspelmath discusses deponency, which I had never studied before as a phenomenon. While reading about it, I realized that Old English has its own deponent verbs, some of which survive down to this day. In the Germanic context, these are known as the preterite-present verbs, and those which survive in Modern English make up our modal verbs (which, interestingly enough, are defective). They are called preterite-presents because in the present tense they behave like strong verbs (they use apophony to indicate certain grammatical changes), but they use the vowel exponents usually associated with the preterite forms. For example, OE cunnan 'know how to, can' takes the form can(n), even though it would normally be expected to take a present-tense form of *cin(n) (with the normal vowel for a class III strong verb in the present). Because the preterite forms have already been used to form the present-tense conjugation, these deponent verbs make up the difference by using the so-called 'weak' verb endings, consisting of a suffix with a dental consonant, to form the preterite conjugation. This gives us forms like can(n)-cūþe 'can-could' (the <l> in 'could' was inserted later by analogy to 'should' and 'would') and sċeal-sċ(e)olde 'shall-should'. This also explains why forms like 'could', 'should', and 'might', despite the fact that they have their own meanings now, do double-duty as the past tenses for 'can', 'shall', and 'may'. - Scott Brewer 1. After the section on “rules of referral”, I was unclear about whether underspecification is considered to be disproven by data like the Old Church Slavonic nominal inflection, or whether it is still a valid explanation for syncretism in certain examples. If it is, then how is it possible to tell whether forms are underspecified? Should syncretism be considered the result of underspecification whenever it forms a natural class? 2. I was interested by the section on defectiveness, particularly how lexemes become defective or are learned as such. I understand that some forms are difficult to predict (ex. ?foregoed vs. ?forewent as the past tense of forego), and occur so rarely that the correct form might fall out of use. However, the Russian defective verbs on p. 181 have predictable 1sg forms, and some of the lexemes are fairly frequent. None of them seem to have any semantic difficulties with the 1sg present, either. Why would a semantically useful form disappear? Did it ever exist? And why do speakers not fill in what is clearly a gap in the language with the obvious solution, rather than put in the extra effort to learn the absence of the form (and invent circuitous ways of expressing its meaning)? - Keiko Bridwell In Chapter 8, we see that there are two broad types of relations between linguistic units, mainly syntagmatic relations and paradigmatic relations. On the one hand, syntagmatic relations are relations between units that follow each other in utterances. On the other hand, paradigmatic relations are relations that are between units that occupy the same slot in a sentence. To illustrate more, syntagmatic relations can be shown in the example: The older boy brought some food to the entire family. In this sentence, relations can be established between the definite article the, the adjective older, and the noun boy because they occur within a nominal phrase that is headed by the noun boy. If the adjective older is replaced by the adjective younger, in that case, a paradigmatic relation is established between older and younger because they cannot occupy the same slot. The chapter also states that inflectional affixes can be categorized into inflection classes. And when different words demonstrate different suppletive inflectional allomorphs, they belong to different inflection class. In this sense, an inflection class is seen as a set of paradigms that exhibit the same inflectional patterns. In addition, in any given language, phonological, semantic, or morphological criteria are used to assign words into inflection classes. Among the semantic criteria, animacy is employed to make distinctions between animate and non-animate nouns (e.g. German). - Maad El-Gali Haspelmath claims that all German masculine, weak nouns ending with -e are animate. However, this is not the case for all of them. For example, der Wille ‘the will, volition’ and der Friede ‘peace’ are both masculine, weak nouns ending with -e, but will/volition and peace are certainly not animate beings. On the other hand, German philosophers have used der Wille to refer to the individual but never Friede. Der Friede can only be made animate through anthropomorphism. However, Haspelmath correctly states that German first and third person plural verbal endings are examples of syncretism. In fact, the Middle High German first and third person, indicative verbal endings were -en and -ent respectively, as in nemen ‘we take’ and nement ‘they take’. The likely reason that German speaers see the first and third person plural verbal inflection –en as related but not the third person singular and second person plural inflection –t is that the former always attaches to the same base, as in wir/sie haben ‘we/they have’, while the latter often attaches to different base forms, as in er nimmt ‘he takes’ but ihr nehmt ‘you all take’. I find the explanation for Latin paradigm shifts to likely be correct, but I do not think that a less frequently occurring paradigm cannot be the basis of analogical extension and thus a paradigm shift. English has the forms dive-dove and fling-flung, which according to this explanation would be unlikely because the weak verbal paradigm is far more common in English than the strong verbal paradigm. Nevertheless, these weak verbs among a number of others shifted to the less common paradigm. - Michael Highlander - Zee Hildreth On page 184, Haspelmath writes, "It is significant that paradigmatic periphrasis can only be identified in the context of other paradigmatic forms." However, he doesn't state exactly why it is significant, and I don't understand. Right before giving this statement, he has just explained that categorial periphrasis exists and is not morphologically relevant or found in contrast in other paradigmatic forms. This seems to be something of a tautology to me in that he defines a term and then says it is significant based on the qualifications of the definition. Perhaps I am overthinking this--I do understand how periphrasis provides evidence for a paradigmatic perspective and that it is not quite as strong as the evidence of inflection class or syncretism. It does not seem possible to explain periphrasis through a syntagmatic perspective, at least. (However, I know this book has been a little biased before--is there a theoretical perspective that encompasses a syntagmatic explanation?) Another question I have here regards the brief discussion of whether periphrasis is included in a lexeme's paradigm. Why is there not consensus on this point? Non-compositional meaning is an established component of morphology and it seems illogical to say that a group of words that serves a paradigmatic function wouldn't be included as part of the formal paradigm.