Squibs and Discussion LIMITS ON ALLOMORPHY:ACASE Reporting on a study of 79 languages (see appendix B), I argue that STUDY IN NOMINAL SUPPLETION (morpho)syntactic structure plays a crucial role in two observed asym- Beata Moskal metries: (a) in nouns, number-driven root suppletion is common while University of Connecticut case-driven root suppletion is virtually unattested, and (b) in contrast to lexical nouns, pronouns commonly supplete for both number and case. I propose that the structural difference between lexical nouns and pronouns, combined with locality effects as proposed in Distributed Morphology (DM; Halle and Marantz 1993), accounts for the two asymmetries. This raises the question whether these asymmetries can be captured in frameworks that deny that hierarchical syntactic struc- ture plays a role in the morphology, such as word-and-paradigm ap- proaches (e.g., Anderson 1992, Stump 2001). 1 Introduction Suppletion refers to the situation where a single lexical item is associ- ated with two phonologically unrelated forms, and the choice of form depends on the morphosyntactic context (see Corbett 2007 on specific criteria for canonical suppletion).1 Although rare in absolute terms, it is regularly observed across languages (Hippisley et al. 2004). For illustration, compare the (nonsuppletive) adjective-comparative-super- lative paradigm smart-smarter-smartest, in which the root remains the same throughout, with the familiar example of good-better-best. In the latter case, the root in the adjective surfaces as good, but in the context of the comparative (and superlative) we see be(tt). With respect to nouns, languages can display suppletion for number (#). In Ket (Werner Many thanks to Jonathan Bobaljik, Andrea Calabrese, and Peter Smith for invaluable discussion of the ideas presented here. I would also like to thank audiences at BLS 39, GLOW 36, PhonoLAM, SIRG (McGill/UQAM), and the Allomorphy: Logic and Limitations workshop, and the anonymous LI re- viewers for all their comments. 1 The important question of exactly what counts as a suppletive root can- not be resolved here. Rather, the criterion for noun suppletion here is singular- plural pairs identified as suppletive in prior literature, where these are strongly suppletive—that is, not plausibly related by (possibly idiosyncratic) phonologi- cal (readjustment) rules. Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 46, Number 2, Spring 2015 363–376 ᭧ 2015 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology doi: 10.1162/ling_a_00185 363 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LING_a_00185 by guest on 02 October 2021 364 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION 1997), canonical nouns display a nasal suffix in the plural (1), but suppletive nouns display root suppletion in the same context (2).2 (1) SINGULAR PLURAL am ama-√ ‘mother’ do≈ndo≈na-√ ‘knife’ kyl kyle-n ‘crow’ (2) SINGULAR PLURAL oks’ a≈q ‘tree’ dil’ kR≈t ‘child’ k[≈td[≈-√ ‘man’ Curiously, though, as remarked briefly by Bybee (1985:93) and con- firmed in the study of 79 languages described here, root suppletion of nouns in the context of case (K) seems to be largely unattested (appar- ent counterexamples are discussed in section 4.1). In stark contrast, pronouns regularly display suppletion for num- ber (see also Corbett 2005), as well as case. Consider, for instance, number-driven suppletion in 2nd person pronouns (3) and case-driven suppletion in 1st person pronouns (4) in Latvian (Mathaissen 1997). (3) SINGULAR PLURAL NOM tu ju¯s DAT/ACC tev/tevi jums/ju¯s (4) SINGULAR PLURAL NOM es me¯s DAT/ACC man/mani mums/mu¯s Indeed, it is widely assumed that pronouns have less structure than lexical nouns (Postal 1969, Longobardi 1994, De´chaine and Wiltschko 2002). Crucially, I assume that lexical nouns (5) contain, at a minimum, a root and a category-defining node n. In essence, the n node will have the effect that the root and K are not sufficiently local.3 In contrast, pronouns (6) are, at their core, functional (D) (‘‘D’’ is used merely as a label) and thus lack the category-defining node that intervenes between the root and K in (5).4 2 See appendix A for a (nonexhaustive) list of languages with number- driven noun suppletion. 3 As pointed out by two anonymous reviewers, nouns and pronouns also differ in terms of frequency as well as their diachronic history. However, while diachrony and frequency effects relate to typological generalizations, locality effects as proposed here are assumed to be universal (see Corbett 2007) and as such allow no exceptions; see Kiparsky 2008 for discussion. Also recall that one of the asymmetries identified here involves nouns alone: while noun suppletion is well-attested, it is only in the context of number, not of case. 4 Two notes are in order here. First, in (5)–(6) I use standard adjunction structures, with X0 [X0 Y0]. All tree diagrams here and below will represent internally complex X0s, however those are derived (see Bobaljik 2012). The labeling of the nonterminal (branching) nodes of the structures will not play a role in the analysis. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LING_a_00185 by guest on 02 October 2021 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION 365 (5) K #K n# root n (6) K #K D# In section 2, I first introduce the relevant background in which the analysis is couched, and briefly discuss the relevant notion of structural locality in morphology. In section 3, I discuss the structure of nominals in more detail and how it interacts with locality restrictions to prohibit case-driven root suppletion in lexical nouns. In section 4, I discuss some predictions that follow from the particular formalization of structural locality proposed here, showing further support for the role of locality in suppletion; and in section 5, I offer final remarks. 2 Locality DM crucially incorporates hierarchical structure into the morphology; essentially, it assumes the input to morphology to be syntactic struc- ture. Features (or feature bundles) are distributed over nodes, which in turn are subject to Vocabulary Insertion (VI). Furthermore, VI pro- ceeds cyclically from the lowest element in the structure outward. Suppletion is modeled as contextual allomorphy; that is, although a particular feature bundle has a corresponding exponent as a context- free default, an exponent specified for a more specific context takes precedence (per the Elsewhere Principle; Kiparsky 1973). Consider Second, De Belder and Van Craenenbroeck (2011) suggest that pronomi- nal exponents can also be inserted in root position, rather than always occurring as true pronouns, in order to account for forms such as ge-ik ‘egocentricity’ (Dutch) and duzen ‘to address with the familiar 2nd person singular form’ (German). Indeed, following this line of thought, these particular forms should fail to supplete for case, which is correct (*ge-mij,*dirzen). Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LING_a_00185 by guest on 02 October 2021 366 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION again the good-better-best paradigm; its regular (context-free) expo- nent is good, but in the context of the comparative (and superlative) it corresponds to be(tt). (7) √GOOD ⇔ be(tt) / comparative √GOOD ⇔ good Now, consider the representation of lexical nouns (see (5)). A key assumption here, standard in DM (Marantz 1997), is that they contain, at a minimum, a root that is unspecified for features tradition- ally associated with nouns (person, number, case, etc.) and a category- defining node n: [root n]. In addition, I use K as an umbrella for what is realized as case (see, e.g., Caha 2009, Radkevich 2010, Pesetsky 2013, for more articulated representations). Similarly, I collapse the ␾-features, and for expository reasons I equate ␾ with its internal constituents, in particular with number (#). Furthermore, in accordance with Greenberg’s (1963) universal 39, K is assumed to be located higher than #. (8) Universal 39 (Greenberg 1963:95) Where morphemes of both number and case are present and both follow or both precede the noun base, the expression of number always comes between the noun base and the expression of case. This gives the abstract representation for a canonical lexical noun in (5). As alluded to above, the crucial characteristic that distinguishes lexical nouns from pronouns is that the former contain a root and a category-defining n. Specifically, the presence of n results in K’s being insufficiently local to the root to govern its suppletion (see in particular Embick 2010 and Bobaljik 2012 for locality restrictions in DM). Minimally, the cyclicity hypothesis is assumed, which entails that accessibility to structure is domain-dependent. That is, certain nodes in the structure function as domain delimiters and morphological processes are confined to operate within domains. In syntax, cyclic domains are implemented as phases (Chomsky 2000, 2001), where the head of a phase triggers Spell-Out of its sister, rendering elements in the sister opaque to interactions with elements in higher domains. The analogous notion within morphology is that there are locality domains within a complex X0. A domain-delimiting head induces the morphological ana- logue of Spell-Out, VI, of its sister. In a complex X0 [[A ␣] B], if ␣ is a cyclic head, it spells out its sister: A. Assuming that Spell-Out freezes a string, B and A cannot interact across ␣ (Embick 2010, Bobaljik 2012; see Scheer 2010 for an overview). In morphology, domain delimiters are category heads (Embick 2010). On the assumption that a category head is a cyclic head that spells out its sister, n causes Spell-Out of the root, which here amounts to VI of the root.5 Now, if Spell-Out and accessibility for governing 5 I assume that both roots and functional vocabulary are inserted late (see Corbett 2007, Bonet and Harbour 2010, and Harley to appear for discussion). Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LING_a_00185 by guest on 02 October 2021 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION 367 suppletion lined up perfectly, no allomorphy would ever cross a cate- gory-defining node, since the root would always be closed off.