a journal of De Clercq, Karen and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 2017. *ABA revisited: general linguistics Glossa Evidence from Czech and Latin degree morphology. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2(1): 69. 1–32, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.371 RESEARCH *ABA revisited: Evidence from Czech and Latin degree morphology Karen De Clercq1 and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd2 1 FWO/U Gent, Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Gent, BE 2 KU Leuven, Warmoesberg 26, 1000 Brussel, BE Corresponding author: Karen De Clercq ([email protected]) We present a novel account of root suppletion in comparatives and superlatives, and show how it accounts for the presence of ABB and ABC patterns, as well as the absence of ABA patterns. The account assumes that suppletive roots, despite appearances to the contrary, are not con- textual allomorphs, but portmanteaus spelling out two distinct features, one belonging to the lexical root, and another one belonging to the comparative. The regular comparative affix then spells out an additional feature relating to the comparative domain. In other words, we show that the comparative (cmpr) head that enters into the morphological makeup of the comparative (Bobaljik 2012) is to be split up into two distinct heads, C1 and C2 (see also Caha 2016). We extend this idea to sprl, which we show is likewise to be split up into S1 and S2, in order to account for suppletive ABC patterns. These four distinct heads receive empirical support from facts of the degree morphology in Czech and Latin. The new account of root suppletion allows a straight- forward way of deriving the attested and unattested patterns of (root) suppletion in degree comparison. The analysis developed supports the hypothesis that the absence of AAB patterns in degree comparison is due to a constraint of a different nature altogether. Keywords: *ABA; adjectives; suppletion; comparative; superlative 1 Introduction Bobaljik (2012) argues that it is a universal property of (morphological) comparatives and superlatives that, when comparatives have a suppletive form, the superlative will also be sup- pletive and vice versa, i.e. there are no ABA-patterns as in (1b), nor AAB-patterns as in (1c). (1) a. good-better-best b. *good-better-goodest c. *good-gooder-best Bobaljik calls this the Comparative-Superlative Generalisation (CSG), and adduces extensive evidence in support of the fact that this generalisation is a language universal.1 Bobaljik’s account for the CSG relies on a number of ingredients. The first ingredient is the Containment Hypothesis, which states that “the representation of the superlative properly contains that of the comparative” (Bobaljik 2012: 4; see Dunbar & Wellwood 2016 for a recent alternative to Bobaljik’s proposal). Concretely, the (derived) structure of compara- tive adjectives is as in (2), and that of superlatives is as in (3).2 1 The CSG does not apply to so-called absolute superlatives or elatives, which indicate a very high degree of the adjective, and which lack a comparative meaning component (e.g. Italian buonissimo ‘very good’ vs il migliore ‘the best’). 2 These structures are derived from run-of-the-mill right-branching syntactic representations through an operation M, the exact nature of which Bobaljik is noncommittal about, e.g. Morphological Merger (Marantz 1988) or Local Dislocation (Embick 2010); see Embick & Noyer (2001) for discussion. 2 De Clercq & Vanden Wyngaerd 2 De Clercq & Vanden Wyngaerd b. *good-better-goodest b.c. *good-better-goodest*good-gooder-best 2 c. *good-gooder-best De Clercq & Vanden Wyngaerd Bobaljik calls this the Comparative-Superlative Generalisation (CSG), and Bobaljikadduces extensive calls this evidencethe Comparative-Superlative in support of the fact Generalisation that this generalisation (CSG), and is b. *good-better-goodest 1 adducesa language extensive universal. evidenceBobaljik’s in support account of the for fact the that CSG this relies generalisation on a number is c. *good-gooder-bestArt. 69, page 2 of 32 1 De Clercq and Wyngaerd: *ABA revisited aof language ingredients. universal. The firstBobaljik’s ingredient account is the for theContainment CSG relies onHypothesis, a number which Bobaljik calls thisofstates ingredients. the that Comparative-Superlative “the The representation first ingredient of Generalisationthe superlative is the Containment (CSG), properly and contains Hypothesis, that of which adduces extensivestatesthe comparative” evidence that “the in representationsupport (Bobaljik of the2012 fact of: the 4; that see superlative thisDunbar generalisation & properly Wellwood is contains2016 for that a re- of a language universal.thecent comparative” alternative1 Bobaljik’s to (Bobaljik Bobaljik’s account2012 for proposal). the: 4; CSG see Concretely,Dunbar relies on & aWellwood the number (derived)2016 structurefor a re- (2) 2 of ingredients.centof The comparative alternative first ingredient adjectives to Bobaljik’s is isthe as proposal). in Containment(2), and Concretely, that ofHypothesis, superlatives the (derived) which is as structure in (3). 2 states that “theof representation comparative adjectives of the superlative is as in (2) properly, and that contains of superlatives that of is as in (3). the comparative”(2) (BobaljikcmprP2012: 4; see Dunbar & Wellwood(3) 2016 forsprlP a re- cent alternative(2) to Bobaljik’scmprP proposal). Concretely, the(3) (derived) structuresprlP 2 of comparative2 (3) adjectives A is ascmpr in (2), and that of superlativesDe Clercq iscmprP as & in Vanden(3). sprl Wyngaerd A cmpr cmprP sprl (2) cmprP (3) sprlP b. *good-better-goodest A cmpr c. *good-gooder-best A cmpr A cmprThe second ingredient are the rulescmprP of exponencesprl which regulate lexical Bobaljikinsertion.The calls second this The the relevant ingredient Comparative-Superlative rules are for the the rulesgood-better of exponence Generalisationalternation which (CSG), are regulate given and lexical in (4): adducesinsertion. extensive The evidence relevant in rules support for the of thegood-better fact thatalternation this generalisation are given is in (4): (4)The seconda. ingredientgood1 good are theA rulescmpr of exponence which regulate lexical insertion. The a language universal. Bobaljik’s→ account for the CSG relies on a number of ingredients.(4)relevanta.b. rules Thegood first for theingredientgoodbe(tt)- good-better/ is ]thealternationcmpr Containment] are given Hypothesis, in (4): which The second ingredient are the rules→ of exponence which regulate lexical states that “theb. representationgood be(tt)- of the/ superlative] cmpr properly] contains that of insertion. TheThese relevant rules rules state forthat the→good-bettergood will bealternation inserted areunder given the in terminal (4): that domi- the comparative” (Bobaljik 2012: 4; see Dunbar & Wellwood 2016 for a re- Thesenates(4) the rulesa. root stategood that , good→ except goodwill in be the inserted more specific under the context terminal of cmpr that, where domi- (4) a.cent alternativegood good to Bobaljik’s proposal). Concretely, the (derived) structure thenates suppletive theb. root rootgoodbett-, → exceptwill be(tt)-/_____ be in inserted. the more ] Thecmpr specific insertion context of the suppletive of cmpr, where root b.of comparativegood → be(tt)- adjectives/ is] ascmpr in (2)], and that of superlatives is as in (3).2 thefollows suppletive→ from the root context-sensitivebett- will be inserted. rule (4b) The. insertion The absence of the of suppletive ABA-patterns root followsnowThese follows rules from from thestate context-sensitive these that two good ingredients: will rule be(4b) byinserted(4b). Thebett- absence underwill be ofthe inserted ABA-patterns terminal when- that dominates the root These rules(2) state thatcmprPgood will be inserted under(3) the terminalsprlP that domi- nates the root nowevergood followsa cmpr, except fromhead in in these theis the adjacent more twomore ingredients: specific tospecific the root context bycontext (which(4b) of cmprbett- sitsofcmpr ,will under where be, where the inserted terminal the when- suppletive A- root bett- will be node). Because of the Containment Hypothesis, this will be the case both the suppletive rooteverinserted.bett- a cmprwill Thehead be insertion inserted. is adjacentThe of the insertionto the suppletive root of (whichthe suppletive root sits follows under root the from terminal the context-sensitive A- rule (4b). node).in theA comparative Becausecmpr of the and Containment the superlative Hypothesis, alike.cmprP As this a result, willsprl be there the iscase no both way follows from theThe context-sensitive absence of ABA-patterns rule (4b). The now absence follows of ABA-patterns from these two ingredients: by (4b) bett- will now follows fromin the which these comparative two the ingredients: root could and the be by superlative suppletive(4b) bett- will in alike. thebe inserted Ascomparative a result, when- there but not is no in way the ever a cmpr headinsuperlative,be whichinserted is adjacent the i.e. whenever root to no the could ABA root can bea (whichcmprarise. suppletive sitshead under in isA the adjacent the comparativecmpr terminal to the A- but root not (which in the sits under the terminal node). Because1 Thesuperlative,A-node). of CSG the does Containment Because i.e. not applyno ABA of to Hypothesis, so-calledthe can arise.Containment absolute this will superlatives beHypothesis, the or case elatives, both this which will indicate be the a case both in the com- The second ingredient are the rules of exponence which