Jason Johnston (1997) Systematic Homonymy and the Structure of Morphological Categories: Some Lessons from Paradigm Geometry. PhD thesis, University of Sydney Note to the PDF Edition This PDF version of my dissertation is as close as I have been able to make it to the copies deposited with the Faculty of Arts and the Department of Linguistics at the University of Sydney. However this version is not in any sense an image capture of those copies, which remain the only ‘official’ ones. The differences between this document and the printed copies are very minor and revolve entirely around the use of Greek and IPA fonts. Essentially, one instance of the Greek font has been rewritten in transliteration (the quotation on page 41), and the change to an IPA font lacking a subscripted dot has entailed some modification of words containing that diacritic. Either these have been rewritten without diacritics (the words ‘Panini’ and ‘Astadhyayi’ throughout), or proper IPA retroflex glyphs have been substituted where appropriate (in all other cases). Additionally, the substitute IPA font has slightly different metrics from the one used originally, which has caused some enlargement of tables containing IPA characters or (more commonly) diacritics, and therefore occasionally some repagination. In all cases this is compensated for within a few pages at most. There are other small differences in the appearance of some tables, diagrams, and accented characters. This document contains a ‘live’ table of contents (‘bookmarks’ in Adobe Acrobat terminology). In addition, endnote references and bibliographic citations, though not specifically so marked, are hyperlinked to their corresponding text or entry, as the case may be. The Internet URL on this page is also hyperlinked so as to launch the browser of your choice and make the appropriate connections. Jason Johnston Sydney, 19 April 1997 © Jason Johnston 1997 Comments to [email protected] Systematic Homonymy and the Structure of Morphological Categories Some Lessons from Paradigm Geometry by Jason Clift Johnston A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Linguistics University of Sydney AUGUST 1996 Abstract This thesis takes as its starting point proposals to model inflectional paradigms as geometrical structures, wherein systematic homonymies are constrained to occupy contiguous regions. It defines a precise criterion for assessing systematicity and shows, for a range of largely Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic data, that such models are observationally adequate in modelling systematic homonymies within a single inflectional dimension, and to a lesser extent, between different inflectional dimensions. This is taken to indicate that widely assumed characterizations of inflectional categories in terms of cross-classifying binary features are incorrect, inasmuch as such characterizations fail to predict the linearizability of natural classes of properties belonging to those categories. The same inadequacy besets attempts to account for systematic homonymies by means of rules that convert or ‘refer’ one morpho-syntactic representation to another. Rather it is argued that the linearizability of natural classes of properties suggests that inflectional categories are structured as a sub-classification of those properties, but that a phenomenon of ‘re-marking’ serves to define, under strict constraints, additional natural classes beyond those defined by the sub-classification itself. The specific sub- classifications indicated by observed patterns of homonymy are language-specific. In addition, the properties so sub-classified under a single node may in certain cases be drawn from separate morpho-syntactic categories. This is taken to indicate that the terminal nodes of a morphological sub-classification are not morpho-syntactic feature complexes but purely morphological functions performing a discontinuous mapping between morpho-syntactic and morpho-phonological representations. The systematicity of homonymy patterns, then, is shown to be evidence for a linguistic level of ‘pure morphology’. Acknowledgments I would like to express my gratitude to several people, but firstly to my supervisor Dr Jane Simpson. Without her patient and gentle yet persistent goading, her steadfast belief that I was working at something interesting when I entertained the gravest doubts myself, and her ever-flowing practical help and advice, this thesis could never have been written. To my associate supervisor, Dr Avery Andrews, I am indebted for many stimulating ideas, including in particular the germ of the idea which is developed at length in Chapter 3. To Dr David Nash I am indebted for several interesting leads, as well as much help with the confusing subjects of file formats, printing, and telecommunications. I thank my examiners, both for their kind remarks and for the valuable suggestions which they made. I particularly would like to thank my fellow post-graduate student Nicholas Riemer, whose lively wit and often sagacious observations made many a day in Transient Room 237 a great deal more bearable than it otherwise would have been. To Tony Williams and Geoffrey Fletcher I am grateful for much help with computer issues. If they were still here, I would thank my sister, who got me interested in linguistics about 30 years ago, and my brother, who renewed my interest almost 20 years later. Finally, no amount of thanks can adequately recompense John Miller. This thesis, which in itself is of no interest to him, has dominated his life these past few years just as much as it has consumed mine. I thank him for his patience, support, and love. Jason Johnston Sydney, April 1997 Contents Chapter 1 — Overview 1.0 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 — Evidence for Geometric Representations 2.1.0 Introduction 10 2.1.1 Counter-Examples 12 2.1.2 Systematic and Accidental Homonymies 13 2.1.3 Wastage 16 2.1.4 Whole Words and Part Words 17 2.1.5 Modus Procedendi 19 One-Dimensional Homonymies Three-Term Systems 2.2.1 Gender in Indo-European 20 2.2.2 Case in Arabic 23 2.2.3 Person in German 25 2.2.4 Tense Stems in Germanic 28 Four-Term Systems 2.2.5 Case in Modern Greek 30 2.2.6 Case in German 33 Five-Term Systems 2.2.7 Case in Ancient Greek 38 Six-Term Systems 2.2.8 Case in Latin 42 2.2.9 Case in Russian 51 Seven-Term Systems 2.2.10 Case in Polish 57 2.2.11 Another Case in Latin 63 Eight-Term Systems 2.2.12 Case in Sanskrit 65 2.2.13 Two More Cases in Russian 68 Multi-Dimensional Homonymies 2.3.0 Introduction 72 2.3.1 Case and Number in Finnish 78 2.3.2 Mobile Stress in Russian 82 2.3.3 Strong and Weak Stems in Sanskrit 84 2.3.4 Sonorant Stems in Ancient Greek 87 2.3.5 Mood-Tense Stems in Spanish 88 2.3.6 Gender and Number in German 89 2.3.7 Gender, Number and Person in Arabic 94 Inherently Unrepresentable Homonymies 2.4.1 Nominative and Genitive in Latin 102 2.4.2 Nominative and Genitive in Russian 104 2.5 Overview 107 Chapter 3 — Linearity and Classification 3.0 Introduction 113 3.1 Distinctive Features and Natural Classes 117 3.2 Motivation 120 3.2.1 Introduction 120 3.2.2 Morpho-Semantic Motivation 123 3.2.3 Morpho-Syntactic Motivation 133 3.2.4 Mixed Motivation 135 3.2.5 Morphological Motivation 137 3.3 Markedness 139 3.3.1 Introduction 139 3.3.2 Praguian Markedness 140 3.3.3 Greenbergian Markedness 143 3.3.4 Markedness in Sub-Classification 146 3.4 Structure 3.4.1 Introduction 146 3.4.2 Sub-Classification and Re-Marking 157 3.4.3 Un-Marking 166 3.4.4 Modern Greek Case 172 3.4.5 Bi-Directional Un-Marking 177 3.4.6 German Case 180 3.4.7 Latin Case 181 3.4.8 Sanskrit Case 187 3.4.9 Russian Case 193 3.4.10 Un-Marking and Impoverishment 199 3.5 Summary: Sub-Classification, Meaning and Markedness 207 Chapter 4 — Mapping and Other Matters 4.1 Introduction 213 4.2 Reducing Multi-Dimensional Representations 214 4.3 Mapping 218 4.3.1 Introduction 218 4.3.2 Independent Evidence for Mapping 223 4.3.3 Inflection Classes 225 4.3.4 Feature-Changing Re-adjustments 228 4.3.5 Purely Morphological Elements 233 4.3.5.1 The English Past Participle 233 4.3.5.2 The ‘Third Stem’ in Latin 235 4.3.6 Mapping onto a Sub-Classification 239 4.3.6.1 English Tense Stems 240 4.3.6.2 The Russian Instrumental Case 242 4.4 Sub-Classification and Referral 244 4.5 Disjunctive Ordering 248 Appendix 1 — Transcription of Greek 252 Appendix 2 — Transcription of Russian 253 References 255 Chapter 1 — Overview 1 Chapter 1 Outline 1.0 Introduction At various times, morphology has held a central place in the attentions of scholars interested in the structure of language. As Anderson (1988) points out, this has been particularly true of the ‘mature’ phase of various theoretical frameworks. Thus the early neo-grammarian concern with phonological change gradually developed in the direction of an interest in morphological phenomena in the work of such scholars as de Saussure, Hjelmslev, KuryÂowicz and Benveniste. In like manner the American structuralist school, which was at first almost exclusively concerned with sharpening the notion of a ‘phoneme’, turned its attention, when this was considered substantially achieved, to the corresponding morphological notion of a ‘morpheme’, culminating in important contributions such as Harris (1942), Hockett (1947, 1954) and Nida (1948). One consequence of this emergence of serious morphological study in the later period of a theoretical framework is that it has tended to be put aside in favour of starting from fresh principles when the framework itself has been superseded by new interests.