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 Nominave amīcus amīcī cursus cursūs Genive amīcī amīcōrum cursūs cursuum cursuī amīcō amīcīs cursibus Dave (cursū) Accusa.ve amīcum amīcōs cursum cursūs Abla.ve amīcō amīcīs cursū cursibus Vocave 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 <NOVYJ, {CASE: GEN, NUM: SG, GEN: F}> <nov-, {CASE: GEN, NUM: SG, GEN: F}> Rules: {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 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 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 <y> or <i> ¡ For genitive plural 1. {case: gen, num: pl, class: I} à /-ov/ 2. {case: gen, num: pl, class: III} à /-ej/ ¡ Notice that classes II and IV have “zero endings” – a nice feature of realizational theories is that no rule at all is needed here! The ultimate default… ¡ Notice that these rules apply to both animate and inanimate nouns, so we don’t want our rules to include information about animacy! The Problem (as identified by Baerman 2004) 21 ¡ 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 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.