Paradigm conventions

Greville G. Corbett Surrey Morphology Group

University of Surrey

Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea,

Split, 18-21 September 2013

The support of the ERC, the AHRC and the ESRC is gratefully acknowledged

1

Paradigms and their significance

•  vital for Word and Paradigm accounts

•  epiphenomena for some linguists

•  representation

2

Overview

•  representation

•  conventions?

•  draft conventions

•  challenges

•  conclusion

3

1. Representation: does it matter?

•  It matters for the “producer”.

“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” Albert Einstein

•  It matters for the “receiver” – especially when the

focus is elsewhere.

4

Compare morphosyntactic glossing

•  it was chaotic till recently

•  progress:

–  Lehmann (1983)

–  Leipzig Glossing Rules (Comrie, Haspelmath & Bickel 2004): adopted by SLE

5

They bring up a surprisingly large number of analytical decisions: Pap-e su napusti-l-e Rim ... pope-PL.NOM AUX.PRS.3PL leave-PST-F.PL Rome[SG.ACC] ... ‘The popes left Rome ...

Leipzig Glossing Rules: hard work!

6

2. Conventions for presenting paradigms?

•  important for morphologists – we’re not always clear what we are doing

•  even more important for others, who tend to take morphology for granted

•  first mention of SPC

7

Current (often unspoken) assumptions

•  dimensions represent features •  use two dimensions first •  page view (portrait) >> screen view (landscape) •  traditional ordering of feature values •  big battalions >> individual lexemes •  conditions: included or noted •  elegance •  morphology-free syntax •  morphosyntax >> form classes

[ >> means ‘preferred over’] 8

Dimensions represent features

SINGULAR PLURAL

NOMINATIVE devuška devuški

ACCUSATIVE devušku devušek

GENITIVE devuški devušek

DATIVE devuške devuškam

INSTRUMENTAL devuškoj devuškami

LOCATIVE devuške devuškax

Russian devuška ‘girl’

9

Use two dimensions first: Russian verbs ‘carry’ PRS SG PL

1

nesu

nesem

2

neseš´

nesete

3

neset

nesut

‘carry’ PST SG PL

M

nes

nesli

F

nesla

N

neslo 10

Page view rather than screen view (portrait >> landscape)

suis es est sommes êtes sont

suis sommes es êtes est sont

So, we conventionally have person/number and case/number

11

Ordering of features

•  absolutive >> elative

•  present >> pluperfect

12

Big battalions >> individual lexemes

SINGULAR PLURAL NOMINATIVE devuška devuški ACCUSATIVE devušku devušek GENITIVE devuški devušek DATIVE devuške devuškam INSTRUMENTAL devuškoj devuškami LOCATIVE devuške devuškax

Russian devuška ‘girl’

Russian has arguably ten case values (Corbett 2008) 13

Number differentiability in Russian

See Zaliznjak (1967/2002: 57-58), Corbett (2000: 171-175)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOM tramvaj laj knig-a skuk-a kost´ gordost´ bolot-o molok-o ACC tramvaj laj knig-u skuk-u kost´ gordost´ bolot-o molok-o SG GEN tramvaj-a laj-a knig-i skuk-i kost-i gordost-i bolot-a molok-a DAT tramvaj-u laj-u knig-e skuk-e kost-i gordost-i bolot-u molok-u INS tramvaj-em laj-em knig-oj skuk-oj kost´-ju gordost´-ju bolot-om molok-om LOC tramvaj-e laj-e knig-e skuk-e kost-i gordost-i bolot-e molok-e NOM tramva-i knig-i kost-i bolot-a ACC tramva-i knig-i kost-i bolot-a PL GEN tramvaj-ev knig kost-ej bolot DAT tramvaj-am knig-am kostj-am bolot-am INS tramvaj-ami knig-ami kostj-ami bolot-ami LOC tramvaj-ax knig-ax kostj-ax bolot-ax ‘tram’ ‘bark(ing)’ ‘book’ ‘boredom’ ‘bone’ ‘pride’ ‘bog’ ‘milk’

I II III IV

Conditions:

14

Animacy condition in Russian ‘factory’ ‘boy’ ‘country’ ‘uncle’ ‘bone’ ‘mouse’ ‘deed’ ‘monster’

SG

NOM zavod mal´čik stran-a djadj-a kost´ myš´ del-o čudovišč-e ACC zavod mal´čik-a stran-u djadj-u kost´ myš´ del-o čudovišč-e GEN zavod-a mal´čik-a stran-i djad-i kost-i myš-i del-a čudovišč-a DAT zavod-u mal´čik-u stran-e djad-e kost-i myš-i del-u čudovišč-u INS zavod-om mal´čik-om stran-oj djad-ej kost´-ju myš-ju del-om čudovišč-em LOC zavod-e mal´čik-e stran-e djad-e kost-i myš-i del-e čudovišč-e

PL

NOM zavod-y mal´čik-i stran-i djad-i kost-i myš-i del-a čudovišč-a ACC zavod-y mal´čik-ov stran-i djad-ej kost-i myš-ej del-a čudovišč GEN zavod-ov mal´čik-ov stran djad-ej kost-ej myš-ej del čudovišč DAT zavod-am mal´čik-am stran-am djadj-am kostj-am myš-am del-am čudovišč-am INS zavod-ami mal´čik-ami stran-ami djadj-ami kostj-ami myš-ami del-ami čudovišč-ami LOC zavod-ax mal´čik-ax stran-ax djadj-ax kostj-ax myš-ax del-ax čudovišč-ax

I II III IV

1.  class II: unique accusative singular in –u 2.  animate masculine nouns and plural nouns: ACC=GEN 3.  otherwise: ACC=NOM

15

Syllable count in Serbo-Croat nouns

‘window’ ‘city’

SG

NOM prozor grad VOC prozor-e grad-e ACC prozor grad GEN prozor-a grad-a DAT prozor-u grad-u INS prozor-om grad-om LOC prozor-u grad-u

PL

NOM/VOC prozor-i grad-ov-i ACC prozor-e grad-ov-e GEN prozor-a grad-ov-a DAT prozor-ima grad-ov-ima INS prozor-ima grad-ov-ima LOC prozor-ima grad-ov-ima

(Browne 1993: 319-320) 16

Typology of conditions

consequent

antecedent content paradigm form paradigm realization

semantic

part of speech

morphological

phonological

Russian countability Russian animacy

syllable count in SC

17

Elegance

SINGULAR DUAL PLURAL

1 EXCL -ko -mi

1 INCL -ta -tayo

2 -mo -yo

3 -na -da

MINIMAL AUGMENTED

1 -ko -mi

1/2 -ta -tayo

2 -mo -yo

3 -na -da

Ilocano pronominal forms

Traditional account Minimal-augmented account

Corbett (2000: 166-169) and references there, especially Conklin (1962: 134-136)

18

PERSON SINGULAR DUAL TRIAL PLURAL 1 INCL -- yʉkkʉ ngakorrbbarrah ngakorrʉ 1 EXCL ngʉnʉ yarrbbarrah yarrʉ 2 kʉ nakorbbarrah nakorrʉ 3 M nawʉ

barrbbarrah barrʉ 3 F ngadʉ

Rembarrnga (McKay 1978: 28) dative pronoun forms: traditional categories

PERSON MINIMAL UNIT AUGMENTED

AUGMENTED

1 ngʉnʉ yarrbbarrah yarrʉ 1/2 yʉkkʉ ngakorrbbarrah ngakorrʉ 2 kʉ nakorrbbarrah nakorrʉ 3 M nawʉ

barrbbarrah barrʉ 3 F ngadʉ

dative pronoun forms: minimal-augmented analysis

19

20

azg azgk‘

azg azgs

azgi azgs

azgi azgac‘

cases (partial inventory) SG PL

Classical Armenian: nouns (azg ‘a people’)

see: http://www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/ (Baerman 2002)

NOMINATIVE

ACCUSATIVE

LOCATIVE

DATIVE

20 20

21

a d

a e

b e

c f

Morphology-free syntax: non-autonomous values

Zaliznjak (1973); see also Baerman, Brown & Corbett (2005: 42-44) and references there.

NOMINATIVE

ACCUSATIVE

LOCATIVE

DATIVE

SG PL

21 21

Syncretism: verbal affixes marking agreement in Archi

GENDER NUMBER

singular plural

I (male human) w-/<w>

II (female human) d-/<r>

III (some animates, all insects, some inanimates)

b-/<b>

IV (some animates, some inanimates, abstracts)

Ø-/<Ø>

b-/<b>

Ø-/<Ø>

22

Morphosyntax >> morphomic patterns

morphomic pattern in Dhaasanac (Cushitic)

SINGULAR   PLURAL  1INCL γuufumi 1EXCL γuufumi γuufeeni 2 γuufeeni γuufeeni 3F γuufeeni γuufumi 3M γuufumi γuufumi

‘cough’  (PERFECT)

from  Tosco  (2001:  111-­‐205),  discussed  in  Baerman,  Brown  &  CorbeJ  2005:  105-­‐106,    183-­‐186,  236-­‐241)  

SINGULAR   PLURAL  1INCL seð 1EXCL seð sieti 2 sieti sieti 3F sieti seð 3M seð seð

‘walk’  (PERFECT)  

23

3. Draft conventions (!)

•  dimensions match features√ •  use two dimensions first (but announce switches) •  stick with person/number and case/number tradition

– more generally: orientation not to be flipped unannounced

–  conventional ordering of values •  individual lexemes/large class/general schema: we

need to be told which •  conditions: need to be explicit •  elegance √ (provided we’re told what it costs) •  morphology-free syntax √ •  morphosyntax >> morphomic patterns √

24

4. Challenges

25

4.1 Dimensions in which paradigms extend

•  forms of one lexeme •  forms of lexemes which inflect identically •  forms of lexemes which inflect identically,

allowing for predictable differences •  abstract shape of lexemes which are

syntactically equivalent

26

f i g i h j

k n l o m o

p s q t r t

a d b d c e

content paradigm

form paradigm

realization

Compare Stump (2012)

Paradigm types

27

Chiquihuitlán Mazatec

Enrique Palancar with Petra Cruz, one of the few speakers left of Tilapa Otomi (2012)

4.2 Overlaying of inflection classes

Overlaid inflection classes in Mazatec (Otomanguean language of Oaxaca, Mexico)

29

‘gather’ 1SG hba3 ya1 2SG čha2 ye2 3 hba3 ya2 1INCL čha 2 yã2 1PL čha 2 yĩ24 2PL čha 2 yũ2

‘return’ ‘pull out’ ‘take out’ 1SG bu1 ya1 hba3 nẽ1 ba3šæ1 2SG bo3 ye2 čha3 nĩ1 nã2še2 3 bu3 ya2 hba3 nẽ1 ba3šæ2 1INCL bu3 yã2 čha3 nẽ31 nã2šẽ 2 1PL bu3 yĩ24 čha3 nĩ14 na2šĩ24 2PL bu3 yũ2 čha 3nũ1 na2šũ2

prefix final vowel tone

Chiquihuitlán Mazatec: source: Jamieson (1982: 152, 166-7); thanks to Matthew Baerman 29

5. Conclusions

•  substance matters more than representation; conventions should clarify what the analyst intends

•  the representation has enormous potential •  we are doing better with morphosyntactic

glossing. It is time to improve our representation of paradigms

•  our largely unspoken conventions are a good start.

30

References Baerman, Matthew. 2002. Armenian Language Report. In: Surrey Syncretisms Database.

Available at: http://www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/ Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett. 2005. The Syntax-Morphology

Interface: A study of syncretism (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Browne, Wayles. 1993. Serbo-Croat. In: Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett (eds) The Slavonic Languages, 306-387. London: Routledge.

Comrie, Bernard, Martin Haspelmath & Balthasar Bickel. 2004. The Leipzig Glossing Rules. Available at: http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php. [Revised 2008.]

Conklin, Harold C. 1962. Lexicographical treatment of folk taxonomies. In: Fred W. Householder & Sol Saporta (eds) Problems in Lexicography (=Publication of the Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics 21, =International Journal of American Linguistics 28, no. 2, pt. 4), 119‑141. Bloomington: Indiana University. [Second edition 1967.]

Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville G. 2008. Determining morphosyntactic feature values: the case of case. In:

Greville G. Corbett & Michael Noonan (eds) Case and grammatical relations: papers in honor of Bernard Comrie, 1-34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Corbett, Greville G. & Wayles Browne. 2009. Serbo-Croat: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian (=Chapter 18). In: Bernard Comrie (ed.) The World’s Major Languages, 2nd edition, 330-346. London: Routledge. [Revised and updated version of 1987 chapter.]

31 31

References Jamieson, Carol. 1982. Conflated subsystems marking person and aspect in Chiquihuatlan

Mazatec. International Journal of American Linguistics 48.139-176. Lehmann, Christian. 1983. Directions for interlinear morphemic translations. Folia Linguistica

16.193-224. McKay, Graham R. 1978. Pronominal person and number categories in Rembarrnga and

Djeebbana. Oceanic Linguistics 17.27‑37. Stump, Gregory. 2012. The formal and functional architecture of inflectional morphology. In

Angela Ralli, Geert Booij, Sergio Scalise & Athanasios Karasimos (eds.), Morphology and the Architecture of Grammar: On-line Proceedings of the Eighth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM8), Cagliari, Italy, 14-17 September 2011, 255-271. URL: http://lmgd.philology.upatras.gr/en/research/downloads/MMM8_Proceedings.pdf.

Tosco, Mauro 2001. The Dhaasanac language. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1967/2002. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie Moscow: Nauka. [Reprinted

in: Andrej A. Zaliznjak. 2002. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie: s priloženiem izbrannyx rabot po sovremennomu russkomu jazyku i obščemu jazykoznaniju,1-370. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul´tury.] [Page references to 2002 edition.]

Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1973. O ponimanii termina ‘padež’ v lingvističeskix opisanijax. In: Andrej A. Zaliznjak (ed.) Problemy grammatičeskogo modelirovanija, 53-87. Moscow: Nauka.

32 32