LOT Summer School July 2012Introduction to Distributed MorphologyRolf Noyer, University of Pennsylvania11:15 am-1:15 pmbuilding 10 Blauw Gedicht I

Session 5:Mixed categories and constituent sizeLocality and allomorphy

Congurational denition of category

• In Aspects Chomsky proposed that ‘categories’ such as subject and object arenot primitives of grammar but rather are de!ned in terms of the syntacticposition an argument appears in.

NP = “subject” when [NP, S] NP = “object’ when [NP, VP]

• The con!gurational approach to other categories is similar, e.g.

Root = “noun” when [Root, nP]Root = “verb” when [Root, vP]

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2

Mixed categories

• Mixed categories such as nominalizations and participles, as well as constituentswhose size does not correspond to canonical phrase types (e.g. small clauses,reduced relatives), have have played an important role in the development ofDM’s approach to syntactic structure

• The essential premise is that — frequently — the category labels used inlinguistic descriptions correspond not to intrinsic properties of syntacticterminals but rather are contextually determined.

• In its strongest form this hypothesis removes all category-de!ning propertiesfrom open-class ROOT terminals. The ‘category’ (understood descriptively) of aword is determined by:

— the properties of functional projections— the con!guration (syntactic structural position) that a Root appears in

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 3

Nominalizations

• Nominalizations were the !rst mixed category to receive attention in DM.• Since Chomsky (1970) (“Remarks on Nominalization”) the distinction between

-ing nominalizations (destroying) and ‘lexical’ nominalizations (destruction)came to be understood as the result of the grammatical component whichgenerated them.

• -ing nominalizations were assume to be constructed in the syntax and thedestruction-type constructed prior to syntax in the Lexicon.

• Marantz, and later Harley & Noyer, argued for a reconceptualization of thisdistinction based not on a Lexical/Syntactic di"erence, but rather on distinctsyntactic structures (thereby avoiding a generative Lexicon).

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 4

Three types of nominalizations1. ‘Lexical’: John’s/*John *hastily/hasty consumption of the apple.2. ‘Gerund’: John(’s) hastily/*hasty eating (*of) the apple3. ‘Mixed’: John’s/*John *hastily/hasty eating of the apple

• Syntactically the ‘lexical’ type cannot assign Case to its object, which musttherefore be Case-marked by of

• The subject of the ‘lexical’ type is genitive (with ’s); the subject of the ‘gerund’type does not require genitive

• The ‘lexical’ type permits only adjectival modi!cation, not adverbial; the‘gerund’ is the opposite, permitting only adverbial modi!cation

• A ‘mixed’ type has the same -ing su#x as the gerund but otherwise has thesyntactic behavior of ‘lexical’ nominalization, including the potentialdistribution of particles such as upJohn’s hastily eating the apple up / John’s hastily eating up the apple*John’s hasty eating of the apple up / John’s hastily eating up of the apple

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 5

Distinct structures, not distinct modules

‘Lexical’ and ‘mixed’ nominalizations are Roots in a ‘nominal’ environment.

[John [D ’s [RootP [EAT] of the apple]] → John’s eating of the apple

‘Gerund’ nominalizations are Roots which appear in a larger ‘small clause’,including a v head whose presence makes Accusative Case assignment possiblefor the object and (apparently) permits a subject without genitive

[John [v EAT1 … [the apple2 [RootP t₁ t2]] → John(’s) eating the apple[John [v EAT1 … [the apple2 [RootP t₁ t2 up ]] → John(’s) eating the apple up

The particle up can remain in situ (or incorporate with the verb); since the objectmoves up in the structure it appears to the left of a particle in situ.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 6

Other correlates of the difference in nominalization typesBesides a di"erence in syntactic behavior, there are morphophonologicalcorrelates to the putative lexical vs. syntactic nominalizations:• The phonological form of the su#x in ‘lexical’ nominalizations is sometimes

conditioned by speci!c Roots (consump-tion)but ‘syntactic’ nominalizations have -ing (eat-ing), irrespective of the Rootchosen

• The ‘lexical’ nominalizations sometimes show stem allomorphy (consump- ←consume) whereas the ‘syntactic’ nominalizations do not have stem allomorphy

These di"erences could arise if specialized allomorph choices are conditioned “inthe Lexicon” — which then implies that post-lexical word-formation wouldalways be insensitive to allomorphy.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 7

Phrasal allomorphyYet, there are processes which are (usually) assumed to be syntactic but whichnevertheless involve signal-speci!c allomorphy.A familiar case that has attracted some attention is the allomorphy of Englishpossessive ’s.

The tabloid press remarked that [the queen of England] ’s/*Ø hat was much larger than [the queen of the Netherlands] Ø/?’s hatyet much smaller than [the ambassador of Barbados] ’s/?Ø hat.

• For some speakers the possessive is realized as Ø after plural -s (as in TheNetherlands) but not after mere phonological s (as in Barbados)

• On the basis of this type of example, DM rejects the absolute correlationno allomorphy of signals ←→ syntactic formationallomorphy of signals ←→ non-syntactic formation

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 8

Locality of Allomorphy• Embick (2011) considers in detail the problem of allomorphy in DM. • According to Embick, allomorphic sensitivity is possible only under certain

conditions of structural locality. • If the conditioner and the target of allomorphy are too distant structurally, there

can be no allomorphy. Schematically:[[ X ] …Y … ] Local relation:

signal of Y can depend on choice of signal for X and/or signal of X can depend on features of Y

[[ X ] … B … ] … Y … ]] Non-local relation (B is some kind of ‘barrier’):Signal of Y is independent of choice of X.Signal of X is independent of signal of Y.

• The empirical question is: what counts as a barrier between trigger and target?How ‘close’ is ‘close enough’ for allomorphic locality?

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 9

Italian Passato Remoto

(a) venire ‘come’, (b) muovere ‘move’, (c) mettere ‘put’, (d) vedere ‘see’

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl(a) vɛnn-i ven-í-sti vɛnn-e ven-í-mmo ven-í-ste vɛnn-ero(b) mɔss-i mwov-é-sti mɔss-e mwov-é-mmo mwov-é-ste mɔss-ero(c) mís-i mett-é-sti mís-e mett-é-mmo mettt-é-ste mís-ero(d) víd-i ved-é-sti víd-e ved-é-mmo ved-é-ste víd-ero

• The stem shows allomorphy apparently conditioned by the person/number of thesubject, e.g. mwov in 2sg, 1pl, 2pl vs. mɔss in 1sg, 3sg and 3pl. The samepattern is replicated in the other verbs: it should not, therefore, be a property ofsignals alone.

• Calabrese 2012: the desinence conditions the ‘special’ allomorph in the rootonly when there is no theme vowel intervening between it and the root

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 10

Embick’s analysis (Embick, to appear)Athematic Verb: Root –T[+past]–AGRThematic Verb: Root-THEME-–T[+past]–AGR

T[+past] selects the ‘special’ root allomorph under strict adjacency.If T[+past] is not immediately adjacent to Root the default root must be inserted

Morpheme Interaction Conjecture (MIC)PF Interactions in which two morphemes are referred to as morphemes occur onlyunder linear adjacency (concatenation)• The Italian passo remoto stem allomorphy involves reference to two morphemes

(Root and T).• Embick points out that if the MIC is correct, it cannot be captured in a theory

without abstract morphemes (i.e. an a#x-less or ‘a-morphous’ phonology or aversion of OT morphology which freely permits global e"ects).

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 11

Morphophonology not under adjacency

• On the other hand, there can be purely phonological e"ects that are triggered byspeci!c morphemes, but do not target another morpheme per se, but rather aphonological structure.

• In these cases it is phonological locality only that matters; linear adjacency ofthe trigger and target morphemes is not necessary.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 12

Campanian standard Italian Campanian

pres. indic. imperf. indic. pres. indic. imperf. indic.1sg kant-o kant-a-v-o kand-ə kand-a-v-ə

2sg kant-i kant-a-v-i kɛnd-ə kand-ɛ-v-ə

3sg kant-a kant-a-v-a kand-ə kand-a-v-ə (Maiden 1991)• In Campanian, an underlying /i/ in the 2sg causes raising (‘metaphony’) in the

preceding syllable, so underlying /a/ appears as /ɛ/ instead. • Subsequently /i/ and /a/ neutralize as /ə/ word-!nally.• In /kɛnd-ə/ the raising targets the preceding syllable which happens to be the

root syllable, but in /kand-ɛ-v-ə/ the preceding syllable happens to be the themevowel.

• Thus the process does not target any morpheme specifically and is notrestricted to applying to adjacent morphemes.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 13

Participles, adjectives and reduced relative clauses Embick (2004)

[v [Root]] ‘eventive’ verb: rot[event, but lacking Asp or T]

[Asp [Root]] ‘adjectival’ passive: rotten[no event]

[Asp [v [Root]]] ‘verbal’ passive rotted[presence of v entails event]

[T [Asp [v [Root]]] tensed verb: rots[presence of T]

• According to this hypothesis, there is no other way to define categories ex-cept as structures of roots and functional heads.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 14

Adjectival (stative) participles vs. Resultative participles

Only the ‘adjectival’ passive can appear in a resultative secondary predicate.

John was born rotten. (→ does not entail pre-birth events)

*John was born rotted. (→ entails an event of in utero rotting)

Greed turned John rotten.

*Greed turned John rotted.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 15

Huave participles

3 methods of participle formation:

a. post-thematic participles (analogous to post-thematic unaccusatives)

tsojt-iü-n ‘burst’ (cf. tsojt-iü-m ‘bursts’ vi., a-tsooid ‘burst’ vt.)

b. passive participles (formed with -üch to transitive pre-thematic stems)

a-jants-üch ‘washed’ (cf. a-jants ‘wash’ vt.)

c. pre!xation of n- to intransitive pre-thematic verb stems.

n-ajün ‘cooked’ (cf. ajün ‘cook’ vi., ajün-iich ‘cook’ vt.)

n-adam ‘big’ (cf. adam ‘be(come) big’, üüch m-adam ‘make big’)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 16

Atemporal participle vs. adjective

As far as I can tell, these terms refer to identical syntactic elements in Huave.

The n-pre!xed participles are homophonous with ordinary adjectives, the vastmajority of which begin with n- and refer to state properties.

• The post-thematic atemporal participles appear to refer only to states and donot to entail prior events:

Lojt-iü-n owil a chiüp kiajtear-TH-PPLE bottom the bag that

That cloth bag is torn (in its bottom part).

Ngo m-ajneaj m-e-rang letra wüx kolonts-o-n nawiig.NEG SUB-good SUB-2TH-make letter on wrinkle-TH-PPLE paper.

‘It’s not good for you to write letters on wrinkled paper.’

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 17

Atemporal participles = adjectives

• Of course, post-thematic atemporal participles do not preclude the actual exis-tence of a prior change-of-state event:

Joyaj noik owil naxiül kojnch-iü-n kos akwüüch nej tiüt boy.yonder one bottom corn!eld bend.over-TH-PPLE because trample it down ox

‘Over there a corn!eld is bent over because an ox trampled it down.’

Jonde kwane tsop-o-n xe-kamix.who.knows how stain-TH-PPLE my-shirt

Who knows how my shirt got stained.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 18

Tense/aspect and participles

Post-thematic Prethematic

tsojtiün ‘burst’ (non-eventive) nadam ‘big’

tsojtiüt ‘whose bursting occured’ tadam ‘whose growth occured’

tsojtiow ‘burst’ (eventive) te’adam ‘growing’

ap’tsojtiüm ‘whose bursting will occur’ ap’madam ‘whose growth will occur’

aliün tsojtiüm ‘still burst’ aliün madam ‘still growing’

la’tsojtiow ‘just/already burst’ la’dam ‘already grown’

There are 2 important distinctions between the 2 types. In the post-thematic type:

(1) there is no analytic progressive form (tsojtiow vs. te’adam)(2) the continuative and progressive forms always refer to the end state

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 19

Post-thematic participles refer only to the end state

Aaga naxey kiaj ngo m-asap mi-boy nej, chejt-io-w’an.DET man that not SUB-tie POSS-ox him, loose-TH-PROG just.

‘That man doesn’t tie up his ox; it is just walking around loose.’ Not: ‘ … it is just walking around being loosed’

Doming lejk-ia-w nangaj iümSunday open-TH-PROG holy house

‘The church stays open on Sundays’. Not: ‘On Sundays the church is being opened’

Nop najtaj apots tiüt noik panchep chip-io-w a panone woman carry PTCL one breadbasket !ll-TH-PROG DET bread.

‘A woman carries a breadbasket full of bread.’ Not: ‘… being !lled with bread’

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 20

Tensed participles are nearly identical to tensed verbs

• The di"erence between a tensed verb and participle is in fact neutralized inform in all the other tense/aspect combinations in the 3rd singular.

• In three situations the interpretations are virtually identical:

tsojt-iü-t ‘which burst’, ‘it burst’

ap’tsojt-iü-m ‘which will burst’, ‘it will burst’

la’tsojt-io-w ‘whose bursting has just occurred ’, ‘recently burst’

• This leads directly to the possibility that the ‘tensed participles’ are in factcovert reduced relatives of the type seen in English.

The red apple [voraciously eaten yesterday by John].

The red apple [which was voraciously eaten yesterday by John].

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 21

Tensed participles are not adjectives

• Participles which actually have tense do not have the same distribution as sim-ple adjectives. They are e"ectively limited to predicative positions, and do notoccur attributively (prenominally), like ordinary adjectives.

Ngo mandiüm [leajki-a-t [aaga ombeay iüm kiaj]] (predicative)NEG SUB-like open-TH-PRET DET door house this

‘He doesn’t like [that this house door was open]’

*Ngo mandiüm [aaga leajki-a-t ombiay iüm kiaj] (attributive) NEG SUB-like [DET open-TH-PRET door house this]

Intended: ‘He doesn’t like this having-been-opened house door’

[Aaga nine n-ambeor pet kiah] sa-neay. (adjective)DET little ADJ-black dog that 1-possesion

‘That little black dog is mine’

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 22

Tensed participles are not adjectives (cont.)

Xe-koj ngo ma-ndiüm aga na-ngaj mbaj [oxep ap’ma-yak-üch tempoots]my-brother NEG-like DET ADJ-sweet *ower tomorrow FUT SUB-put-PPLE church

‘My brother doesn’t like these *owers that tomorrow are to be put in the church.’

*Xe-koj ngo ma-ndiüm aga [oxep ap’ma-yak-üch tempoots] na-ngaj mbaj my-brother NEG SUB-like DET tomorrow FUT SUB-put-PPLE church ADJ-sweet *ower

Xe-koj ngo ma-ndiüm [aaga yax kiaj] [a-kojch-ich tim]my-brother NEG SUB-like DET avocado this TH-cut-PPLE yesterday

‘My brother doesn’t like this avocado (which) was cut yesterday.’

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 23

Ordinary verb phrases happily function as circumstantial participles

T-among [tengial awin] T-among [ngo m-ajaw xik]PRET-pass PROG whistle PRET-pass not SUB-see me

‘He passed whistling’ ‘He passed not seeing me’

T-aw [ajoy sombrer] T-aw [ngo majoy sombrer]PRET-leave wear hat PRET-leave not SUB-wear hat

‘He left wearing a hat.’ ‘He left not wearing a hat.’

Kiaj chük t-axom m-ajaw [aliük mi-ntaj nej] [apek tiüt mi-kwal-üw nejiw]then EVID PRET-!nd SUB-see come POSS-wife him hold PTCL POSS-son-their them

Then evidently he recognized his wife coming and holding their son.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 24

Circumstantial participles of verbs of movement → prepositions

The circumstantial participles of verbs of movement are so bleached that theyfunction like (or ?are) prepositions:

amb [goes to] = to

among [passes] = in front of

imiün [comes from] = from, o" of

akiiüb [accompanying] = with

ambamb [goes and goes] = across

andüy [be beside] = towards

Wüx t-ajtsor-iw nganüy aga naxey m-aki[i]üb mi-ntaj nej,when PRET-return-PL now DET man sub-accompany POSS-wife his

‘When they returned home, the man with his wife’

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 25

Circumstantial participles of verb of movement

T-iün-as [s-amb tiül kamiong]PRET-come-1 1-go in truck‘I came in a truck’, lit. ‘I came I go in a truck’

Juan t-ajmiük [imiün mal iüm]Juan PRET-fall come top house‘Juan fell o" the roof’, lit. ‘Juan fell comes from the roof’

Miüs t-aw tiüt [imiün wüx xiül]cat PRET-go PTCL come on tree‘The cat went down the tree’, lit. ‘The cat went down comes on the tree’

Nine al’chetem [among ombas]child CONT-sit pass body‘The child is sitting ahead of me’, lit. ‘The child is sitting passes body’

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 26

Relative clauses

The translation of relative clauses: also appear identical to full TPs.

Naxey t-ambiy a pet [tengial m-axamb xik]man PRET-kill DET dog [PROG SUB-bite me]

‘The man killed the dog [who was biting me]’

lit. ‘The man killed the dog [was biting me]’

Aaga pet [ambiy a naxey kiaj] niün andeow.DET dog kill DET man that sick

‘The dog who that man killed was sick’

lit. ‘e dog kill man sick’

Another type of reduced relative: agent nominals

La’áw [aaga naxey] [aaga ne-mbiy pet]REC-left that man that AGENT-kill dog

‘The man who killed the dog left’

lit. ‘The man, the dog-killer, left’

Chiün aaga kochil [nekooch onij]give that knife AGENT-cut meat

‘Give me the knife that you cut the meat with’

lit. ‘Give (me) the knife, meat-cutter’

Bare TPs are ambiguous (as are DPs in fact)

Because ‘bare’ TPs appear in the function of circumstantial participles as well asrelative clauses, there is no reason to presume that phrases containing ‘participial’forms are not also TPs, or, more accurately, reduced relatives.

Xe-koj ngo ma-ndiüm [aga na-ngaj mbaj [oxep ap’ma-yak-üch tempoots]]my-brother NEG-like DET ADJ-sweet *ower tomorrow fut sub-put-pple church

‘My brother doesn’t like these *owers that tomorrow are to be put in the church.’

Summing Up

• The illusion of tensed ‘participles’ in Huave arises because of the general sur-face ambiguity between ordinary tensed clauses and reduced relatives.

• This surface ambiguity emerges because circumstantial participles and restric-tive relative clauses have no special marking but appear identical to fullytensed clauses.