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
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
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
4.1 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