Morphological Paradigms

A key notion in understanding language is ‘possible word (lexeme)’. While there are lexemes that are internally homogeneous and externally consistent, we find others with splits in their internal structure (morphological paradigm) and inconsistencies in their external behavior (syntactic requirements). I first explore the characteristics of the most straightforward lexemes, in order to establish a point in the theoretical space from which we can calibrate the real examples we find. I then schematize the interesting phenomena that deviate from this idealization, including suppletion, syncretism, deponency, and defectiveness. Next I analyze the different ways in which lexemes are ‘split’ by such phenomena. I set out a typology of possible splits, along four dimensions: splits that are (i) based on the composition/feature signature of the paradigm versus those based solely on morphological form; (ii) motivated (following a boundary motivated from outside the paradigm) versus purely morphology-internal (‘morphomic’); (iii) regular (extending across the lexicon) versus irregular (lexically specified); (iv) externally relevant versus irrelevant: we expect
splits to be internal to the lexeme, but some have external relevance (they require different syntactic
behaviors).
    I identify instances of these four dimensions separately: they are orthogonal, and therefore not
dependent on each other. Their interaction gives a substantial typology, and it proves to be surprisingly
complete: the possibilities specified are all attested. The typology also allows for the unexpected patterns of behavior to overlap in particular lexemes, producing some remarkable examples. Such examples show that the notion ‘possible word’ is more challenging than many linguists have realized.

Abstract: Typological definitions of linguistic categories must not only provide cross-linguistically applicable criteria to identify them but also produce typologically natural interpretations of individual linguistic systems. This paper discusses the case as a cross-linguistic category. In functional typology the case is commonly understood as dependent marking of an NP’s relation to its head. I argue that this function-oriented definition of case is not typologically tenable, being at the same time too broad and too narrow. Instead of a set of homogeneous functions it embraces a heterogeneous range of functional clusters. As a few examples of nominal inflection systems show, some typical functions of case – grammatical relations, possessive marking, spatial relations etc. – while expressed by morphological means and fitting well in the functional definition, may be only loosely, if at all, integrated into one system of nominal inflection. I will also show that their deviant morphological patterning in these languages may be explained by their functional / semantic properties. To produce typologically natural interpretations of individual systems, a typological definition should be based on a view of the case as a paradigmatic category rather than exclusively on functions of individual values of this category. This can be done in two different ways. Either we define the case as a cross-linguistic category whose values must include certain core functions (grammatical relations being the most likely candidate) but also, in individual languages, may include functions whose expression is formally aligned with the expression of core functions into one inflectional system. This understanding of case seems to be implicit in various approaches to case, descriptive and theoretical; one of the aims of this paper is to make it more explicit. Another definition discussed below radically departs from the conventional view in that it does not assume any functions of NP to be core functions of the category of case. Instead, the case is defined as functionally heterogeneous category that includes, in individual languages, any functions of NP whose expression is formally aligned into one inflectional paradigm. This definition opens a new research agenda: a study of what functions of NPs show more readiness to be formally aligned together and integrated into language-specific systems of nominal inflection.

Implementation of person hierarchies in verb inflection can produce indexation paradigms that are very complex by the usual standards for measuring complexity in paradigms. Criteria are proposed here for measuring hierarchical patterns in their own terms and more generally for describing relational, linear, and blueprint-driven properties of grammar.

Often features are presented as clean, neat, simple. Indeed it is the contrast with the idiosyncrasies of lexical items which gives the intuitive justification for features. But reality is more complex. There are many instances where it is arguable whether we should postulate a feature (value), as with person in Archi. We must recognize that feature systems vary: (a) according to how well founded they are, and (b) in how they distribute across the lexicon. To analyse this difficult area, the penumbra of feature systems, I start from an idealized view, and then plot the deviations from that ideal. In other words, I take a ‘canonical’ approach. Having justified this approach in general terms, I propose a specific set of converging criteria for canonical features and values, concentrating on the genuine morphosyntactic features. In brief, the overarching principles are that a canonical morphosyntactic feature is constrained by simple rules of syntax (including the claim that syntax is ‘morphology-free’) and has robust formal marking. These give us a point in the theoretical space from which to calibrate the difficult instances which abound in feature systems.

In accounts of particular features, various types of what we may call non-canonical behaviour have been pointed out: e.g., non-autonomous case values (Zaliznjak 1973), minor numbers, inquorate genders. We should ask whether these problems are feature-specific or whether they recur in the different morphosyntactic features. It turns out that, at the right level of abstraction, we find similar instances of non-canonicity with the different features. Let us concentrate on the criteria contributing to ‘robust formal marking’:

Criterion 1: Canonical features and their values have dedicated forms.
We find non-autonomous case values (violating criterion 1), in Classical Armenian, for instance (Baerman 2002); similarly we find non-autonomous gender values (as in Romanian).

Criterion 2: Canonical features and their values are uniquely distinguishable across other logically compatible features and their values.
Deviations give sub-genders (Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian), sub-cases (Russian) and sub-numbers (Biak).

Criterion 3: Canonical features and their values are distinguished consistently across relevant parts of speech (word classes).
In the easy examples, one part of speech has values which represent a collapsing of values available on another. More interesting are systems where combinations give additional values: combined gender systems (Mba), constructed number systems (Mele-Fila) and combined person (Maybrat).

Criterion 4: Canonical features and their values are distinguished consistently across lexemes within relevant parts of speech.
The basic deviation gives us a minor value: as in a minor number value (Bezhta), a minor case (Russian), a minor gender (Lelemi).

This leads to the question of whether such deviations can co-exist. I give a striking example: the Russian second genitive exhibits all four types of non-canonical behaviour concurrently. Since it deviates from all four listed criteria this marks the extreme of the typological space.

By investigating the penumbra of feature systems, including the possible and impossible interactions within the penumbra (which features are the context for the deviations of others), we put the theory of morphosyntactic features on a more realistic and hence firmer foundation.

This paper deals with the three stems traditionally postulated in the description of Lithuanian verbal inflection, viz. the Present stem, the Past stem and the Infinitive stem. These stems play major role in the subgrouping of verbs into inflectional classes. The status of each of the stems as ‘morphomic’ or ‘inflectional’ is assessed in the light of the data from both inflectional and derivational morphology. It is argued on the basis of intricate prosodic and morphophonological data that the Infinitive stem is indeed necessary for an adequate description of the Lithuanian verbal system, and also that a separate Past Passive Participle stem relevant for deverbal derivation can also be postulated.