Paradigm conventions

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 Leipzig Glossing Rules: hard work! They bring up a surprisingly large number of analytical decisions: Pap-e su pope-PL.NOM AUX.PRS.3PL ‘The popes left Rome ... napusti-l-e Rim ... leave-PST-F.PL Rome[SG.ACC] ... 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 Russian devuška ‘girl’ SINGULAR PLURAL NOMINATIVE devuška devuški ACCUSATIVE devušku devušek GENITIVE devuški devušek DATIVE devuške devuškam INSTRUMENTAL devuškoj devuškami LOCATIVE devuške devuškax 9 Use two dimensions first: Russian verbs ‘carry’ PRS SG PL 1 nesu nesem 2 neseš´ nesete 3 neset nesut SG PL ‘carry’ PST M nes F nesla N neslo nesli 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 Russian devuška ‘girl’ SINGULAR NOMINATIVE devuška ACCUSATIVE devušku GENITIVE devuški DATIVE devuške INSTRUMENTAL devuškoj LOCATIVE devuške PLURAL devuški devušek devušek devuškam devuškami devuškax Russian has arguably ten case values (Corbett 2008) 13 Conditions: Number differentiability in Russian laj 3 knig-a 4 skuk-a 5 kost´ 6 gordost´ 7 bolot-o 8 molok-o DAT tramvaj tramvaj-a tramvaj-u laj laj-a laj-u knig-u knig-i knig-e skuk-u skuk-i skuk-e kost´ kost-i kost-i gordost´ gordost-i gordost-i bolot-o bolot-a bolot-u molok-o molok-a 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 tramva-i tramvaj-ev tramvaj-am tramvaj-ami tramvaj-ax ‘tram’ ‘bark(ing)’ knig-i knig-i knig knig-am knig-ami knig-ax ‘book’ ‘boredom’ kost-i kost-i kost-ej kostj-am kostj-ami kostj-ax ‘bone’ ‘pride’ bolot-a bolot-a bolot bolot-am bolot-ami bolot-ax ‘bog’ ‘milk’ NOM ACC SG GEN ACC PL GEN DAT INS LOC 1 tramvaj 2 I II III IV See Zaliznjak (1967/2002: 57-58), Corbett (2000: 171-175) 14 Animacy condition in Russian SG PL NOM ‘factory’ zavod ‘boy’ mal´čik ‘country’ stran-a ‘uncle’ djadj-a ‘bone’ kost´ ‘mouse’ myš´ ‘deed’ del-o ‘monster’ 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 LOC zavod-om zavod-e mal´čik-om mal´čik-e stran-oj stran-e djad-ej djad-e kost´-ju kost-i myš-ju myš-i del-om del-e čudovišč-em čudovišč-e 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 zavod-ax mal´čik-ami mal´čik-ax stran-ami stran-ax djadj-ami djadj-ax kostj-ami kostj-ax myš-ami myš-ax del-ami del-ax čudovišč-ami čudovišč-ax LOC 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 NOM VOC ACC SG GEN DAT INS LOC NOM/VOC ACC PL GEN DAT INS LOC ‘window’ prozor prozor-e prozor prozor-a prozor-u prozor-om prozor-u ‘city’ grad grad-e grad grad-a grad-u grad-om grad-u prozor-i prozor-e prozor-a prozor-ima prozor-ima prozor-ima grad-ov-i grad-ov-e grad-ov-a grad-ov-ima grad-ov-ima grad-ov-ima (Browne 1993: 319-320) 16 Typology of conditions consequent antecedent semantic content paradigm Russian countability form paradigm realization Russian animacy part of speech morphological phonological syllable count in SC 17 Elegance Ilocano pronominal forms Traditional account SINGULAR 1 EXCL DUAL -ko 1 INCL -ta Minimal-augmented account PLURAL MINIMAL AUGMENTED -mi 1 -ko -mi -tayo 1/2 -ta -tayo 2 -mo -yo 2 -mo -yo 3 -na -da 3 -na -da Corbett (2000: 166-169) and references there, especially Conklin (1962: 134-136) 18 Rembarrnga (McKay 1978: 28) dative pronoun forms: traditional categories PERSON SINGULAR DUAL TRIAL PLURAL 1 INCL -- yʉkkʉ ngakorrbbarrah ngakorrʉ 1 EXCL ngʉnʉ yarrbbarrah 2 kʉ nakorbbarrah nakorrʉ 3M nawʉ 3F ngadʉ barrbbarrah barrʉ yarrʉ dative pronoun forms: minimal-augmented analysis PERSON MINIMAL ngʉnʉ UNIT AUGMENTED yarrbbarrah 1 AUGMENTED yarrʉ 1/2 yʉkkʉ ngakorrbbarrah ngakorrʉ 2 kʉ nakorrbbarrah nakorrʉ 3M nawʉ 3F ngadʉ barrbbarrah barrʉ 19 Classical Armenian: nouns (azg a people ) SG PL cases (partial inventory) azg azgk‘ NOMINATIVE azg azgs ACCUSATIVE azgi azgs LOCATIVE azgi azgac‘ see: http://www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/ DATIVE (Baerman 2002) 20 Morphology-free syntax: non-autonomous SG PL values a d NOMINATIVE a e ACCUSATIVE b e LOCATIVE c f DATIVE Zaliznjak (1973); see also Baerman, Brown & Corbett (2005: 42-44) and references there. 21 Syncretism: verbal affixes marking agreement in Archi GENDER NUMBER singular I (male human) plural w-/<w> b-/<b> II (female human) d-/<r> III (some animates, all insects, some inanimates) b-/<b> IV (some animates, some inanimates, abstracts) Ø-/<Ø> Ø-/<Ø> 22 Morphosyntax >> morphomic patterns morphomic pattern in Dhaasanac (Cushitic) cough (PERFECT) 1INCL 1EXCL 2 3F 3M walk (PERFECT) SINGULAR PLURAL γuufumi γuufeeni γuufeeni γuufumi γuufumi γuufeeni γuufeeni γuufumi γuufumi 1INCL 1EXCL 2 3F 3M SINGULAR PLURAL seð sieti sieti seð seð sieti sieti seð seð from Tosco (2001: 111‐205), discussed in Baerman, Brown & CorbeJ 2005: 105‐106, 183‐186, 236‐241) 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 Paradigm types content paradigm form paradigm realization a d f i k n p s b d g i l o q t c e h j m o r t Compare Stump (2012) 27 4.2 Overlaying of inflection classes Chiquihuitlán Mazatec Enrique Palancar with Petra Cruz, one of the few speakers left of Tilapa Otomi (2012) Overlaid inflection classes in Mazatec (Otomanguean language of Oaxaca, Mexico) 1SG 2SG 3 1INCL 1PL 2PL final vowel 1SG 2SG 3 1INCL 1PL 2PL ‘return’ 1 1 bu ya 3 2 bo ye bu3 ya2 3 2 bu yã 3 24 bu yĩ 3 2 bu yũ ‘gather’ 3 1 hba ya čha2 ye2 3 2 hba ya čha 2 yã2 2 24 čha yĩ čha 2 yũ2 prefix ‘pull out’ 3 1 hba nẽ 3 1 čha nĩ hba3 nẽ1 3 31 čha nẽ 3 14 čha nĩ 3 1 čha nũ tone ‘take out’ 3 1 ba šæ 2 2 nã še ba3šæ2 2 2 nã šẽ 2 24 na šĩ 2 2 na šũ 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 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