Lexical Constructions: Paradigms and Periphrastic Expression (original) (raw)
Paradigms and periphrastic expression: a study in realization-based lexicalism
Louisa Sadler & Andrew Spencer (eds.), Projecting Morphology, pp.111-157. CSLI Publications., 2004
Paradigms are primarily and mainly of single words but where short groups of words or phrases (e.g., Latin, and some Greek, perfective passives,) are syntactically comparable to single words in the corresponding places of a different paradigm they are obviously to be included in paradigms themselves. " -Robins 1959:124 Our intention in this paper is to develop an explanatory account of the special characteristics of periphrastic expressions by refining the traditional notion of PARADIGM employed within inferential-realizational approaches to morphology , Stump 1993. Our proposal draws on this notion in order to develop a substantive reconceptualization of the form and function of the lexicon in constraint-based theories of syntax. In particular, we argue that the paradigms defined by a language's morphology sometimes include periphrastic combinations (PERIPHRASES). As we show, this conclusion affords a simple resolution of a number of neglected problems which periphrases pose for theories of syntax; it also necessitates a radical rethinking of the relation between the form and content of syntactic structures. The proposals developed here are intended to be relatively neutral with respect to the choice among alternative lexicalist theories of syntax (including Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, and Construction Grammar); for concreteness, however, we articulate the details of our claims in the terminology of LFG . 1
Inflection at the morphology-syntax interface
Word Knowledge and Word Usage
What is inflection? Is it part of language morphology, syntax or both? What are the basic units of inflection and how do speakers acquire and process them? How do they vary across languages? Are some inflection systems somewhat more complex than others, and does inflectional complexity affect the way speakers process words? This chapter addresses these and other related issues from an interdisciplinary perspective. Our main goal is to map out the place of inflection in our current understanding of the grammar architecture. In doing that, we will embark on an interdisciplinary tour, which will touch upon theoretical, psychological, typological, historical and computational issues in morphology, with a view to looking for points of methodological and substantial convergence from a rather heterogeneous array of scientific approaches and theoretical perspectives. The main upshot is that we can learn more from this than just an additive medley of domain-specific results. In the end, a cross-domain survey can help us look at traditional issues in a surprisingly novel light.
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, 2017
Inflection is the systematic relation between words’ morphosyntactic content and their morphological form; as such, the phenomenon of inflection raises fundamental questions about the nature of morphology itself and about its interfaces. Within the domain of morphology proper, it is essential to establish how (or whether) inflection differs from other kinds of morphology and to identify the ways in which morphosyntactic content can be encoded morphologically. A number of different approaches to modeling inflectional morphology have been proposed; these tend to cluster into two main groups, those that are morpheme-based and those that are lexeme-based. Morpheme-based theories tend to treat inflectional morphology as fundamentally concatenative; they tend to represent an inflected word’s morphosyntactic content as a compositional summing of its morphemes’ content; they tend to attribute an inflected word’s internal structure to syntactic principles; and they tend to minimize the theor...
Minimalist Morphology: An Approach to Inflection
Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 1995
In this paper we advocate a minimal characterization of inflectional morphology as a combinatorial system of underspecified stems and affixes which is controlled by a hierarchy of categories, by general principles of affixation, and by principles that regulate paradigm structures. We first contrast our views on inflection with other proposals found in the literature, and then describe our machinery, illustrating it with facts from the inflectional morphology of the German verb. While subregularities are represented by structured lexical entries which take the form of non-mono tonic inheritance trees, regular affixation is assumed to be a monotonie operation. Finally the structure of paradigms is illustrated in some detail with an analysis of the subject agreement morphology of the verb in Classical Arabic. 1. The structure of the inflectional component The proper place of inflectional morphology within the main components of grammar is still a matter of debate. Inflectional categories such as morphological case or person-number agreement on verbs constitute relations between syntactic constituents and therefore must be present in the syntax. At the same time, however, they are mostly realized through affixes which are interleaved with phonological rules and therefore must be visible in the phonology. So the question arises of whether inflection belongs to syntax proper or to phonology, or whether it constitutes a component of its own. The answers which have been given in the recent literature on the subject diverge to a great extent. Anderson (1992) denies the existence of word structure since, in his view, inflectional categories belong to syntax and are spelled out by phonological rules. Moreover, Anderson claims that affixes do not have morpheme status but are merely the * This paper grew out of our research on agreement morphology in the lexicon project SFB 282 'Theorie des Lexikons', which is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Preliminary results have been presented in Wunderlich (1992) and Fabri (1993) as well as in talks in Berlin,
2015
Sometimes dismissed as linguistically epiphenomenal, infl ectional paradigms are, in reality, the interface of a language's morphology with its syntax and semantics. Drawing on abundant evidence from a wide range of languages (French, Hua, Hungarian, Kashmiri, Latin, Nepali, Noon, Old Norse, Sanskrit, Turkish, Twi, and others), Stump examines a variety of mismatches between words' content and form, including morphomic patterns, defectiveness, overabundance, syncretism, suppletion, deponency, and polyfunctionality. He demonstrates that such mismatches motivate a new grammatical architecture in which two kinds of paradigms are distinguished: content paradigms , which determine word forms' syntactic distribution and semantic interpretation, and form paradigms , which determine their infl ectional realization. In this framework, the often nontrivial linkage between a lexeme's content paradigm and its stems' form paradigm is the nexus at which incongruities of content and form are resolved. Stump presents clear and precise analyses of a range of morphological phenomena in support of this theoretical innovation. gregory stump is a Professor of linguistics at the University of Kentucky. His principal research area is the theory and typology of complex systems of infl ectional morphology.
Inflectional morphemes as syntactic heads
S. Bendjaballah, 2002
This paper presents some arguments in favour of the view that inflectional markers directly represent functional syntactic heads and that inflected words are formed in syntax. Focusing on verbal inflection, I show how the arrangements of verb root, tense marker, and aspect marker that are found in the world's languages can be derived in syntax solely by applying leftward movement and left-adjunction to a universal base order.
Paradigms and periphrastic expression: A study in realization-based lexicalism. Projecting syntax
2004
Our proposal draws on this notion in order to develop a substantive reconceptualization of the form and function of the lexicon in constraint-based theories of syntax. In particular, we argue that the paradigms defined by a language's morphology sometimes include periphrastic combinations (PERIPHRASES). As we show, this conclusion affords a simple resolution of a number of neglected problems which periphrases pose for theories of syntax; it also necessitates a radical rethinking of the relation between the form and content of syntactic structures. The proposals developed here are intended to be relatively neutral with respect to the choice among alternative lexicalist theories of syntax (including Lexical Functional Grammar, Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, and Construction Grammar); for concreteness, however, we articulate the details of our claims in the terminology of LFG. 1 Block II [Rules deducing secondary stems from primary stems] W-IIa.
On Rules and Exceptions: An Investigation of Inflectional Morphology.
1993
Abstract: This thesis examines two theories of the acquisition and representation of inflection (eg English past tense formation), focusing on children's overregularization errors such as goed and wented. On the" rule" view, suggested by Pinker and Prince (1988), regular forms (eg walk-walked) are created by the on-line application of symbolic, default rule (added to form the past tense), while irregular forms are retrieved from an associative memory.
2005: Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. Yearbook of morphology 2004
2011
Paradigms that combine synthetic (one-word) and periphrastic forms in complementary distribution have loomed large in discussions of morphological blocking (McCloskey and Hale 1983, Poser 1986, Andrews 1990). Such composite paradigms potentially challenge the lexicalist claim that words and sentences are organized by distinct subsystems of grammar. They are of course grist for the mill of Distributed Morphology, a theory which revels in every kind of interpenetration of morphology and syntax. But they have prompted even Paradigm Function Morphologists to introduce syntactic constructions into their morphology. I shall argue, instead, for a lexicalist treatment, which is based on the idea that blocking is a filtering device that applies to the output of the generative system, rather than operating directly on its derivations (Wunderlich 1996). I present this approach to blocking in section 1, and show in section 2 how it deals with the intricate composite verb paradigm of Latin, wher...
Syntactic expression as morphological exponence
Regional Meetings, Chicago Linguistic Society, 2000
"… an inflected word's association with its morphosyntactic feature specifications is logically prior to the spelling out of its inflectional markings, since it is this very association that determines the sequence of operations by which those markings are introduced; the realizational approach thus entails a rejection of the assumption that a word's morphosyntactic feature content is built cumulatively from that of its inflectional `morpheme' by a percolation mechanism." Stump 1993:449 (1) palit'i¥ (2) e×-i-Ái¥ kunda kiss-PAST.1SG./2SG. NEG-1 st PAST-1SG/2SG.DEF catch I kissed you.' `I didn't catch you.'