The morphosyntax of formality: A typology and inclusion in feature geometry (original) (raw)
Related papers
The algebraic structure of morphosyntactic features
Nordlyd 41.2, special issue on Features, edited by Martin Krämer, Sandra Ronai and Peter Svenonius, 2014
The most common way of separating homophony from syncretism – which is a basic challenge for any inflectional analysis: to distinguish between accidental and systematic form-identity – is attributing only the latter to a coherent feature combination instantiating a natural class. Features predetermine which formidentities can or cannot be analyzed as natural-class syncretism. Hence, they are crucial for the restrictiveness and predictions of morphological grammar. However, most current theoretical frameworks (e.g. Anderson 1992, Corbett and Fraser 1993, Halle and Marantz 1993, Stump 2001) do not make explicit their assumptions regarding the formal status of features. They miss out on state-of-the-art formalisms to introduce feature notations like Formal Concept Analysis (FCA, going back to Wille 1982, Ganter and Wille 1999) which provides a formal model of conceptualization in general. In this paper, I will show how FCA provides an all-embracing terminology to reproduce, visualize, and compare feature systems from different morphological frameworks, enables more precise and consistent morphological analyses, and crucially serves to rule out excessively powerful notations where the feature combinatorics are decoupled from the distributional facts they represent.
In this paper I argue that the set of formal features that can head a functional projection is not given by UG but derived through L1 acquisition. I formulate a hypothesis that says that initially every functional category F is realised as a semantic feature [F]; whenever there is an overt doubling effect in the L1 input with respect to F, this semantic feature [F] is reanalysed as a formal feature [i/uF]. In the first part of the paper I provide a theoretical motivation for this hypothesis, in the second part I test this proposal for a case-study, namely the cross-linguistic distribution of Negative Concord (NC). I demonstrate that in NC languages negation has been reanalysed as a formal feature [i/uNEG], whereas in Double Negation languages this feature remains a semantic feature [NEG] (always interpreted as a negative operator), thus paving the way for an explanation of NC in terms of syntactic agreement. In the third part I discuss that the application of the hypothesis to the phenomenon of negation yields two predictions that can be tested empirically. First I demonstrate that negative markers X° can be available only in NC languages; second, independent change of the syntactic status of negative markers, can invoke a change with respect to the exhibition of NC in a particular language. Both predictions are proven to be correct. I finally argue what the consequences of the proposal presented in this paper are for both the syntactic structure of the clause and second for the way parameters are associated to lexical items.
Cambridge University Press eBooks, 2014
(11) a. lí=chap ole í? AUX-2PL PRT be.here 'You folks are here, eh?' Galloway 2009: 100 b li í the-l tàl? AUX be.here DET.FEM-1SG.POSS mother 'Is my mother in?' Galloway 2009: 100 (12) a. í:-lh=tsel lí. AUX-PST-1SG.S be.there 'I was there.' Galloway 2009: 103 b. lí-lh=a=chxw lí. AUX-PST-Q-2SG.S be.there 'Were you there?' Galloway 2009: 217 Thus, the Halkomelem auxiliaries show the same pattern of multi-functionality as those of English, as illustrated in (13)-(14). (27) a. Nitsikannistsikssimmstaawa nitssisstsiikoohsi. nit-iik-annist-ikssimmstaa-wa nit-sistsikoo-hsi 1-INT-MANNER-think.AI-PROX 1-tired.AI-CONJ 'I think I am tired.' b. Aniiwa otaissistsikoohsi. wanii-wa ot-a-sistsikoo-hsi say.AI-PROX 3-IMPF-tired.AI-CONJ 'He said he was tired now.' c. Nitsíksstaa nááhksoy'ssi. nit-iik-sst-aa n-ááhk-ooyi-hsi 1-INT-want-AI 1-NONFACT-eat.AI-CONJ 'I want to eat.' d. Nitaanistaa oomaahkootooyakstsissi. nit-waanist-a-wa ot-m-ááhk-go-yáakihtsiiyi-hsi 1-say.TA-DIR-PROX 3-3-NONFACT-go-go.to.bed.AI-CONJ 'I told him to go to bed.' e. Nitsítssáyoyihtopi nitáaksoyi ánnohka. nit-it-say-Ioyi-htopi nit-yáak-Ioyi annohka 1-then-NEG-eat-UNREAL 1-FUT-eat.AI now 'If I hadn't eaten then, I'd eat now.' adapted from Frantz 1991:115, ex. x Similarly, not all languages have dedicated UoLs to introduce nominal phrases (e.g., determiners). This is illustrated in (28) for Polish where word order determines definiteness. (28) a. Student lubi Marie. student likes Mary 'The student likes Mary.' b. Marie lubi student. Mary likes student 'A student likes Mary.' Zlatic, to appear (2) And finally, not all languages have categories defined based on morphological type such as inflection or clitic. That is, among the hypothesized categories of UG we often find a category labeled INFL (for inflection, see 2.2). Not all languages have inflectional morphology however. For example isolating languages such as Mandarin are languages with no inflectional categories. It follows that morphological type such as inflection cannot identify universal categories. 5 Anchoring categories in dependent clauses You can't believe a word he says since he invented the subjunctive. Baloo Rex May 5.1 7 Categories that introduce a point of view Man is pre-eminently endowed with the power of voluntarily and consciously determining his own point of view.