Simonovic arsenijevic - in and out of paradigms - bcn2013

Please download to get full document.

View again

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
 3
 
  1. In and out of paradigms: How to do everything with very few affixes Marko Simonović Boban Arsenijević Utrecht University University of Niš 1 2. Aim of the talk ã…
Related documents
Share
Transcript
  • 1. In and out of paradigms: How to do everything with very few affixes Marko Simonović Boban Arsenijević Utrecht University University of Niš 1
  • 2. Aim of the talk • Present data from Serbo-Croatian (S-C) about phonologically identical or similar suffixes traditionally analyzed as unrelated. • Argue for the minimal analysis, treating the sets of similar suffixes as single suffixes. • Explain the phonological and semantic differences in terms of paradigm membership. • Point to the crucial role paradigm membership and surface generalizations play in processing, and in language change. 2
  • 3. Part I: Adjectives and participles • Five traditional grammar’s endings, related by sharing an –n, figure in the derivation of passive participles and adjectives in S-C. • Participial: -en, -an. Adjectival: -en, -an, -(a)n (the fleeting /a/). • We argue that there are only two endings involved, -n and -a/e (the latter with two variants selecting complementary phonological contexts). • Uniform semantics, sensitivity to paradigms. 3
  • 4. Passive participle • Regularly derived Serbo-Croatian passive participles end in an /n/. • Traditional grammar recognizes two different endings: –an and –en. • –en goes only to palatal contexts, –an mostly to the non-palatal ones (to –a stems). (1) gleda-an -> gledaan voli-en -> voljen watch-an love-en watched loved 4
  • 5. Semantics • Semantically, the two endings are equivalent. • They derive participles, expressions with hybrid, verbal and adjectival semantics. • The ‘adjectival semantics’ of participles is non- gradable (their gradable dimensions inherited from the verbal stem, as in well/better educated, are ignored as irrelevant, cf. Kennedy & McNally). (2) lepljen #lepljen-iji bolje lepljen glued glued-Comp better glued 5
  • 6. Adjectives in -n • A majority of S-C adjectives ending in an /n/. • In traditional grammars, 3 different endings: 1) the ending –an, limited to palatal contexts of primitive stems, 2) the ending –en in non- palatal primitive stems, 3) the unconstrained ending –(a)n. (3) pliš-an glin-en mir-(a)n velvet-an clay-en peace-(a)n velvetAdj, clayAdj peaceful 6
  • 7. Semantic asymmetries • –an and –en endings derive non-gradable adjectives (in most cases the material something is made of, or other defining property). • Endings reserved for classificational adjectives? • –(a)n adjectives are unconstrained in this sense. (4) a. #led-en-ija figura, b. #košt-an-ija srž ice-en-Comp figure bone-an-Comp core c. mir-n-iji kraj peace-n-Comp neighborhood ‘a/the more peaceful neighborhood’ 7
  • 8. Classificatory • Arguments in favor of treating –en/an as an ending deriving classificatory adjectives. • –en/an adjectives do not nominalize. (5) kopn-en(*-ost/*-stvo/*-ina/*-ota…) land-en N N N N • –en/an endings are in complementary distribution with the classificatory –ski. 8
  • 9. Phonological asymmetries • -en only in non-palatal contexts • -an only in palatal contexts • -(a)n has an epenthetic /a/, inserted when the ending is word-final. (5) smeš-an smeš-n-og laugh-an laugh-n-GenMSg ‘funny’ • /a/ is epenthetic ⇒ the actual ending is –n. 9
  • 10. Semantics Participles -en non-gradable adjectives-an Adjectives -en non-gradable adjectives-an -n any 10
  • 11. Phonology 11 Participles -an -a contexts -en palatal contexts Adjectives -an palatal contexts -en non-palatal contexts -n any context
  • 12. How many suffixes? • Ockham’s razor. • –en/an is one suffix across the board, and –n is a separate suffix? • –en/an derives non-gradable adjectives specifying an absolute, pervading, presence of a property on/in the argument . • –n derives possibly gradable adjectives specifying an underspecified relation between the argument and the meaning of the stem. 12
  • 13. Or even simpler • Two suffixes, –n and –e/a? • –n is semantically the lightest adjectival ending, specifying an uncostrained relation between the argument and the meaning of the stem. • –e/a subspecifies that the relation is of a particular type: a total, absolute, pervading, presence of a property on/in the argument (therefore non-gradable). • Problem: the inverse phonological distribution of –en/an between participles and adjectives. 13
  • 14. Argument 1 • Let us first present two arguments in favor of the simpler analyses presented. • Argument 1: Whenever there is a pair of adjectives, one with the ending –n and the other with the ending –en/an, their semantics is strictly as predicted. (6) a. med-n-i b. med-en-i honey-n-PL honey-en-PL ‘related to honey’ ‘made of honey’ 14
  • 15. Even participles • Additional support that –en/an is the same across the board comes from the fact that (adjectival) participles can be members of the same kind of pairs. (7) a. od-seč-n-i b. od-seč-en-i off-cut-n-PL off-cut-en-PL ‘abrupt’ ‘cut off’ 15
  • 16. Argument 2 • No –en : –an adjective pairs attested. • Also phonological reasons: the two suffixes appear in different phonological contexts. • But this only strengthens the argument: two items in complementary phonological distribution, sharing semantic effects are most probably two phonological variants of the same item. 16
  • 17. Argument 3 • Participles aside, –en/an suffixes take only monomorphemic stems, while –n may also combine with the more complex ones. (8) a. vun-en-i c. ne-pri-seb-n-i wool-en-PL not-by-self-n-PL ‘woolen’ ‘nervous, uncalm’ b. iskr-en-i d. bez-po-treb-n-i sparcle-en-PL without-over-need-n-PL ‘frank’ ‘unnecessary’ 17
  • 18. Explaining away the problem • –en only in palatal contexts in participles, only in non-palatal in adjectives; –an almost the oposite. • Arsenijević & Simonović (2013): different phonological constraints in and out of paradigms. • Paradigm: the maximal set of forms productively derived from a morphosyntactic class, while preserving semantic transparency. • Participles are part of the verbal paradigm, –en/an adjectives are not members of their stems’ paradigms. 18
  • 19. Paradigm-membership marking • The inverse distribution: an emergent regularity between phonological and morpho- syntactic factors that facilitates the different effects/processing of the same suffix in paradigmatic and non-paradigmatic domains. • This also explains the very fact that there are two variants, since their inverse distribution clearly shows that there’s little phonological reason to have them both. 19
  • 20. Part II: Nominalizations • Ending –je derives collective nouns from nouns, NPs , PPs and participial VPs. • In its deverbal nominalizations, derived nouns take different prosodic patterns depending on the aspect of the verb. • We argue that this split again corresponds to the split between within paradigm derivations and those with some idiosyncratic properties. 20
  • 21. The collective -je • Collective nouns are not productive in S-C any more, hence also not paradigm members. (9) a. list + -je > lišće b.crep + -je > *crepje leaf roof tile • They have the syntactic and semantic properties of mass nouns (singularia tantum, much/*many, cumulative and divisive), • while still preserving the meaning of an assembly (e.g. compatible with one by one). 21
  • 22. Prosody • By a rule, –je nominalizations take a prosodic pattern different from that of the base. (10) a. kAmeen : kAmEEn-je stone stoneColl b. sa zvEEzdA : sAA-zvEEzd-je with stars constelation c. jEzIk slOvo : jEzik-o-sloov-je language word linguistics 22
  • 23. Deverbal nominalizations • Regular gerunds in S-C: past participle + –je. • S-C verbs usually come in aspectual pairs (a perfective and an imperfective). • Gerunds are derived from the imperfective variant. (11) a. jed-en(-je) b. po-jed-en(*-je) eatimpf-en-je over-eatperf-en-je ‘eating’ int. ‘eating up’ 23
  • 24. Perfective nominalizations • There is a limited set of –je nominalizations derived from perfective verbs. • Resultative semantics (Ignjatović 2013). • Virtually all lexicalized (idiomatic). (12) u-stolic-en-je in-chair-en-je ‘enthronement’ (not generally placing something or someone in a chair) 24
  • 25. Prosodic asymmetries • Perfective nominalizations behave like other –je nominalizations, in taking up a different prosodic pattern, imperfective nominalizations preserve the prosody of the stem. (13) pOstA-ti (infinitive) a. pOstA-ja-an-je b. postA-An-jE becomeperf-Impf-an-je becomeperf-n-je ‘becoming’ ‘creation’ 25
  • 26. Paradigms • Explanation: imperfective nominalizations belong to the verbal paradigm. • S-C nominalizations preserve lexical prosody within the paradigm, and drop it otherwise (Arsenijević & Simonović 2013). • In this way, gerunds (paradigm members) are distinguished from resultative (and other) nominalizations, even though derived by the same suffix. 26
  • 27. Support • Even with an imperfective nominalization, if it is idiomatic, the prosodic pattern may change with its leaving of the paradigm (by receiving a count interpretation): (14) pUtova-ti (infinitive) a. pUtova-an-je b. putovA-An-jE travelimpf-an-je travelimpf-an-je ‘traveling’ ‘trip’ 27
  • 28. Theoretical consequences • Arsenijević & Simonović (2013): structurally complex stems within the paradigm, primitive ones outside (cf. Marvin 2002, Roy 2010…). • Phonological correlates of semantic/syntactic properties: (via) surface generalizations and selective lexicalization, (to) grammatical constraints. • The ontological status of classificatory properties, in views taking the syntactic and morphological behavior as evidence? 28
  • 29. Conclusion • Phonology is sensitive to paradigm membership. • As paradigms are special interpretation domains (transparency, inheritance of semantic properties of the stem etc.), phonology of the derived forms closely correlates with their semantics. • Suffixes have an ever-applicable version for paradigm members and a more demanding one for word formation. • Productive suffixes get ‘recycled’ in less productive domains. 29
  • 30. Thank you! 30
  • Related Search
    We Need Your Support
    Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

    Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

    No, Thanks