27.3303, Review: Morphology; Semantics; Syntax: Stump (2015)

[The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST]

LINGUIST List: Vol-27-3303. Wed Aug 17 2016. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 27.3303, Review: Morphology; Semantics; Syntax: Stump (2015)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry,
                                   Robert Coté, Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2016
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Michael Czerniakowski <mike at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:27:52
From: Peter Arkadiev [alpgurev at gmail.com]
Subject: Inflectional Paradigms

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36161998


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/27/27-254.html

AUTHOR: Gregory T. Stump
TITLE: Inflectional Paradigms
SUBTITLE: Content and Form at the Syntax-Morphology Interface
SERIES TITLE: Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 149
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2015

REVIEWER: Peter M. Arkadiev, Institute of Slavic Studies RAS

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

INTRODUCTION

Inflectional Paradigms, the new book by Gregory Stump, is related to his
earlier book on Paradigm Function Morphology (Stump 2001) and can be seen as
an extension and development of the work done by him and his collaborators
during the past fifteen years. On the other hand, the book incorporates many
important recent developments of morphological theory, such as the conception
of “canonical inflection” (Corbett 2005, 2007, Brown et al. eds 2013). The
goal of the book is twofold: first, to put forward strong novel arguments in
favour of the paradigm-based approach to morphology, and, second, to propose
an articulated and formalized theoretical model of inflectional paradigms able
to capture a variety of phenomena, which, according to the author, empirically
support the paradigm-based approach. For reasons of space, in this review I
will mainly focus on the empirical and conceptual arguments, mentioning the
technical details of Stump’s framework (which is the refinement and extension
of the framework presented in Stump 2001) only in passing. 

The book contains a wealth of examples, coming from a variety of languages
from different parts of the world. The best represented language is Stump’s
favorite Sanskrit, featuring almost in every chapter and offering examples of
most of the phenomena discussed in the book. Other languages discussed include
Ancient Greek, Baure, Bhojpuri, French, Hua, Hungarian, Kashmiri, Latin, Moru,
Nepali, Noon, Old Norse, Pali, Spanish, Swahili, Turkish, Twi, and certainly,
English, both modern and old. Many of the datasets from these languages serve
not only for illustrative purposes, but also as testing grounds for analysis
and formal modeling.

SUMMARY

The book consists of an Introduction and fourteen chapters of moderate length.
In Chapter 1 “What are inflectional paradigms?” (p. 8–30) Stump examines the
defining properties of inflectional paradigms and argues for the superiority
of paradigm-based approaches to morphology over morpheme-based ones, pointing
out that the former are better compatible with such morphological phenomena as
underdetermination, extended, overlapping and non-concatenative exponence, and
form-content conflicts like deponency. Stump also spells out the two
hypotheses which are argued for in the whole book (p. 23):

The irreducibility hypothesis: Some morphological regularities are,
irreducibly, regularities of paradigm structure.

The interface hypothesis: Paradigms are the interfaces of inflectional
morphology with syntax and semantics.

According to the irreducibility hypothesis, an adequate account of a
language’s morphology must capture the regularities not only of its
word-internal morphotactics, but of the “variety of systematic relations among
distinct cells in the same paradigm as well as among cells in distinct
paradigms” (p. 24) as well. The interface hypothesis, in turn, implies that
while syntax is insensitive to the details of inflectional realization, the
latter is in turn insensitive to the varied syntactic contexts in which
individual word forms occur (p. 27), the relation between the two being
mediated by the inflectional paradigm relating morphosyntactic feature sets to
inflectional exponents.

Chapter 2 “Canonical inflectional paradigms” (p. 31–42) presents an
elaboration and formalization of the notion “canonical inflection” proposed by
Corbett in the works mentioned above. According to Stump, canonical
inflectional paradigms possess the following characteristics (p. 35–41):

1) Every lexeme has a single stem that is the basis for realizing every cell
in its paradigm.

2) Every cell in a lexeme’s paradigm has a distinct realization.

3) The system of paradigms for lexical categories (parts of speech) are such
that no two paradigms have the same stem and corresponding cells in distinct
paradigms exhibit the same inflectional marking.

4) There are no constraints on combining morphosyntactic properties.

5) Every property associated with a given cell has an overt exponent in the
realization of that cell.

6) Every property associated with a given cell has only one overt exponent in
the realization of that cell.

7) No two properties associated with a cell are simultaneously expressed by a
single exponent.

8) No two distinct properties have exponents that are phonologically
identical.

9) For every property associated with two or more cells, the exponent of that
property is invariant across those cells.

10) The dual function of morphosyntactic property sets, which determine the
word form’s syntax and semantics, as well as its inflectional realization.

If the morphology of natural languages had only canonical inflectional
paradigms, morpheme-based theories of inflection would have been sufficient to
describe it. However, inflectional paradigms in actual languages are
non-canonical in various respects, and it is these deviations from the
“canonical ideal” that make the paradigm-based models of morphology
indispensable.

Chapter 3 “Morphosyntactic properties” (p. 43–57) is fairly technical,
discussing the role of morphosyntactic properties in inflectional paradigms
and such notions as contextual vs. inherent properties, property sets and
relations between them, constraints on co-occurrence of morphosyntactic
properties, and their realization by means of exponence rules organized into
ordered blocks of mutually exclusive rules and constituting the language’s
paradigm function (in the sense if Stump 2001). 

Chapter 4 “Lexemes” (p. 58–66), the shortest in the book, discusses the notion
of lexeme defined on p. 58 as “a lexical abstraction that has either a meaning
... or a grammatical function, belongs to a syntactic category ... and is 
realized by one or more phonological forms”. An important notion of
“stipulated lexicon” is introduced; as opposed to the mental lexicon (“a
system in which specific linguistic forms and their associated grammatical and
semantic content are stored” in the brain, p. 63), the stipulated lexicon is
“the body of lexical information that is presupposed by the definition of a
language’s grammar” (p. 64), and thus does not contain the information
deducible by grammatical rules. Entries in the stipulated lexicon may be both
canonical and non-canonical.

Chapter 5 “Stems” (p. 67–83) is devoted to the notion of stem, which is one of
the central ones in Stump’s theory as well as in current morphological
theorizing in general (see e.g. Aronoff 1994). When an inflectional paradigm
is based on more than one stem (thus being non-canonical), the distribution of
stems is logically independent of their formal relationships, the fact amply
illustrated with data from Sanskrit nominal declension. Formal differences
between stems may be due to phonological constraints (such stems are called
sandhi alternants) or to the membership of a lexeme in a particular
inflectional class (class-determined alternation of kindred stems), and,
finally, may be independent of both, forming a class-independent alternation.
In turn, stem distribution may be conditioned by automatic and non-automatic
phonological rules, by morphosyntactic properties, and be morphomic, i.e.
“having no invariant correlation with phonology, syntax or semantics” (p.74).
The various conditions on stem alternations are formalized by the function
Stem, which for each cell of a paradigm yields the stem employed in its
realization.

Chapter 6 “Inflection classes” (p. 84–102) discusses the notion of inflection
class and its relation to stems. Stump builds upon Corbett’s (2009) notion of
“canonical inflection class” and draws a distinction between global and
segregated inflection classes, the former responsible for the realization of
all cells in a lexeme’s paradigm, while the latter determining only a part
thereof. With respect to the latter it is argued that inflection classes are
classes of stems rather than of lexemes, which, among other things, allows to
capture the fact that in many languages inflection classes can be
distinguished by patterns of stem alternation only (as is often the case in
Sanskrit).

Chapter 7 “A conception of the relation of content to form in inflectional
paradigms” (p. 103–119) is the central in the whole book, presenting the
principal tenets of Stump’s new conception. The proposed model of inflectional
morphology (“paradigm-linkage theory”) assumes three types of paradigm (p.
104):

1) A lexeme L’s content paradigm lists the morphosyntactic property sets with
which L may be associated in syntax. Each cell of such paradigm (content cell)
is a pairing of L with each such property set.

2) The form paradigm of L specifies the range of property sets which may be
realized morphologically through the inflection of that lexeme’s stem(s). The
form paradigm is constituted by form cells, i.e. pairings of a particular stem
with a property set for which this stem inflects.

3) The realized paradigm of a lexeme is a set of realized cells containing
word forms that realize cells in that lexeme’s form paradigm.

The mapping between these three paradigms is implemented by means of several
functions. The form-correspondence function Corr determines for each content
cell its corresponding cell in the form paradigm with the help of two other
functions: Stem (see above) and pm (property mapping). In the canonical case,
pm is an identity function, but most deviations from canonical inflection
involve various non-trivial mappings formalized by pm. In particular, pm may
add to the set of morphosyntactic properties such features as inflection class
diacritics or morphomic features. The function Stem, in turn, canonically
yields the single stem serving as the base of all of the lexeme’s word forms,
but, again, may be complicated by various conditions, morphosyntactic as well
as morphomic.

Chapter 8 “Morphomic properties” (p. 120–146) discusses those properties which
are relevant to the inflectional realization of the lexeme but not to its
syntax and semantics. Morphomic properties can be conditioned by particular
lexemes or by morphosyntactic properties, and are formally modeled by
stipulating the function pm to add morphomic properties to the set of
properties associated with cells in the lexeme’s form paradigm, or even to
replace certain morphosyntactic properties by morphomic ones. Detailed case
studies of morphomic phenomena in Hua verb-agreement and in verb inflection in
Noon, Twi and Nepali are presented.

Chapter 9 “Too many cells, too few cells” (p. 147–169) discusses the phenomena
of overabundance (when a cell in the lexeme’s content paradigm has more than
one realization), overdifferentiation (when lexemes of a given syntactic
category make additional morphosyntactic distinctions not shared by other
members of that category), and defectiveness (when a lexeme lacks one or a set
of realized cells presupposed by its content paradigm). The latter notion is
discussed on the data of French verbs and incorporates an interesting proposal
by Boyé (2000) establishing the implicational relations between different
stems, which are able to predict patterns of defectiveness involving sets of
cells associated with each stem.

Chapter 10 “Syncretism” (p. 170–183) is devoted to the notion of syncretism,
i.e. homophonous realization of distinct morphosyntactic property sets. Three
types of syncretism, identified in Stump (2001: ch. 7), are discussed: natural
class syncretism determined by functional affinity between morphosyntactic
properties, directional syncretism, when one cell depends on another for its
realization (this case is exemplified by Turkish possessive inflection,
despite the fact that Turkish is normally assumed to exhibit highly canonical
morphology), and morphomic or symmetrical syncretism, captured by morphomic
properties in the lexeme’s form paradigm supplanting the morphosyntactic
properties of its content paradigm.

In Chapter 11 “Suppletion and heteroclisis” (p. 184–196) Stump examines
paradigms with alternating independent stems, i.e. those whose distribution is
neither sandhi-determined nor class-determined. Suppletion is understood
broadly as any alternation of independent stems, including stems partially
similar in form. Heteroclisis is involved when the alternating stems belong to
distinct inflectional classes, and is distinguished from the closely related
notion of segregated inflection classes by the criterion of generality:
“Heteroclitic paradigms are exceptions against a backdrop of nonheteroclitic
paradigms” (p. 186). A further distinction is drawn between “cloven” and
“fractured” paradigms, in the former the choice of alternating stems
correlating to properties belonging to a single inflectional category, while
in the latter the distribution of stems correlated with combinations of
several morphosyntactic properties, and the rather complex hypothesis
concerning the relations between cloven and fractured paradigms in a single
language is proposed (p. 192–194).

Chapter 12 “Deponency and metaconjugation” (p. 197–227) discusses two related
phenomena involving situations when exponents realizing one morphosyntactic
property set in one context realize a different morphosyntactic property set
in another context. In addition to the rather old notion of deponency recently
discussed from a theoretical and typological point of view in Baerman et al.
(eds.) (2007), Stump introduces the novel term “metaconjugation” for instances
resembling deponency but strongly tied to particular inflection classes.
Metaconjugation involves identical sets of exponents realizing different
morphosyntactic property sets depending on the inflection class specification
of particular lexemes or stems. Stump provides a detailed analysis of a rather
complex case from Sanskrit verb inflection (p. 202–217), where the properties
“aorist” and “imperfect” are associated with the same sets of person-number
exponents and intraparadigmatic stem alternations, and differ only in the
formation of the respective stems themselves. The formal modeling of
metaconjugation is implemented by means of morphomic properties introduced by
the property mapping function. 

Chapter 13 “Polyfunctionality” (p. 228–251) deals with a well-known phenomenon
of multiple uses of the same sets of morphological exponents, all from the
domain of person-number marking. Three different examples are analysed, coming
from Noon, Baure and Hungarian, all employing the same or similar sets of
person-number markers for several purposes. The modeling of Baure pronominal
markers, occurring as proclitics or enclitics depending on the grammatical
function of the indexed argument, requires separating exponence declaration
specifying that a particular affix realizes a particular property and
sequencing rules, responsible for the correct placement of exponents with
respect to stems.

Chapter 14 “A theoretical synopsis and two further issues” (p. 252–270)
presents a concise summary of the book’s main theoretical proposals and a
discussion of two important topics not touched upon in the preceding chapters.
The first one concerns Blevins’s (2006) distinction between constructive
models of morphology, assuming the decomposition of words into stems and
exponents, and the abstractive approaches capturing regularities only by means
of implicative relations between whole words. Stump argues that while some
properties and regularities of morphology cannot be adequately captured by
purely abstractive models, implicational relations either naturally fall out
from paradigm linkage and exponence rules or can be incorporated into his
theory. The second issue is related to diachronic change in morphology, which
Stump shows to be captured by his otherwise purely synchronic model on the
basis of the development of nominal paradigms from Sanskrit to Pali. He
concludes that “the paradigm-linkage hypothesis affords a natural framework
for identifying the pressures that guide morphological change, including the
impulse toward content-form isomorphism and the (possibly conflicting)
promotion of highly frequent patterns” (p. 269).

EVALUATION

“Inflectional paradigms” is an excellent book combining clarity of exposition,
rich empirical coverage and theoretical sophistication. The book offers a
discussion of a variety of morphological phenomena, both well-known, like
syncretism or suppletion, and rather unfamiliar, like metaconjugation,
integrating them into a coherent framework. The main theoretical point of the
book, i.e. that inflectional paradigms lie at the heart of the
syntax-morphology interface and are indispensable for the understanding of
morphological phenomena (the irreducibility hypothesis and the interface
hypothesis) is supported by a wealth of empirical and conceptual arguments and
appears to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, I would like
to point out that there exist kinds of morphology arguably better amenable to
the “incremental” morpheme-based analyses. Thus, the morphological makeup of
polysynthetic languages like Eskimo (de Reuse 2009) or Adyghe (Korotkova &
Lander 2010, Lander & Letuchiy 2010), where the boundaries between inflection
and derivation are very hard to draw, and the existence of morphological
recursion and virtually unconstrained application of non-obligatory but
syntactically relevant morphological processes renders the very notion of
morphological paradigm elusive, presents obvious challenges for Stump’s
framework and requires a different model of the syntax-morphology interface.
Anyway, the phenomena to deal with which Stump’s framework is designed, abound
in many if not most languages of the world; therefore even if this theory is
not equally well applicable to all languages, it is certainly able to provide
insights and adequate and, moreover, computationally implementable, accounts
of an important subset of empirical data. 

The book is quite well edited with very few typos. Here I list those which I
have noticed in the data: there are font problems in table 3.2 on p. 49; in
table 6.13 on p. 98 “rājān” is the correct Vṛddhi form; in table 8.3 on p. 125
the 2nd plural optative present active should be “rundhyāta”, not
*“arundhyāta”, while the 3rd dual optative present active should be
“rundhyātām”, not *“mrundhyātām”; in table 12.11 on p. 207 the “a” from
“akrīṇi-tām” is misattached to the preceding line.

To conclude, I would like to recommend Stump’s new book to all interested in
morphological typology and theories of syntax-morphology interface, including
not only linguists of a more theoretical stance, but typologists and
descriptive linguists as well

REFERENCES

Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself. Stems and Inflectional Classes.
Cambridge (MA), London: The MIT Press.

Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville G., Brown, Dunstan, Hippisley, Andrew
(eds.). 2007. Deponency and Morphological Mismatches. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Blevins, James P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42:
531-573.

Boyé, Gilles. 2000. Problèmes de morpho-phonologie verbale en français, en
espagnol et en italien. Thèse doctorale, Université Paris VII.

Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina, Corbett, Greville G. (eds.) 2013. Canonical
Morphology and Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Corbett, Greville G. 2005. The canonical approach to typology. In Linguistic
Diversity and Language Theories, Z. Frajzyngier, A. Hodges, D. S. Rood (eds.),
25-49. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Corbett, Greville G. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion and possible words.
Language 83: 8-42.

Corbett, Greville G. 2009. Canonical inflectional classes. In Selected
Proceedings of the 6th Decembrettes, F. Montermini, G. Boyé, J. Tseng (eds.),
1-11. Sommerville (MA): Cascadilla Press.

de Reuse, Willem J. 2009. Polysynthesis as a typological feature. An attempt
at a characterization from Eskimo and Athabaskan perspectives. In Variations
on Polysynthesis: The Eskaleut languages, M.-A. Mahieu, N. Tersis (eds.),
19-34. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Korotkova, Natalia, Lander, Yury. 2010. Deriving suffix ordering in
polysynthesis: Evidence from Adyghe. Morphology 20: 299-319.

Lander, Yury, Letuchiy, Alexander. 2010. Kinds of recursion in Adyghe
morphology. In Recursion in Human Language, H. van der Hulst (ed.), 263-284.
Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm
Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Peter M. Arkadiev, PhD in linguistics (2006), is a senior research fellow in
the Department of Typology and Comparative Linguistics of the Institute of
Slavic studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow. His main interests
are linguistic typology with a focus on morphology, case marking and argument
structure and its formal realization, and tense-aspect-modality. He works
mainly on Baltic and Circassian, as well as on areal and broad
cross-linguistic projects.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2016
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

        Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-27-3303	
----------------------------------------------------------