33.1816, Review: Historical Linguistics; Morphology; Typology: Arkadiev, Gardani (2020)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-33-1816. Sat May 21 2022. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 33.1816, Review: Historical Linguistics; Morphology; Typology: Arkadiev, Gardani (2020)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Billy Dickson
Managing Editor: Lauren Perkins
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Goldfinch, Nils Hjortnaes,
      Joshua Sims, Billy Dickson, Amalia Robinson, Matthew Fort
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Amalia Robinson <amalia at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Sat, 21 May 2022 17:37:37
From: Natalie Operstein [natacha at ucla.edu]
Subject: The Complexities of Morphology

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36739177

Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/31/31-3673.html

EDITOR: Peter  Arkadiev
EDITOR: Francesco  Gardani
TITLE: The Complexities of Morphology
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2020

REVIEWER: Natalie Operstein,  

SUMMARY

''The Complexities of Morphology'', edited by Peter Arkadiev and Francesco
Gardani, is a collection of studies which explore how to define, typologize,
measure and compare across languages of different types structural complexity
in the domain of morphology. This common goal is approached from a variety of
empirical and theoretical perspectives.  

In Chapter 1 (1-19), Peter Arkadiev and Francesco Gardani anchor the volume's
contributions within the emergent themes of linguistic complexity research.
This introductory chapter identifies some of the key conceptual and
methodological beacons which inform the discussion in the volume's chapters.
These include the descriptive and quantitative approaches to linguistic
complexity, the distinction between absolute (objective) and relative
(subjective) complexity, the notions of enumerative complexity (based on
counting the number of elements in a morphological system), integrative
complexity (based on assessing the predictability of unknown forms from known
forms), and non-canonicity (various forms of deviation from the unique
form/function mapping), and the connections that have been made between
morphological complexity, sociolinguistic typology and language acquisition.
The paucity of published work on the complexity of word formation systems and
the non-uniformity of terminology used in the literature to refer to some of
the key notions also receive some attention.   

The main concern of Chapter 2 (23-51), by Jeff Parker and Andrea D. Sims, is
the impact of the description of a morphological system on the assessment of
its complexity. This issue is explored by looking at the role of irregular and
non-affixal exponence in the complexity of noun inflection in Russian. By
separating the exponence of Russian nominal inflection into four layers --
suffixal patterns, stem allomorphy, stress patterns, and patterns of
defectiveness -- and by using various possible combinations of the layers, the
authors develop several alternative descriptions of the inflectional structure
of Russian nouns in which the number of inflection classes ranges from 14
(suffixal patterns only) to 82 (all four patterns combined). The study finds
that only some of the irregular patterns increase the complexity of the system
and that, due to the existence of implicative relations among the layers, the
overall system complexity is not equal to the sum of its parts. 

The issue addressed by Chapter 3 (52-80), by John Mansfield and Rachel
Nordlinger, is complexification caused by decreased predictability of
inflectional allomorph selection. The focus of the inquiry is on erosion of
stem-affix segmentability in finite verb stems (''classifier stems'') in
Murrinhpatha, a non-Pama-Nyungan language of northern Australia, due to
ongoing ''demorphologization'' (a process ''in which morphological structure
becomes gradually blurred over time by the accretion of lexically specific
modifications'', 52). A comparison of the distribution of variant forms across
two speaker cohorts, those born in the first half of the twentieth century and
those born in the second half, shows that the innovative variants selected by
the younger speakers are less predictable than the variants they replace,
which increases the system's integrative complexity.  

The issue addressed by Chapter 4 (81-104), by Felicity Meakins and Sasha
Wilmoth, is contact-induced complexification due to the creation of a new
pattern which did not exist in the contributing languages. The pattern in
question is variable marking of subjects in Gurindji Kriol, a mixed language
from northern Australia. Gurindji Kriol has a subject marker deriving from the
ergative case marker in Gurindji, one of its source languages. Unlike in
Gurindji, where subject marking is obligatory, in Gurindji Kriol it is
variable and sensitive to a range of syntactic, semantic and discourse-related
factors. 

Chapter 5 (105-135), by Fabiola Henri, Gregory Stump and Delphine Tribout, is
the only one to address derivational rather than inflectional morphology. The
authors examine the complexity of deverbal derivation in three French-lexified
creoles -- Mauritian, Guadeloupean and Haitian --, all of which attest
alternation between short and long verb forms, as in al/ale ''go'', vin/vini
''come'' in Mauritian, albeit to different degrees. The study finds that the
complexity of the derivational relations in the three creoles is comparable to
that of French. 

In Chapter 6 (136-160), Michele Loporcaro examines the noun class morphology
and morphosyntax of Wolof through the lens of linguistic complexity research.
Traditional descriptions assume eight singular and two plural noun classes in
the language, however, most Wolof nouns belong to the bi (singular)/yi
(plural) class; additionally, unlike in closely related Atlantic languages,
noun class agreement is marked only on determiners. While the reduction in the
number of noun classes and of redundancy in agreement point to Wolof's
simplification as compared to its relatives in the Atlantic language family,
Loporcaro shows that Wolof has also developed new forms of complexity in the
shape of irregularities, including in agreement patterns and in nouns like
buur/wuur ''king/kings'' whose initial consonant alternation is synchronically
unmotivated. 

Chapter 7 (163-192), by Johanna Nichols, describes a pilot study for measuring
canonical complexity in inflectional morphology. The apparent simplicity of
the proposed measure  -- ''define types of systems and subsystems so as to
maximize crosslinguistic comparability, and count the number of non-canonical
patterns or elements found in each, for each language'' (164) -- is belied by
the complexity of the study and the underlying analytical decisions. The bulk
of the chapter describes the methodology of the pilot, including the languages
sampled, the inflectional categories surveyed, and ''what was counted as
non-canonical''. The results are correlated with selected findings and
proposals in prior linguistic complexity research, particularly the observed
geographical and sociolinguistic patterns in the distribution of linguistic
complexity.  

In Chapter 8 (193-229), Francesca Di Garbo discusses loss, emergence,
reduction and expansion of gender agreement patterns in a sample of 36
languages, evaluating each type of change within the
simplification/complexification frame of reference and relating each to its
sociohistorical context. In languages of the sample, complete and partial loss
of gender agreement patterns result from morphophonological erosion or from
pattern redistribution; expansion results from language-internal
grammaticalization, language planning efforts or contact-induced change; and
emergent patterns, all of which are lexically and syntactically restricted,
arise via borrowing of gender-inflected forms. Of the four types of changes,
only complete loss of gender marking leads to simplification.

The issue addressed by Chapter 9 (230-263), by Adam J. R. Tallman and Patience
Epps, is whether morphology is autonomous from syntax. The specific focus of
the chapter is on the looseness of the distinction between words and phrases
in the compounding- and incorporation-rich languages of western Amazonia.
Following a descriptive survey of several functional domains which show a high
degree of elaboration across the region's languages -- nominal classification,
tense, valence and evidentiality -- the authors analyze the realization of
each domain in a sample of the languages from the standpoint of exponence
complexity (Anderson 2015: 20-24) in order to develop a quantitative metric
enabling cross-linguistic comparison of the degree of morphological autonomy. 

In Chapter 10 (267-282), John H. McWhorter argues that radical analyticity --
''absence (or all but absence) of inflectional marking indicated by
affixation, tone, or vowel changes in quality or length'' (267) -- can be used
as a diagnostic of an extreme degree of adult second language acquisition in
the language's history, rejecting system-internal explanations for its origin.
In support of this hypothesis, McWhorter points to the limited geographical
distribution and comparatively small number of radically analytic non-creole
languages (about three hundred in total). The linguistic arguments include
differences in the treatment of contextual inflection under creolization
(loss) versus ''ordinary grammar-internal change'' (retention).  

In Chapter 11 (283-305), Aleksandrs Berdicevskis and Arturs Semenuks use an
experimental approach to gain better understanding of the impact of imperfect
language learning on two facets of complexity: irregularity and
overspecification (''overt and obligatory marking of a semantic distinction
that is not necessary for communication''). The researchers conducted an
experiment in which an artificial mini-language containing a communicatively
redundant agreement marker was iteratively learned by and transmitted to
successive participants. The results indicate that under imperfect learning
conditions morphological overspecification tends to be lost while irregularity
tends to increase.   

The main issue addressed by Chapter 12 (306-327), by Marianne Mithun, is the
impact on morphology of language obsolescence. The centerpieces of the chapter
are two case studies involving morphologically complex languages, Central Pomo
and Mohawk. In each case, a comparison of the speech of fluent speakers with
that of English-dominant speakers reveals similar morpheme-per-word ratios but
dissimilar uses of the morphological machinery. The less fluent speakers also
under-utilize discourse markers and have more limited lexical inventories. 

In Chapter 13 (331-343), Östen Dahl offers a critical assessment of some of
the differences between the conceptions of complexity represented in the
volume's chapters, highlighting the need for keeping the absolute (objective)
understanding of the notion separate from its relative (user/learner-related)
understanding, and emphasizing the still tentative state of this entire
research direction (''the study of morphological complexity has still quite
some way to go before there is a set of shared notions and standard works that
everyone refers to'', 343). 

EVALUATION

Despite its roots in early nineteenth-century linguistic thought (McElvenny
2021), the study of morphological complexity, as practiced today, is an
emergent field in search of theoretical and methodological contours. The
collection under review, without proposing any definitive answers, contributes
data and discussion on which to build a theory of morphological complexity. 

In this volume, a variety of morphological and morphosyntactic phenomena get
scrutinized through the lens of linguistic complexity research. These include
gender marking in Wolof, subject marking in Gurindji Kriol, noun inflection in
Russian, classifier stem morphology in Murrinhpatha, and deverbal derivation
in Haitian, Mauritian and Guadeloupean. The assembled studies explore
different dimensions of morphological complexity, such as the impact of
non-affixal and irregular exponence on the complexity of a morphological
system and predictability of inflectional allomorphy. Though the majority of
the studies focus on inflection, one chapter is devoted to the complexity of
derivational morphology (Henri, Stump and Tribout) and several examine
interfaces between morphology and other modules, most notably the lexicon
(Parker and Sims; Dahl) and syntax (Loporcaro; Di Garbo; Tallman and Epps).

Several chapters explore changes in the degree of complexity, including those
due to language obsolescence (Mithun), acquisition and loss of gender
agreement patterns (Di Garbo), blurring of the boundaries between stems and
affixes (Mansfield and Nordlinger), imperfect second language acquisition
(McWhorter; Berdicevskis and Semenuks) and development of new patterns which
did not exist in the contributing languages in contact (Meakins and Wilmoth; 
Di Garbo; see Dahl 2009). Various chapters discuss factors fostering the
accretion of complexity -- both cognitive (grammaticalization, routinization
of frequent sequences) and social (small community size, dense social
networks, childhood bilingualism) (Mithun; Di Garbo; Tallman and Epps) --, as
well as those fostering its reduction (primarily imperfect second language
acquisition) (McWhorter; Berdicevskis and Semenuks). 

Multiple chapters reference or actively consider correlations between
linguistic complexity and socioecological factors, including geographic and
areal factors (Nichols; Tallman and Epps), adult SLA (McWhorter; Berdicevskis
and Semenuks) and sociolinguistic typology (Nichols; Di Garbo; Loporcaro). For
example, Loporcaro connects simplification in the noun class morphosyntax of
Wolof to its use as an interethnic lingua franca and the Wolophone community's
positive attitude toward simplified speech modes in preference to the
conservative linguistic norm (''in the Wolof speech community speaking
correctly is not prestigious'', 159) (see Zuckermann 2005).  

The dynamics of loss and acquisition of gender marking in situations of
language contact receives an insightful explanation in Van Coetsem's (1988,
2000) framework, which focuses on the language dominance of the agents of
change. In the languages sampled by Di Garbo, loss and/or reduction of gender
marking occurs in situations of source language agentivity (Van Coetsem's
''imposition''): it correlates with language shift in Tamian Latvian and
language attrition in Irish, Igo and Cappadocian Greek. Acquisition of
(restricted) patterns of gender agreement in Basque and Chamorro occurs in
situations of recipient language agentivity (Van Coetsem's ''borrowing'') (see
discussion of related issues in Kossmann 2010; Aikhenvald 2019; and Winford
2019). 

The foundational and methodological issues discussed in the volume include
differences in the conceptions of complexity (Dahl; Mithun); differences in
the acquisition of complexity under child and adult language acquisition and
their implications for our models of morphology (Mithun); simplification of
empirical data,  the privileged status of affixal patterns as compared to
other forms of exponence, the impact of different ways of apportioning the
information between the morphology and the lexicon upon the assessment of
complexity (Parker and Sims); and non-uniformity of the results when applying
different complexity measures (e.g., Henri, Stump and Tribout note that, even
though the inflectional systems of creoles are smaller than those of their
lexifiers, their integrative complexities are comparable). 

The assembled studies also highlight the difficulties inherent in attempting
to quantify morphological complexity. These include reliance on existing
language descriptions, particularly of the less well-known languages, and on
analytical choices made by the researchers (Nichols; Parker and Sims). The
difficulty of describing language-specific categories in a
cross-linguistically comparable way is well known: cf. ''what would be a
suitable objective and language-independent way to build an inventory of
categories for any language?'' (Sagot and Walther 2011: 37); ''almost every
newly described language presents us with some ''crazy'' new category that
hardly fits existing taxonomies'' (Haspelmath 2007: 119); see also Muysken
(2008) on the expanding range of categories as the labor of language
description proceeds. The feasibility of quantitative measurement of
linguistic complexity has recently been called into question, both in light of
the non-uniformity of the language descriptions on which the analysts have to
rely and the idealizations inherent in the latter (see Joseph 2021). 

REFERENCES

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2019. Language contact and endangered languages. The
Oxford Handbook of Language Contact, Anthony P. Grant (ed), 241-260. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Anderson, Stephen R. 2015. Dimensions of morphological complexity.
Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity, Matthew Baerman, Dunstan
Brown & Greville G. Corbett (eds), 11-26. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Dahl, Östen. 2009. Increases in complexity as a result of language contact.
Convergence and Divergence in Language Contact Situations, Kurt Braunmüller &
Juliane House (eds), 41-52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Pre-established categories don’t exist: consequences
for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11: 119-132.

Joseph, John E. 2021. Why does language complexity resist measurement?
Frontiers in  Communication 6: 624855.

Kossmann, Maarten. 2010. Parallel system borrowing: parallel morphological
systems due to the borrowing of paradigms. Diachronica 27: 459-487.

McElvenny, James. 2021. Language complexity in historical perspective: the
enduring tropes of natural growth and abnormal contact. Frontiers in
Communication 6: 621712.

Muysken, Pieter. 2008. Functional Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Sagot, Benoît & Géraldine Walther. 2011. Non-canonical inflection: data,
formalisation and complexity measures. Systems and Frameworks for
Computational Morphology, Cerstin Mahlow & Michael Piotrowski (eds), 23-45.
Berlin: Springer. 

Van Coetsem, Frans. 1988. Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Types in
Language Contact. Dordrecht: Foris.

Van Coetsem, Frans. 2000. A General and Unified Theory of the Transmission
Process in Language Contact. Heidelberg: Winter.

Winford, Donald. 2019. Theories of language contact. The Oxford Handbook of
Language Contact, Anthony P. Grant (ed), 51-74. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. 

Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad. 2005. “Abba, why was Professor Higgins trying to teach
Eliza to speak like our cleaning lady?”: Mizrahim, Ashkenazim, prescriptivism and the
real sounds of the Israeli language. Australian Journal of Jewish Studies 19:
210-231.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Natalie Operstein's research interests center on language change, phonology
and language contact. Her publications include ''The Lingua Franca:
Contact-Induced Language Change in the Mediterranean'' (2021), ''Zaniza
Zapotec'' (2015), ''Consonant Structure and Prevocalization'' (2010),
''Valence Changes in Zapotec: Synchrony, Diachrony, Typology'', ed. with A.H.
Sonnenschein (2015) and ''Language Contact and Change in Mesoamerica and
Beyond'', ed. with K. Dakin and C. Parodi (2017).



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

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2020 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
                   https://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-33-1816	
----------------------------------------------------------