[Lingtyp] Contrastive vowel and consonant length?

[Gilles Authier]

Well, this Phoible seems to be a very unreliable source !

"Lezgian and Lak: fortis-lenis is represented as ejectives" :
What does that mean ??

Lezgian has  a length contrast for æ, Lak for a/i/u :
Both wrong...

Good luck !
GA


On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 3:51 PM <florian.matter at isw.unibe.ch> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> thank you for the many responses, which I won't address individually.
>
> a) To clarify: as a sample, I took the 2186 languages featured in phoible
> <https://phoible.org/>, and evaluated whether they have phonemic length
> contrasts for consonants and/or vowels. Results were:
>
> No contrast: 1278
> Contrast in vowels only: 786
> Contrast in consonants only: 39
> Contrast in both: 83
>
> The correlation between vowel and consonant length contrasts is
> statistically significant (p: 0.00000000965). However, I am aware that
> there are many potential issues (representativeness of phoible, the
> algorithm used for establishing contrastive vowel length, analytical
> differences, only picking one inventory per language…), hence my question
> to this list.
>
> b) People have provided counterexamples to the observed tendency, i.e.
> languages with a length contrast in consonants only.
> Not contained in phoible are: Jóola Banjal, Agul, Tabasaran, Southern
> Dargwa, Chuukese, Logudorese Sardinian, Koromfe, Ghomara Berber, Western
> Pantar.
> In phoible, and classified correctly as "contrast in consonants only":
> Archi, Border Kuna, Italian, Tashlhiyt Berber, Moroccan Arabic.
>
> In phoible, but classified as something other than "contrast in consonants
> only":
> 1. Japanese: the phoible inventory which my script picked has V and C
> length contrasts, but the other two inventories have no long segments at
> all.
> 2. Lezgian and Lak: fortis-lenis is represented as ejectives. Lezgian has
>  a length contrast for æ, Lak for a/i/u.
> 3. Burarra, Emmi: the consonants are classified as tense-lax.
> 4. Koryak, Yaqui, Mada (of Cameroun), Makassarese, Toba Batak: phoible
> only lists short segments. For Toba Batak, the WP page includes examples of
> <bb> and <ii>.
>
> I haven't read the cited sources yet, but for group 4 it seems that they
> clearly have a length contrast in consonants, which is not represented *at
> all* in phoible. This in turn implies a disagreement in analysis between
> the person giving the counterexample and a) the original source or b)
> somebody coding an inventory, for phoible or for one of the databases which
> it aggregates.
>
> c) Some people also listed languages with length contrasts in both C and
> V. Categorized correctly: Chechen, Leggbó, Ingush, Saami. Categorized
> incorrectly: Pohnpeian (no contrast), Luganda (only long vowels). Not in
> phoible: Chuukese.
>
> d) Some other issues were brought up, here are my thoughts on them:
>
> 1. When consonant length co-occurs with other features (aspiration,
> glottalization, affrication…) it is indeed difficult to establish whether
> it is contrastive or not. No answer here.
> 2. I do not talk about languages where segmental duration is due to
> allophony, only about those where a phonemic contrast between [Xː] and [X]
> exists, i.e. minimal pairs.
> 3. Regarding the representation of consonant length: I think it does not
> matter whether an appropriate phonemic analysis sees durationally longer
> consonants as geminate /CC/ or as long /Cː/. A length contrast between [Cː]
> and [C] exists in both cases.
> 4. If length is a suprasegmental feature and not bound to segments, how do
> we account for the fact that many languages only show a length contrast for
> certain segments? I could give a plethora of such examples.
> 5. Distribution and diachrony of long consonants: Juliette Blevins has
> done some work on this, finding a) many distinct diachronic pathways,
> resulting in b) no clear patterns as to what kind of consonants show a
> length contrast.
>
> Best,
> Florian
>
> _____________________________
>
> Universität Bern
>
> Institut für Sprachwissenschaft
>
> Florian Matter
>
>
>
> Länggassstrasse 49
>
> CH-3012 Bern
>
> Tel. +41 31 631 37 54
>
> Raum B 168
>
> *florian.matter at isw.unibe.ch <florian.matter at isw.unibe.ch>*
>
> *http://www.isw.unibe.ch <http://www.isw.unibe.ch/>*
>
> On 21 December 2020 at 02:14:04, lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org
> (lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org) wrote:
>
> Send Lingtyp mailing list submissions to
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> lingtyp-owner at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Lingtyp digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Contrastive vowel and consonant length? (Johanna Nichols)
> 2. Re: syntactic construction formula (Siva Kalyan)
> 3. Final call: SLE 2021 WS Dissecting Morphological Theory 1:
> Diminutivization Across Languages and Frameworks (Stela Manova)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2020 14:00:45 -0800
> From: Johanna Nichols <johanna at berkeley.edu>
> Cc: Linguistic Typology <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Contrastive vowel and consonant length?
> Message-ID:
> <CAHDpjwpXfLEY0HJ+hByaSwKGbko91hcP-qLQwAxatvhdumm1xA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Ingush (Nakh-Daghestanian), has a length contrast in vowels and
> geminate consonants cognate to the Daghestanian ones that Misha and
> Gilles mention. The geminate consonants behave like a sequence of two
> consonants, with the first one closing the preceding syllable and
> shortening the vowel, and the second one opening the following
> syllable. In some Chechen varieties, the situation is similar, though
> with geminates the consonant that opens the following syllable is
> unaspirated while in most Chechen vowels a single voiceless stop or
> obstruent is aspirated. I think this is the only respect in which the
> geminate do not behave like a sequence (or more precisely they don't
> behave like a sequence of the corresponding single consonants). But
> I've heard one Chechen variety where vowel length is preserved before
> geminates and the geminate is aspirated.
>
> In Saami (Uralic) varieties there are vowel length oppositions and (as
> I understand it) consonants written as double but which apparently do
> not behave in any respect as sequences: they don't shorten preceding
> long vowels and in gradation they are the strong grade of single
> consonants. This is different from Finnish, where double consonants
> behave like sequences in that they close the preceding syllable and
> cause weak grade in its first consonant, but they do not shorten long
> vowels and in gradation they behave like the strong grade of a
> consonant alternating with a single consonant as weak grade.
>
> Johanna
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 1:11 PM Pier Marco Bertinetto
> <piermarco.bertinetto at sns.it> wrote:
> >
> > A possible source of phonologically long Cs is total assimilation of C
> clusters.
> > I doubt that V quantity could have an impact on that.
> > Best
> > Pier Marco
> >
> >
> > Il giorno dom 20 dic 2020 alle ore 20:59 Peter Austin <pa2 at soas.ac.uk>
> ha scritto:
> >>
> >> Some Western Micronesian languages have a consonant length contrast,
> including word-initially. Among them, Chuukese lacks long vowels but
> Pohnpeian has long vowels as well. I understand the consonant length
> contrast can be reconstructed for their ancestor.
> >>
> >> Peter
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 19:34, Larry M. HYMAN <hyman at berkeley.edu>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I have the same impression as Juergen that languages with a vowel
> length contrast are vastly more numerous than those with a single/geminate
> consonant contrast. (I could only think of Italian, myself, as having only
> the latter, though good to see the others cited). On the other hand, the
> few languages I have worked with that have geminates also have a vowel
> length contrast, e.g. Luganda, Leggbó (with a fortis-lenis contrast that is
> largely durational).
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 10:03 AM Bohnemeyer, Juergen <jb77 at buffalo.edu>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear all — Just for the sake of speculation, let me propose a
> possible causal link. The argument has multiple steps:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Presumably (but I haven’t looked at this empirically), length
> contrasts are easier to perceive in vowels than in consonants. And as a
> result, their production would also be easier to monitor and control in
> vowels than in consonants.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. If the above is correct, then it would also stand to reason that
> phonemic length contrasts are more likely to occur in vowels than in
> consonants.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3. This in turn would mean that a likely scenario for the emergence
> of phonemic duration in consonants is that the members of a language
> community first become habituated to perceiving duration contrasts in
> vowels, and from there extend this type of categorization to consonant
> phonemes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since we’ve already seen examples of languages with phonemic duration
> in consonants only in this thread, it is probably not the case that the
> emergence of phonemic duration in consonants presupposed the prior
> existence of phonemic duration in vowels. However, it is of course also
> conceivable that languages first acquire phonemic duration in vowels, then
> extend it to consonants, and then reinterpret duration contrasts in vowels
> as tone or quality contrasts, leaving the quantity opposition in consonants
> orphaned.
> >>>>
> >>>> Like I said, all idle speculation. — Best — Juergen
> >>>>
> >>>> > On Dec 20, 2020, at 12:42 PM, Pier Marco Bertinetto <
> piermarco.bertinetto at sns.it> wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Dear Florian,
> >>>> > the question I would ask myself is the following: Since we know
> that vowel and consonant quantity are independent of each other (they can
> coexist, or one can have phonological value and the other, possibly, a mere
> allophonically conditioned behavior), does it make sense to look for an
> "implicational tendency"?
> >>>> > Unless one can prove that the existence of consonant quantity
> presupposes vowel quantity, I would leave out any "implicational" reasoning.
> >>>> > Needless to say, it might be interesting to know, say, that there
> are more languages with vowel quantity than languages with consonant
> quantity, but would this teach us anything more than a mere statistical
> fact?
> >>>> > Best
> >>>> > Pier Marco
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Il giorno dom 20 dic 2020 alle ore 18:17 Hartmut Haberland <
> hartmut at ruc.dk> ha scritto:
> >>>> > Apparent counterexamples seem to be Italian (no vowel length) and
> maybe Japanese (long vowels in Sinojapanese vocabulary like sū ‘number’
> seem to be genuine but in suu ‘sucks, inhales’ with a morpheme border it is
> often considered u+u. Both languages have long/double consonants.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> Den 20. dec. 2020 kl. 17.49 skrev Michael Daniel <
> misha.daniel at gmail.com>:
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> 
> >>>> >> ps Sorry, i shouldn't have sent it to the general list. I am aware
> that individual cases do not undermine the general correlation. But because
> Florian also asked for language-level evidence, I provided (my
> understanding of) the data I know of.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Michael Daniel
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> вс, 20 дек. 2020 г., 19:25 Michael Daniel <misha.daniel at gmail.com
> >:
> >>>> >> Dear Florian,
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> i guess this depends on how to define consonant length, and what
> to count as presence of vowel quantity contrast. In East Caucasian, many
> languages distinguish between geminate vs simple, alias strong vs weak,
> alias fortis vs lenis, alias non-aspirated vs aspirated stops.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> At the same time, vowel length, if present at all, is much less
> central to the system, though this varies across languages. I'm afraid, in
> order to fully assess the force of this implication, you should somehow
> account also for the role of the two contrasts in the language.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> As one example, there is an important contrast between fortis and
> lenis stops in Archi, Lezgic. Vowel length is also present, but is used in
> expressive elements such as distance demonstratives; secondarily as
> compensation for the loss of the intervocalic -q- in one (of several
> hundred) of verbal forms; in some morphophonological contexts with the
> coordinative clitic; and maybe in one or two other forms that do not
> quickly come to my mind.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Sincerely,
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Michael
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> вс, 20 дек. 2020 г., 19:13 <florian.matter at isw.unibe.ch>:
> >>>> >> Dear all,
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> is anybody aware of large-scale studies investigating the
> distribution of contrastive length in consonants and vowels? Preliminary
> analysis of phoible data tells me that there is an implicational tendency
> where if a language has contrastive length in consonants, it also has it in
> vowels. Are there studies supporting this? I’m also interested in
> literature on the geographical and genealogical distribution of contrastive
> length.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Best,
> >>>> >> Florian
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> _____________________________
> >>>> >> Universität Bern
> >>>> >> Institut für Sprachwissenschaft
> >>>> >> Florian Matter
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Länggassstrasse 49
> >>>> >> CH-3012 Bern
> >>>> >> Tel. +41 31 631 37 54
> >>>> >> Raum B 168
> >>>> >> florian.matter at isw.unibe.ch
> >>>> >> http://www.isw.unibe.ch
> >>>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>> >> Lingtyp mailing list
> >>>> >> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >>>> >> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >>>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>> >> Lingtyp mailing list
> >>>> >> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >>>> >> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>>> > Lingtyp mailing list
> >>>> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >>>> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > --
> >>>> > =========================================================
> >>>> >
> >>>> > |||| Pier Marco Bertinetto
> >>>> > ------ professore emerito
> >>>> > /////// Scuola Normale Superiore
> >>>> > -------
> >>>> > p.za dei Cavalieri 7
> >>>> >
> >>>> > /////// I-56126 PISA
> >>>> > ------- phone: +39 050 509111
> >>>> > ///////
> >>>> > ------- HOME
> >>>> > /////// via Matteotti 197
> >>>> > ------- I-55049 Viareggio LU
> >>>> > /////// phone: +39 0584 652417
> >>>> >
> >>>> > ------- cell.: +39 368 3830251
> >>>> > =========================================================
> >>>> > editor of "Italian Journal of Linguistics"
> >>>> >
> >>>> > webpage <https://www.sns.it/it/bertinetto-pier-marco
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > "Laboratorio di Linguistica" <
> >>>> > http://linguistica.sns.it
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > =========================================================
> >>>> >
> >>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>>> > Lingtyp mailing list
> >>>> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >>>> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
> >>>> Professor, Department of Linguistics
> >>>> University at Buffalo
> >>>>
> >>>> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
> >>>> Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
> >>>> Phone: (716) 645 0127
> >>>> Fax: (716) 645 3825
> >>>> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu
> >>>> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
> >>>>
> >>>> Office hours will be held by Zoom. Email me to schedule a call at any
> time. I will in addition hold Tu/Th 4-5pm open specifically for remote
> office hours.
> >>>>
> >>>> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
> >>>> (Leonard Cohen)
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Lingtyp mailing list
> >>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Larry M. Hyman, Professor of Linguistics & Executive Director,
> France-Berkeley Fund
> >>> Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley
> >>> http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/people/person_detail.php?person=19
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Lingtyp mailing list
> >>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >>
> >> --
> >> Prof Peter K. Austin
> >> Emeritus Professor in Field Linguistics, SOAS
> >> Visiting Researcher, Oxford University
> >> Foundation Editor, EL Publishing
> >> Honorary Treasurer, Philological Society
> >> www.peterkaustin.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Lingtyp mailing list
> >> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > =========================================================
> > |||| Pier Marco Bertinetto
> > ------ professore emerito
> > /////// Scuola Normale Superiore
> > ------- p.za dei Cavalieri 7
> > /////// I-56126 PISA
> > ------- phone: +39 050 509111
> > ///////
> > ------- HOME
> > /////// via Matteotti 197
> > ------- I-55049 Viareggio LU
> > /////// phone: +39 0584 652417
> > ------- cell.: +39 368 3830251
> > =========================================================
> > editor of "Italian Journal of Linguistics"
> > webpage <https://www.sns.it/it/bertinetto-pier-marco>
> > "Laboratorio di Linguistica" <http://linguistica.sns.it>
> > =========================================================
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 10:50:46 +1100
> From: Siva Kalyan <sivakalyan.princeton at gmail.com>
> To: Christian Lehmann <christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de>
> Cc: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] syntactic construction formula
> Message-ID: <FE339692-FA47-4473-839C-2639708239DF at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Why not take inspiration from autosegmental phonology, and have the Adv on
> a separate "tier"? Then in particular instantiations, you could have an
> association line between the Adv and a placeholder element that is either
> before the NP, between the NP and VP, or after the VP.
>
> The disadvantage of this is that it would reify the idea of free word
> order, rather than making it clear that it’s just a representation of our
> ignorance of the true conditioning factors.
>
> Siva
>
> > On 21 Dec 2020, at 2:45 am, Christian Lehmann <
> christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de> wrote:
> >
> > Let the adverb suddenly be my component C. Combined with the
> construction John screamed, my formula might look something like:
> >
> > {Adv} NP {Adv} VP {Adv}
> >
> > Is this a misleading use of curly brackets (referring to Ian Joo's
> suggestion, which I remember having seen in the early days of
> transformationalism) ? Or is there a more adequate representation?
> >
> > --
> > Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
> > Rudolfstr. 4
> > 99092 Erfurt
> > Deutschland
> >
> > Tel.: +49/361/2113417
> > E-Post: christianw_lehmann at arcor.de <mailto:christianw_lehmann at arcor.de>
> > Web: https://www.christianlehmann.eu <https://www.christianlehmann.eu/
> >_______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20201221/0b3dee4f/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 02:12:16 +0100
> From: Stela Manova <stela.manova at univie.ac.at>
> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: [Lingtyp] Final call: SLE 2021 WS Dissecting Morphological
> Theory 1: Diminutivization Across Languages and Frameworks
> Message-ID: <F0D88DD2-096C-4FB1-91C6-42BBE2283BED at univie.ac.at>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dissecting Morphological Theory 1:
> Diminutivization Across Languages and Frameworks
>
> Final CFP
>
> Workshop to be held in conjunction with the 54th Annual Meeting of the
> Societas Linguistica Europaea, Athens, 31 August – 3 September 2021,
> http://www.sle2021.eu <http://www.sle2021.eu/list-of-workshops>
>
> Deadline for abstract submission
> 15 January 2021
>
> Convenors
> Stela Manova, Boban Arsenijević, Laura Grestenberger & Katharina
> Korecky-Kröll
> (University of Vienna, University of Graz, University of Vienna &
> University of Vienna)
>
> Workshop website
>
> https://sites.google.com/view/morphologytheories-diminutives/calls-for-papers/dmtd1
> <
> https://sites.google.com/view/morphologytheories-diminutives/calls-for-papers/dmtd1>
>
>
> Keywords: morphological theory, diminutives, form-meaning mismatches,
> affix (re)analysis, end/beginning of word
>
> This workshop is planned as the first of a series of workshops that
> challenge morphological theory with data from diminutivization and
> addresses three basic issues of diminutive morphology: A. Demarcation, B.
> Status in grammar, and C. Theoretical description.
> Diminutive(-related) meanings and forms have received much attention in
> the literature (overview in Grandi & Körtvelyessy 2015) and some authors
> have claimed that we cannot account for peculiarities of diminutives with
> the regular mechanisms of grammar but need an additional component:
> evaluative morphology (Scalise 1986), morphopragmatics (Dressler & Merlini
> Barbaresi 1994). Do we? Or is everything a matter of method (Jurafsky 1996)?
>
> A. Demarcation
>
> Diminutives and hypocoristics often use the same formal means, express
> affection and are considered overlapping categories (Doleschal & Thornton
> 2000). For theoretical purposes, do we need to differentiate between them
> and is a sharp distinction possible? The following list contains properties
> of hypocoristics that do not seem characteristic of diminutives:
>
> Phonology
> Phonological word and phonological templates play an important role in
> hypocoristic formation (Prosodic Morphology in Lappe 2007); hypocoristics
> involve shortening of form: stressed syllables tend to be preserved,
> unstressed syllables tend to be deleted; hypocoristic affixes select
> monosyllabic bases.
>
> Morphology
> Hypocoristics (and all types of shortening/clipping) are hard to analyze
> in terms of morphemes and exhibit variation (Thomas - Tom(my)).
>
> Semantics
> Hypocoristics are not (necessarily) related to smallness. The base and the
> derivative in hypocoristic formations have the same referential meaning and
> differ only in terms of pragmatic function (Alber & Arndt-Lappe 2012).
>
> Pragmatics
> Hypocoristics serve for calling and in languages such as Russian where the
> phenomenon affects all proper nouns in informal style (i.e. seems
> obligatory) hypocoristics have even been labelled Vocative case by some
> scholars (discussion in Manova 2011).
>
> B. Status in grammar
>
> Diminutives are considered an in-between category, i.e. between derivation
> and inflection (Scalise 1986, Dressler 1989). But does this tell us
> something significant about diminutives? In Distributed Morphology (DM,
> Halle & Marantz 1993, and Bobaljik 2017) both derivational and inflectional
> affixes can serve as heads; in Paradigm Function Morphology (PFM, Stump
> 2001) inflection and derivation are both paradigm-based (Bonami & Strnadová
> 2019). For the morphological parser (C3 below), diminutive suffixes are
> inseparable from the inflection that follows them. Based on the literature
> (relevance, Bybee 1985; scope, Rice 2000; closing suffix, Aronoff & Fuhrhop
> 2002): Is a positional control (internal/external affix; distance from the
> root; word-final) more useful than derivation/inflection for research on
> diminutives?
>
> C. Theoretical description
>
> Types of bases
> DM assumes that all morphological derivations start from the √root; PFM
> recognizes only stems as bases; still other theories postulate a parallel
> existence of roots, stems and words as bases (Natural Morphology, Dressler
> et al. 1987). There are two types of stems: (i) uncategorized (morphomes,
> Aronoff 1994), they are in use in a-morphous morphology (PFM) (in the
> main-stream DM only √roots can be uncategorized); (ii) categorized: stems
> in DM are of this type but affixes that derive them are either heads or
> modifiers, the latter do not categorize or change the category or
> grammatical features of the base (Steriopolo 2009 in relation to
> diminutives).
>
> Form-meaning mismatches
> DM and PFM treat form and meaning separately: roughly, we first produce
> what we want to say in terms of semantics (combination of abstract
> morphemes (syntactic terminal nodes) in DM versus ready-made sets of
> morphosyntactic properties associated with paradigm cells in PFM); having
> produced the semantic word, we look for form to express it (DM late
> insertion). Such architecture does not have space for form-meaning
> mismatches, at least not at the level of the morpheme (Manova et al. 2020).
> Thus, how do form-meaning mismatches associated with pieces of structure
> smaller than words arise? One way in which mismatches arise is via
> diachronic reanalysis/semantic bleaching, by which diminutive suffixes lose
> their diminutive meaning, e.g. the Bugarian barče ‘café’, originally a
> diminutive from bar ‘bar, discoteque’, has lost its diminutive meaning in
> some contexts; barče in (1) is larger than bar:
>
> bar-če sǎs sobstven bar
> café [bar-DIM] with its own bar
>
> Diminutive suffixes in Slavic can be stacked/queued (2), Manova (2015).
> See also De Belder et al. (2014) on "high" and "low" diminutive affixes.
>
> bar ‘bar, discotheque’ → bar-če ‘small bar & café’ →
> → bar-č-ence ‘very small bar & small café’ →
> → bar-č-enc-ence ‘very very small bar & very small café’
>
> With the reanalysis of bar-če as ‘café’, the diminutive suffix moves one
> position away from the root, nothing gets lost but a new non-diminutive
> suffix was born. Bar-če still has diminutive connotation meanings: (i) part
> of a furniture set used for drinks; (ii) small piece of furniture. And -če
> is also a non-diminutive derivational suffix: dimitr-ov-če ‘chrysanthemum’
> (flower that blooms around St. Dimitar’s day).
>
> 3. Affix (re)analysis
> Derivatives relate to other derivatives through their bases and through
> their affixes, which results in priming effects in psycholinguistics.
> Lázaro et al. (2016) researched suffix priming on lexical decision of
> suffixed (ero-JORNAL-ERO ‘laborer’) and pseudosuffixed (ero-CORD:ERO
> ‘lamb’; cord is not the root of cordero) Spanish words, as well as the
> effect of orthographic priming on nonsuffixed words (eba-PRUEBA ‘test’).
> For suffixed and pseudosuffixed words, related primes significantly
> accelerated response latencies in comparison to unrelated primes
> (ista-JORNALERO; ura-CORDERO); for simple words, there was no facilitation
> effect of the orthographically related prime (eba-PRUEBA) in comparison to
> the unrelated prime (afo-PRUEBA). In other words, since -če is a word-final
> (frequent) derivational suffix in Bulgarian (C2), for morphological
> processing it is favorable if a derived Bulgarian word terminates in -če.
> Contra Parsability Hypothesis (Hay 2002)/Complexity-Based Ordering (Plag &
> Baayen 2009), morphological parser appears semantically blind (Beyersmann
> et al. 2016; but affix position matters, Crepaldi et al. 2016), and all
> word-final -če suffixes are the same suffix for it. All this indirectly
> supports reanalysis of morphological form and suffix homophony
> word-finally. Unsurprisingly, the semantically-blind positional logic of
> the morphological parser serves for affix discovery in Unsupervised
> Learning of Morphology (Hammarström & Borin 2011).
> Is diminutive affix reanalysis wide-spread cross-linguistically? Is it
> always related to word-final/beginning position? Do (productive) diminutive
> affixes, in this process, always distance from the root?
>
> We invite papers that tackle diminutive morphology (based on A, B, C
> above) with data from any language and within any theory. Submissions
> suggesting improvements of the architectures of existing theories of
> morphology are particularly welcome.
>
> Abstract submission
>
> 500-word anonymous abstracts should be submitted in Easy Chair using the
> following link: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sle2021 <
> https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sle2021>. The deadline is 15
> January 2021. Upon abstract submission, you should select: 1) type of paper
> (workshop paper) and 2) indicate the workshop to which your abstract should
> be assigned (Dissecting Morphological Theory 1). Abstracts should not
> exceed 500 words (including examples, excluding references).
> Practical information about how to submit an abstract can be found at:
> http://sle2021.eu/submission-guidelines <
> http://sle2021.eu/submission-guidelines>.
>
>
> References
> Alber, Birgit, and Sabine Arndt-Lappe (2012), Templatic and subtractive
> truncation, in J. Trommer (ed), (2012), The morphology and phonology of
> exponence, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 289–325.
> Aronoff, Mark (1994), Morphology by itself, Cambridge, Ma: MIT.
> Aronoff, Mark, and Nanna Fuhrhop (2002), Restricting suffix combinations
> in German and English: Closing suffixes and the monosuffix constraint,
> Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 451−490.
> Beyersmann, Elisabeth, Johannes C. Ziegler, Anne Castles, Max Coltheart,
> Yvette Kezilas, and Jonathan Grainger (2016), Morpho-orthographic
> segmentation without semantics, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23(2),
> 533–539.
> Bobaljik, Jonathan (2017), Distributed Morphology, Oxford Research
> Encyclopedia of Linguistics, retrieved 17 Jun. 2020, from
> https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-131
> <
> https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-131
> >.
> Bonami, Olivier, and Jana Strnadová (2019), Paradigm structure and
> predictability in derivational morphology, Morphology 29(2), 167–197.
> Bybee, Joan L. (1985), Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning
> and form, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
> Crepaldi, Davide, Lara Hemsworth, Colin J. Davis, and Kathleen Rastle
> (2016), Masked suffix priming and morpheme positional constraints,
> Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69(1), 113–128.
> De Belder, Marijke, Noam Faust, and Nicola Lampitelli (2014), On a low and
> a high diminutive: evidence from Italian and Hebrew, in A. Alexiadou, H.
> Borer, and F. Schäfer (eds.), (2014), The syntax of roots and the roots of
> syntax, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 149–163.
> Doleschal, Ursula, and Anna Thornton (2000), Extragrammatical and marginal
> morphology, München: Lincom.
> Dressler, Wolfgang U. (1989), Prototypical differences between inflection
> and derivation, Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und
> Kommunikationsforschung 42, 3–10.
> Dressler, Wolfgang U., Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl, and Wolfgang U.
> Wurzel (1987), Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology, Amsterdam: Benjamins.
> Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi (1994),
> Morphopragmatics: diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German, and
> other languages, Berlin: de Gruyter.
> Grandi, Nicola, and Lívia Körtvélyessy (eds.), (2015), Edinburgh Handbook
> of Evaluative Morphology, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
> Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz (1993), Distributed morphology and the
> pieces of inflection, in K. Hale, and S. J. Keyser (eds.), (1993), The view
> from building 20, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111–176.
> Hammarström, Harald, and Lars Borin (2011), Unsupervised learning of
> morphology, Computational Linguistics 37(2), 309–350.
> Hay, Jennifer (2002), From Speech Perception to Morphology: Affix-ordering
> Revisited, Language 78, 527–555.
> Jurafsky, Daniel (1996), Universal tendencies in the semantics of the
> diminutive, Language 72(3), 533–577.
> Lappe, Sabine (2007), English prosodic morphology, Dordrecht: Springer.
> Lázaro, Miguel, Víctor Illera, and Javier Sainz (2016), The suffix priming
> effect: Further evidence for an early morpho-orthographic segmentation
> process independent of its semantic content, Quarterly Journal of
> Experimental Psychology 69(1), 197–208.
> Manova, Stela (2011), Understanding Morphological Rules: With Special
> Emphasis on Conversion and Subtraction in Bulgarian, Russian and
> Serbo-Croatian, Dordrecht: Springer.
> Manova, Stela (2015), Affix order and the structure of the Slavic word, in
> S. Manova (ed.), (2015), Affix ordering across languages and frameworks,
> New York: Oxford University Press, 205–230.
> Manova, Stela, Harald Hammarström, Itamar Kastner, ad Yining Nie (2020),
> What is in a morpheme? Theoretical, experimental and computational
> approaches to the relation of meaning and form in morphology, Word
> Structure 13(1), 1–21.
> Plag, Ingo, and Harald Baayen (2009), Suffix Ordering and Morphological
> Processing, Language 85, 109–152
> Rice, Keren (2000), Morpheme order and semantic scope, Cambridge:
> Cambridge University Press.
> Scalise, Sergio (1986), Generative morphology, 2nd edn, Dordrecht: Foris.
> Steriopolo, Olga (2009), Form and function of expressive morphology: A
> case study of Russian, Russian Language Journal 59, 149–194.
> Stump, Gregory T. (2001), Inflectional morphology, Cambridge: Cambridge
> University Press.
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20201221/6789c681/attachment.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: Final CFP SLE WS 9 Dissecting Morphological Theory 1
> Diminutivization Across Languages and Frameworks.pdf
> Type: application/pdf
> Size: 145862 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20201221/6789c681/attachment.pdf
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20201221/6789c681/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Lingtyp Digest, Vol 75, Issue 9
> **************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20201221/514419c6/attachment.htm>