[Lingtyp] Final CFP: Dissecting Morphological Theory 3: Diminutivization, Allomorphy and the Architecture of Grammar

Stela Manova stela.manova at univie.ac.at
Wed Jan 26 18:18:28 UTC 2022

*Final CFP: Dissecting Morphological Theory 3: Diminutivization, 
Allomorphy and the Architecture of Grammar*


Workshop to be held in conjunction with the 20th International 
Morphology Meeting

Budapest, 1-4 September 2022, http://www.nytud.hu/imm20/ 

Workshop website: 

Abstract submission deadline: 15 January 2022 16 February 2022

EasyChair submission link:https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=dmtd3 


Stela Manova, University of Vienna, stela.manova at univie.ac.at 
<mailto:stela.manova at univie.ac.at>

Katharina Korecky-Kröll, University of Vienna, 
katharina.korecky-kroell at univie.ac.at 
<mailto:katharina.korecky-kroell at univie.ac.at>

Olga Steriopolo, Leibniz-ZAS Berlin, olgasteriopolo at hotmail.com 
<mailto:olgasteriopolo at hotmail.com>

Scientific committee

Artemis Alexiadou, Humboldt University & Leibniz-ZAS, Berlin

Mark Aronoff, Stony Brook University, SUNY

Boban Arsenijević, University of Graz

Olivier Bonami, Université de Paris

Pavel Caha, Masaryk University, Brno

Guglielmo Cinque, Ca' Foscari University of Venice

Marijke De Belder, University of Oldenburg

David Embick, University of Pennsylvania

Maria Gouskova, New York University

Laura Grestenberger, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna

Katharina Korecky-Kröll, University of Vienna

Lívia Körtvélyessy, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University, Košice

Stela Manova, University of Vienna

Ora Matushansky, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique & Paris VIII

Olga Steriopolo, Leibniz-ZAS, Berlin

Keren Rice, University of Toronto

Maria Voeikova, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg

Martina Wiltschko, ICREA,Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona

This workshop is the third of a series of workshops on diminutive 
morphology and its implications for morphological theory. The workshops 
are held in conjunction with different international conferences: 

Diminutive morphology presents a number of challenges to morphological 
theory and various issues have been discussed extensively: whether 
diminutivization is derivation or inflection (Dressler 1989; Scalise 
1988; Stump 1993; Manova 2011; Grandi & Körtvélyessy 2015); are 
diminutive suffixes heads and/or modifiers (Wiltschko and Steriopolo 
2007; Steriopolo 2009, 2015, 2016; Gouskova & Bobaljik, to appear); do 
they attach “low” or “high” in the syntactic tree (De Belder et al. 
2014; Cinque 2015); which meanings are associated with diminutive 
morphology (Dressler & Merlini Barbaresi 1994; Jurafsky 1996) and so on. 
Nevertheless, there are still issues that have remained unaddressed:


    Why do some languages have large sets of diminutive affixes, while
    others have very limited sets?


    What is a diminutive allomorph? (Should allomorphs have the same
    semantic-pragmatic function, e.g. could they have different
    readings, either positive or negative, depending on the situation?
    Should allomorphs be associated with the same inflection
    class?Should allomorphs have the same syntactic function: are they
    either heads or modifiers or could they be both; could they attach
    at different “heights” in the syntactic tree, resulting in “high”
    vs. “low” allomorphs?)


    How does allomorph selection take place in diminutivization? (Is it
    based on semantics, on form, on syntactic structure, on
    linearization, or on extragrammatical information?)


    Are gender and inflection class encoded in the same way in
    diminutive and non-diminutive nouns? (If diminutive affixes impose
    gender and inflection class, what does this mean for our
    understanding of the morphology-syntax interface?)


    What architecture of grammar best captures the peculiarities of
    diminutive morphology?

(a) Phonology after morphology, i.e. morphologically conditioned 
phonology (and consequently phonology-free syntax)

(b) Phonology before morphology, i.e. phonologically conditioned 
morphology (and maybe also syntax)

(c) A mixture of (a) and (b).

Human languages can be broadly divided into diminutive-rich and 
diminutive-poor. Intriguingly, even some of the diminutive-poor 
languages (e.g. English is of this type) have more than one diminutive 
affix. As can be expected, diminutive-rich languages (e.g. Slavic and 
Romance languages) possess extensive sets of diminutive affixes. To 
illustrate, Bulgarian (Slavic) uses the following suffixes for 
derivation of diminutive nouns:

(1) Nominal diminutive suffixes in Bulgarian (examples in Manova & 
Winternitz 2011)


-ec, -l(e), -č(e), -k(a), -ic(a), -ičk(a), -čic(a),-c(e), -ic(e), 
-enc(e), -(e)

With respect to (1), the following research questions arise. First, why 
does a language need a (large) set of diminutive affixes? And second, 
are all diminutive affixes phonological and suppletive variants (i.e. 
allomorphs) or is there an additional  motivation for them, e.g. 
structural, semantic, cognitive, pragmatic, psycholinguistic, 

Affix allomorphy

In linguistic literature, affix allomorphs are usually defined as 
variants conditioned by the bases to which they attach. They express the 
same meaning and occur in complementary distribution. Such definitions 
do not mention the feature-set specification of allomorphs or their 
position in the syntactic tree. However, a diminutive variant is not 
always conditioned by the base, and diminutive affixes are not 
necessarily in complementary distribution, as shown in (2).

(2) No conditioning by the base, Hund‘dog’ (m.)                          


  a.Hünd-chen (n.), Hund-chen (n.)

  b. Hünd-ilein (n.), Hund-ilein 

  c. Hünd-lein (n.)

  d.Hund-erl (n.)


  f.Hund-i (n.)

In (2a) and (2c), both suffixes -chenand -leinderive Standard German 
diminutives. Overall, -chenforms are more frequent, while-lein 
diminutives appear old-fashioned and more typical of literary texts. 
Nevertheless, in some cases -leinis used instead of -chen, due to 
phonological restrictions, as in (3).

(3) Phonologically conditioned allomorphy: -chenvs -lein                



    Buch (n.) ‘book’ → *Büch-chen, Büch-lein(n.) (*chch)


    Ball (m.)‘ball’ → Bäll-chen (n.), *Bäll-lein(*lll)

Allomorph selection can also be conditioned by style and register. For 
example, Hund-ileinin (2b), Hund-iliin (2e) and Hund-iin (2f) are all 
child-centered forms. Allomorphy can also be conditioned by 
sociolinguistic factors, e.g. a dialectal use, as in (2d), Hund-erlis 
used in Bavarian dialects.

Additionally, if a language has a rich set of diminutive affixes, some 
of them may be gender-preserving, while others may be gender-changing, 
as shown in (4) for Bulgarian. Are -ecand -č(e) allomorphs of the same 
diminutive suffix?

(4) Gender-preserving vs gender-changing diminutive suffixes             


a.glas (m.)‘voice’ → glas-ec(m.) ‘light voice’

   b. glas (m.) ‘voice’ → glas-č(e) (n.) ‘light voice’

The issue of diminutive affix allomorphy has been extensively discussed 
for Russian diminutive nouns. For example, Gouskova and Bobaljik (to 
appear), contra Bonet & Harbour (2012) for other languages, maintain 
that the Russian suffix -onok has two variants: the gender- & 
inflection-class-changing -onokderiving baby diminutives and the 
gender-preserving inflection-class-changing -onk(a), an evaluative 
suffix with a dismissive/affectionate flavor. They classify -onok as a 
head and -onk(a) as a modifier. By contrast, Steriopolo (2009) assigns 
the status of a syntactic head to all inflection-class-changing 
diminutive suffixes. Thus, a question arises: Could allomorphs differ in 
syntactic function / be associated with different sets of 
morphosyntactic features in theories that do not use the head-modifier 

How should all this be modeled theoretically?

Current morphology is dominated by realizational theories such as 
Distributed Morphology (DM, Halle & Marantz 1993, Bobaljik 2017, among 
others) and Paradigm Function Morphology (PFM, Stump 2001, 2016, among 
others). Such theories treat meaning and form separately, i.e. they 
assume that morphological derivation first happens at an abstract level 
(semantics associated with syntactic terminal nodes in DM; content 
paradigms in PFM) and only afterwards, phonological realizations 
(vocabulary items) are inserted in DM; forms are linked to content in 
PFM. In other words, in realizational theories, phonology is postponed. 
Thus, a question arises: How does a diminutive meaning match its 
phonological realization, especially when different realizations that 
seem neither phonologically nor morphologically conditioned are 
available and/or when there are gaps in the derivational paradigm, such 
as the ones in (5)?

(5)Derivational paradigm involving diminutive nouns and verbs           


    tanzen/ Tanz‘to/ dance’ → Tänzchen, Tänzlein, Tanzerl, ?Tänzerl,
    ?Tänzel,dim. verb: tänzeln


    buchen/ Buch‘to/ book’ → *Büchchen (*chch), Büchlein, Bücherl,
    Büchel,dim. verb: *bücheln


    kochen/ Koch ‘to/ cook’ → *Köchchen(*chch),?Köchlein,               
               dim. verb: köcheln

(? - rather potential than actual)

It is important to point out that theories that operate with classical 
morphemes (e.g. Natural Morphology (Dressler et al. 1987) and Minimalist 
Morphology (Wunderlich 1996)), i.e. theories that recognize the morpheme 
as the smallest unit of language structure relating meaning and form 
have a similar problem with data such as these in (5), i.e. the question 
remains: How do speakers select a diminutive morpheme?

A diminutive morpheme may impose gender and inflection-class, as in (4) 
and (6). However, these are different types of features: gender 
determines agreement classes, while an inflection class is "a set of 
lexemes whose members each select the same set of inflectional 
realizations" (Aronoff 1994: 64). Inflection class information is not 
syntactically motivated but diacritic and it is also not syntactically 
active at the level of Logical Form (Alexiadou 2004).

(6)The diminutive suffix -chen imposes neuter gender and zero plural    

   a.[+ gender change,+ inflection class change]

der Ballm. sg. ‘ball’, die Bällem. pl. (-e+ umlaut) → das Bäll-chenn. 
sg., die Bäll-chenn. zero pl.

  b. [+ gender change, –inflection class change]

der Beutelm. sg. ‘bag, pouch’, die Beutelm. zero pl. → das Beutel-chenn. 
sg., die Beutel-chenn. zero pl.

   c. [– gender change, + inflection class change]

das Schiffn. sg. ‘ship’, die Schiffen. pl. (-e) → das Schiff-chenn. sg., 
die Schiff-chenn. zero pl.


    Is the gender feature encoded in the diminutive morpheme? If yes,
    what does this mean for a-morphous theories of morphology (PFM;
    Word-Based Morphology (WBM), Blevins 2006; Construction Morphology,
    Booij 2010) where one cannot encode features in morphemes and for
    syntax-based theories (with abstract morphemes) such as DM,
    Nanosyntax (Caha 2020) and Cartography (Cinque & Rizzi 2015)? The
    latter two are one-feature-one-head and do not allow feature
    clustering (feature clustering is possible in DM).


    Inflection classes are particularly prominent in WBM and PFM. Thus,
    is inflection-class information in diminutives encoded at the level
    of the word (WBM), at the level of the stem (PFM) or at the level of
    the morpheme (DM)? In generative grammar, some scholars consider
    inflection class a syntactic feature (Steriopolo 2017, Kučerová
    2018), while others see it as a post-syntactic phenomenon (Alexiadou
    & Müller 2008, Embick 2010, Kramer 2015). We especially encourage
    proposals addressing the relationship between diminutivization and
    inflection class from both a cross-linguistic and a
    language-specific perspective.


    Is a diminutive suffix listed in the mental lexicon (and inserted,
    in the sense of vocabulary insertion) as a complex piece of
    structure together with the inflection it imposes, that is, as a
    fixed two-suffix combination (= bigram), cf. Manova & Knell (2021)?

We invite papers that tackle any aspect of diminutive allomorphy within 
any linguistic theory, including papers on the diachronic development 
of  allomorphy in diminutive morphology. Contributions that analyze not 
only selected affixes but also complete diminutive systems and/or relate 
their findings to the architecture of grammar are particularly welcome.

Abstract submission

2-page anonymous abstracts for 20-minute presentations (plus 10 minutes 
for discussion) should be submitted via EasyChair: 
<https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=dmtd3>. Submissions can be 
modified in EasyChair until 16 February 2022 (click on “View” and then 
select an update option).

Submission of the same abstract to both the workshop and the IMM20 main 
session is not allowed. IMM20 submissions are limited to one individual 
and one joint abstract (or two joint ones) per person. For additional 
information on abstract submission for the main session, check the IMM20 
website:http://www.nytud.hu/imm20/ <http://www.nytud.hu/imm20/>.

Important dates

Abstract submission deadline: 15 January 2022 16 February 2022

Acceptance notifications: 31 May 2022 (for all sessions of IMM20)

Conference: 1-4 September 2022


Alexiadou, Artemis (2004). On the development of possessive determiners: 
consequences for DP structure. In E. Fuß & C. Trips (eds.) Diachronic 
Clues to Synchronic Grammar. John Benjamins, 31–58.

Alexiadou,  Artemis  & Gereon  Müller  (2008).  Class  Features as  
Probes. In A. Bachrach & A. Nevins (eds.) Inflectional Identity, 
101–155. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Aronoff, Mark (1994). Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Blevins, James P. (2006). Word-based morphology. J. Linguistics42: 531–573.

Bobaljik, Jonathan (2017). Distributed Morphology. Oxford Research 
Encyclopedia of Linguistics.Retrieved 17 Jun. 2020, 

Bonami, Olivier & Jana Strnadová (2019). Paradigm structure and 
predictability in derivational morphology. Morphology29(2): 167–197.

Bonami, Olivier & Gregory Stump (2017). Paradigm Function Morphology. In 
Hippisley, A. & Stump, G. (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of morphology, 
449–481.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Bonet, Eulàlia & Daniel Harbour (2012). Contextual Allomorphy. In J. 
Trommer (ed.) The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, 195–235. 
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Booij, Geert (1996). Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split 
morphology hypothesis. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (eds.) Yearbook of 
Morphology 1995, 1–16.

Booij, Geert (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University 

Caha, Pavel (2020). Nanosyntax: some key features. Ms., submitted to the 
Handbook of Distributed Morphology, lingbuzz/004437.

Cinque, Guglielmo (2015). Augmentative, pejorative, diminutive and 
endearing heads in the extended nominal projection. In E. Di Domenico, 
C. Hamann & S. Matteini (eds.) Structures, strategies and beyond: 
Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, 67–82. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Cinque, Guglielmo  & Luigi Rizzi (2015). The Cartography of Syntactic 
Structures. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of 
Linguistic Analysis, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

De Belder, Marijke, Noam Faust & Nicola Lampitelli (2014). On a low and 
a high diminutive: Evidence from Italian and Hebrew. In A. Alexiadou, H. 
Borer & Florian Schaefer (eds.) The syntax of roots and the roots of 
syntax, 149–163. Oxford University Press.

Dressler, Wolfgang U. (1989). Prototypical differences between 
inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft 
und Kommunikationsforschung 42: 3–10.

Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Katharina Korecky-Kröll (2015). Evaluative 
morphology and language acquisition. In Nicola Grandi & Livia 
Körtvélyessy (eds.). Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology, 
134–141.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Dressler,Wolfgang U., Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolfgang U. 
Wurzel (1987). Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi (1994). 
Morphopragmatics: diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German, and 
other languages. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Dressler, Wolfgang U., Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi, Sonja Schwaiger, Jutta 
Ransmayr, Sabine Sommer-Lolei & Katharina Korecky-Kröll (2019). Rivalry 
and lack of blocking among Italian and German diminutives in adult and 
child language. In F. Rainer, F. Gardani, W.U. Dressler & H.C. 
Luschützky (eds.) Competition in Inflection and Word Formation, 123–143. 
Cham: Springer.

Embick, David (2010). Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and 
Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gouskova, Maria & Jonathan D. Bobaljik (to appear). The lexical core of 
a complex functional affix: Russian baby-diminutive-onok. To appear in 
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, also lingbuzz/005660

Gouskova, Maria & Jonathan D. Bobaljik (2020). Allomorphy and Vocabulary 
Insertion, lingbuzz/005388

Grandi, Nicola & Livia Körtvélyessy (eds.). (2015). Edinburgh Handbook 
of Evaluative Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz (1993). Distributed morphology and the 
pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S.J. Keyser (eds.) The view from 
building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Inkelas, Sharon (2014), The interplay of morphology and phonology. 
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jurafsky, Daniel (1996). Universal tendencies in the semantics of the 
diminutive. Language72(3): 533–577.

Korecky-Kröll, Katharina & Wolfgang U. Dressler (2007). Diminutives and 
hypocoristics in Austrian German (AG). In I. Savickienė & W. U. Dressler 
(eds.) The acquisition of diminutives. A cross-linguistic perspective, 
207–230. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Körtvélyessy, Lívia (2015). Evaluative morphology from a 
cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Kramer, Ruth (2015).The Morphosyntax of Gender.Oxford: Oxford University 

Kučerová, Ivona (2018). φ-features at the Syntax-Semantics Interface: 
Evidence from Nominal Inflection. Linguistic Inquiry 49(4). 813–845.

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.) Affix ordering across languages and frameworks, 
205–230. New York: Oxford University Press.

Manova, Stela (to appear). Ordering restrictions between affixes. To 
appear in P. Ackema, S. Bendjaballah, E. Bonet & A. Fábregas (eds.) The 
Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, also lingbuzz/006219

Manova, Stela & Georgia Knell (2021). Two-suffix combinations in native 
and non-native English: Novel evidence for morphomic structures. In S. 
Moradi, M. Haag, J. Rees-Miller & A. Petrovic (eds.) All Things 
Morphology: Its independence and its interfaces, 305–323. Amsterdam: 

Manova, Stela & Kimberley Winternitz (2011). Suffix order in double and 
multiple diminutives: with data from Polish and Bulgarian. Studies in 
Polish Linguistics 6: 115–138. 

Paster, Mary (2009). Explaining phonological conditions on affixation: 
Evidence from suppletive allomorphy and affix ordering. Word 
Structure2(1): 18–37.

Rice, Keren (1989). A grammar of Slave. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Rice, Keren (2000). Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.

Scalise, Sergio (1988). The notion of 'head' in morphology. In G. Booij 
& J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology1. 229–245. Dordrecht: Foris.

Steriopolo, Olga (2009). Form and function of expressive morphology: A 
case study of Russian. Russian Language Journal59: 149–194.

Steriopolo, Olga (2015). Syntactic variation in expressive size 
suffixes: a comparison of Russian, German, and Spanish. SKASE Journal of 
Theoretical Linguistics12:2–21.

Steriopolo, Olga (2016). Expressives Across Languages: Form/Function 
Correlation. Annual Review of Linguistics2:293–324.

Steriopolo, Olga6(2017). Nominalizing evaluative suffixes in Russian: 
The interaction of declension class, gender, and animacy. Poljarnyj 
vestnik: Norwegian Journal of Slavic Studies20: 18–44. Available at: 

Stump, Gregory T. (1993). How Peculiar is Evaluative Morphology? Journal 
of Linguistics29: 1–36.

Stump, Gregory T. (2001). Inflectional morphology.Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press.

Stump, Gregory T. (2016). Inflectional paradigms: content and form at 
the syntax-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Szymanek, Bogdan & Tetyana Derkach (2005). Constraints on the derivation 
of double diminutives in Polish and Ukrainian. Studies in Polish 
Linguistics2: 93−112.

Wiltschko, Martina & Olga Steriopolo (2007). Parameters of variation in 
the syntax of diminutives. In M. Radišic (ed.) Proceedings of the 2007 
Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference, 

Wunderlich, Dieter (1996). A minimalist model of inflectional 
morphology. In C. Wilder, H.-M. Gärtner & M. Bierwisch (eds.), The role 
of economy principles in linguistic theory, 267–298. Berlin: 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20220126/98c8fb27/attachment.htm>

More information about the Lingtyp mailing list