[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/
<http://www.nytud.hu/imm20/>
Workshop website:
https://sites.google.com/view/morphologytheories-diminutives
<https://sites.google.com/view/morphologytheories-diminutives/home>
Abstract submission deadline: 15 January 2022 16 February 2022
EasyChair submission link:https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=dmtd3
<https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=dmtd3>
Organizers
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:
https://sites.google.com/view/morphologytheories-diminutives
<https://sites.google.com/view/morphologytheories-diminutives/home>.
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:
1.
Why do some languages have large sets of diminutive affixes, while
others have very limited sets?
2.
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?)
3.
How does allomorph selection take place in diminutivization? (Is it
based on semantics, on form, on syntactic structure, on
linearization, or on extragrammatical information?)
4.
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?)
5.
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,
sociolinguistic?
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.)
(German)
**
a.Hünd-chen (n.), Hund-chen (n.)
b. Hünd-ilein (n.), Hund-ilein
(n.)<https://www.wortbedeutung.info/H%C3%BCndlein/>
c. Hünd-lein (n.)
d.Hund-erl (n.)
e.Hund-ili(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
(German)
**
1.
Buch (n.) ‘book’ → *Büch-chen, Büch-lein(n.) (*chch)
2.
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
(Bulgarian)
**
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
distinction?
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
(German)
1.
tanzen/ Tanz‘to/ dance’ → Tänzchen, Tänzlein, Tanzerl, ?Tänzerl,
?Tänzel,dim. verb: tänzeln
2.
buchen/ Buch‘to/ book’ → *Büchchen (*chch), Büchlein, Bücherl,
Büchel,dim. verb: *bücheln
3.
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
(German)
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
<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
References
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,
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 & 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
Press.
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
Press.
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:
Benjamins.
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.
URL:http://www.ejournals.eu/SPL/2011/SPL-vol-6-2011/art/1169/
<http://www.ejournals.eu/SPL/2011/SPL-vol-6-2011/art/1169/>
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:
http://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/vestnik/article/view/4141
<http://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/vestnik/article/view/4141>.
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,
http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2007/Wiltschko_Steriopolo.pdf
<http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2007/Wiltschko_Steriopolo.pdf>
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:
Akademie-Verlag.
*
-------------- 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