How (not) to derive a *ABA: The case of Blansitt’s generalisation

Abstract

In this paper, I provide an account for the so-called Blansitt’s generalisation (Blansitt 1988). The generalisation says that in the linear sequence DATIVE—ALLATIVE—LOCATIVE, only adjacent functions may be marked the same. In previous work (Bobaljik 2012; Starke 2009; Caha 2009), analogous *ABA patterns have been encoded by the so-called feature cumulation. Feature cumulation means that the amount of features characteristic for individual categories monotonically grows in the order given in any such sequence. However, Blansitt observes that in the case of datives, allatives and locatives, the allative (which is in the middle) tends to be composed of the dative and the locative, so the account based on cumulation does not work. The present paper thus argues for a different representation of the underlying categories, namely as containing (abstractly) the features A, AB and B respectively (following in part Bobaljik & Sauerland 2017). I refer to this as the “overlapping” decomposition. When such a decomposition is combined with the Superset Principle (Starke 2009), it yields both the *ABA restriction and the observed syncretism and containment patterns. I further argue that this is a non-trivial result, since traditional underspecification approaches face significant challenges in deriving the *ABA pattern on the basis of the overlapping decomposition. This article is part of the Special Collection: *ABA

(*)ABA in Germanic verbs

“…For the exact notation used, the reader is referred to Bobaljik & Sauerland (2018). Caha (2017) builds on aspects of Bobaljik & Sauerland's (2018) explanation in order to explain a generalization from Blansitt (1988), who observes an ABA restriction in the case sequence dative-allative-locative. Rather than proposing a feature containment analysis [[[dative] allative] locative], Caha uses a so-called overlapping decomposition of features.…”

“…In a sense, then, it may share present features with the present, and past features with the preterite. Such an intuition is particularly amenable to an analysis with overlapping decomposition (Caha 2017), which could be represented schematically as [present], [present, past], [past].…”

“…An anonymous reviewer also points out that it is not clear that there are Basque speakers who accept only the ABA pattern, rejecting non-ABA alternatives. 3 The absence of AAB patterns will not concern us here, and the interested reader is referred to Caha (2017) and Graf (2017) for discussion. (Caha 2009), case and number in pronouns (Smith et al 2015;2018), pronoun clusivity (Moskal 2017;in press), spatial deixis (Lander & Haegeman 2016), and Germanic verbs (Wiese 2004;2008;Starke 2009).…”

On containment and syncretism in English preterites and participles

“…Introduction. Recent work on morphology has investigated the absence of so-called ABA patterns of syncretism for various feature classes, including case, number, adjectival grade, and clusivity (Caha 2009(Caha , 2017Bobaljik 2012;McFadden 2018;Smith et al 2018;Moskal 2018, among others). In a hypothetical ABA pattern, a three-member 'paradigm' ordered by markedness sees the first and third share a form to the exclusion of the middle member.…”

Negation (Morphology)

“…De Clercq (2013), De Clercq (2018b,a) found that syncretism patterns can be found between LSN and WSN markers that respect the *ABA generalisation (Johnston 1996, Caha 2009, Starke 2009, Bobaljik 2012, Caha 2017, Baunaz & Lander 2018. Bobaljik & Sauerland (2018:1-2) define *ABA as follows: The term *ABA generalization refers to morphological patterns in which, given some arrangement of the relevant forms in a structured sequence, the first and third may share some property 'A' only if the middle member shares that property as well.…”