Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms

Good, Jeff; Yu, Alan C. L.

doi:10.1075/la.74.13goo

Cited by 37 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rackowski, for one, concludes that 'native speakers of Tagalog produce all the different variants in their own speech, and these do not perform differently on any aspectual tests that would discriminate between the different readings ' (1999:4). Good and Yu (1998) describe another possible case of this type of variation in Turkish.…”

Section: Free Variation In Affix Orderingmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…For example, Fuuta Tooro Pulaar causative in and applicative ir can occur in either order for both causativized applicatives and applicativized causatives, as in 8 (Paster 2006b:182 guage families (e.g. Albó 1964:appendix 5, Stevens 1971, Herrero & Sánchez de Lozada 1978:227ff., Sabimana 1986, Muysken 1988, Smeets 1989:360, van de Kerke 1996: §3, Luutonen 1997, Good & Yu 1998, Rackowski 1999, Blevins 2001:118, Hyman 2003, Watters 2006:62, Beck 2007, Bickel et al 2007, Joseph 2007, McFarland 2007, Buell et al 2008.…”

Section: Four Types Of Affix Orderingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Variable affix order: Grammar and learning

Ryan¹

2010

Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While affix ordering often reflects general syntactic or semantic principles, it can also be arbitrary or variable. This article develops a theory of morpheme ordering based on local morphotactic restrictions encoded as weighted bigram constraints. I examine the formal properties of morphotactic systems, including arbitrariness, nontransitivity, context-sensitivity, analogy, and variation. Several variable systems are surveyed before turning to a detailed corpus study of a variable affix in Tagalog. Bigram morphotactics is shown to cover Tagalog and the typology, while other formalisms, such as alignment, precedence, and position classes, undergenerate. Moreover, learning simulations reveal that affix ordering under bigram morphotactics is subject to analogical pressures, providing a learning-theoretic motivation for the specific patterns of variation observed in Tagalog. I raise a different set of objections to rule-based approaches invoking affix movement. Finally, I demonstrate that bigram morphotactics is restrictive, being unable to generate unattested scenarios such as nonlocal contingency in ordering.*

show abstract

Section: Free Variation In Affix Orderingmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Four Types Of Affix Orderingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variable affix order: Grammar and learning

Ryan¹

2010

Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This generalization is sometimes called "Perlmutter's universal" or " Postal and Perlmutter's universal" (cf. ; see also Good and Yu 2005). Again, some counter-examples can be dismissed, more or less plausibly, as involving clitics rather than affixes − but not all (cf.…”

Section: Fixed Vs Variable Ordermentioning

confidence: 99%

15. Units of word-formation

Mugdan¹

2015

Word-Formation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Suspended affixation is found in a wide range of Eurasian languages belonging to a number of different families. It is very common in Turkic languages (Lewis , Kornfilt , Good & Yu , Kabak , Broadwell , Kornfilt ) and is found in Japanese (Ueda & Haraguchi , Nishiyama ) and Korean (Yoon & Lee ). Furthermore, it is found in the Finno‐Ugric language Mari (Luutonen , Guseva & Weisser ), in the Indo‐Iranian languages, such as Ossetic (Erschler ), and in Armenian.…”

Section: Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Symmetry of Case in Conjunction

Weisser

2019

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I argue that all of the conjuncts in nominal conjunction always bear the same case. Apparent counterexamples, where conjuncts seem to differ in morphological case marking, are due either to a misanalysis of the underlying syntactic structure or to superficial morphological processes that create the impression of a difference in case marking. Once we control for phenomena of this sort (namely &P clitics, suspended affixation, and allomorphy), we find that case marking in nominal conjunction is always symmetric. This finding is in stark contrast to the phenomenon of ϕ agreement, which is known to exhibit asymmetries in conjunction. I show that the Chomskyan account of case assignment, according to which case arises only as a reflex of ϕ agreement, cannot account for this mismatch without stipulative assumptions. The pattern follows straightforwardly, however, if we assume that case assignment proceeds on the basis of syntactic structure while ϕ agreement can be either syntactic or postsyntactic. Finally, I show that the generalization established can be used as a simple diagnostic to distinguish syntactic case-marking alternations from morphological ones.

show abstract

Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms

Cited by 37 publications

References 10 publications

Variable affix order: Grammar and learning

Variable affix order: Grammar and learning

15. Units of word-formation

On the Symmetry of Case in Conjunction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About