Overabundance (Multiple Forms Realizing the Same Cell): A Non‐canonical Phenomenon in Italian Verb Morphology

Thornton, Anna M.

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199589982.003.0017

Cited by 105 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Work on other areas of syntax includes Nikolaeva &Spencer 2008 andVan de Velde 2013. Work in inflectional morphology is presented in Corbett 1999, 2007a, Baerman et al 2005:27-35, Stump 2006, Spencer 2007, Thornton 2011a, Paciaroni 2012, and Palancar 2012 For a canonical approach to phonology, specifically to tone, see Hyman 2009Hyman , 2011, and for derivational morphology and semantics see Fortin 2011. A working bibliography of research in canonical typology is available on the Surrey Morphology Group website.…”

Section: 1mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another instance, at least for many speakers, is the Russian noun mečtá 'dream' given in Table A2; see Melʹčuk 1993see Melʹčuk :360-61, 1996 This item has all the forms that would be expected of a noun of inflection class ii; indeed, apart from predictable adjustments, it is like mačta 'mast' in Table A2. But in addition it has a second form in the instrumental singular; this cell shows overabundance (Thornton 2010(Thornton -2011(Thornton , 2011a. 45 The problem thus involves the composition of the cell; the split is morphomic (there is no motivation for singling out the instrumental singular) and it is completely irregular, being unique to this lexical item.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits

Corbett¹

2015

lan

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A key notion in understanding language is 'possible word (lexeme)'. While there are lexemes that are internally homogeneous and externally consistent, we find others with splits in their internal structure (morphological paradigm) and inconsistencies in their external behavior (syntactic requirements). I first explore the characteristics of the most straightforward lexemes, in order to establish a point in the theoretical space from which we can calibrate the real examples we find. I then schematize the interesting phenomena that deviate from this idealization, including suppletion, syncretism, deponency, and defectiveness. Next I analyze the different ways in which lexemes are 'split' by such phenomena. I set out a typology of possible splits, along four dimensions: splits that are (i) based on the composition/feature signature of the paradigm versus those based solely on morphological form; (ii) motivated (following a boundary motivated from outside the paradigm) versus purely morphology-internal ('morphomic'); (iii) regular (extending across the lexicon) versus irregular (lexically specified); (iv) externally relevant versus irrelevant: we expect splits to be internal to the lexeme, but some have external relevance (they require different syntactic behaviors).I identify instances of these four dimensions separately: they are orthogonal, and therefore not dependent on each other. Their interaction gives a substantial typology, and it proves to be surprisingly complete: the possibilities specified are all attested. The typology also allows for the unexpected patterns of behavior to overlap in particular lexemes, producing some remarkable examples. Such examples show that the notion 'possible word' is more challenging than many linguists have realized.*

show abstract

Section: 1mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits

Corbett¹

2015

lan

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The original singular form is the only one occupying the singular cell, while in the plural there is overabundance (Thornton 2011), i. e., variation between two cell-mates (in the sense of Loporcaro and Paciaroni 2011: 420). Taking a further step, there are nouns like those in (9c), whose original plural nowadays occurs exclusively in proverbial expressions (hence its inclusion in brackets in (9c)), as shown in (11a):…”

Section: Inflectional Classesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noun classes and grammatical gender in Wolof

Babou

Loporcaro

2016

Journal of African Languages and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we propose a reassessment of Wolof noun morphology and morphosyntax. Wolof is usually said to possess a total of 10 noun classes (8 for the singular, 2 for the plural), marked today exclusively on agreement targets. We provide evidence that two more plural noun classes must be recognized, which have so far been misinterpreted as "collective" rather than plural: the evidence we provide is morphosyntactic (from verb agreement) as well as morphological (from class-related asymmetries in the paradigm of the indefinite article). As for method, the main thrust of the paper consists in showing that an accurate analysis of the Wolof data must make use of the three distinct notions "noun class", "inflectional class" and "agreement class" (or gender). Under the analysis defended here, Wolof turns out to have a fairly complex gender system, featuring 17 distinct gender values. Our analysis -and especially the discussion of Wolof so-called "collectives" -also bears on the general theoretical issue of how to establish the values of the number category. Abstract: In this paper, we propose a reassessment of Wolof noun morphology and morphosyntax. Wolof is usually said to possess a total of 10 noun classes (8 for the singular, 2 for the plural), marked today exclusively on agreement targets. We provide evidence that two more plural noun classes must be recognized, which have so far been misinterpreted as "collective" rather than plural: the evidence we provide is morphosyntactic (from verb agreement) as well as morphological (from class-related asymmetries in the paradigm of the indefinite article). As for method, the main thrust of the paper consists in showing that an accurate analysis of the Wolof data must make use of the three distinct notions "noun class", "inflectional class" and "agreement class" (or gender). Under the analysis defended here, Wolof turns out to have a fairly complex gender system, featuring 17 distinct gender values. Our analysis -and especially the discussion of Wolof so-called "collectives" -also bears on the general theoretical issue of how to establish the values of the number category.

show abstract

“…29), refers to word forms occupying the same cell of one and the same inflectional paradigm, which is in turn termed 'overabundant' (cf. Thornton 2011Thornton , 2012. As pointed out by Thornton, these word forms are traditionally labelled 'doublets', but the term is ambiguous, being also used for non-synonymous lexemes with shared etymology.…”

Section: Nouns ('Teacher') Muʕallim Muʕallim-ū N Muʕallim-a Muʕallim-ā Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of morphology on change in agreement systems

Loporcaro¹,

Fleischer²,

Rieken³

et al. 2015

Agreement From a Diachronic Perspective

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agreement is a syntactic mechanism involving morpho-syntactic categories such as person, number, gender. Since morphology provides the formal means for this syntactic mechanism to result in surface contrasts, the impact of morphology on agreement is usually limited to the (trivial) fact that the signalling of agreement stays and falls with (the contrast between cells of) the morphological paradigms whose cells are defined through distinct morpho-syntactic feature values. However, it sometimes happens that pure morphology (e.g. [contrasts in] inflectional classes) conditions change in agreement rules and/or in morpho-syntactic properties of the language such as, say, the number of genders occurring in the system. In this paper, I will review some such cases from lesser-known Romance varieties. Michele Loporcaro The impact of morphology on change in agreement systems¹Abstract: Agreement is a syntactic mechanism involving morpho-syntactic categories such as person, number, gender. Since morphology provides the formal means for this syntactic mechanism to result in surface contrasts, the impact of morphology on agreement is usually limited to the (trivial) fact that the signalling of agreement stays and falls with (the contrast between cells of) the morphological paradigms whose cells are defined through distinct morpho-syntactic feature values.However, it sometimes happens that pure morphology (e.g. [contrasts in] inflectional classes) conditions change in agreement rules and/or in morpho-syntactic properties of the language such as, say, the number of genders occurring in the system. In this paper, I will review some such cases from lesser-known Romance varieties.In ammentu de Pedru Depperu, su connoschidore prus mannu dessu lurisincu

show abstract

Overabundance (Multiple Forms Realizing the Same Cell): A Non‐canonical Phenomenon in Italian Verb Morphology

Cited by 105 publications

References 0 publications

Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits

Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits

Noun classes and grammatical gender in Wolof

The impact of morphology on change in agreement systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About