Paradigms, periphrases and pronominal inflection: a feature-based account

Börjars, Kersti; Vincent, Nigel; Chapman, Carol

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-3718-0_10

Cited by 80 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…comm.) 13 More arguments for the paradigm are given in Börjars et al (1997). 14 The same observation is made in Aski (1995).…”

Section: Address Of the Authormentioning

confidence: 92%

Allomorphy and the Autonomy of Morphology

Booij

1997

Folia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstractfins paper discusses the question to what extent morphology is an autonomous module ol the grammar. Alter a general survey and discussion of the issues involved, a detailed analysis is given ol' allomorphy phenomena. It is argued thai these phenomena support the relative autonomy of morphology since the formal regularities involved cannot be deduced from phonological or syntactic principles. In addition, a proper account of these formal regularities requires reference to the form ot paradigmatically related words. Thai is, paradigmatic relations play a crucial role, which is another characteristic property of the morphological module.

show abstract

“…comm.) 13 More arguments for the paradigm are given in Börjars et al (1997). 14 The same observation is made in Aski (1995).…”

Section: Address Of the Authormentioning

confidence: 92%

Allomorphy and the Autonomy of Morphology

Booij

1997

Folia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, the two auxiliaries essere and avere also contribute to form periphrastic combinations for other inflectional categories, namely the past infinitive (essere andato, avere parlato), the past perfect (era andato, aveva parlato), the past gerund (essendo andato, avendo parlato), the past perfect subjunctive (fosse andato, avesse parlato), and the past conditional (sarebbe andato, avrebbe parlato). As argued by Bo¨rjars et al (1997), periphrastic combinations occupy the cells of an inflectional paradigm similarly to any other inflected form, because for istance they exhibit the same sorts of semantic idiosyncrasies as simple forms. Accordingly, one might want to exclude from the count what belongs to periphrastic combinations, in order to avoid mixtures across different inflectional categories.…”

Section: Productivity In Inflectional Morphology 197mentioning

confidence: 98%

On the double nature of productivity in inflectional morphology

Gaeta

2007

Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inflection is generally considered to be more productive than derivation. To justify such an assumption, the syntactic function of inflectional morphology is contrasted with the mainly lexical function of derivational morphology. In this paper, the whole question will be carefully discussed with the help of recently developed quantitative approaches to productivity. On the basis of data taken from Italian, it will be shown that a quantitative approach to productivity can shed light on this intricate question by revealing the double nature of inflectional morphology, which on the one hand sides with derivational morphology because of its lexically conditioned inflectional classes. On the other, it scores very high productivity rates for the single inflectional categories in accordance with its syntactic function. Furthermore, the productivity rates of the inflectional categories considered are shown to be not uniform: several factors may influence their productivity, as for instance the substitutive usage of periphrases with modals, even in a language like Italian in which the latter are far less grammaticalized than in others.Parts of this paper were presented at the XI International Morphology Meeting held in Vienna, 14th-17th February 2004, and in lectures given at the Universities of Graz, L'Aquila, Marburg, Roma Tre, and Salerno. I wish to express my gratitude to the people who discussed with me the ideas contained in the paper, and in particular to my colleague and friend Davide Ricca, who has been sharing with me the pleasure and the hard work of conducting quantitative investigations on Italian morphology. Many ideas contained in the paper are the result of constant and animated discussions with him. Finally, I am very much indebted to the editor Ingo Plag and two anonymous reviewers for remarkable observations and comments. Needless to say, I carry the full responsability for errors and misunderstandings contained in the paper.

show abstract

“…A well-known case of periphrasis is the expression of the perfective passive form in Latin by means of a combination of the past participle plus an appropriate form of the verb esse 'to be', as in laudatus est 'he has been praised' (Börjars et al 1997;Sadler and Spencer 2001). These periphrastic combinations are only used for the perfective passive, whereas synthetic forms are used for expressing the imperfective passive, as illustrated in 3 (from Sadler and Spencer 2001: 74 The fact that this periphrastic form is the only possible form for expressing the perfect passive shows that the form fills a cell in the inflectional paradigm.…”

Section: Inflectional Periphrasismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These periphrastic combinations are only used for the perfective passive, whereas synthetic forms are used for expressing the imperfective passive, as illustrated in 3 (from Sadler and Spencer 2001: 74 The fact that this periphrastic form is the only possible form for expressing the perfect passive shows that the form fills a cell in the inflectional paradigm. Moreover, as pointed out by Börjars et al (1997), in the case of deponentia (verbs with a passive form and an active meaning) such as loquor 'to speak', the periphrastic form has an active meaning, just like the other, synthetic, forms: locutus est, for instance, means 'he has spoken'. Börjars et al (1997) propose to account for the functional equivalence of such word combinations to synthetic morphological forms in the inflectional paradigm of Latin verbs in terms of unification of the functional structures of the two words into one functional structure at the level of f(unctional)-structure.…”

Section: Inflectional Periphrasismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, as pointed out by Börjars et al (1997), in the case of deponentia (verbs with a passive form and an active meaning) such as loquor 'to speak', the periphrastic form has an active meaning, just like the other, synthetic, forms: locutus est, for instance, means 'he has spoken'. Börjars et al (1997) propose to account for the functional equivalence of such word combinations to synthetic morphological forms in the inflectional paradigm of Latin verbs in terms of unification of the functional structures of the two words into one functional structure at the level of f(unctional)-structure. However, as Sadler and Spencer (2001:78) argue, there is a problem with this compositional approach: the forms of esse 'to be' that are used in this construction are imperfective forms, and yet the whole construction bears perfective aspect.…”

Section: Inflectional Periphrasismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Constructional Idioms, Morphology, and the Dutch Lexicon

Booij

2002

JGL

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Syntactic constructions may form an alternative to, or compete with the morphological expression of semantic and grammatical content. This applies to the passive forms of verbs, the progressive form, analytic causatives, adjective-noun sequences, and particle verbs in Dutch. In this article I develop a view of the Dutch lexicon in which this interaction between syntax and morphology can be understood. The central notion used is that of the constructional idiom, a construction with a (partially) non-compositional meaning, of which not all terminal elements are fixed. These constructional idioms, like morphological word formation, serve to extend the fund of expressions that are available for concatenation in the syntax. * Introduction.It is well known that syntactic structures sometimes perform the same function as morphological structures in the same or another language. Periphrasis is the standard term for this morphological function of syntactic units within the inflectional system of a language. In the domain of word formation, linguists often contrast analytic constructions with synthetic constructions, and distinguish, for instance, between analytic causatives (multiword units) and synthetic, that is, morphological causatives.In this paper I argue that the notion "constructional idiom" should be used in order to get a better insight into the kind of syntactic expressions that function as alternatives to morphological expressions. The basic claim is that it is syntactic expressions that qualify as constructional idioms that play a role in the division of labor between syntax and morphology.

show abstract

Paradigms, periphrases and pronominal inflection: a feature-based account

Cited by 80 publications

References 16 publications

Allomorphy and the Autonomy of Morphology

Allomorphy and the Autonomy of Morphology

On the double nature of productivity in inflectional morphology

Constructional Idioms, Morphology, and the Dutch Lexicon

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About