Periphrasis and Inflection

Abstract

We compare periphrastic (analytic, multiword) constructions with the synthetic (morphological) inflection of verbs, nouns, and adjectives. We summarize recent characterizations starting with the canonical type, in which a syntactic construction realizes cells in an inflectional paradigm which is otherwise defined by morphological features (‘feature intersection’), as in the Latin passive perfect periphrasis, and sketch various types of non-canonicity, including ‘anti-periphrasis’, in which only a small minority of lexemes have non-periphrastic realization of a given set of inflectional properties. We discuss criteria for distinguishing periphrasis from ordinary function word syntax, and especially the problems posed by clitics for the concept ‘multiword’ (the Serbian-Croatian future tense, the Hausa ‘genitive linker’, and verbal clitics in Bulgarian/Macedonian). We conclude with brief typological remarks.

The Sanskrit (Pseudo)Periphrastic Future

“…an expression involving two (or more) words which stand in a syntactic relation to one another when employed in a sentence. This is argued to be the prime criterion for identifying periphrasis by Spencer & Popova (). Spencer & Popova () adopt a strict view of the term periphrasis , seeking to define it in terms of a paradigmatic approach to inflection.…”

“…This is argued to be the prime criterion for identifying periphrasis by Spencer & Popova (). Spencer & Popova () adopt a strict view of the term periphrasis , seeking to define it in terms of a paradigmatic approach to inflection. They acknowledge that there are many types of construction which are in one way or another on the borderline between syntax and morphology, and there may be constructions which are more, or less, periphrastic than others.…”

“…(), Börjars & Donohue (), Sadler & Spencer (), Stump (, ), Spencer (), Ackerman & Stump (), Bonami & Samvelian (), Ackerman et al. (), Stump & Hippisley (), Bonami & Webelhuth (), Popova & Spencer () and Spencer & Popova ().…”

“…The most canonical periphrasis, however, necessarily involves featurally intersective distribution. Spencer & Popova () label this ‘intersective periphrasis’…”

“…As a necessary criterion, however, it would rule out certain constructions which are typically labelled ‘periphrastic’. For example, according to Spencer & Popova (), the English progressive and perfect aspect verb categories, for example, is X‐ing , has X‐ed , would not qualify as periphrastic expressions, because in English aspectual contrasts are never marked by synthetic morphology, meaning that there is no clear evidence for aspect as part of the English verbal paradigm.…”