* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 18.506

Wed Feb 14 2007

Qs: Morphosyntactic Features

Editor for this issue: Kevin Burrows <kevinlinguistlist.org>


We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
Directory
        1.    Anna Kibort, Morphosyntactic Features


Message 1: Morphosyntactic Features
Date: 13-Feb-2007
From: Anna Kibort <a.kibortsurrey.ac.uk>
Subject: Morphosyntactic Features


Dear Colleagues,

As part of a project investigating grammatical features, funded by the
ESRC, Greville Corbett and I are compiling an inventory of morphosyntactic
features found in the world's languages. We are at a stage where we would
like to consult you about any possible morphosyntactic features that we may
have omitted.

Following Zwicky (1985), our terms 'feature' and 'value' correspond to
Matthews's (1972/1991) terms 'category' and 'property/feature',
respectively. By 'morphosyntactic feature' we mean a feature which in a
given language is involved in either agreement or government. Thus, while
in many familiar languages the feature 'tense' encodes regular semantic
distinctions, it is not required by the syntax through the mechanisms of
either agreement or government. Therefore, many familiar instances of the
feature 'tense' are *morphosemantic*, but not *morphosyntactic* (Stump
2005): syntax is not sensitive to the tense value of the verb. However,
tense can be a morphosyntactic feature, as in Kayardild, where elements
marked with verbalizing case show agreement in tense (Evans 2003).

Below we list features which we have found to be morphosyntactic, and
others which we think are not morphosyntactic, or those whose status we
have not yet determined with certainty. Please let us know if you know of:
(1) instances where a feature we consider uncertain *is* morphosyntactic in
some language; (2) a morphosyntactic feature that we have not taken into
consideration at all. Your help will be greatly appreciated and the
results of our research will be shared with the linguistic community
through a website which we are currently constructing.

We have found that the following features are, or can be, MORPHOSYNTACTIC:
-- gender
-- number
-- person
-- case
-- definiteness
-- respect
-- tense
-- aspect
-- mood
-- polarity

We have NOT found instances of the following features as MORPHOSYNTACTIC:
-- associativity (we have only found it as morphosemantic)
-- inflectional class (it is purely morphological)
-- screeve (we have only found it as morphosemantic)

And the following features, under consideration, are of UNCERTAIN status to us:
-- transitivity
-- evidentiality
-- diathesis and voice
-- topic
-- focus
-- question-word dependency
-- (verbal) series (as in Caucasian linguistics; or other paradigmatic
tense/aspect sets)
-- collectivity
-- verbal features such as: continuality, inferentiality, dependence, version

With best regards,

Anna Kibort

Linguistic Field(s): Language Description
                            Morphology
                            Syntax
                            Typology

Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue




Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.