Date: 04-Aug-2006
From: Matt Juge <mattjugegmail.com>
Subject: The Syntax-Morphology Interface
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-3575.html
AUTHORS: Baerman, Matthew; Brown, Dunstan; Corbett, Greville G.TITLE: The Syntax-Morphology InterfaceSUBTITLE: A Study of SyncretismSERIES: Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 109PUBLISHER: Cambridge University PressYEAR: 2005
Reviewed by Matthew L. Juge, Department of Modern Languages, Texas StateUniversity-San Marcos
1. INTRODUCTION
This monograph, which is aimed at professional linguists working primarilyin formal synchronic morphology, addresses the issue of syncretism, thephenomenon whereby one form serves where two or more might be expected, asin English, where ''cut~cut~cut'' contrasts with ''drive~drove~driven''. Theauthors explore the notion of syncretism, its history within linguistics,and how it is manifested cross-linguistically. They then move on tocritically evaluate previous attempts at formalizing syncretism.Subsequently they propose their own analysis in the framework of NetworkMorphology. Finally they offer a brief conclusion. The book also featuresassociated online materials.
2. SUMMARY
The authors start from the premise that syncretism is a problem at theinterface between syntax and morphology. In the introduction they lay outthe scope of their investigation along a number of parameters, includingwhat counts as syncretism and their typological methodology. The authors donot, however, address objections to the methodology of typologicalsampling, such as those raised by Newmeyer (1998: Ch. 6), who argues thatuncertainty about the nature of areal influence, problems in sampleconstruction, and difficulties in establishing significance renderstypological research an uncertain affair. Chapter 1 also explains how thebook relates to data available online in the thirty-language SurreySyncretisms Database.
In Chapter 2, drawing heavily on Slavic data along with data from a varietyof other languages, the authors present types of syncretic paradigms,starting with ''simple syncretism'', where ''two or more cells with differentvalues for a feature are merged'' (p. 13). They contrast this with othertypes of syncretism, such as nested syncretism, which involves compoundingsimple syncretism in different contexts. They proceed to address the issueof comparison across paradigm types by offering an example of theinteractions of person with morphological classes and feature values suchas case, person, gender, number, tense-aspect-mood, voice, and negation.They next examine morphological characteristics of syncretism, focusing onregularity (whether the pattern appears in multiple contexts),directionality (whether the pattern of a syncretism depends on the valuesof other forms involved), and unmarkedness (whether the syncretism isrelated to morphologically unmarked forms). In exploring the typology ofinterpretation of syncretism, the authors identify neutralization, whichthey characterize as ''the irrelevance of the feature in question forsyntax'' (p. 30). They also discuss uninflectedness, which ''involves totalabsence of distinctions for a given feature'' (p. 32). Having examined thesetwo, they offer this formal definition of canonical syncretism (p. 34):
i. There is, in certain contexts, a loss of distinctions between some butnot all values of a particular feature F. This loss may depend on thepresence of a particular combination of values of one or more otherfeatures (the context).
ii. Other syntactic objects distinguish those values of feature F, and theyare therefore syntactically relevant.
In the conclusion of Chapter 2, the authors emphasize the patterned natureof syncretism and provide a hint of what challenges a satisfactory analysismust meet.
Chapter 3 goes into substantially more detail, offering nearly 90 pages ofdiscussion of syncretism in cross-linguistic typological perspective. Theauthors consider a range of features typical to nominal and verbal elementswith analysis not only of Indo-European languages but also of languagesfrom other families based on data from their own databases and the ''WorldAtlas of Language Structures'', along with supplementation by specificlanguages to illustrate particular points. In this chapter they explore theidea that case syncretism may reveal an underlying semantic network, whichis part of their examination of the relationship between syncretism andsemantics. For each feature the authors systematically consider types andpatterns of syncretism within that feature.
Chapter 4 proceeds with an examination of the factors involved inestablishing a satisfactory formal representation of syncretism. Startingsomewhat abstractly, the authors move to an analysis of several earlierattempts to formalize syncretism, whose strengths and weaknesses they thendiscuss before finally pointing towards their approach.
They lay out their formal analysis in Chapter 5 using Network Morphology.They provide a brief discussion of this framework and then apply theirmodel in some detail to three case studies. Finally Chapter 6 offers a verybrief conclusion.
3. EVALUATION
The authors are generally quite thorough in their presentation andanalysis. One peculiarity, however, presents itself early on, viz. thesmall role of syntax in the discussion. In light of the book's title, itseems odd that the term ''syntax'' does not appear in the index and aninformal count shows six instances of it. Perhaps some explanation for thelack of emphasis on syntax would have been appropriate towards thebeginning of the book.
To a large extent the book's argument does not depend upon contradicting ordeveloping the ideas of other scholars so much as gathering data andproviding a framework for interpreting that data. This is especially so inChapter 3, the longest in the book, although I do not mean to suggest thatthe authors disregard the work of other scholars. Quite to the contrary.The next two chapters, however, feature more of the traditional pattern ofpresenting ideas proposed by others, evaluating and critiquing them, andsetting forth an alternative. That alternative depends on NetworkMorphology, to which they provide an introduction for the uninitiated.Unfortunately, however, they do not explain the system that they use torepresent the networks used in their analysis. They present analyses inDATR, but do not explain whether this name is an acronym, how this notationrelates to other methods of formal representation, or the history of thissystem. One of the keys to their analysis is that, unlike some otherapproaches, they do not treat affixes as having lexical entries, which theyargue would require encoding the range of irregularity into the affixesthemselves. The Network Morphology framework, with its system of defaultinheritance, avoids such difficulties.
The authors could have provided more rationale for their choice of NetworkMorphology for their analysis. While they make it clear that some otherformalizations are inadequate, they do not explain why other well-developedframeworks employing inheritance, such as Head-Driven Phrase StructureGrammar (HPSG) or Construction Grammar, are inadequate to the task. Thismay be related to a broader fact about linguistic theories, namely that,given the complexity of language, it is difficult if not impossible tosufficiently specify aspects of a given theory so as to apply it to newdata and be reasonably certain about the outcome.
While their formalization does appear to model the data better than theothers that they analyze for the cases that they present, the dense textsometimes makes the argument difficult to follow, primarily because anumber of passages offer rather few examples that the reader can use toevaluate their claims. For instance, the Dalabon case study in Chapter 5includes only one example with both a lexical stem and affixes, althoughthe other two case studies, especially the Russian one, are better in thisregard. At 222 pages, the book is certainly not overly long and couldbenefit from further exemplification as well as more detailed sketches ofthe morphosyntactic systems of the languages analyzed to bettercontextualize the data presented. Some of this material, however, isincluded in the associated online material.
In addressing how syncretic patterns might be formalized, the authors seemto assume, as most of their readers might as well, that such formalizationis inherently worthwhile. It would be interesting to have a discussion ofhow their model might apply to language processing—either by humans ormachines—or to pedagogy. Another direction left largely unexplored isdiachrony, which presumably could be examined in the case of some languagesexamined here, such as Latin and Russian. This aspect of their approach isamplified by their explicit discounting of what they call ''accidentalhomophony'', or syncretism resulting from phonological patterns. As anexample, they provide Russian, where /a/ and /o/ are both realized as schwawhen unstressed in word-final position, thus leading to phonologicallydifferent forms that are phonetically identical. However it seems clearthat this type of pattern may be a precursor to what they call ''systematichomophony'', or canonical syncretism.
As syncretism can be thought of as a kind of overlap between parts of thesystem, it would be interesting to see how the authors would analyze what Ihave termed overlapping suppletion (Juge 1999). This is the phenomenonwhereby forms of one lexeme are ''shared'' by another lexeme, as in the verbsmeaning ''to go'' and ''to be'' in the Ibero-Romance languages (Spanish,Portuguese, and Galician) and in the verbs meaning ''to go'' and ''to come'' inthe Rhaeto-Romance (RR) languages. Here several paradigms can overlapacross two lexemes. For example Spanish ''fue'' can mean 'she was' or 'shewent', while Surmeiran (RR) ''ia vign'' can mean 'I go' or 'I come'.
Though the title refers to the syntax-morphology interface, thephonology-morphology interface is also sometimes at issue, as mentionedabove. In some cases the authors do not appear to have thoroughly workedout how these parts of the grammar interact. Consider their briefintroduction to default inheritance in Chapter 5. They show a diagram offive English verbs, ''love'', ''do'', ''mow'', ''sew'', and ''be'', the last three ofwhich they identify as members of the EN_VERB category. A quick search forthe phrases ''had mowed'' and ''had mown'' on Google™ returned 23,700 and 571results, respectively. The verb ''be'', furthermore, has different vowels inthe base form and in the participle in some dialects. Both of these factssuggest that the authors have not adequately considered dialect variation.The category of ''-en'' verbs is further complicated by the existence ofverbs like ''drive'' and ''rise'' on the one hand and ''give'' on the other, thefirst two showing different vowels in the base and participial forms, andthe latter showing the same vowel in both.
Syncretism opens the door for a variety of questions about the nature oflexemes and paradigms that the authors touch on only briefly. Addressingissues like these would place their study in a broader context, making itappeal to a wider audience.
These concerns raise the question of how this research differs from puzzlesolving and whether formalizing these patterns illustrates the nature ofthe model or better explains the data. In more general terms, we might askwhat the difference is between accounting for the data and explaining it.
4. ONLINE MATERIAL
At the book refers the reader to a number of associated web sites. Thesematerials vary in user-friendliness. The extensive annotated bibliography,listing 100 references on syncretism, is of immediate potential use. Themore technical offerings would be more helpful with further explanation.The two databases have the potential to be quite useful.
5. MINOR ISSUES
In this section I pick a few nits that affect the usability of the book.Occasionally the authors use unexpected terminology without explanation.For example, they use the term ''two-place verb'' to denote not transitiveverbs but rather verbs with both subject and object marking.
Unfortunately, aside from the occasional typo, there are a few surprisingerrors in the book. Perhaps most notable is the fact that JerzyKuryłowicz's surname is misspelled two different ways, one appearing in thetext twice and the other once in the index of authors (it is spelledcorrectly in the references). One chart (p. 24) identifies the Latin noun''stella'' 'star' as belonging to the second declension, rather than thefirst, while another chart (p. 46) labels singular forms as plural and anablative form as locative. Some of these errors make the book harder touse, as when the reader is referred to §1.4.2 rather than §1.3.2 (p. 19) orwhen insufficient labeling of the words in the Ingush phrase 'big village'prevents the reader from knowing which is the noun and which the adjective(p. 53). Overall, these problems do not greatly distract the reader.
6. CONCLUSION
I recommend this book for formal morphologists interested in modelingspecific morphological problems like syncretism. Such researchers will alsolikely benefit from the associated online materials. Those drawn to thebook by the title's reference to the interaction between syntax andmorphology will find little discussion on that topic. For linguistsinterested in language universals and linguistic typology in the broadersense, the narrow focus of the book may render it less appealing.Historical linguists interested in the development of irregularity willfind relatively little along those lines here. However, the questionsraised by the book, both explicitly and implicitly, suggest fruitfuldirections for future research. Finally, the generally meticulous researchmethod employed by the authors serves as an example of the care with whichlinguists aspire to treat data.
REFERENCES
Juge, Matthew L. 1999. On the rise of suppletion in verbal paradigms. InChang, Steve S., Lily Liaw, and Josef Ruppenhofer, editors. Proceedings ofthe twenty-fifth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.Berkeley: BLS. 183-194.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Matthew L. Juge is an Assistant Professor of Historical Linguistics in theDepartment of Modern Languages at Texas State University-San Marcos. Hisinterests include the development of morphosyntax (especially verbsystems), semantic change, typology, language contact, the relationshipbetween diachrony and synchrony, and language attitudes.
|