LINGUIST List 19.2779
Fri Sep 12 2008
Diss: Morphology: Sims: 'Minding the Gaps: Inflectional ...'
Editor for this issue: Evelyn Richter
<evelynlinguistlist.org>
1. Andrea
Sims,
Minding the Gaps: Inflectional defectiveness in a paradigmatic theory
Message 1: Minding the Gaps: Inflectional defectiveness in a paradigmatic theory
Date: 10-Sep-2008
From: Andrea Sims <sims.120osu.edu>
Subject: Minding the Gaps: Inflectional defectiveness in a paradigmatic theory
E-mail this message to a friend
Institution: Ohio State University
Program: Department of Linguistics
Dissertation Status: Completed
Degree Date: 2006
Author: Andrea Sims
Dissertation Title: Minding the Gaps: Inflectional defectiveness in a paradigmatic theory
Dissertation URL: http://ling.northwestern.edu/~ads778/pdfs/public_version/sims_dissertation_2006.pdf
Linguistic Field(s):
Morphology
Subject Language(s): Greek (ell)
Russian (rus)
Dissertation Director:
Brian D. Joseph
Daniel Collins
Mary Esther Beckman
Dissertation Abstract:
A central question within morphological theory is whether an adequatedescription of inflection necessitates connections between and amonginflectionally related forms, i.e. paradigmatic structure. Recent researchon form-meaning mismatches at the morphological and morphosyntactic levels(e.g., periphrasis, syncretism) argues that an adequate theory ofinflection must be paradigmatic at its core. In this dissertation I arguethat paradigmatic gaps support some of the same conclusions are otherform-meaning mismatches (e.g., the need for the Separation Hypothesis), andoffer insight into the internal structure of the stem paradigm. I focus ontwo questions that paradigmatic gaps raise for morphological theory:
1) Are paradigmatic gaps paradigmatically governed? Stump and Finkel (2006)argue that inflectional structure consists of implicational relationshipswhereby one or more paradigm cells serve as principal parts, from whichother members of the paradigm can be predicted. Based on production/ratingsexperiments and distributional statistics from gaps in the genitive pluralof Modern Greek nouns and the first person singular of Russian verbs, Iargue for a corollary hypothesis - that paradigmatic gaps can arise inparadigm cells whose form cannot be predicted from nor are predictive ofother members of the paradigm. The distribution of these gaps can thus beadequately explained only with reference to the inflectional (stem)paradigm. This is largely consistent with the conclusions of Albright(2003) for Spanish.
2) Is there such a thing as lexically specified defectiveness? Or, stateddifferently, are paradigmatic cells ever stipulated as empty? Early studiesgenerally assumed that gaps are idiosyncratic and therefore require lexicalspecification (Halle 1973), but more recent approaches have sought toexplain at least some gaps are byproducts of the generative inflectionalprocess, and therefore not directly marked in the lexicon (Albright 2003,Hudson 2000). I argue that historical causation is not to be confused withsynchronic structure; the distributional pattern of paradigmatic gaps inGreek are consistent with the gaps-as-epiphenomena approach, but thisappears to be a historical remnant. Experimental data on speakers'reactions to defective vs. non-defective morphological forms in Greek showsthat the gaps have become disassociated from their original causativefactors. This indicates that gaps are like any other morphological patternin being able to undergo lexicalization.
Paradigmatic gaps in Greek and Russian demonstrate that paradigmaticpredictability is a significant force in formal morphological systems.Moreover, in many respects paradigmatic gaps are surprisingly similar towell-formed morphological structures, for example in being governed byparadigmatic structure and subject to covert reanalysis. This indicatesthat, contrary to traditional assumptions, (many examples of) paradigmaticgaps are neither idiosyncratic nor marginal to the functioning of theinflectional system. They thus deserve greater attention withinmorphological theory.
|