Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2022
Edited by Jorrig Vogels and Sterre Leufkens
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 39] 2022
► pp. 263–278

There is more to the morphology of -š/ -iš

The comparative in Ukrainian

 | KU Leuven
There are two comparative suffixes in Ukrainian: the productive -iš, and the non-productive -š. Following Caha et al. (2019) I show that just like in Czech, the distribution of these two suffixes in Ukrainian is regulated not by phonology, but by morphosyntax. The theory of Nanosyntax (Starke 2009) is used in order to account for the data. The comparative meaning is represented in syntax not by one but by two functional heads. To be more precise, I propose that in Ukrainian -iš is decomposed into two morphemes -i and -š, where -i spells out the lower head and -š spells out the higher one. The issue of suppletive adjectives is discussed as well. I argue that suppletion can be accounted for using the nanosyntactic concept of pointers. As a result, this approach helps to explain the mechanism behind allomorphy of the comparative suffix in regular and suppletive adjectives in Ukrainian.
Keywords: morphology, nanosyntax, comparatives, suppletion, allomorphy, Ukrainian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background: DegP and Nanosyntax
    • 2.1DegP
    • 2.2Nanosyntax
  • 3.The choice between -š and -iš is morphologically conditioned
    • 3.1Regular Ukrainian adjectives
    • 3.2Suppletive Ukrainian adjectives
    • 3.3Disuppletion: Possible solutions
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 4 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00073.vys
References (13)
References
Arregi, Karlos & Andrew Nevins. 2014. “A monoradical approach to some cases of disupple-tion.” Theoretical Linguistics 40(3–4): 311–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baunaz, Lena & Eric Lander. 2018. “Nanosyntax: the basics.” Exploring Nanosyntax, ed. by Lena Baunaz, Karen De Clercq, Liliane Haegeman & Eric Lander. 3–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bevzenko, Stepan Pylypovyč. 1960. Istoryčna morfolohia ukrajin’skoji movy. ‘the historical morphology of the ukrainian language”. Uzhhorod: Zakarpats’ke Oblastne Vydavnytstvo.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2012. Universals In Comparative Morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caha, Pavel, Karen De Clercq & Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 2019. “The fine structure of the comparative.” Studia Linguistica 73(3): 470–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corver, Norbert. 1997. “Much-support as a last resort.” Linguistic Inquiry 281: 119–164.Google Scholar
De Clercq, Karen, Pavel Caha, Michal Starke & Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 2022. “Degree morphology.” The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ed. by Peter Ackema, Eulàlia Bonet, Sabrina Bendjaballah & Antonio Fábregas. Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
De Clercq, Karen & Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 2017. “*ABA revisited: evidence from Czech and Latin degree morphology.” Glossa 2(1): 691: 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Despić, Miloje. 2019. “(non-)intersective adjectives and root suppletion.” The Linguistic Review 361: 507–530. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starke, Michal. 2009. “Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language.” Nordlyd 361: 1–6.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Cleaning up the lexicon.” Linguistic Analysis 391: 245–256.Google Scholar
Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido, Michal Starke, Karen De Clercq & Pavel Caha. 2020. “How to be positive.” Glossa 5(1): 23. 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar