Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2017: Selected papers from the 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, San Antonio, Texas, 31 July – 4 August 2017
Edited by Bridget Drinka
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 350] 2020
► pp. 163–182

Synchrony, diachrony, and indexicality

This paper is about the current disconnect between synchronic and diachronic linguistics and the need for historical linguists to take the lead in addressing the big issues in morphology: how agglutination develops into fusion and symbolism, how these techniques are maintained through time, how they devolve into agglutinative or isolating patterns. The formation and reanalysis of allomorphy are central to these developments. The paper advocates a theory of the morphological sign by which allomorphs form subsidiary paradigms and the individual allomorph is both symbol and index: it stands for its exponendum and points to features of its environment. This articulate conception facilitates the detailed analysis and interpretation both of synchronic patterns and of the gradual typological transformations of inflectional systems.
Keywords: morphology, allomorphy, WP, paradigm, symbol, index, reanalysis, interfix, zero morph, cumulative exponence
Article outline
  • 1.Synchrony, diachrony and history
  • 2.Word and Paradigm morphology
  • 3.Morphology for communication
  • 4.Morphology by itself?
  • 5.Indexes in morphology
    • 5.1Phonological indexes
    • 5.2Stem-class indexes
    • 5.3Gramcat indexes
    • 5.4Lexcat indexes
  • 6.The importance of morphological indexes
    • 6.1Signs with zero exponenda
    • 6.2Signs with zero expression
    • 6.3Cumulative exponence
  • 7.History and typology
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 9 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.350.08and
References (44)
References
Andersen, H. (1980). “Morphological change: towards a typology”. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Recent developments in historical morphology (pp. 1–50). The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1987). From auxiliary to desinence. In: M. Harris & P. Ramat. (Eds.). Historical development of auxiliaries (pp. 21-52). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change. In Thórhallur Eythórsson (Ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory. The Rosendal Papers (pp. 11–44). (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 113.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). From morphologization to demorphologization. In V. Bubenik & S. Luraghi (Eds.), Companion to historical linguistics (pp. 117–146). London: Continuum Companions in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anttila, R. (1975). The indexical element in morphology. Innsbuck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself. Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA & London, England: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Avanesov, R. & Orlova, V. (1965). Russkaja dialektologija. Moskow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Awbery, G. M. (1983a). Moves towards a simpler, binary mutation system in Welsh. In H. Andersen (Ed.). Sandhi phenomena in the languages of Europe. (pp. 161–166). Berlin & New York & Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1983b). Survey of sandhi types in Welsh. In H. Andersen (Ed.). Sandhi phenomena in the languages of Europe. (pp. 415–434). Berlin / New York / Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. (2016). Word and Paradigm morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1935). Language. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2002). How stems and affixes interact: Stem alternants as morphological signata. In Bendjaballah et al. (Eds.) Morphology 2000. Selected papers from the 9th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 2000. (pp. 49–58). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. (2016). Morphomic splits. In A. Luís & R. Bermúdez-Otero (Eds.), The morphome debate (pp. 64–88). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, E. (1970). Synchronie, Diachronie und Typologie. In his Sprache. Strukturen und Funktionen. 12 Aufsätze zur allgemeinen und romanischen Sprachwissenschaft. Ed. by U. Petersen, H. Bertsch & G. Köhler (pp. 91–108). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (2004). The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dochartaigh, C. (1990). The Irish language. In D. Macaulay (Ed.), The Celtic languages (pp. 11–99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. (1977). Grundfragen der Morphonologie. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
(1985). Morphonology. The dynamics of derivation. Ed. by Kenneth C. Hill. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Embick, D. (2015). Morpheme. A theoretical introduction. Boston: DeGruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1960). A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 26, 178–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hodge, C. (1970). The linguistic cycle. Language Sciences 13, 1–7.Google Scholar
Huntley, D. (1993). Old Church Slavonic. In B. Comrie & G. C. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic languages (pp. 125–187). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1971). Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. In his Selected Writings, 2. Word and Language (pp. 130–147). The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
(1990). On language. Ed. by Linda R. Waugh & Monique Monville-Burston. Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Korhonen, M. (1969). Die Entwicklung der morphologischen Methode im Lappischen. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 37 (pp. 203–362). Reprinted as Die Entwicklung der morphologischen Technik im Lappischen. In: Korhonen (1996, pp. 17–142).Google Scholar
(1982). Reductive phonetic developments as the trigger to typological change: Two examples from the Finno-Ugrian languages. In A. Ahlqvist (Ed.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Galway, April 6–10, 1981. (pp. 207–212). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Reprinted in Korhonen (1996, pp. 207–212). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). Typological and historical studies in language. A memorial volume published on the 60th anniversary of his birth. Ed. by T. Salminen. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seura.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. (1972). Inflectional morphology. A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1974). Morphology: An introduction to the theory of word structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1991). Morphology. (Expanded and revised version of Matthews 1974.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. (2002). Towards a formal concept of ’zero linguistic sign’. Applications in typology. In S. Bendjaballah et al. (Eds.) Morphology 2000. Selected papers from the 9th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 2000. (pp. 241–258). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Aspects of the theory of morphology. Ed. by D. Beck. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nöth, W. (1990). Handbook of semiotics. Bloomington / Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierce, C. S. (1960–1966). Collected papers, 1–8. Ed. by C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss. (Second Printing.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de. (1973). Cours de linguistique générale. Ed. by C. Bally & A. Sechehaye with A. Riedlinger. Critical edition by T. de Mauro. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Shapiro, M. (1969). Aspects of Russian morphology: A semiotic investigation. Cambridge, MA: Slavica.Google Scholar
(1991). The sense of change: Language as history. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. (2016). Stems, the morpheme, and meaning-bearing inflection. In A. Luís & R. Bermúdez-Otero (Eds.). The morpheme debate (pp. 207–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steriade, D. (2016). The morphome vs. similarity-based syncretism. In A. Luis & R. Bermúdez-Otero (Eds.), The morphome debate (pp. 112–172). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stewart, T. (2016). Contemporary morphological theory: A user’s guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology. A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. (1958). Grundzüge der Phonologie, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Werner, O. (1987). The aim of morphological change is a good mixture, not a uniform language type. In A. Giacalone Ramat, O. Carruba & G. Bernini (Eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (pp. 591–606). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar