Cover not available
Part of
Morphological Metatheory
Edited by Daniel Siddiqi and Heidi Harley
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 229] 2016
► pp. 95–120

Syncretism in paradigm function morphology and distributed morphology

| Georgetown University

In the development of morphological theory, restrictiveness and maximal empirical coverage of the facts must be carefully balanced. In this discussion chapter, I use the empirical phenomenon of syncretism to explore the restrictiveness/coverage dichotomy in two morphological theories: Distributed Morphology (DM) and Paradigm Function Morphology 2 (PFM2), drawing on Stump (this vol.) and Trommer (this vol.). As previous work has observed, the theories contrast in their approach to this dichotomy: DM tends towards restrictiveness, whereas PFM2 tends towards maximal empirical coverage. I show that syncretism is a useful tool for exploring the advantages and pitfalls of these positions, and I identify open questions for both theories whose answers would contribute to resolving this dichotomy.

Published online: 29 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.229.04kra
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra
2004 Gender and noun class. In Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-formation, Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan & Stavros Skopetas (eds), 1031–1044. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Albright, Adam & Fuß, Eric
2012 Syncretism. In The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, Jochen Trommer (ed.), 236–288. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark
1994 Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arregi, Karlos & Nevins, Andrew
2012 Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout. New York NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bachrach, Asaf & Nevins, Andrew
2008 Introduction: approaching inflectional identity. In Inflectional Identity, Asaf Bachrach & Andrew Nevins (eds), 1–28. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew
2004 Directionality and (un)natural classes in morphology. Language 80: 807–827. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Typology and the formal modeling of syncretism. In Yearbook of Morphology 2004, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 41–72. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007a Syncretism. Language and Linguistics Compass 1: 539–551. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007b Morphological reversals. Journal of Linguistics 43: 33–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan & Corbett, Greville G
2005 The Syntax-Morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Currie Hall, Daniel
1999 Marking markedness: The underlying order of diagonal syncretisms. Paper presented at the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics , University of Connecticut.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David
2002 Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. In Yearbook of Morphology 2001, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 53–85. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Distributed Morphology. Ms, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulalia
1991 Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Boyeldieu, Pascal
1982 Deux études laal (Moyen-Chari, Chad). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea
2008 On absolute and contextual syncretism: Remarks on the structure of case paradigms and on how to derive them. In Inflectional Identity, Asaf Bachrach & Andrew Nevins (eds), 156–205. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2011 Investigations on markedness, syncretism and zero exponence in morphology. Morphology 21: 283–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G
1991 Gender. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 Number. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Agreement. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2012 Features. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doron, Edit & Khan, Geoffrey
2012 The typology of morphological ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. Lingua 122: 225–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf
2001 Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds), 289–324. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frampton, John
2002 Syncretism, impoverishment, and the structure of person features. In CLS 38: The Main Session. Papers from the 38th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Mary Andronis, Erin Debenport, Anne Pycha, Keiko Yoshimura (eds), 207–222. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Golla, Victor
1970 Hupa Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Halle, Morris
1997 Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In Papers at the Interface [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30], Benjamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang & Martha McGinnis (eds), 425–449. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec
1993 Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harbour, Daniel
2003 The Kiowa case for feature insertion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 543–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Not plus isn’t not there”: Bivalence in person, number and gender. In Distributed Morphology Today, Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds), 135–150. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Paucity, abundance, and the theory of number. Language 90: 185–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi
2008 When is a syncretism more than a syncretism? Impoverishment, metasyncretism and underspecification. In Phi Theory, Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds), 251–294. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf
1999 Distributed Morphology (State-of-the-Article). Glot International 4: 3–9.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Ritter, Elizabeth
2002 Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78: 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1982 African noun class systems. In Apprehension: Das Sprachliche Erfassen von Gegnständen, I: Bereich und Ordnung der Phänomene, Hansjakob Seiler & Christian Lehmann (eds), 189–216. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hetzron, Robert
1967 Agaw numerals and incongruence in Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies 12: 169–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1936 Contribution to the general theory of case: General meanings of the Russian Cases. In Roman Jakobson: Russian and Slavic Grammar, 1984, Linda R. Waugh & Morris Halle (eds), 59–103. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kramer, Ruth
2009 Definite Markers, Phi-features, and Agreement: A Morphosyntactic Investigation of the Amharic DP. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.
2015 The Morphosyntax of Gender. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lahne, Antje
2007 On deriving polarity effects. In 1 2 Many: One-to-Many Relations in Grammar, Jochen Trommer & Andreas Opitz (eds), 1–22. Leipzig: University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Layton, Bentley
2011 A Coptic Grammar, 3rd edn. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Lecarme, Jacqueline
2002 Gender “polarity:” theoretical aspects of Somali nominal morphology. In Many Morphologies, Paul Boucher & Marc Plénat (eds), 109–141. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Leslau, Wolf
1995 Reference Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon
2004 A Distributed Morphology approach to syncretism in Russian noun inflection. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 12, Olga Arnaudova, Wayles Browne, Maria Luisa Rivero & Dejan Stojanovic (eds), 353–374. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
2007 Extended exponence by enrichment: Argument encoding in German, Archi and Timacua. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 13: 253–266.Google Scholar
2008 Review of Baerman, Brown and Corbett 2005. Word Structure 1: 199–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew
2011 Marked targets versus marked triggers and impoverishment of the dual. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 413–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noyer, Rolf
1998 Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness. In Morphology and its Relation to Phonology and Syntax, Steven G. LaPointe, Diane K. Brentari & Patrick M. Farrell (eds), 264–285. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K
. & Zwicky, Arnold M 1986 Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict. Language 62: 751–773. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saeed, John
1999 Somali. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sridhar, S.R
1990 Kannada. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stewart, Thomas & Stump, Gregory T
2007 Paradigm function morphology and the morphology-syntax interface. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds), 383–421. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T
1993 On rules of referral. Language 69: 449–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Morphological and syntactic paradigms: arguments for a theory of paradigm linkage. In Yearbook of Morphology 2001, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 147–180. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82: 279–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 A non-canonical pattern of deponency and its limitations. In Deponency and Morphological Mismatches [Proceedings of the British Academy 145], Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett, Dunstan Brown & Andrew Hippisley (eds), 71–95. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 The formal and functional architecture of inflectional morphology. In Morphology and the Architecture of Grammar: Online Proceedings of the Eighth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Angela Ralli, Geert Booij, Sergio Scalise & Athanasios Karasimos (eds), 245–70. [URL]Google Scholar
2016 Paradigms at the interface of a lexeme’s syntax and semantics with its inflectional morphology. In Morphological Metatheory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 229], Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trommer, Jochen
2016 A postsyntactic morphome cookbook. In Morphological Metatheory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 229], Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Akira
2013 Person-number interaction: Impoverishment and natural classes. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 469–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin
1994 Remarks on lexical knowledge. Lingua 92: 7–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter
2004 Is there any need for the concept of directional syncretism? In Explorations in Nominal Inflection, Lutz Gunkel, Gereon Müller & Gisela Zifonun (eds), 373–395. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold
2000 Describing syncretism: Rules of referral after fifteen years. Presentation at the 26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley.
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Alqarni, Muteb
2021. No Gender Polarity in Arabic Numeral Phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 52:3 ► pp. 441 ff. DOI logo
DOLATIAN, HOSSEP
2023. Fluctuations in allomorphy domains: Applying Stump 2010 to Armenian ordinal numerals. Journal of Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Spencer, Andrew
2019. Manufacturing consent over Distributed Morphology. Word Structure 12:2 ► pp. 208 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 september 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.