Cover not available
Article published In:
Extending the notion of near-synonymy: Studies in morphological, syntactic and pragmatic equivalence
Edited by Renata Enghels
[Languages in Contrast 18:1] 2018
► pp. 6–34

Near-synonymy in morphological structures

Why Catalans can abolish constitutions but Portuguese and Spanish speakers can’t

 | University of Sheffield
This article examines the concept of defectivity in the verbal system of Spanish, Portuguese and Catalan. Building on previous studies on defective verbs in Spanish and Portuguese I investigate why there are no such defective verbs in Catalan. I conclude that the structure of the verbal paradigm in Catalan non-first conjugation verbs is radically different from that of the other languages; Catalan verbs constitute paradigms which correspond to regular patterns of inflection whereas Spanish and Portuguese display non-predictable types of root allomorphy which require all non-first conjugation verbs to have a memorised form for the rhizotonic forms of the verb. Theoretically, this type of defectivity poses problems for models of inflectional morphology and suggests that the patterns of frequent verbs can become general rules for all verbs of a particular conjugation.
Keywords: defectiveness, defectivity, morphomes, paradigms, Catalan/Portuguese/Spanish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What are defective verbs?
  • 3.The defective verbs of Portuguese and Spanish
  • 4.Explanations for defectiveness
  • 5.My proposal
    • 5.1Allomorphy in Portuguese and Spanish
    • 5.2Abstractive models of morphology
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 February 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00002.one
References (64)
References
Ackema, P. and Neeleman, A. 2004. Beyond morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alarcos Llorach, E. 1994. Gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Albright, A. 2003. A quantitative study of Spanish paradigm gaps. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistic 22 Proceedings, G. Garding and M. Tsujimura (eds), 117–151. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
2006. Lexical and morphological conditioning of paradigm gaps. In When nothing wins: Modeling ungrammaticality in OT, C. Rice (ed), 33–63. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
(in press b). Lexical and morphological conditioning of paradigm gaps. In When nothing wins: Modeling ungrammaticality in OT, C. Rice (ed). Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.
Alcoba, S. 1999. La flexión verbal. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, vol. 31, I. Bosque and V. Demonte (eds), 4915–4991. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. 1992. A-Morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1994. Morphology by itself. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Dijkstra, T. and Schreuder, R. 1997. Singulars and plurals in Dutch: evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language 371: 94–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R., McQueen, J. D. and Schreuder, R. 2003. Frequency effects in regular inflectional morphology: revisiting Dutch plurals. In Morphological structure in language processing, R. H. Baayen and R. Schreuder (eds), 355–390. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beard, R. 1995. Lexeme-morpheme base morphology: a general theory of inflection and word formation. Albany: State University of New York.Google Scholar
Bello, A. 1908. Gramática de la lengua castellana. Buenos Aires: Sopena.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 421: 531–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Word and Paradigm Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Butt, J. and Benjamin, C. 2004. A new reference grammar of modern Spanish. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. Use impacts morphological representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 221: 1016–1017. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. and Pardo, E. 1981. On lexical and morphological conditioning of alternations: a nonce-probe experiment with Spanish verbs. Linguistics 191: 937–968. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A. and Burani, C. 1988. Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition 281: 298–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. 1999. Lexical entries and rules of language: a multi-disciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 221: 991–1060. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cunha, C. and Cintra, L. 1984. Nova gramática do português contemporâneo. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira.Google Scholar
Daland, R., Sims, A. and Pierrehumbert, J. 2007. Much ado about nothing: a social network model of Russian paradigmatic gaps. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics in Prague. Czech Republic, 24–29 June 2007.Google Scholar
de Sá Nogueira, R. 1945. Dicionário de verbos portugueses conjugados. Lisboa: Livraria Clássica.Google Scholar
Divjak, D. 2010. Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J. 1928. A grammar of the Portuguese language. Hispanic Society of America.Google Scholar
Eddington, D. 2000. Spanish stress assignment within the analogical modeling of language. Language 761: 92–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Paradigm uniformity and analogy: the capitalistic versus militaristic debate. International Journal of English Studies 61: 1–18.Google Scholar
Elvira, J. 1993. Verbos defectivos en español. Actas do XXIX Congreso de Lingüística e Filoloxía Románicas 5. Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza, Conde Fenosa. 573–580.Google Scholar
Enghels, R. and Jansegers, M. 2013. On the crosslinguistic equivalence of sentir(e) in Romance languages: A contrastive study in semantics. Linguistics 51(5): 957–991. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hills, E., Ford, J. and Coutinho de Siquiera, J. 1925. A Portuguese grammar. Boston; New York: D.C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, A. and Lloyd, J. 2003. Portuguese: an essential grammar. New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maiden, M. 2001. A strange affinity: perfecto y tiempos afines. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 781: 441–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Di nuovo sulle alternanze velari nel verbo italiano e spagnolo. Cuadernos de filología italiana 81: 39–61.Google Scholar
2004. Morphological Autonomy and Diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology, G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds), 137–75. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 1991. Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, P. 2009. Los verbos defectivos en la lengua española: estudio sincrónico y diacrónico descriptivo basado en datos de corpus. Boletín de la Real Academia Española 3001: 255–287.Google Scholar
2010. Una explicación teórica de la defectividad verbal en la lengua española. Boletín de la Real Academia Española 3021: 265–289.Google Scholar
2011a. Alternancias vocálicas en el presente de los verbos en -ir. Un análisis desde la Morfología Autónoma. Revista de la Historia de la Lengua Española 61: 87–129.Google Scholar
2011b. New perspectives on the effects of yod in Ibero-Romance. Bulletin of Spanish Studies 89(5): 665–697. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011c. The Evolution of ‘el pretérito y tiempos afines’ in Ibero-Romance. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 881: 851–878. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011d. The Ibero-Romance Verb: allomorphy and the notion of the morphome. DPhil thesis. Available at [URL] [[URL]].
2014. The morphome in constructive and abstractive models of morphology. Morphology 241: 25–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. The Origin and Spread of Velar Allomorphy in the Spanish Verb. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 92(5): 489–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Neill (forthcoming (a)). Defective verbs in Portuguese: a corpus study.
(forthcoming (b)). Inflectional Defectiveness.
(forthcoming (c)). Defective verbs in Spanish and Portuguese and the role of frequency in morphological paradigms.
Real Academia Española. 1854. Gramática de la lengua castellana. Madrid: Imprenta Nacional.Google Scholar
. 1973. Esbozo de una nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Real Academia Española y la Asociación de Academias de la Lengua. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Salvá, V. 1830. Gramática de la lengua castellana. Paris: Demonville.Google Scholar
Scalise, S. 1984. Generative morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seco, M. 1989. Gramatica esencial del español: introduccion al estudio de la lengua. Madrid: Aguilar.Google Scholar
Silva, E. and Tavares, A. 1977. Dicionário dos verbos portugueses: conjugação e regências. Porto: Porto Editora.Google Scholar
Sims, A. 2007. Minding the gaps: Inflectional defectiveness in paradigmatic morphology. PhD thesis: Linguistics Department, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
2016. Inflectional Defectiveness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skousen, R. 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer/Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stemberger, J. and MacWhinney, B. 1988. Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon? In Theoretical Morphology. Approaches in modern linguistics, M. Hammond and M. Noonan (eds), 101–116. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stump, G. 2001. Inflectional morphology: a theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vázquez Cuesta, P. and Méndes da Luz, M. 1971. Gramática portuguesa. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Wheeler, M. 2011. The evolution of a morphome in Catalan verb inflection, with evidence from a medieval corpus. In Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology, M. Maiden, J. C. Smith, M. Goldbach and M. -O. Hinzelin (eds), 183–210. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Alrefaee, Yasser, Bilal Zakarneh, Tribhuwan Kumar & Abdul-Qader Abdul-Ghafour
2023.  Contextual Meanings of Qur’anic Near-Synonyms and Their English Translations with Special Reference to Huzn (Grief) and Its Near-Synonyms . Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 52:5 ► pp. 477 ff. DOI logo
Sims, Andrea D.
2023. Defectiveness. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.