Directionality and (Un)natural Classes in Syncretism

Syncretism,where a single form corresponds to multiple morphosyntactic functions, is pervasive in languages with inflectionalmorphology. Its interpretation highlights the contrast between different views of the status of morphology. For some, morphology lacks independent structure, and syncretism reflects the internal structure of morphosyntactic features. For others, morphological structure is autonomous, and syncretism provides direct evidence of this. In this article, I discuss two phenomena that argue for the second view. DIRECTIONAL EFFECTS and UNNATURAL CLASSES of values resist attempts to reduce them to epiphenomena of more general rule types and require purely morphological devices for their expression.

[1]  Ronald F. Feldstein.  On the Structure of Syncretism in Romanian Conjugation , 2004 .

[2]  Andrea Calabrese,et al.  Some remarks on the Latin case system and its development in Romance , 1998 .

[3]  Greville G. Corbett,et al.  Network Morphology: a DATR account of Russian nominal inflection , 1993, Journal of Linguistics.

[4]  Gregory Stump,et al.  On Rules of Referral , 1993 .

[5]  G. Müller.  A Distributed Morphology Approach to Syncretism in Russian Noun Inflection � , 2004 .

[6]  Arnold M. Zwicky,et al.  How to Describe Inflection , 1985 .

[7]  M. Baerman.  Typology and the formal modelling of syncretism , 2005 .

[8]  Steven G. Lapointe,et al.  Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax Ed. by , 1998 .

[9]  H. Harley,et al.  Person and Number in Pronouns: A Feature-Geometric Analysis , 2002 .

[10]  Geert Booij,et al.  Yearbook of Morphology 2004 , 2005 .

[11]  Dunstan Brown.  From the general to the exceptional : a network morphology account of Russian nominal inflection , 1998 .

[12]  Peter Austin,et al.  A Grammar of Diyari, South Australia , 1981 .

[13]  Patrick M. Farrell,et al.  Impoverishment Theory and Morphosyntactic , 2004 .

[14]  Robert Hetzron,et al.  Semitic Languages , 1954, PMLA/Publications of the Modern Language Association of America.

[15]  John M. Lipski,et al.  Theoretical Analyses on Romance Languages , 1999 .

[16]  F. Neue,et al.  Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache , 1985 .

[17]  C. Brockelmann.  Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, I. Band: Laut- und Formenlehre , 1908 .

[18]  Gisela Zifonun,et al.  Explorations in nominal inflection , 2004 .

[19]  Dunstan Brown,et al.  Dalabon pronominal prefixes and the typology of syncretism: a Network Morphology analysis. In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds) Yearbook of Morphology 2000 , 2001 .

[20]  Marvin Lionel Bender.  The Non-semitic languages of Ethiopia , 1977 .

[21]  Stephen R. Anderson,et al.  A Festschrift for Morris Halle , 1973 .

[22]  D. Wunderlich.  Is There Any Need for the Concept of Directional Syncretism , 2004 .

[23]  Braj B. Kachru,et al.  A reference grammar of Kashmiri , 1970, The Journal of Asian Studies.

[24]  David Gil,et al.  The World Atlas of Language Structures , 2005 .

[25]  Robert Rolf Noyer.  Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure , 1992 .

[26]  J. Bobaljik.  Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994 , 2002 .

[27]  E. Haugen.  Scandinavian Language Structures: A Comparative Historical Survey , 1982 .

[28]  Raimo Anttila,et al.  An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics , 1974 .