Morphology lecture 8: Models of Morphology Review

MORPHOLOGY

Lecture 8: Models of Morphology

8. Review

• 
  Mophophonology: some phonological phenomena triggered by morphological processes. Stress change; consonant change; vowel harmony.
  
• 
  Morphosyntax: some morphological processes that interact with syntax. Case and agreement; clitics; incorporation.
  

8.1 Morphological models

• 
  Originally devised by Hockett (1954)
  
• 
  IA and IP within generative tradition (i.e. rules which generate words)
  
• 
  WP a reaction to other two models
  

1. 
   Item & Arrangement (IA)
   

• 
  Morphology as word-level syntax
  
• 
  Useful for both derivation and inflection
  
• 
  Words and sentences consist of sequences of morphemes; the morpheme is the basic unit of analysis.
  

MORPHEME + MORPHEME + MORPHEME < arrangement

↓ ↓ ↓ < phonological rules

morph morph morph > surface structure

English: DRAW+ING+S

↓ ↓ ↓

/drawings/

• 
  Model works well for easily segmentable words and agglutinative languages.
  
• 
  Model does not work well for nonsegmentable morphology.
  

2. 
   Item & Process (IP)
   

• 
  Sees morphemes as processes
  
• 
  May subsume IA as a process
  

In the lexicon, morphemes may contain features linked with inflection:

GOOSE

guːs V CHANGE IN PL

Lexical morphemes combine with underspecified inflectional morphemes:

guːs V CHANGE IN PL	+
		PL

Combination of change feature and inflection sets off a phonological process:

PL  CHANGE: /… uː …/ > /…iː…/

output of change rule: /giːs/

Model works well for some morphological processes:

Dutch (ablaut/umlaut):

/doːn/ ‘do’ > /deː/ ‘did’

/stelən/ ‘steal’ > /stal/ ‘stole’

Icelandic (ablaut/umlaut):
/tεk/ ‘take’ > /toʊk/ ‘took’

/mus/ ‘mouse’ > /mis/ ‘mis’

English (consonant change associated with derivation):

thief > thieve

sheath > sheathe

• 
  Morphemes in IP are realized as morphs or processes (1-to-1)
  
• 
  But IP has difficulty handling paradigms.
  

Latin:
regeːbam RULE +1s + imperative ‘I was ruling’

regeːbas RULE +2s + imperative ‘you (sg.) were ruling’

regeːbat RULE +3s + imperative ‘he was ruling’

reːksiː RULE +1s + perfective ‘I have ruled’

reːksistiː RULE +1s + perfective ‘you (sg.) have ruled’

reːksiː RULE +3s + perfective ‘he has ruled’

3. 
   Word & Paradigm (WP)
   

• 
  Takes word, not morpheme, as fundamental unit of analysis.
  
• 
  Accounts for zero morphs, portmanteaus and ‘discontinuous’ morphs.
  
• 
  Exponents may simultaneously realise more than one feature.
  

lexeme > morphological processes > word-form

Example: Latin /reːksistiː/ ‘you (sg.) ruled’
reg- + perfective + 2^nd + singular

reːk + s + is + tiː

Other advantages:

• 
  morphological processes take place within paradigms
  
• 
  can handle homophonous morphs which realize more than one grammatical feature (since each morph is generated by processes within the paradigm) and discontinuous morphs
  
• 
  model also easily handles portmanteau morphs
  

But….paradigmatic rules appear redundant in agglutinative languages

8.2 Morphological Typology
Morphological models may be best suited for languages based on morphological type:

1. 
   Isolating, e.g. Chinese:
   

wo dui Akiu weishenme bu lai hen guanxin

I about Akiu why not come very care

‘I do care why Akiu will not come’

• 
  Little or no inflectional morphology
  
• 
  Most word-forms consist of one morph realizing one morpheme.
  

2. 
   Agglutinating, e.g. Finish
   

Minä nä-i-n Sadu-n Helsingi-ssa

I see-past-1s Sadu-acc Helsinki-in

‘I saw Satu in Helsinki’

• 
  Morphs usually realise one morpheme (cf. IA model)
  
• 
  Word-forms consist of roots with lots of easily segmentable affixes
  

3. 
   Fusional or inflectional, e.g. Latin
   

annoːs year+PLURAL + ACCUSATIVE

• 
  Morphs realise more than one feature/morpheme (cf. WP)
  
• 
  Word-forms fall into irregular paradigms
  

4. 
   Polysynthetic, e.g. Laborador Inuttut
   

taku-vânga ‘She sees me’

see-tr.indic.3s./1s

• 
  One word-form may function as an entire sentence
  
• 
  Word-forms may be segmentable (cf. IA) or fusional (cf. WP)
  

Reading for this lecture:

Bauer (2003): 197-208; Katamba (1993): 56-62

LANE 333- 2018-19