Deriving the scale of finiteness from parasitic syncretism
-
Patrycja Jablonska
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to establish the hierarchy of “finiteness” in Polish based on “morphological” considerations relating to syncretism and alternations, which were taken to be the interface between the lexicon and syntax. The paper focuses on parasitic stem syncretism within the paradigm of eight verb forms in Polish. The eight forms exhibit numerous stem syncretism patterns where one stem forms a “parasitic” base for the formation of another verb. The major point is to argue for a scale of degrees of finiteness rather than any categorical two-way distinction between finite and non-finite forms. The paper suggests various new topics for further research, e. g. how person hierarchy relates to the finiteness hierarchy.
Appendix
Replacement patterns of Polish from Gussmann (2008):
PR1: p - pj, b - bj, f -fj, v - vj, m - mj, r - Ʒ, w - l, n - ɲ, t -ʨ, d - ʥ, s -ɕ, z - ʑ
PR3: t - ts, d - dz, s - ʃ, z - Ʒ
PR5: k - ʧ, g - Ʒ, zg - ƷdƷ, x - ʃ
< RV1 >
< RV1 > (Cj) ε (palatalized coronal) ⁓ (Cj) a (nonpalatalized coronal)
< RV2 >
< RV2 >(Cj) ε (palatalized coronal) ⁓ (Cj) ɔ (nonpalatalized coronal)
Replace Nasal RN
< VR1 > ɔ ⇒ u before C (obstruent), (voiced) and inflectional empty nucleus
Acknowledgements
I thank the late Edmund Gussmann, the participants of the Tallinn Workshop on Finiteness, and especially the three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimers apply.
References
Abels, Klaus & Peter Muriungi. 2008. The focus marker in Kiitharaka: Syntax and Semantics. Lingua 118. 687–731.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.003Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511586262Search in Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2007. On comparative suppletion. Ms., University of Connecticut.Search in Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2007. Case movement in PPs. Nordlyd 34. 239–299.10.7557/12.108Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: OUP.Search in Google Scholar
Gussmann, Edmund. 1980. Studies in abstract phonology. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gussmann, Edmund. 2008. The phonology of polish. Oxford: OUP.Search in Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology. In Kenneth Hale& Samuel J. Keyser (ed.), The view from building 20.: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge/London: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Martin Haspelmath& Ekkehard Ko¨nig (ed.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial forms – adverbial participles, gerunds, volume 13 of Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 1–56. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110884463Search in Google Scholar
Jabłońska, Patrycja. 2007. Radical decomposition and argument structure. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tromsø.Search in Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1948a. Russian conjugation. Word 155–67.10.1080/00437956.1948.11659338Search in Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1948b. Russian conjugation. Word 4. 155–67.10.1080/00437956.1948.11659338Search in Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan. 1990. “coda” licensing. Phonology 7. 301–330.10.1017/S0952675700001214Search in Google Scholar
Laskowski, Roman. 1999. Czasownik [the verb]. In Renata Grzegorczykowa, Roman Laskowski & Henryk Wróbel (ed.), Morfologia [morphology], volume 1, 225–268. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Search in Google Scholar
Leskien, August. 1910. Handbuch der altbulgarischen (altkirchenslavischen Sprache. grammatik – texte – glossar. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universita¨tsverlag.Search in Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 201–225.Search in Google Scholar
Matthews, P.H. 1972. Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspect of Latin Conjugation. Cambridge: CUP.Search in Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean Yves. 1989. Verb-movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 365–424.Search in Google Scholar
Rowicka, Graz˙yna. 1999. On ghost vowels: A strict CV approach. Number 16 in LOT Dissertations. Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Search in Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1984. Cyclic and lexical phonology. The structure of polish, volume 17 of Studies in generative grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.10.1515/9783111392837Search in Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2004. A lateral theory of phonology: What is CVCV and why should it be?. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110908336Search in Google Scholar
Śmiech, W. 1967. Rozwój form czasu teraźniejszego czasownika w języku polskim [the development of the present tense forms in polish]. Łódź.Search in Google Scholar
Starke, Michal. 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd 36:1–6.Search in Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511486333Search in Google Scholar
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 2009. The nanosyntax of Nguni noun class prefixes and concords. Http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/@RQdvwTYpPwPAhCRA/SozQJEet?197.10.1016/j.lingua.2009.10.004Search in Google Scholar
Tokarski, Jan. 2001. Fleksja polska [polish inflection]. Warszawa: PWN.Search in Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. How to describe inflection. Berkeley Linguistic Society 11. 372–86.10.3765/bls.v11i0.1897Search in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Introduction
- Nominalization and the problem of indirect access: Evidence from Ossetian
- Pragmatic accommodation as a catalyst for the development of (non-)finiteness
- On case and tense: The role of grounding in differential subject marking
- Deriving the scale of finiteness from parasitic syncretism
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Introduction
- Nominalization and the problem of indirect access: Evidence from Ossetian
- Pragmatic accommodation as a catalyst for the development of (non-)finiteness
- On case and tense: The role of grounding in differential subject marking
- Deriving the scale of finiteness from parasitic syncretism
