Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Probus

Probus, International Journal of Romance Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Wetzels, W. Leo

2 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.529
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.659

CiteScore 2016: 0.55

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.258
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.835

Online
ISSN
1613-4079
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 27, Issue 1 (May 2015)

Issues

The rise and fall of the L-shaped morphome: diachronic and experimental studies

Andrew Nevins / Cilene Rodrigues / Kevin Tang
Published Online: 2015-03-18 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2015-0002

Abstract

It has been suggested that the Romance first person singular indicative constitutes a natural class with the present subjunctive paradigm for the purposes of stem selection (Maiden 2005), thus forming a kind of ‘diagonal syncretism’, as the latter shares no morphosyntactic features with the former. The existence of such patterns has been taken to be an argument for autonomous morphology and the existence of unnatural ‘morphomes’, in the sense of Aronoff (1994). Our experimental investigations with native speakers of Portuguese, Italian, and Spanish reveal that this pattern is underlearned, and that speakers do not generalize it to novel forms, instead preferring the 2nd person singular indicative to the 1st person as the base for the derivation of the subjunctive paradigm (and the 2nd person indicative as opposed to the 2nd person subjunctive as the base for the derivation of the 1st person indicative as well). The results implicate a role for naturalness biases in morphological structure, and an awareness that the first person singular is an unreliable and idiosyncratic base for productive inflectional identity. We then study the underlearning of the L-morphome in terms of historical change in the salience of these patterns. We demonstrate, through means of diachronic corpus studies spanning five centuries, a change in the ratio of first conjugation verbs to second & third conjugation verbs, and a resulting decrease in the relative type frequency of where morphomic verbs reside. If indeed learners need increased evidence in order to incorporate and actively uptake unnatural patterns, this lexical support has dwindled over time. Even though many of the morphomic verbs have maintained a very high token frequency (allowing them to survive as memorized), their productivity has diminished over time, and hence they go unlearned as a generalizable pattern. When the distribution of irregular alternations is overshadowed in the lexicon, a morphologically unnatural pattern may cease to maintain its status as part of the grammar.

Keywords: morphome; Romance languages; inflectional identity; diagonal syncretism; subjunctive; experimental linguistics

References

  • Albright, Adam. 2003. A quantitative study of Spanish paradigm gaps. In Proceedings of WCCFL 25, 1–14.Google Scholar

  • Anderson, Stephen. 1981. Why phonology isn’t ‘natural’. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 493–539.Google Scholar

  • Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. Harald. 2001. Word frequency distributions, vol. 18. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Bachrach, Asaf. & Andrew Nevins. 2008. Introduction: Approaching inflectional identity. In Asaf Bachrach and Andrew Nevins (eds.), Inflectional identity, 1–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68. 255–278.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Barto, Kamil. 2014. Mumin: Multi-model inference. R package version 1.10.0. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn. Accessed 16 February 2015.

  • Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steven Walker. 2014. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and s4. R package version 1.0-6. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4. Accessed 16 February 2015.

  • Becker, Michael, Nihan Ketrez & Andrew Nevins. 2011. The surfeit of the stimulus: Analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish laryngeal alternations. Language 87(1). 84–125.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Becker, Michael & Jonathan Levine. 2010. Experigen – An online experiment platform. https://github.com/tlozoot/experigen. Accessed 16 February 2015.

  • Berent, Iris, Tracy Lennertz, Paul Smolensky & Vered Vaknin-Nusbaum. 2012. Listeners’ knowledge of phonological universals: Evidence from nasal clusters. Phonology 26. 1550–1562.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Blevins, James P. 2010. The morphome as a unit of predictive value. Paper presented at the 14th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest.Google Scholar

  • Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2004. Universals in comparative morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Bourne, Lyle E. 1970. Knowing and using concepts. Psychological Review 77. 546–556.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cristia, Alejandrina, Jeff Mielke, Robert Daland & Sharon Peperkamp. 2013. Constrained generalization of implicitly learned sound patterns. Journal of Laboratory Phonology 4. 259–285.Google Scholar

  • Davies, Mark & Michael Ferreira. 2006. Corpus do português: 45 million words, 1300s–1900s. 2006. http://www.corpusdoportugues.org. Accessed 16 February 2015.

  • Dressler, Wolfgang, Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolfgang Wurzel. 1987. Leitmotifs in natural morphology. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Feldman, Jacob. 2000. Minimization of Boolean complexity in human concept learning. Nature 407. 630–633.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Finley, Sara. 2012. Typological asymmetries in round vowel harmony: Support from artificial grammar learning. Language and Cognitive Processes 27. 1550–1562.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Graf, Thomas. 2012. An algebraic perspective on the person case constraint. In UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 17, 85–90.Google Scholar

  • Hale, Mark. & Charles Reiss. 2008. The phonological enterprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Halle, Morris. & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Hayes, Bruce, Donca Steriade & Robert Kirchner. 2003. Phonetically-Based Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Heinz, Jeffrey. 2010. Learning long-distance phonotactics. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 623–661.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Jaeger, T. Florian. 2010. Random effect: Should I stay or should I go? http://hlplab.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/random-effect-structure/. Accessed 16 February 2015.

  • Johnson, Paul C. D. 2014. Extension of Nakagawa & Schielzeth’s R2GLMM to random slopes models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5: 944–946. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12225.

  • Kenstowicz, Michael. 1997. Base-identity and uniform exponence: Alternatives to cyclicity. In Jacques Durand & Bernard Laks (eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, 363–394. University of Salford.Google Scholar

  • Killick, Rebecca. & Idris A. Eckley. 2011. Changepoint: An R package for changepoint analysis. Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar

  • Lin, Yuri, Jean-Baptiste Michel, Erez Lieberman Aiden, Jon Orwant, Will Brockman & Slav Petrov. 2012. Syntactic annotations for the Google books Ngram corpus. In Proceedings of the ACL 2012 System Demonstrations, 169–174. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Maiden, Martin. 2005. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 137–175.Google Scholar

  • Maiden, Martin & Paul O’Neill. 2010. On morphomic defectiveness: evidence from the Romance languages of the Iberian Peninsula. In Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett, and Dunstan Brown (eds.), Defective Paradigms: Missing forms and what they tell us, 103–124. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Matthews, P. H. 1991. Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • McCarthy, John. 2005. Optimal paradigms. In Laura Downing, Tracy Alan Hall, and Renate Raffelsiefen (eds.), Paradigms in phonological theory, 170–210. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Moreton, Elliott. 2008. Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology 25. 83–127.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Nakagawa, Shinichi & Holger Schielzeth. 2013. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4.133–142.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 273–313.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Nevins, Andrew, Gean Damulakis & Maria Luisa Freitas. 2014. Phonological regularities among defective verbs. Cadernos De Estudos Lingüísticos 56(1). 11–21.Google Scholar

  • Nevins, Andrew & Cilene Rodrigues. 2012. Naturalness biases, ‘morphomes’, and the Romance first person singular. In Paper presented at Univ. Coimbra, Newcastle University, University of York, and Univ. Paris VII. Handout available online: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001469. Accessed: 16 February 2015.

  • Onelli, Corinna, Domenico Proietti, Corrado Seidenari & Fabio Tamburini. 2006. The DiaCORIS project: A diachronic corpus of written Italian. In Proceedings of LREC-2006, The Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 1212–1215.Google Scholar

  • Page, E. S. 1954. Continuous inspection schemes. Biometrika 41. 100–115.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Paiva, Maria da Conceição & Maria Eugênia Lamoglia Duarte. 2013. Mudança lingüstica: observações no tempo real. In M. C. Mollica and M. L. Braga (eds.), Introdução à sociolingustica: o tratamento da variação, 4th ed., 179–190. São Paulo: Contexto.Google Scholar

  • Pertsova, Katya. 2010. Learning biases in the acquisition of Russian genitive plural allomorphy. Ms., Univ. North Carolina.Google Scholar

  • Pertsova, Katya. 2011. Grounding systematic syncretism in learning. Linguistic Inquiry 42.225–266.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Prasada, Sandeep & Steven Pinker. 1993. Generalization of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 8. 1–56.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • R Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 16 February 2015.

  • R-sig-ME mailing list. n.d. https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-mixed-models/2014q2/021993.html (accessed 16 February 2015).

  • Sánchez-Martnez, Felipe, Isabel Martínez-Sempere, Xavier Ivars-Ribes & Rafael C. Carrasco. 2013. An open diachronic corpus of historical Spanish. Language Resources and Evaluation 47. 1327–1342. .CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Steriade, Donca. 2008. A pseudo-cyclic effect in Romanian morphophonology. In Asaf Bachrach and Andrew Nevins (eds.), Inflectional identity, 313–359. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Stump, Gregory. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Tang, Kevin & Andrew Nevins. 2013. Quantifying the diachronic productivity of irregular verbal patterns in Romance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 25. 289–308.Google Scholar

  • Tucker, Emily. 2000. Multiple allomorphs in the formation of the Italian agentive. Master’s thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar

  • Wilson, Colin. 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30. 945–982.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Yang, C. 2005. On productivity. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5. 265–302.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zampieri, Marcos & Martin Becker. 2013. Colonia: Corpus of historical Portuguese. In Marcos Zampieri and Sascha Diwersy (eds.), Special volume on non-standard data sources in corpus-based research. Volume 5 of ZSM Studien, 77–84. Köln: Shaker.Google Scholar

  • Zhang, Jie, Yuwen Lai & Craig Turnbull-Sailor. 2006. Wug-testing the “Tone Circle” in Taiwanese. In Proceedings of WCCFL 25, 453–461.Google Scholar

  • Zimmer, Karl. 1969. Psychological correlates of some Turkish morpheme structure conditions. Language 45(2). 309–321.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-03-18

Published in Print: 2015-05-01


Citation Information: Probus, ISSN (Online) 1613-4079, ISSN (Print) 0921-4771, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2015-0002.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Louise Esher
Revue Romane, 2016, Volume 51, Number 2, Page 271
[2]
Sebastian Bank
Morphology, 2017, Volume 27, Number 1, Page 1
[3]
Louise Esher
Diachronica, 2016, Volume 32, Number 4, Page 494

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in