Papers by Michael Everdell
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Language Dynamics and Change (forthcoming)
Previous researchers have noted that verbal suppletion for ergative number agreement (i.e. agreem... more Previous researchers have noted that verbal suppletion for ergative number agreement (i.e. agreement with the subjects of intransitives and the objects of transitives) is widespread throughout the Uto-Aztecan family, but none have systematically surveyed attested forms of suppletion nor posited proposals for reconstructions of suppletive morphs back to Proto-Uto-Aztecan. We redress this lacuna and argue for specific PUA reconstructions for two verbal domains: DIE and KILL. PUA had three distinct suppletive verb stems for these functions: *muku DIE.SG, *ko(i) DIE.PL, and *mɨɁa KILL.SG. PUA KILL.PL was derived by suffixing causative *-ya to the plural stem for DIE, thus *ko-ya. Other semantic functions are widespread enough to be reconstructable, but variation in attested morphs makes reconstructing forms difficult because of a lexical replacement process endemic to cases of strong suppletion: incursion (Juge 2000). We also find limited but suggestive evidence for possible areal contact effects involving diffusion of verbal suppletion patterns.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Handouts and Slides by Michael Everdell
University of Ottawa colloquium
Note this is a follow up presentation on "Towards a distributional typology of constituency" that... more Note this is a follow up presentation on "Towards a distributional typology of constituency" that has a number of co-authors.
Are there two constituency representations?
Since the 1970s, a general distinction between morphosyntactic and phonological words became a common assumption in linguistic theory (Dixon and Aikhenvald 2002, inter alia). The distinction is now assumed in much descriptive work as well (Epps 2008; Guillaume 2008; Miyaoka 2012, inter alia). The general idea that there are distinct phonological and morphosyntactic words was extended to constituency in general in generative approaches (see Elordieta 2008; Scheer 2011 for historical overviews). The distinction between morphosyntactic and phonological constituency purports to account for mismatches between morphosyntactic domains defined by syntagmatic properties and/or constituency tests and phonological domains which define the span of the application of morphophonological rules.
This talk argues that the basic idea that there are two clearly distinct constituency representations is up for revision in light of recent critiques of the notion of wordhood (Haspelmath 2011; Bickel & Zuñiga 2017; Bickel, Hildebrandt, Schiering 2009; Schiering, Bickel, Hildebrandt 2010; Dryer 2017). First I present the results of constituency tests on 9 languages of the Americas that show that the morphosyntactic word cannot be motivated without phonological evidence (see Tallman et al. 2017). In general, convergences in the span of morphosyntactic positions identified by constituency tests only motivate robust word-like constituents when morphophonological evidence is included. Based on these data, I also show that mismatches between morphophonological domains and between morphosyntactic domains are nearly as common as mismatches across these domains. I suggest that this undermines the empirical base of dual constituency; the data are too sparse to clearly support two structures.
In contrast to Haspelmath (2011) and Bickel and Zuñiga (2017) I suggest that word constituents can be motivated in some languages based on non-spurious convergences between morphosyntactic and phonological criteria. The distinction between morphosyntactic and phonological words is currently empirically unmotivated, however. Finally approaches that assume rich phonological and morphosyntactic constituency in all languages are either empirically unmotivated or unfalsifiable.
References
Bickel, Balthasar, and Fernando Zuñiga. 2017. "The 'word' in polysynthetic languages: phonological and syntactic challenges." In The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis, edited by Michael Fortascue, Marianne Mithun and Nichols Evans, 158-186. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bickel, Balthasar, Kristine A. Hildebrandt, and René Schiering. 2009. "The distribution of phonological word domains: A probabilistic typology." In Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations, edited by Janet Grijzenhout and Kabak Baris, 47-75. De Gruyter Mouton.
Dixon, R.M.W, and Alexandra Y Aikhenvald. 2002. "Word: a typological framework." In Word: A cross-linguistic typology, edited by R.M.W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 1-34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dryer, Matthew. 2017. The myth of grammatical (morphosyntactic) words. ms.
Elordieta, Gorka. 2011. "An overview of theories of the syntax-phonology interface." Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 42: 209-286.
Epps, Patience. 2008. A Grammar of Hup. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Guillaume, Antoine. 2008. A Grammar of Cavineña. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. "The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax." Folia Linguistica (Mouton de Gruyter - Societas Linguistica Europaea) 45 (1): 31-80.
Miyaoka, Osahito. 2012. A Grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik (CAY). Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
Scheer, Tobias. 2011. A Guide to Morphosyntax-Phonology Interface Theories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schiering, René, Balthsar Bickel, and Kristine A. Hildebrandt. 2010. "The prosodic word is not unviersal, but emergent." Journal of Linguistics 46 (03): 657-709.
Tallman, Adam J.R., Dennis Wylie, Eric Adell, Natalia Bermudez, Gladys Camacho, Patience Epps, Michael Everdell, Ambrocio Gutierrez, Cristian Juarez, and Anthony C. Woodbury. 2018. "Constituency and the morphology-syntax divide in the languages of the Americas: towards a distributional typology." 21st Annual Workshop on American Indigenous Languages. University of California Santa Barbara.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Michael Everdell
Handouts and Slides by Michael Everdell
Are there two constituency representations?
Since the 1970s, a general distinction between morphosyntactic and phonological words became a common assumption in linguistic theory (Dixon and Aikhenvald 2002, inter alia). The distinction is now assumed in much descriptive work as well (Epps 2008; Guillaume 2008; Miyaoka 2012, inter alia). The general idea that there are distinct phonological and morphosyntactic words was extended to constituency in general in generative approaches (see Elordieta 2008; Scheer 2011 for historical overviews). The distinction between morphosyntactic and phonological constituency purports to account for mismatches between morphosyntactic domains defined by syntagmatic properties and/or constituency tests and phonological domains which define the span of the application of morphophonological rules.
This talk argues that the basic idea that there are two clearly distinct constituency representations is up for revision in light of recent critiques of the notion of wordhood (Haspelmath 2011; Bickel & Zuñiga 2017; Bickel, Hildebrandt, Schiering 2009; Schiering, Bickel, Hildebrandt 2010; Dryer 2017). First I present the results of constituency tests on 9 languages of the Americas that show that the morphosyntactic word cannot be motivated without phonological evidence (see Tallman et al. 2017). In general, convergences in the span of morphosyntactic positions identified by constituency tests only motivate robust word-like constituents when morphophonological evidence is included. Based on these data, I also show that mismatches between morphophonological domains and between morphosyntactic domains are nearly as common as mismatches across these domains. I suggest that this undermines the empirical base of dual constituency; the data are too sparse to clearly support two structures.
In contrast to Haspelmath (2011) and Bickel and Zuñiga (2017) I suggest that word constituents can be motivated in some languages based on non-spurious convergences between morphosyntactic and phonological criteria. The distinction between morphosyntactic and phonological words is currently empirically unmotivated, however. Finally approaches that assume rich phonological and morphosyntactic constituency in all languages are either empirically unmotivated or unfalsifiable.
References
Bickel, Balthasar, and Fernando Zuñiga. 2017. "The 'word' in polysynthetic languages: phonological and syntactic challenges." In The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis, edited by Michael Fortascue, Marianne Mithun and Nichols Evans, 158-186. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bickel, Balthasar, Kristine A. Hildebrandt, and René Schiering. 2009. "The distribution of phonological word domains: A probabilistic typology." In Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations, edited by Janet Grijzenhout and Kabak Baris, 47-75. De Gruyter Mouton.
Dixon, R.M.W, and Alexandra Y Aikhenvald. 2002. "Word: a typological framework." In Word: A cross-linguistic typology, edited by R.M.W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 1-34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dryer, Matthew. 2017. The myth of grammatical (morphosyntactic) words. ms.
Elordieta, Gorka. 2011. "An overview of theories of the syntax-phonology interface." Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 42: 209-286.
Epps, Patience. 2008. A Grammar of Hup. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Guillaume, Antoine. 2008. A Grammar of Cavineña. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. "The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax." Folia Linguistica (Mouton de Gruyter - Societas Linguistica Europaea) 45 (1): 31-80.
Miyaoka, Osahito. 2012. A Grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik (CAY). Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
Scheer, Tobias. 2011. A Guide to Morphosyntax-Phonology Interface Theories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schiering, René, Balthsar Bickel, and Kristine A. Hildebrandt. 2010. "The prosodic word is not unviersal, but emergent." Journal of Linguistics 46 (03): 657-709.
Tallman, Adam J.R., Dennis Wylie, Eric Adell, Natalia Bermudez, Gladys Camacho, Patience Epps, Michael Everdell, Ambrocio Gutierrez, Cristian Juarez, and Anthony C. Woodbury. 2018. "Constituency and the morphology-syntax divide in the languages of the Americas: towards a distributional typology." 21st Annual Workshop on American Indigenous Languages. University of California Santa Barbara.
Are there two constituency representations?
Since the 1970s, a general distinction between morphosyntactic and phonological words became a common assumption in linguistic theory (Dixon and Aikhenvald 2002, inter alia). The distinction is now assumed in much descriptive work as well (Epps 2008; Guillaume 2008; Miyaoka 2012, inter alia). The general idea that there are distinct phonological and morphosyntactic words was extended to constituency in general in generative approaches (see Elordieta 2008; Scheer 2011 for historical overviews). The distinction between morphosyntactic and phonological constituency purports to account for mismatches between morphosyntactic domains defined by syntagmatic properties and/or constituency tests and phonological domains which define the span of the application of morphophonological rules.
This talk argues that the basic idea that there are two clearly distinct constituency representations is up for revision in light of recent critiques of the notion of wordhood (Haspelmath 2011; Bickel & Zuñiga 2017; Bickel, Hildebrandt, Schiering 2009; Schiering, Bickel, Hildebrandt 2010; Dryer 2017). First I present the results of constituency tests on 9 languages of the Americas that show that the morphosyntactic word cannot be motivated without phonological evidence (see Tallman et al. 2017). In general, convergences in the span of morphosyntactic positions identified by constituency tests only motivate robust word-like constituents when morphophonological evidence is included. Based on these data, I also show that mismatches between morphophonological domains and between morphosyntactic domains are nearly as common as mismatches across these domains. I suggest that this undermines the empirical base of dual constituency; the data are too sparse to clearly support two structures.
In contrast to Haspelmath (2011) and Bickel and Zuñiga (2017) I suggest that word constituents can be motivated in some languages based on non-spurious convergences between morphosyntactic and phonological criteria. The distinction between morphosyntactic and phonological words is currently empirically unmotivated, however. Finally approaches that assume rich phonological and morphosyntactic constituency in all languages are either empirically unmotivated or unfalsifiable.
References
Bickel, Balthasar, and Fernando Zuñiga. 2017. "The 'word' in polysynthetic languages: phonological and syntactic challenges." In The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis, edited by Michael Fortascue, Marianne Mithun and Nichols Evans, 158-186. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bickel, Balthasar, Kristine A. Hildebrandt, and René Schiering. 2009. "The distribution of phonological word domains: A probabilistic typology." In Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations, edited by Janet Grijzenhout and Kabak Baris, 47-75. De Gruyter Mouton.
Dixon, R.M.W, and Alexandra Y Aikhenvald. 2002. "Word: a typological framework." In Word: A cross-linguistic typology, edited by R.M.W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 1-34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dryer, Matthew. 2017. The myth of grammatical (morphosyntactic) words. ms.
Elordieta, Gorka. 2011. "An overview of theories of the syntax-phonology interface." Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 42: 209-286.
Epps, Patience. 2008. A Grammar of Hup. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Guillaume, Antoine. 2008. A Grammar of Cavineña. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. "The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax." Folia Linguistica (Mouton de Gruyter - Societas Linguistica Europaea) 45 (1): 31-80.
Miyaoka, Osahito. 2012. A Grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik (CAY). Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
Scheer, Tobias. 2011. A Guide to Morphosyntax-Phonology Interface Theories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schiering, René, Balthsar Bickel, and Kristine A. Hildebrandt. 2010. "The prosodic word is not unviersal, but emergent." Journal of Linguistics 46 (03): 657-709.
Tallman, Adam J.R., Dennis Wylie, Eric Adell, Natalia Bermudez, Gladys Camacho, Patience Epps, Michael Everdell, Ambrocio Gutierrez, Cristian Juarez, and Anthony C. Woodbury. 2018. "Constituency and the morphology-syntax divide in the languages of the Americas: towards a distributional typology." 21st Annual Workshop on American Indigenous Languages. University of California Santa Barbara.