We shall map out the range of data to be considered. We include problems familiar from the widely cited languages, but we shall also considerably extend the scope of the discussion and of the languages investigated. We first look at the patterns of syncretism and their implications (Chapter 2: §2.1), and then examine the domains which allow us to compare paradigms (Chapter 2: §2.2). This permits us to begin considering the types of analysis available (to be discussed fully in Chapter 4). In Chapter 2: §2.3 the important issue of directionality is raised. Then we consider the ‘extreme’ interpretations in Chapter 2: §2.4, namely neutralization and uninflectedness. These prove to describe the easy instances: the more challenging ones lie in between and form the subject of the remaining chapters.

Syncretic paradigms

Types

As we have characterized it, syncretism involves the identity of cells within an assumed morphosyntactic paradigm. Graphically, we shall represent this by generating a complete inflectional paradigm, and enclosing the identical forms within a box. Before considering what morphosyntactic values may form the parameters, let us outline a brief typology of the ways paradigmatic cells may be united. These are illustrated below with examples of case syncretism. The different types will turn out to have important consequences for the representation of feature structure.

In the simplest pattern, which we call simple syncretism, two or more cells with different values for a feature are merged.