Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:45:29.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Suppletion and morpheme order: Are words special?1

Review products

BobaljikJonathan David, Universals in comparative morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words (Current Studies in Linguistics 50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012. Pp. xiii + 332.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2017

PAVEL CAHA
PAVEL CAHA*
Affiliation:
Masarykova univerzita Brno
*
Author’s address: The Department of the Czech Language, Masarykova univerzita Brno, Arna Nováka 1, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reviews some of the main theoretical claims made in Jonathan David Bobaljik’s 2012 book, which deals with root suppletion in adjectival degree expressions. My first goal is to make the reader familiar with a coherent fragment of the overall system and the data that motivate it. The second goal is to discuss one specific part of the account, namely that words, understood as complex heads, are special for suppletion in the sense that suppletion is impossible beyond this domain. I argue that it is possible to abandon this assumption with no loss of descriptive coverage, and argue that in doing so, we can formulate a unified theory which covers both suppletion and morpheme order.

Keywords

*ABAdegree morphologymorpheme ordersuppletionwords
Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , 10 November 2017 , pp. 865 - 896
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

I am grateful to three anonymous JL referees for their comments. They helped me in removing a lot of errors, typos and imprecisions of the original version. The research reported on in this paper was supported by funding from GAČR (The Czech Science Foundation), project GA17-10144S, awarded to Pavel Caha. Parts of the research were also supported by GA14-04215S, awarded to Markéta Ziková. The article appears with support received from the Faculty of Arts at Masarykova Univerzita (ROZV/20/FF/CAH/2015).

References

Abels, Klaus & Muriungi, Peter. 2008. The focus marker in Kiitharaka: Syntax and semantics. Lingua 118.5, 687–731.Google Scholar
Abels, Klaus & Neeleman, Ad. 2012. Linear asymmetries and the LCA. Syntax 15, 25–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, David. 2006. Fracturing the adjective: Evidence from Gaelic comparatives. Ms., Queen Mary, University of London.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baunaz, Lena, De Clercq, Karen, Haegeman, Liliane & Lander, Eric (eds.). To appear. Exploring Nanosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baunaz, Lena & Lander, Eric. To appear. Nanosyntax: The basics. In Baunaz et al. (eds.).Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2011. The parameters of case marking and spell-out driven movement. In van Craenenbroek, Jeroen (ed.), Linguistic variation yearbook 2010, 32–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2017. Explaining Bobaljik’s Root Suppletion Generalization as an instance of the Adjacency Condition (and beyond). In Emonds, Joseph & Janebová, Markéta (eds.), Language use and linguistic structure: Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium 2016, 193–208. Olomouc: Palacký university.Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel. To appear. Some notes on insertion in Distributed Morphology and Nanosyntax. In Baunaz et al. (eds.).Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 315–332.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2009. The fundamental left–right asymmetry of natural languages. In Scalise, Sergio, Magni, Elisabetta & Bisetto, Antonietta (eds.), Universals of language today (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 76), 165–184. Dorderecht: Springer.Google Scholar
De Clercq, Karen & Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 2017. *ABA revisited: Evidence from Czech and Latin degree morphology. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2, 69.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2016. On the targets of phonological realization. In Gribanova, Vera & Shih, Stephanie (eds.), The morphosyntax–phonology connection: Locality and directionality, 255–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gippert, Jost. 2000. The formation of comparatives in the history of Georgian. Part I: The prehistory of the synthetic comparatives. Enatmecnierebis Sak’itxebi 5, 37–45.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of human language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2013. Getting morphemes in order: Merger, affixation, and head movement. In Lai-Shen Cheng, Lisa & Corver, Norbert (eds.), Diagnosing syntax (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics), 44–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic heads and word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 2010. Towards a syntactic reinterpretation of Harris and Halle (2005). In Bok-Bennema, Reineke, Kampers-Manhe, Brigitte & Hollebrandese, Bart (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2008: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’, Groeningen 2008, 145–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In Kiparsky, Paul & Anderson, Steven (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 93–106. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 2005. Korean (and Japanese) morphology from a syntactic perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 601–633.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda & Szabolcsi, Anna. 2000. Verbal complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leu, Thomas. 2009. From Greek to Germanic: Poly-(*in-)definitness and weak/strong adjectival inflection. In Brucart, José M., Gavaró, Anna & Solà, Jaume (eds.), Merging features: Computation, interpretation and acquisition, 293–309. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968. Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without Deep Structure. In Darden, Bill J., Bailey, Charles-James N. & Davidson, Alice (eds.), Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 4), 71–80. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2017. *ABA in stem-allomorphy and the emptiness of the nominative. Ms., ZAS Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medeiros, David Peter. 2012. Economy of command. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Arizona Graduate College.Google Scholar
Moskal, Beata. 2015. A case study in nominal suppletion. Linguistic Inquiry 46, 376–387.Google Scholar
Muriungi, Peter. 2008. Phrasal movement inside Bantu verbs: Deriving affix scope and order in Kîîtharaka. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Szendröi, Kriszta. 2007. Radical pro-drop and the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 671–714.Google Scholar
Radkevich, Nina. 2010. On Location: The structure of case and adpositions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2001. The key to Czech vowel length: Arabic rule in Middle Europe. Handout of a talk at FDSL 4, available at http://www.unice.fr/scheer/fdsl4/hdtScheer.pdf(accessed 31 July 2017).Google Scholar
Siegel, Dorothy. 1978. The Adjacency Constraint and the theory of morphology. In Stein, Mark J. (ed.), Proceedings of the the Eigth Meeting of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS 8), 189–197. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Smith, Peter W., Moskal, Beata, Kang, Jungmin, Xu, Ting & Bobaljik, Jonathan D.. 2015. Case and number suppletion in pronouns. Ms., University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Starke, Michal. 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. In Svenonius, Peter, Ramchand, Gillian, Starke, Michal & Taraldsen, Tarald (eds.), Nanosyntax: Special issue of Nordlyd 36, 1–6. [University of Tromsø].Google Scholar
Steddy, Sam & Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2011. On the ungrammaticality of remnant movement in the derivation of Greenberg’s universal 20. Linguistic Inquiry 42.3, 445–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Thomas. 2015. Review of Jonathan David Bobaljik’s Universals in comparative morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words . Linguistic Analysis 40(1&2), 89–102.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, Tarald. 2010. The nanosyntax of Nguni noun class prefixes and concords. Lingua 120.6, 1522–1548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen. 1999. Morphology consuming syntax’s resources: Generation and parsing in a minimalist version of Distributed Morphology. In Retoré, Christian & Stabler, Edward (eds.), Proceedings of the ESSLI workshop on Resource Logic and Minimalist Grammars, 37–55. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Ultan, Russell. 1972. Some features of basic comparative constructions. Working Papers on Language Universals 9, 117–162.Google Scholar
Weerman, Fred & Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline. 2002. Pronouns and case. Lingua 112, 301–338.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 2007. Dumping lexicalism. In Ramchand, Gillian & Reiss, Charles (eds.), Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 353–382. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar