Features

Corbett, Greville G.

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139206983

Cited by 63 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 145 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, the stem-affix distinction may be obvious, and where possible I take examples where this is the case. In some instances the division is highly problematic in terms of segmentation or of the distribution of lexical and grammatical information over stem and affix (see Corbett 2012 andSpencer 2012 for discussion).…”

Section: 1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits

Corbett¹

2015

lan

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A key notion in understanding language is 'possible word (lexeme)'. While there are lexemes that are internally homogeneous and externally consistent, we find others with splits in their internal structure (morphological paradigm) and inconsistencies in their external behavior (syntactic requirements). I first explore the characteristics of the most straightforward lexemes, in order to establish a point in the theoretical space from which we can calibrate the real examples we find. I then schematize the interesting phenomena that deviate from this idealization, including suppletion, syncretism, deponency, and defectiveness. Next I analyze the different ways in which lexemes are 'split' by such phenomena. I set out a typology of possible splits, along four dimensions: splits that are (i) based on the composition/feature signature of the paradigm versus those based solely on morphological form; (ii) motivated (following a boundary motivated from outside the paradigm) versus purely morphology-internal ('morphomic'); (iii) regular (extending across the lexicon) versus irregular (lexically specified); (iv) externally relevant versus irrelevant: we expect splits to be internal to the lexeme, but some have external relevance (they require different syntactic behaviors).I identify instances of these four dimensions separately: they are orthogonal, and therefore not dependent on each other. Their interaction gives a substantial typology, and it proves to be surprisingly complete: the possibilities specified are all attested. The typology also allows for the unexpected patterns of behavior to overlap in particular lexemes, producing some remarkable examples. Such examples show that the notion 'possible word' is more challenging than many linguists have realized.*

show abstract

Section: 1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits

Corbett¹

2015

lan

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Norwegian, for example, seems to exhibit co-variance that reflects contextually-dependent definiteness. However, Corbett (2012) points out that in Norwegian examples such as (5), there is a mismatch in the marking on the determiner and the noun. This missing co-variance between a controller and target leads to a lack of consensus in the literature whether this is an agreement system or not.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Indicating verbs as typologically unique constructions: Reconsidering verb ‘agreement’ in sign languages

Schembri

Cormier

Fenlon³

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we present arguments for an analysis of indicating verbs, building on Liddell (2000), as a typologically unique, unimodal fusion of signs and pointing gestures used for reference tracking. This contrasts with many formalist analyses that assume that directionality in indicating verbs constitutes an agreement marking system. While exploring some of the debate in the literature about these forms, we propose a model of indicating verbs within a Construction Grammar framework that compares them to multimodal constructions in spoken languages. We explain how our model of indicating verbs appear to align with a growing body of research on co-speech gesture and is supported by some recent findings about these verbs from corpus-based studies of sign languages.

show abstract

“…Another instance, also involving nominal number, is the odd case inflection of nouns modified by numerals 2 to 4 in Russian. Traditionally interpreted as a genitive singular, Corbett (2012) prefers to treat this inflection as the 'adnumerative case'. The adnumerative, shown in (53a), contrasts with the use of the genitive plural with numerals 5 and above, as in (53b).…”

Section: Discussion: the Evolution Of The Number In Otomimentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of number in Otomi

Palancar

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Otomi (Oto-Pamean, Oto-Manguean) is a small group of languages spoken in Mexico which has emerged as a linguistic family in recent times. In this paper, I study relevant changes in the number system of the Otomi languages. These changes constitute an interesting object of study to gain a better understanding of two main phenomena: aspects of language change involving the loss of dual number, and the constraints on number agreement restricted to conjoining structures. I show that changes in the number system in the Otomi family have different outcomes depending on the dialectal area. Such outcomes include the loss of dual morphology through a semantic rearrangement where the old dual forms have become exponents of either paucal or plural number. In some of the varieties, the old dual is still preserved, but it is relegated to male speech as a token of partnership and camaraderie.

show abstract

Features

Cited by 63 publications

References 145 publications

Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits

Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits

Indicating verbs as typologically unique constructions: Reconsidering verb ‘agreement’ in sign languages

The evolution of number in Otomi

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About