Relativism and Universalism in Linguistics - Fachbereich 10 ...

196 Workshops
(Ir)regular valency alternations in possessive contexts
Ortmann, Albert
Düsseldorf
ortmann@phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de
This paper highlights the different extents of irregularity in valence-changing processes with
nouns. Although valence-changing morphological operations are typologically more common,
and accordingly have previously received more attention, with verbs (e.g., passive, causative,
applicative), they are also found with nouns. Thus, there are languages in which a possessor
of a non-relational noun must be licensed by a morphological operation on the possessee
(‘possessor extension’). Occasionally, we also encounter the converse, i.e., the absence of a
possessor requires a derelative suffix.
In the first part of my talk, I provide an overview of the various morphological strategies of
possessor extension. These comprise regular affixation (as in the case of the Persian ezafe
construction), prosodic and subsegmental manifestation such as vowel lengthening or change
(as in Mam ptz’on ‘sugarcane’ – n-paatz'an=a ‘my sugarcane’; England 1983:44), and various
idiosyncrasies including total suppletion (for example, Tzutujil jaay ‘house’ – woochooj
‘my house’; Dayley 1985:145).
I will then develop the claim that many alternations that at first sight seem to involve high
irregularity are in fact largely determined by general phonological processes of reduction, the
application of which crucially depends on the location of word stress. By presenting case
studies of Mam as well as of Modern Hebrew, I demonstrate how such processes may conspire
to yield weak suppletive forms which in spite of their shortness still exhibit a high
degree of transparency.
References
Dayley, Jon P. (1985) Tzutujil Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
England, Nora C. (1983) A grammar of Mam, a Mayan language. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
On defining irregular and extragrammatic
in inflection and word formation
Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke
Eichstädt
elke.ronneberger@ku-eichstaett.de
As an introduction to our workshop, I will attempt to clarify the differences and interrelations
between synchronically regular, irregular, and extragrammatical morphological operations. My
aim is an overall picture, in which every topic addressed in the workshop will find its place.
This picture is based on the fundamental difference between inflection and word formation,
for this distinction is crucial for the respective possibilities of retaining irregular forms having
arisen by linguistic change in linguistic paradigms, and hence indirectly for extragrammatical
morphological operations. In inflection, the strictly defined grammatical meanings of the
forms combined in a paradigm guarantee their synchronic cohesion, even if they are very
irregular. E.g., strongly irregular G. (ich) darf '(I) may' and (ich) durfte '(I) might, was
allowed to' are considered by language users as forms of the same paradigm, because their
semantic relation is exactly the same as between regular (ich) kaufe '(I) buy' and (Ich) kaufte
'(I) bought'. Contrary to this, the semantic cohesion between lexemes related to each other by
word formation can be easily disrupted, when they become synchronically irregular, resulting