[lo kaze aj-aj-aj]: haplology in Modern Hebrew plural marking

Transcription

1 ISMo, Lille, décembre 2017 [lo kaze aj-aj-aj]: haplology in Modern Hebrew plural marking Noam Faust Université Paris 8, CNRS SFL

2 [lo kaze aj-aj-aj] not such/so ajajaj 1) «Not so good» 2) «Not such a sequence of [aj] s!!»

3 Nominal Inflection «Ideal», one-to-one relation gender = exponent; number = exponent

4 Modern Hebrew: less ideal

5 Modern Hebrew: less ideal 1) Not the same plural for M and F

6 Modern Hebrew: less ideal 1) Not the same plural for M and F 2) Different Free State and Construct State plurals for M, but not for F

7 Modern Hebrew: less ideal 1) Not the same plural for M and F 2) Different Free State and Construct State plurals for M, but not for F This will be formalized in this talk

8 Modern Hebrew: Two unnoticed asymmetries First asymmetry: Only in feminine nouns, plural is marked twice on possessed nouns, on both possessed and possessor *[sus-at-ej-xem], *[sus-ot-xem]

9 Modern Hebrew: Two unnoticed asymmetries Second asymmetry: new dual formation with -a im selects singular base of masculine nous, plural of feminine nouns (paradigm of horse ) *[sus-at-a im]

10 Modern Hebrew: Two unnoticed asymmetries Second asymmetry: new dual formation with -a im selects singular base of masculine nous, plural of feminine nouns (paradigm of horse ) *[sus-at-a im] The two asymmetries will be accounted for in this talk

11 Basic issues [gen] /at/ (Bat El 1989)

12 Basic issues [plural] /im/ / ] PhonW [plural] /ej/

13 Basic issues [plural] /im/ / ] PhonW [plural] /ej/ This rule will also be useful for sus-ej-xem your(pl) horses.

14 Basic issues [plural, gen] /ot/

15 Basic issues [plural, gen] /ot/ [plural] /im/ / ] PhonW [plural] /ej/ [gen] /at/ Portmanteau, will take precedence over more specific rules. In the sense of Svenonius (2016)

16 To illustrate HORSE+gen+pl] Pw => sus-ot, *sus-at-im HORSE+gen+pl+WOOD] Pw => sus-ot eʦ, *sus-at-ej eʦ [plural, gen] /ot/ [plural] /im/ / ] PhonW [plural] /ej/ [gen] /at/

17 To illustrate HORSE+gen+pl] Pw => sus-ot, *sus-at-im HORSE+gen+pl+WOOD] Pw => sus-ot eʦ, *sus-at-ej [plural, gen] /ot/ [plural] /im/ / ] PhonW [plural] /ej/ [gen] /at/ The first task formalizing the basic facts is accomplished.

18 Back to the unnoticed asymmetries First asymmetry: Only in feminine nouns, plural is marked twice on possessed nouns, on both possessed and possessor *[sus-at-ej-xem], *[sus-ot-xem]

19 Possessive marking

20 Possessive marking

21 Back to the unnoticed asymmetries One has the urge to analyze -ej- identically for both CS nouns with plural heads and possessed plurals: sus-ej eʦ wooden horses sus-ej xem your(pl) horses The key is to overcome this urge and go for sus-ej eʦ wooden horses sus-ø ej-xem your(pl) horses

22 Back to the unnoticed asymmetries One has the urge to analyze -ej- identically for both CS nouns with plural heads and possessed plurals: sus-ej eʦ wooden horses sus-ej xem your(pl) horses The key is to overcome this urge and go for sus-ej eʦ wooden horses sus-ø ej-xem your(pl) horses -ej- in -ej-xem is part of the suffix, not the base.

23 Possessive marking The key is to overcome this urge and go for sus-ej eʦ wooden horses sus-ø ej-xem your(pl) horses -ej- is -ej-xem is part of the suffix, not the base.

24 Possessive marking If -ej- is not the realization of the plural feature on the base, the double marking of the feminine sus-ot-ej-xem is unsurprising: both the feature on the base and the feature of the suffix are realized: HORSE+gen+pl pl+poss.2mpl sus ot ej xem This is agreement between the possessed and the possessor

25 Possessive marking in Nuer For possessive markers to show agreement in number is not so strange. Here is an example from Nuer (my own field work)

26 Possessive marking But the question is now turned on its head: why does the masculine not show overt marking on the possessed?? HORSE+gen+pl pl+poss.2mpl sus ot ej xem HORSE+pl pl+poss.2mpl sus ø ej xem

27 Possessive marking Because if it did, we d predict HORSE+pl pl+poss.2mpl sus ej ej xem (recall [plural] /ej/)

28 Haplology in Possessive marking Because if it did, we d predict HORSE+pl pl+poss.2mpl sus ej ej xem (recall [plural] /ej/)

29 [lo kaze aj-aj-aj] not such/so ajajaj 1) «Not so good» 2) «Not such a sequence of [aj] s!!»

30 [lo kaze aj-aj-aj] not such/so ajajaj 1) «Not so good» 2) «Not such a sequence of [ej] s!!»

31 Haplology Morphological Obligatory Contour Principle: avoid adjacent similar markers (Survey in Nevins 2012). vs. bus s [bʌs-ɪz] parents [pærənt-s], *[pærənt-s-ɪz]. Haplology: a common repair to this problem, the omission of one of the two similar exponents. /sus-ej-ej-xem/ => /sus-ej-ej-xem/

32 Haplology Morphological Obligatory Contour Principle: avoid adjacent similar markers (Survey in Nevins 2012). Corroborating bus s this, [bʌs-ɪz] Bat EL (2009): words ending in the suffix sequence vs. parents -ij-ut, [pærənt-s], such as medin-ij-ut *[pærənt-s-ɪz]. policy, are expected to be pluralized as?? medin-ij-uj-ot. However, speakers prefer to find other ways to pluralize such Haplology: a common repair to this problem, namely words. haplology, the omission of one of the two similar exponents. /sus-ej-ej-xem/ => /sus-ej-ej-xem/

33 OK, but why For all this to work, the possessive suffix has to agree with the base. But why would it? Goldenberg (1995): possessive inflection in Semitic involves co-indexation sus-i my horse = sus i -X i -i, (X = a silent pronoun) = horse+(one) of me

34 OK, but why I try to adapt this for Distributed Morphology:

35 To second unnoticed asymmetry Second asymmetry: new dual formation with a im selects singular base of masculine nous, plural of feminine nouns (paradigm of horse ) *[sus-at-a im]

36 New duals Second asymmetry: new dual formation with a im selects singular base of masculine nous, plural of feminine nouns (paradigm of horse ) *[sus-at-a im] Ritter (1995): Working on old duals, proposes (for the compositional among them) that [a im] = /aj dual +im pl /. The decompotion is adopted here.

37 New Duals If /aj/ is there, then the asymmetry above can also be understood if the base for the dual is in fact always plural. HORSE+gen+pl dual+pl sus ot aj im HORSE+pl dual+pl sus ej aj im

38 New Duals If /aj/ is there, then the asymmetry above can also be understood if the base for the dual is in fact always plural. HORSE+gen+pl dual+pl sus ot aj im HORSE+pl dual+pl sus ej aj im Morphological OCP violation!

39 New Duals The question then becomes: why does the dual select for a plural base? HORSE+gen+pl dual+pl sus ot aj im HORSE+pl dual+pl sus ej aj im Morphological OCP violation!

40 New duals Two other important facts about duals 1) there is never dual agreement, and 2) the gender of the base is kept. /ot

41 New duals Two other important facts about duals 1) there is never dual agreement, and 2) the gender of the base is kept. A suffix that does not determine gender is not likely to be the head of its structure. /ot

42 New duals-proposal The suffix /-aj/ is a pluralia tantum modifier noun: e.g. sus head -ej eʦ mod horse wood wooden horses sus head -ej aj mod -im horse couple a couple of horses joʔaʦ head -ej nisuʔ mod -im counselor marriage marriage counselor

43 New duals-proposal The suffix /-aj/ is a pluralia tantum modifier noun: e.g. sus head -ej eʦ mod horse-pl wood wooden horses sus head -ej aj mod -im horse-pl couple a couple of horses joʔaʦ head -ej nisuʔ mod -im counselor-pl marriage marriage counselors

44 New duals-proposal This explains why -a j-im never affects the gender of the noun. It is simply not the head. Modifiers never trigger agreement. The suffix /-aj/ is a pluralia tantum modifying noun: e.g. sus head -ej eʦ mod horse-pl wood wooden horses sus head -ej aj mod -im horse-pl couple a couple of horses joʔaʦ head -ej nisuʔ mod -im counselor-pl marriage marriage counselors

45 New duals-proposal This explains why -a j-im never affects the gender of the noun. It is simply not the head. Modifiers never trigger agreement. The suffix /-aj/ is a pluralia tantum modifying noun: e.g. sus head -ej eʦ mod horse-pl wood wooden horses sus head -ej aj mod -im horse-pl couple a couple of horses joʔaʦ head -ej nisuʔ mod -im counselor-pl marriage marriage counselors It also explains why there is never dual agreement : dual is simply not a feature of MH, it is a meaning of -aj.

46 New duals-proposal This explains -im. We still haven t answered the question why does the dual select for a plural base? e.g. sus head -ej eʦ mod horse-pl wood wooden horses sus head -ej aj mod -im horse-pl couple a couple of horses joʔaʦ head -ej nisuʔ mod -im counselor-pl marriage marriage counselors

47 New duals-proposal This explains -im. We still haven t answered the question why does the dual select for a plural base? e.g. sus head -ej eʦ mod horse-pl wood wooden horses sus head -ej aj mod -im horse-pl couple a couple of horses joʔaʦ head -ej nisuʔ mod -im counselor-pl marriage marriage counselors

48 New duals-proposal This explains -im. We still haven t answered the question why does the dual select for a plural base? It s a semantic effect! e.g. sus head -ej eʦ mod horse-pl wood wooden horses sus head -ej aj mod -im horse-pl couple * a couple of horse joʔaʦ head -ej nisuʔ mod -im counselor-pl marriage marriage counselors

49 New Duals-proposal The analogy between new duals and N+poss explains 1) lack of dual agreement; 2) transparency for agreement; and 3) asymmetry. HORSE+gen+pl dual+pl sus ot aj im HORSE+pl dual+pl sus ej aj im Morphological OCP violation!

50 New duals-proposal In the terms of Distributed Morphology:

51 Conclusion A first look at Modern Hebrew pluralization patterns reveals several asymmetries - Different Free State exponence for M and F - F nouns: FS=CS, but M FS CS - N+possessive: double exponence only in F. - New duals: double exponence only in F.

52 Conclusion By formalizing the first two asymmetries in terms of realization rules and protmanteaux, I have shown that the second two are epiphenomenal. - Different Free State exponence for M and F - F nouns: FS=CS, but M FS CS - N+possessive: double exponence only in F. - New duals: double exponence only in F.

53 Conclusion In fact, both N+possessive and new dual structures require double exponence regardless of gender, but in M nouns, this leads to an OCP violation and a haplological repair.

54 Conclusion The data may initially give the impression that Morphology can do whatever it wants, like selecting the singular in M and the plural in F. But as we saw, that impression is wrong (in this case).

55 Conclusion The data may initially give the impression that Morphology can do whatever it wants, like selecting the singular in M and the plural in F. But as we saw, that impression is wrong (in this case). THANK YOU!

56