A problem like morphophonology
(sung to How do you solve a problem like Maria? from The Sound of Music)
It might look like any morpheme but then change the root, you see
It can lenite, subtract, or mutate and the morpheme is not free
It can even copy pieces from the stem too, if need be
It isn't quite a part of the morphology!
It has alternations looking like some well-regarded rules
Were it general we'd analyze with well-respected tools
But once we see it's limited it means we're all just fools
It isn't just a part of the phonology!
But you'd be mistaken if you believed we're outdone.
It's actually... quite some fun.
How do you solve a problem like morphonology?
How do you catch a morph and pin it down?
How do you solve a problem like morphonology?
Can vowel deletion derive a noun?
Many a time you think it's in the lexicon.
Many a morph you might misunderstand
But how do you pin it down, and account for all the sounds
How do get the pointing little hand?
Oh, how do you solve a problem like morphophonology?
How do you hold a morpheme in your hand?
Showing posts with label linguistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label linguistics. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 12, 2020
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
What constitutes sufficient knowledge?
I was inspired by a comment that my colleague Bonnie left on her facebook today. It read (if I may, Bonnie, even though you are not here) "Research = good. Researching the heck out of a topic you feel less competent in however leads to a rather staggering amount of info/papers to winnow down into 2 50 min lesson plans. Sigh...."
There is a general sentiment that she captured here that I've often encountered in doing a google search for research related to my own work. If I find a couple of recent articles that are strongly related to my topic, I can usually navigate to other research by searching through their references. However, when exactly does one know when to stop? If there is an active theoretical debate related to the topic, then you can easily find articles in each camp and talk about the relative merits of each in the introduction to an article that you're writing or for a class you're teaching. If there is no big debate, or if your work does not directly test someone's hypothesis, then it isn't so clear how much background information you need to research.
This is one of the reasons why google searches for articles related to my research always cause me to feel depressed. What constitutes "knowing something" enough to discuss it? For the more esoteric topics that I work on (Oto-Manguean languages, phonation type), the literature is relatively sparse and controlled. I feel like I have a command of it because I've read the major findings. But for a topic that is new, it is difficult to get a sense that you have the right perspective. Having read the 5 out of 7 articles for one topic makes you an informed academic. Having read only 5 out of 100 articles on a different topic makes you seem like an amateur. It's simply more likely that you've missed something important. How do you know when you have enough mojo to actually talk about something authoritatively?
This ends up being only part of the problem that I have when I write about a new topic. The other, perhaps more major, issue is language. If you are deeply embedded in a certain realm of research, it becomes easier to use its associated technical jargon comfortably. When you are just trying to publish in a new area though, the language barrier seems insurmountable. It's not that I don't understand the language that is being used, it's just that my memory doesn't think about things in the argot that is used to describe them. When it comes to a new area of research, I often feel like I am describing it with a 10 word lexicon. "Ba ba ba, um, perceptual integration, der, hum, hum, blech."
About a year ago, I just started, out of the blue, to write up all my notes on Trique morphophonology. The pages just kept flowing and flowing. When I finished, I had a 40 page manuscript which really summed up lots of what I knew about the language. I was proud of myself. It felt easy to write. I probably felt this way because I was academically-raised speaking "linguistics" but my work over the past couple years requires me to speak "psychologist." This still feels like an L2 (second language), like I am an imposter striving to put simple phrases together. This is why writing becomes so difficult for me. I can write a nice intro, but then when I have to describe the literature on a topic, I feel dumb.
If there were a book "How to talk like a cognitive psychologist", I would certainly buy it. Yet, there is just a screen with a half-written article and groups of random pdfs in front of me, laying like a few pieces to a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle whose main image I may never glimpse at. I know that all academic work requires that you have some background. I just wish that there was a better way to translate comprehension into intelligent prose. And with that, a way to know that you know enough to translate in the first place.
There is a general sentiment that she captured here that I've often encountered in doing a google search for research related to my own work. If I find a couple of recent articles that are strongly related to my topic, I can usually navigate to other research by searching through their references. However, when exactly does one know when to stop? If there is an active theoretical debate related to the topic, then you can easily find articles in each camp and talk about the relative merits of each in the introduction to an article that you're writing or for a class you're teaching. If there is no big debate, or if your work does not directly test someone's hypothesis, then it isn't so clear how much background information you need to research.
This is one of the reasons why google searches for articles related to my research always cause me to feel depressed. What constitutes "knowing something" enough to discuss it? For the more esoteric topics that I work on (Oto-Manguean languages, phonation type), the literature is relatively sparse and controlled. I feel like I have a command of it because I've read the major findings. But for a topic that is new, it is difficult to get a sense that you have the right perspective. Having read the 5 out of 7 articles for one topic makes you an informed academic. Having read only 5 out of 100 articles on a different topic makes you seem like an amateur. It's simply more likely that you've missed something important. How do you know when you have enough mojo to actually talk about something authoritatively?
This ends up being only part of the problem that I have when I write about a new topic. The other, perhaps more major, issue is language. If you are deeply embedded in a certain realm of research, it becomes easier to use its associated technical jargon comfortably. When you are just trying to publish in a new area though, the language barrier seems insurmountable. It's not that I don't understand the language that is being used, it's just that my memory doesn't think about things in the argot that is used to describe them. When it comes to a new area of research, I often feel like I am describing it with a 10 word lexicon. "Ba ba ba, um, perceptual integration, der, hum, hum, blech."
About a year ago, I just started, out of the blue, to write up all my notes on Trique morphophonology. The pages just kept flowing and flowing. When I finished, I had a 40 page manuscript which really summed up lots of what I knew about the language. I was proud of myself. It felt easy to write. I probably felt this way because I was academically-raised speaking "linguistics" but my work over the past couple years requires me to speak "psychologist." This still feels like an L2 (second language), like I am an imposter striving to put simple phrases together. This is why writing becomes so difficult for me. I can write a nice intro, but then when I have to describe the literature on a topic, I feel dumb.
If there were a book "How to talk like a cognitive psychologist", I would certainly buy it. Yet, there is just a screen with a half-written article and groups of random pdfs in front of me, laying like a few pieces to a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle whose main image I may never glimpse at. I know that all academic work requires that you have some background. I just wish that there was a better way to translate comprehension into intelligent prose. And with that, a way to know that you know enough to translate in the first place.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Clitics, suffixes, and incorporateability
In much of the literature on Oto-Manguean languages, linguists discuss what are known, across different families, as the "personal enclitics." Yet, the evidence in favor of considering person marking to be clitic-like rather than affixal is always a bit spotty. I've been debating the status of person marking in Itunyoso Trique ever since I started studying it almost 8 years ago. This is the first time I'm making this debate manifest though, at least in writing. (Caveat: Please don't read this like you are peer-reviewing it. I am just putting some ideas down in my blog.)
A typical verb structure found in Oto-Manguean languages is shown in (1) and structure typical of nouns is shown in (2).
(1) CAUS-ASP1-ASP2-VERB-PERSON
(2) NOUN-PERSON
In Trique, the structure is a little different. It is shown in (3) and (4)
(3) CAUS/DETRANS-ASP-VERB-PERSON.SUBJ-PERSON.OBJ
(4) GEN-NOUN-PERSON
To give you a bit of a background, Trique has 9 tonal contrasts. There are four level tones (/1/ is low): /1/, /2/, /3/, /4/; two rising tones: /45/, /13/; and three falling tones: /43/, /32/, /31/. Syllable structure is simple, with no codas but two laryngeal codas, /h/ and /ʔ/. The two rising tones only appear in syllables with a coda /h/. No contour tones occur before a coda /ʔ/.
Regular alienably-possessed nouns are marked with either a genitive prefix /si3-/. Inalienably-possessed nouns never take a genitive prefix. Consider the paradigm shown below in (5).
(5) ka3siʔ3 'honey' | si3-ka3sih5 'my honey' | si3-ka3siʔ3-reʔ1 'your honey' | si3-ka3siʔ3-sih3 'his honey'
Note that the /h/ of the 1.SG replaces the glottal stop on the stem and causes tone raising. The morph of the first person singular is not /h/ though. Rather, if a stem does not contain a coda /h/, one is added. If a stem does contain a coda /h/, it is deleted. Consider the paradigm in (6). The 2.SG and 3.SG person markers are less remarkable for our purposes here.
(6) tʃa3kih3 'ear' | tʃa3ki43 'my ear' | tʃa3kih4-reʔ1 'your ear' | tʃa3kih3-sih3 'his ear'
This toggling process is completely regular on all Itunyoso Trique words. I am not putting more examples here, but you can read my morphophonology squib for plenty of cases. There are a number of tonal alternations involved with the 1.SG toggle, far far too many to discuss here, but again, you are welcome to read about them in my morphophonology squib. I am just providing this information as background.
Generally speaking, linguists have said that person markers like these are enclitics. The argument is, as per Zwicky & Pullum (1983), that these enclitics are not picky as to the part of speech of their host. Thus, observe the following words with personal enclitics in Trique.
(7) ni3ʔi3-sih3 know-3sg, 'he knows'
(8) si3-ka2-sih3 GEN-corn.tassle-3sg, 'his corn tassle'
(9) ru3ku3-sih3 behind-3sg, 'behind him' / 'his back'
(10) ŋga1-sih3 and/with-3sg, 'with him / and him'
In (7), we observe the clitic on a verb. In (8) and (9), it attaches to a noun and a relational noun, respectively. In (10), the clitic attaches onto a conjunction, or what we might call a simple comitative particle. The stem in (10) is not a relational noun and has no other interpretation. Considering the different parts of speech in Trique, person markers are not very selective as to their host. Generally speaking, this is the main criterion for "clitic-hood" that people consider.
Hollenbach (1984) in her dissertation on Copala Trique, also notes that clitics apply freely to adverbs immediately following verbs. So, a structure like VERB-ADVERB-PERSON is possible in Trique. One might not expect such a structure to occur if person marking were suffixal. Generally speaking, additional stems do not usually intervene between a stem and an affix. Observe this pattern in (11), below (from Itunyoso Trique):
(11)
(a.) ka3-tʃi4nih4 PERF-get.drunk.1sg, 'I got drunk.'
(b.) ka3-tʃi4ni43-yũh35 PERF-get.drunk-again.1sg, 'I got drunk again.'
In (11a), the first person is marked with a coda /h/ on the verb root. Yet, once the adverb /yũ4/ 'again' is included, person marking applies to this word. Examples like these convince Hollenbach that person marking is a clitic in Trique.
This evidence has never struck me as very strong. First of all, several clitics condition substantial tonal allomorphy on stems. Second, one of the exponents of the 1.SG clitic is the deletion of stem material (half of the "toggle"). These strong phonological patterns are more typical of affixes than clitics. Though, as far as I know, phonological evidence doesn't play a role in decisions of "clitic-hood."
Turning to syntactic criteria, there is other evidence that person marking may be suffixal. While Hollenbach makes a blanket statement that person marking may apply to adverbs, she doesn't specify which ones. As it turns out, they are rather restricted. Observe the data in (12)-(13).
(12)
(a.) ko3ʔo32-sih3 drink-3sg, 'He drinks'
(b.) ko3ʔo32 ni2ʔrua32-sih3 drink much-3sg, 'He drinks a lot'
(13)
(a.) a3kĩh35-sih3-yũh2 call-3sg-1sg, 'He calls me'
(b.) a3kĩh35 ni2na2-sih3-yũh2 call always-3sg-1sg, 'He always calls me'
The words 'much' and 'always' are the only other two adverbs that may precede person marking. The word 'slow' is ungrammatical in a similar construction, shown in (14).
(14)
(a.) ka3-tʃi4nih4 na2nah2 PERF-get.drunk.1sg slowly, 'I got drunk slowly.'
*(b.) ka3-tʃi4ni43 na2na2 PERF-get.drunk slowly.1sg, 'I got drunk slowly.'
It strikes me as odd that the only adverbs that are permitted to precede person marking are words for 'again', 'always', and 'a lot.' These each seem eerily similar to verbal aspect markers (frequentative, intensificational, etc.). So, perhaps the adverbial restriction that Hollenbach discussed is not a very convincing argument. Yet, if person marking is actually suffixal, then these words would be examples of incorporated adverbials. I don't know if this analysis is equally wrought with problems.
There are some other data that are relevant here too, involving verb concatenation, but that will wait until tomorrow. Any thoughts so far?
A typical verb structure found in Oto-Manguean languages is shown in (1) and structure typical of nouns is shown in (2).
(1) CAUS-ASP1-ASP2-VERB-PERSON
(2) NOUN-PERSON
In Trique, the structure is a little different. It is shown in (3) and (4)
(3) CAUS/DETRANS-ASP-VERB-PERSON.SUBJ-PERSON.OBJ
(4) GEN-NOUN-PERSON
 |
| Itunyoso Trique Subject Enclitics |
Regular alienably-possessed nouns are marked with either a genitive prefix /si3-/. Inalienably-possessed nouns never take a genitive prefix. Consider the paradigm shown below in (5).
(5) ka3siʔ3 'honey' | si3-ka3sih5 'my honey' | si3-ka3siʔ3-reʔ1 'your honey' | si3-ka3siʔ3-sih3 'his honey'
Note that the /h/ of the 1.SG replaces the glottal stop on the stem and causes tone raising. The morph of the first person singular is not /h/ though. Rather, if a stem does not contain a coda /h/, one is added. If a stem does contain a coda /h/, it is deleted. Consider the paradigm in (6). The 2.SG and 3.SG person markers are less remarkable for our purposes here.
(6) tʃa3kih3 'ear' | tʃa3ki43 'my ear' | tʃa3kih4-reʔ1 'your ear' | tʃa3kih3-sih3 'his ear'
This toggling process is completely regular on all Itunyoso Trique words. I am not putting more examples here, but you can read my morphophonology squib for plenty of cases. There are a number of tonal alternations involved with the 1.SG toggle, far far too many to discuss here, but again, you are welcome to read about them in my morphophonology squib. I am just providing this information as background.
Generally speaking, linguists have said that person markers like these are enclitics. The argument is, as per Zwicky & Pullum (1983), that these enclitics are not picky as to the part of speech of their host. Thus, observe the following words with personal enclitics in Trique.
(7) ni3ʔi3-sih3 know-3sg, 'he knows'
(8) si3-ka2-sih3 GEN-corn.tassle-3sg, 'his corn tassle'
(9) ru3ku3-sih3 behind-3sg, 'behind him' / 'his back'
(10) ŋga1-sih3 and/with-3sg, 'with him / and him'
In (7), we observe the clitic on a verb. In (8) and (9), it attaches to a noun and a relational noun, respectively. In (10), the clitic attaches onto a conjunction, or what we might call a simple comitative particle. The stem in (10) is not a relational noun and has no other interpretation. Considering the different parts of speech in Trique, person markers are not very selective as to their host. Generally speaking, this is the main criterion for "clitic-hood" that people consider.
Hollenbach (1984) in her dissertation on Copala Trique, also notes that clitics apply freely to adverbs immediately following verbs. So, a structure like VERB-ADVERB-PERSON is possible in Trique. One might not expect such a structure to occur if person marking were suffixal. Generally speaking, additional stems do not usually intervene between a stem and an affix. Observe this pattern in (11), below (from Itunyoso Trique):
(11)
(a.) ka3-tʃi4nih4 PERF-get.drunk.1sg, 'I got drunk.'
(b.) ka3-tʃi4ni43-yũh35 PERF-get.drunk-again.1sg, 'I got drunk again.'
In (11a), the first person is marked with a coda /h/ on the verb root. Yet, once the adverb /yũ4/ 'again' is included, person marking applies to this word. Examples like these convince Hollenbach that person marking is a clitic in Trique.
This evidence has never struck me as very strong. First of all, several clitics condition substantial tonal allomorphy on stems. Second, one of the exponents of the 1.SG clitic is the deletion of stem material (half of the "toggle"). These strong phonological patterns are more typical of affixes than clitics. Though, as far as I know, phonological evidence doesn't play a role in decisions of "clitic-hood."
Turning to syntactic criteria, there is other evidence that person marking may be suffixal. While Hollenbach makes a blanket statement that person marking may apply to adverbs, she doesn't specify which ones. As it turns out, they are rather restricted. Observe the data in (12)-(13).
(12)
(a.) ko3ʔo32-sih3 drink-3sg, 'He drinks'
(b.) ko3ʔo32 ni2ʔrua32-sih3 drink much-3sg, 'He drinks a lot'
(13)
(a.) a3kĩh35-sih3-yũh2 call-3sg-1sg, 'He calls me'
(b.) a3kĩh35 ni2na2-sih3-yũh2 call always-3sg-1sg, 'He always calls me'
The words 'much' and 'always' are the only other two adverbs that may precede person marking. The word 'slow' is ungrammatical in a similar construction, shown in (14).
(14)
(a.) ka3-tʃi4nih4 na2nah2 PERF-get.drunk.1sg slowly, 'I got drunk slowly.'
*(b.) ka3-tʃi4ni43 na2na2 PERF-get.drunk slowly.1sg, 'I got drunk slowly.'
It strikes me as odd that the only adverbs that are permitted to precede person marking are words for 'again', 'always', and 'a lot.' These each seem eerily similar to verbal aspect markers (frequentative, intensificational, etc.). So, perhaps the adverbial restriction that Hollenbach discussed is not a very convincing argument. Yet, if person marking is actually suffixal, then these words would be examples of incorporated adverbials. I don't know if this analysis is equally wrought with problems.
There are some other data that are relevant here too, involving verb concatenation, but that will wait until tomorrow. Any thoughts so far?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)