Paradigm Function Morphology 171

Paradigm Function Morphology

G T Stump, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Paradigm function morphology (PFM) is a theory of morphology based on the assumption that the notion of paradigms is indispensable to the definition of a languages inflectional system; it is named for its use of paradigm functions (defined below) in formal models of inflectional morphology. PFM is an inferential-realizational theory of inflection. It is inferential in the sense that it employs rules to deduce inflected word forms from more basic roots and stems; in this sense it is opposed to lexical theories of inflection, in which inflectional markings are not introduced by rules of inference, but are assumed to exist as lexical items comparable in status to the roots and stems with which they join. PFM is realizational in the sense that it deduces a word forms inflection markings from the set of morphosyntactic properties associated with that word form in the paradigm that it occupies; in this sense it is opposed to incremental theories of inflection, in which a word form is assumed to acquire is morphosyntactic properties only as an effect of acquiring the morphological exponents of those properties. Since the inferential/lexical distinction and the realizational/incremental distinction are logically independent, theories of inflection may be of at least four imaginable types. Indeed, each of the four types has its proponents: the theory proposed by Lieber (1992) is a lexical-incremental theory; that of Steele (1995), an inferential-incremental theory; that of Halle and Marantz (1993), a lexical-realizational theory; and word-and-paradigm approaches, for example, those of Anderson (1992), Corbett and Fraser (1993), Matthews (1972), and Zwicky (1985) are of the inferential-realizational type. Stump (2001: 3) summarizes a range of evidence favoring inferentialrealizational theories of inflection over theories of other sorts. First, incremental theories work best when every one of a words morphosyntactic properties has exactly one exponent. But inflectional morphology fairly teems with instances of extended exponence (in which a single property has more than one exponent) and of underdetermination (in which a property lacks any exponent) phenomena whose incidence is both expected and easily accommodated in realizational theories. Second, lexical theories of inflection entail a fundamental difference in theoretical status between concatenative and nonconcatenative

morphology; but the empirical motivation for this difference is conspicuously lacking, which is fully compatible with the assumptions of realizational theories. Third, lexical theories and incremental theories depend on the assumption that morphosyntactic properties may be associated with an inflectional affix in two different waysas its content or as its subcategorization restriction; however, this assumption is poorly motivated, and inferential-realizational theories (in which the only association assumed to exist between inflectional markings and morphosyntactic properties is that of exponence) do without it. Finally, lexical theories of inflection assume that morphological representations generally possess the same sort of hierarchical organization as syntactic structures and that these representations condition the interface between morphology and syntax; but this assumption is poorly motivatedindeed, it engenders problematic structural mismatches at the morphologysyntax interface. Inferential-realizational theories, by contrast, assume that hierarchical structure is not invariably characteristic of morphologically complex words, and that the interface between morphology and syntax is sensitive to words morphosyntactic content but not, in general, to their morphological structure. In PFM, the morphology of a language is assumed to define a paradigm of grammatical words for every lexeme in that language. (It is not assumed, however, that a lexemes paradigm is necessarily listed in its lexical entry; indeed, if a lexemes paradigm can be deduced by rules of morphology, then the default assumption is that it is not listed.) Where L is a member of syntactic category C and s is a complete morphosyntactic property set appropriate for members of C, the pairing hL,si is a grammatical word (or cell) in Ls inflectional paradigm. In English, for instance, the lexeme OWE is a member of category V and {3rd singular present indicative} is a complete morphosyntactic property set for verbs; the pairing hOWE,{3rd singular present indicative}i is therefore a cell in the paradigm of OWE. Each cell is expressed as a particular phonological word, its realization; for instance, the cell hOWE,{3rd singular present indicative}i has owes as its realization. A languages paradigm function (PF) is a function from the cells in its paradigms to their realizations; thus, the English paradigm function PF applies to hOWE,{3rd singular present indicative}i to yield the value owes: PF(hOWE,{3rd singular present indicative}i) owes. Thus, the definition of a languages inflectional morphology is, in PFM, equated with the definition of its paradigm function.

172 Paradigm Function Morphology

The definition of a languages paradigm function is stated in terms of a system of realization rules, which specify the ways in which grammatical words are phonologically realized. Some such rules are rules of exponence, which associate particular morphosyntactic properties with particular morphological markings; an example is the English rule that suffixes -s in the realization of third-person singular present indicative verb forms. Rules of referral (Zwicky, 1985; Stump, 1993a, 2001: Chap. 7) are another sort of realization rule: these identify regular patterns of syncretism, e.g., the fact that in Sanskrit, a neuter nominals nominative forms are always identical to the corresponding accusative forms (whatever their morphology might be). In languages with complex inflectional systems, more than one realization rule may apply in the realization of a given cell. In French, for instance, three distinct realization rules participate in the definition of the three-suffix sequence appearing in the conditional form chant-er-i-ons we would sing. Realization rules that are mutually exclusive in their application because they vie for the same position in the sequence of rule applications defining a lexemes realizations are assumed to constitute a rule block; rules that are associated with distinct positions in this sequence belong to distinct blocks. In French, for instance, the rules specifying the first-person plural exponent -ons and the second-person plural exponent -ez belong to the same block (call it block III), while those specifying the exponents -er and -i belong to other blocks (I and II). The definition of a languages paradigm function determines the order in which its rule blocks apply in the realization of a given cell; thus, the French paradigm function might be defined as a function whose value for a given cell hL,si results from the successive application of an appropriate rule from each of blocks I through III to an appropriate stem of L. Competition among realization rules belonging to the same block is always resolved by Pa `o inis principle, according to which the narrower of two competing rules wins; thus, in instances in which the default rule of -ed suffixation competes with the rule of -t suffixation in the definition of an English verbs pasttense form, the latter prevails (lost, *losed) because its application is, by stipulation, limited to a restricted subclass of verbs. Anderson (1992: 128) asserts that at least some rule overrides do not follow from Pa `o inis principle, but must simply be stipulated; see Stump (2001: Chap. 3) for arguments against this conclusion.) The assumption that interactions among rule blocks are regulated by the definition of a languages paradigm function makes it possible to account for a

number of phenomena arising in languages with complex systems of affix position classes; these include the phenomena of portmanteau position classes (whose member affixes straddle two or more affix positions), ambifixal position classes (in which prefixes and suffixes are paradigmatically opposed to one another), parallel position classes (whose member affixes are available to more than one affix position in a words structure), and reversible position classes (whose ordering varies according to the morphosyntactic property set being realized). Such phenomena present a number of theoretical problems (Stump, 1992, 1993b); the ease with which these problems are resolved in PFM (Stump, 2001: Chap. 5) is one motivation for the postulation of paradigm functions. Another such motivation relates to the phenomenon of head marking. Often in inflectional morphology, a complex lexeme inflects through the inflection of its head; in English, for example, mother-in-law inflects on its head, as in mothers-in-law. (The assumed notion of morphological head is much more restricted in PFM than in other theories: in PFM, the only words that are assumed to be headed are those that arise through the application of a categorypreserving rule of word formation.) One approach to this phenomenon is to assume that certain inflectional rules are stipulated as applying to a stems head (Hoeksema, 1984), but this approach wrongly predicts: (a) that if a given inflectional exponent ever effects head marking, then it should always do so, and it wrongly fails to predict both; (b) that if a stem exhibits head marking anywhere in its paradigm, it will do so throughout its paradigm; and (c) that the stems defined by a given rule of wordformation are always alike in either exhibiting or failing to exhibit head marking. In PFM, an alternative account of head marking is availablethat of assuming that each category-preserving rule of word formation specifies whether it is permissive (i.e., allows its output to exhibit head marking) and that inflection is universally subject to the principle (1):
(1) Head-Application Principle: If a lexeme L2 with stem x2 arises from a lexeme L1 with stem x1 through the application of a permissive rule r such that x2 rx1 , then for each cell hL1,si in L1s paradigm and its counterpart hL2,si in L2s paradigm, PFhL1 ,si y if and only if PFhL2 ,si ry:

Because it correctly entails both (b) and (c) without entailing (a), this approach provides additional motivation for the postulation of paradigm functions, which are central to its formulation (Stump, 2001: Chap. 4).

Paradigm versus Syntagm 173

A recent development in PFM (Stump, 2002) is the hypothesis that the definition of a languages morphology involves two types of paradigms syntactic paradigms (whose cells are pairings of a lexeme with a morphosyntactic property set, e.g., hGO,{past}i) and morphological paradigms (whose cells are pairings of a stem with a morphosyntactic property set, e.g., hgo,{past}i). On this hypothesis, one can assume that each cell in a syntactic paradigm is linked to a cell in a morphological paradigm and that the realization of the former is that of the latter. This assumption affords an account of deponency (instances in which hL,si is linked to hx,s0 i, where s 6 s0 ), nondirectional syncretism (instances in which hL,si and hL,s0 i are both linked to hx,ti, where t  s, s0 ), directional syncretism (instances in which hL,si and hL,s0 i are both linked to hx,si), and heteroclisis (instances in which hL,si and hL,s0 i are respectively linked to hx,si and hy,s0 i, where x 6 y). Other recent developments extend the theorys scope to cover a range of phenomena, including verbal clitics (A. Spencer, personal communication, 2000; Spencer and Lu s, in press), word-formation (Spencer, 2003), and periphrasis (Ackerman and Stump, in press).
See also: A-Morphous Morphology; Periphrasis; Syncre-

tism; Template Morphology; Word.

Bibliography
Ackerman F & Stump G (2005). Paradigms and periphrastic expression: a study in realization-based lexicalism. In Spencer A & Sadler L (eds.) Projecting morphology. Stanford: CSLI Publications, in press. Anderson S R (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett G G & Fraser N M (1993). Network morphology: a DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29, 113142. Halle M & Marantz A (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale K & Keyser S J (eds.) The view from Building 20: linguistic essays in

honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 111176. Hoeksema J (1984). Categorial morphology. Ph.D. diss., University of Groningen [New York: Garland, 1985]. Lieber R (1992). Deconstructing morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lu s A & Spencer A (2005). A paradigm function account of mesoclisis in European Portuguese (EP). In Booij G & van Marle J (eds.) Yearbook of morphology. Dordrecht: Springer. 117228. Matthews P H (1972). Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spencer A (2000). Verbal clitics in Bulgarian: a paradigm function approach. In Gerlach B & Grijzenhout J (eds.) Clitics in phonology, morphology, and syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 355386. Steele S (1995). Towards a theory of morphological information. Language 71, 260309. Stump G T (1992). On the theoretical status of position class restrictions on inflectional affixes. In Booij G & van Marle J (eds.) Yearbook of morphology 1991. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 211241. Stump G T (1993a). On rules of referral. Language 69, 449479 [Reprinted in Katamba, F (ed.) Morphology: Critical concepts in linguistics. London: Routledge, 2003.]. Stump G T (1993b). Position classes and morphological theory. In Booij G & van Marle J (eds.) Yearbook of morphology 1992. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 129180. Stump G T (2001). Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stump G T (2002). Morphological and syntactic paradigms: arguments for a theory of paradigm linkage. In Booij G & van Marle J (eds.) Yearbook of morphology 2001. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 147180. Stump G T (2005). Morphological blocking and Pa `o inis principle. In Ackerman F, Blevins J & Stump G (eds.) Paradigms and periphrasis. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Zwicky A M (1985). How to describe inflection. In Niepokuj M, Van Clay M, Nikiforidou V & Feder D (eds.) Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 372386.

Paradigm versus Syntagm

T F Broden, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

These paired terms represent one of a half-dozen central sets of concepts adapted by semioticians from general linguistics. Syntagmatic relations obtain

among a unit and others in the same string, for example, in English smoke, among the individual sounds or letters s, m, o, etc.; between s initial and the rest of the sounds; and between one or more letters (part) and the entire word (whole). Similarly, multifarious syntagmatic relations occur among the phrases, words, roots, affixes, and sounds or letters in the utterance Did Chanel try to transform womens fashions?