Pluralisation in Ígálá and English

Languages of the world have certain similar linguistic features in terms of a finite set of fundamental principles which are universal to all languages on one hand, and a finite set of parameters which determine syntactic variability amongst them. In order to substantiate evidence of linguistic universals, there is need for comparative analysis of languages. The thrust of the paper is to expound the diversities and similarities in Ígálá and English linguistic systems in the area of patterns of pluralisation. The paper is hinged on Inferential-realizational theory. The paper observed that the noun class in Ígálá is marked for number through three inflectional markers [ám(á), ìb(ó) and áb(ó)] while the noun class in English is inflected for number by the following exponents: [-s, -es, -ies, -en, -ren, -ves] not losing sight of zero concept. Germane to this work is the fact that Ígálá and English exhibit extended exponence- a linguistic situation where a particular morphosyntactic property could be expressed by more than one morphological marking in the same word depending on the lexeme’s root. Plural markers in Ígálá are prefixes while plural markers in English are suffixes. In conclusion, English and Ígálá are uniform in one specific sense of the capacity to inflect words for grammatical purposes, but have different structures in the process of inflection or associating an inflected word with a specific set of morphosyntactic properties.

BLOCKING AND EXTENDED EXPONENCE OF SUFFIX PRONOUNS IN ARABIC PERFECTIVE VERB CONJUGATION

Noyer (1997) utilized blocking and extended exponence to encode pronouns in the conjugation of imperfect verbs in Arabic. His findings were criticized by Stump (2001) and Xu (2010), because the formulation was considered too complex. Xu (2010) offered a unified integrated account based on Optimality Theory while still relying on blocking and extended exponence. However, their for-mulation only focuses on the pronouns of imperfect verb conjugations. So far, the optimality of conjugations of perfective Arabic verbs which are also complex in nature, have not been considered yet in their studies. This study extends the work of Xu (2010) by developing the formulation of the optimal forms of the suffix pronouns of the Arabic perfective verb conjugations. The results of study reveal that several exponences which in different situations, each can realize several assingments. Instead, there is an assignment that is realized by more than one exponence

Inferential-realizational morphology without rule blocks

The chapter outlines a formal theory of inferential-realizational morphology that eliminates (ordered) rule blocks. I show that rule blocks not only stand in the way of a more general treatment of variable morphotactics, but that they also artificially restrict the scope of Pāṇinian competition, effectively ruling out operation at a distance. Instead, it argues for a purely information-based model of global competition that reconciles competition with extended exponence by means of a distinction between realization and allomorphic conditioning. It shows, in particular, that arbitrary decisions with respect to this distinction can be eliminated, once Carstairs’s (1987) notion of Pure Sensitivity has been turned into a formal principle of our theory. Finally, the chapter shows how Information-based Morphology can account for symmetric cases of extended exponence by simultaneous introduction of exponents since the theory is able to capture many-to-many relations between form and function at the level of individual rules.

Inflectional Morphology

Inflection is the systematic relation between words’ morphosyntactic content and their morphological form; as such, the phenomenon of inflection raises fundamental questions about the nature of morphology itself and about its interfaces. Within the domain of morphology proper, it is essential to establish how (or whether) inflection differs from other kinds of morphology and to identify the ways in which morphosyntactic content can be encoded morphologically. A number of different approaches to modeling inflectional morphology have been proposed; these tend to cluster into two main groups, those that are morpheme-based and those that are lexeme-based. Morpheme-based theories tend to treat inflectional morphology as fundamentally concatenative; they tend to represent an inflected word’s morphosyntactic content as a compositional summing of its morphemes’ content; they tend to attribute an inflected word’s internal structure to syntactic principles; and they tend to minimize the theoretical significance of inflectional paradigms. Lexeme-based theories, by contrast, tend to accord concatenative and nonconcatenative morphology essentially equal status as marks of inflection; they tend to represent an inflected word’s morphosyntactic content as a property set intrinsically associated with that word’s paradigm cell; they tend to assume that an inflected word’s internal morphology is neither accessible to nor defined by syntactic principles; and they tend to treat inflection as the morphological realization of a paradigm’s cells. Four important issues for approaches of either sort are the nature of nonconcatenative morphology, the incidence of extended exponence, the underdetermination of a word’s morphosyntactic content by its inflectional form, and the nature of word forms’ internal structure. The structure of a word’s inventory of inflected forms—its paradigm—is the locus of considerable cross-linguistic variation. In particular, the canonical relation of content to form in an inflectional paradigm is subject to a wide array of deviations, including inflection-class distinctions, morphomic properties, defectiveness, deponency, metaconjugation, and syncretism; these deviations pose important challenges for understanding the interfaces of inflectional morphology, and a theory’s resolution of these challenges depends squarely on whether that theory is morpheme-based or lexeme-based.

Lacking integrity: HPSG as a morphosyntactic theory

Standard accounts of HPSG assume a distinction between morphology and syntax. However, despite decades of research, no cross-linguistically valid definition of 'word' has emerged (Haspelmath, 2010), suggesting that no sharp distinction is justified. Under such a view, the basic units are morphemes, rather than words, but it has been argued this raises problems when analysing phenomena such as zero inflection, syncretism, stem alternations, and extended exponence. We argue that with existing HPSG machinery, a morpheme-based approach can in fact deal with such issues. To illustrate this, we consider Slovene nominal declension and Georgian verb agreement, which have both been used to argue against constructive morpheme-based approaches. We overcome these concerns through use of a type hierarchy, and give a morpheme-based analysis which is simpler than the alternatives. Furthermore, we can recast notions from Word-and-Paradigm morphology, such as 'rule of referral' and 'stem space', in our framework. We conclude that using HPSG as a unified morphosyntactic theory is not only feasible, but also yields fruitful insights.

A Realization Optimality Theory approach to blocking and extended morphological exponence

Blocking in inflection occurs when a morphological exponent prevents the application of another exponent expressing the same feature value, thus barring the occurrence of multiple exponents of a single morphosyntactic feature value. In instances of extended exponence, more than one exponent in the same word realizes the same feature value. We provide a unified account of blocking and extended exponence that combines a realizational approach to inflection with Optimality Theory (Realization Optimality Theory), encoding morphological realization rules as ranked violable constraints. The markedness constraint *Feature Split bars the realization of any morphosyntactic feature value by more than one exponent. If *Feature Split ranks lower than two or more realization constraints expressing the same feature value, then we observe extended exponence. Otherwise, we find blocking of lower-ranked exponents. We show that Realization Optimality Theory is superior to various alternative approaches to blocking and extended morphological exponence.