The basic elements of a noun:
morphosyntax of the Bosnian declensional system
Nicola Lampitelli
University Paris 7
[email protected]
Draft, October 2009
1. Introduction
This paper deals with the Bosnian declensional system and proposes a structure for the
representation of a noun. Bosnian nouns show an interesting vocalic alternation throughout the
declensions and, within each case, throughout gender and number. Bosnian (Serbo-Croatian more
generally) belongs to (West) South-Slavic group, and it is generally conservative as far as
morphology is considered: seven cases have been preserved and there is a good correlation between
a gender and a given declensional paradigm (cf. Corbett & Browne 2008:337-343 for an
overview).1
However, a possible way to distinguish declensions is by looking at the genitive singular form of
a given noun. This results in three groups as in Hammond (2005:105-177) where masculine and
neuter nouns having [a] as genitive singular marking form group 1; feminine (and some masculine)
nouns having [e] instead form group 2 and feminine nouns having [i] form group 3. This
classification, though, does not allow for a one-to-one correspondence between the gender and
declensional paradigm.
For this reason, I adopt Browne’s (1993) view which holds on the distinction based on gender.
The basic data are shown below:2
(1) Bosnian nouns
a. NOM
b. GEN
c. DAT/LOC
d. ACC
e. VOC
f. INSTR
group 1
Masculine (M)
sg.
pl.
okvir
okvir-i
okvir-a
okvir-ā
okvir-u
okvir-ima
okvir-(a)3
okvir-e
okvir-e
okvir-i
okvir-om
okvir-ima
‘frame’
‘frames’
group 2
Feminine (F)
sg.
pl.
kuć-a
kuć-e
kuć-ē
kuć-ā
kuć-i
kuć-ama
kuć-u
kuć-e
kuć-o
kuć-e
kuć-ōm
kuć-ama
‘house’
‘houses’
group 3
Neuter (NEU)
sg.
pl.
sel-o
sel-a
sel-a
sel-ā
sel-u
sel-ima
sel-o
sel-a
sel-o
sel-a
sel-om
sel-ima
‘village’
‘villages’
Note that all the nouns in group 1 are M and all those in group 3 are NEU, whereas the
overwhelming majority of nouns in group 2 are F. As for Hammond’s (2005) group 3 (F nouns
1
As Browne 1993 and Corbett & Browne 2008 point out, Serbo-Croatian is one single literary language which has
three major dialect groups: Čakavian, Kajkavian and Štokavian. The disaggregation of Yugoslavia and the political
issues related to this fact, made each independent Republic make distinctions within the standard language. As my
informant comes from Bosnia-Herzegovina, I will refer to Serbo-Croatian as simply Bosnian and my data will be
mostly based on Štokavian dialect.
2
The following abbreviations are used: NOM ‘nominative’; GEN ‘genitive; DAT ‘dative’; LOC ‘locative’; VOC
‘vocative’; INSTR ‘instrumental’.
3
M nouns are marked by -a in sg. ACC only when the referent is animate.
1
having a [i] genitive singular), it is important to underline that only F nouns appear to be in this
group and they are just a few (cf. infra section 5).4
The crucial idea is that if the correlation between the gender and the groups as in (1) holds true,
then the two statements as in (2) follow:
(2) General statements on Bosnian nouns
a. Gender is overtly marked on nouns;
b. Gender coincides with declension.
The analysis provided in this paper focuses exactly on the nature of the relation between gender
and declension, and on the way such a relation interferes with the architecture of a noun.
Let me go back to the data in (1) and notice the following two facts: a) the only phonologically
zero case is the M sg. NOM, and b) case markers are almost exclusively formed by vowels. The
only consonant allowed in this context is /m/ which appears in INSTR (sg. and pl.) and pl.
DAT/LOC. It seems that Bosnian uses the vocalic alternation as the unique morphological device to
express gender, number and syntactic case.
The background assumption is that words are built in the syntax (Halle & Marantaz 1993 and
related work) and that the interpretation of terminal nodes gives the correct output forms at PF
(Embick 2009). Before introducing the noun structures, though, a closer scrutiny of final vowels is
fundamental to understand how the system works and how phonological items interact with the
syntactic structure.
2. Vowel alternations in Bosnian declensional system
A rule-based approach to phonology would state that for each final vowel in nouns, a given
underlying representation must be associated to. Such an analysis has been provided by Jakobson
(1948) for Russian conjugations and more recently, Halle & Nevins (2009) argue for a rule-based
system accounting for Slavic nominal declensions. The latter work, in particular, assumes that the
underlying form of a noun in Slavic has the form Root + Theme + Case-Number. As for Bosnian, I
assume that each final vowel is in fact the output form of a similar underlying structure but I adopt a
different phonological view, namely the theory of Elements (Kaye, Lowenstamm & Vergnaud
1985, 1990). Kaye et al.’s theory shows that vowels can be interpreted as phonological complexes
formed by basic matrix elements: A, U and I. Bosnian five vowels can be decomposed as follows:
(3) Simplex and Complex vowels
a. [a] = /A/
b.
[i] = /I/
d. [e] = /I.A/
e.
[o] = /U.A/
c.
[u] = /U/
Now, observe the following table containing the vocalic case endings as shown in (1):
4
Standard Serbo-Croatian has distinctive long-short vocal oppositions as well as a pitch accentuation as illustrated
by Matešić (1970): there is a falling and a rising accent which can both be short or long. Then vowels vary according to
length and pitch. In particular, falling short accent occurs only on the first syllable of a word, hence monosyllabic ones
can have only a falling accent. But no accent can occur in the final vowel. In addition, Magner & Mateijka (1971)
demonstrated that this system is not so well preserved for many speakers which tend not to distinguish length on
unstressed vowels (among other facts which are not relevant for the present purpose). For these reasons, I will not be
concerned with such a phonological issue anymore and the length given in (1) has only illustrative purposes.
2
(4) Bosnian nouns vocalic case endings
group 1
M
sg.
pl.
a. NOM
zero i
b. GEN
a
a
c. DAT/LOC u
i(ma)
d. ACC
(a)
e
e. VOC
e
i
f. INSTR
o(m) i(ma)
group 2
F
sg. pl.
a
e
e
a
i
a(ma)
u
e
o
e
o
a(ma)
group 3
NEU
sg.
pl.
o
a
a
a
u
i(ma)
o
a
o
a
o(m) i(ma)
In the light of Kaye et al.’s theory, I recast the data showing each vowel in (4) as decomposed in
primitive Elements:
(5) Decomposed vocalic case endings
group 1
M
sg.
pl.
a. NOM
I
zero
b. GEN
A
A
c. DAT/LOC U
I(ma)
d. ACC
(A)
A.I
e. VOC
A.I
I
f. INSTR
A.U(m) I(ma)
group 2
F
sg. pl.
A
A.I
A.I A
I
A(ma)
U
A.I
A.U A.I
A.U A(ma)
group 3
NEU
sg.
pl.
A.U
A
A
A
U
I(ma)
A.U
A
A.U
A
A.U(m) I(ma)
In order to solve the puzzle in (5), note that M NOM is the only case of alternation of the type
zero ~ vowel where the latter is underlyingly one simple Element. All other instances of final vowel
imply at least one Element alternating with another one, e.g. F NOM A ~ A.I.
If I assume that a noun is formed by a root followed by a gender-number-case marking, then the
M sg. NOM must be marked by three null morphemes, as stated by (6):
(6) Null Morphemes
a. Gender: M gender is marked by zero.
b. Number: sg. is marked by zero.
c. Case: NOM is marked by zero.
As shown in (1), Bosnian has three genders: M, F and NEU. Following Lowenstamm (2008), I
propose that NEU is marked by the feature [-gen(der)] whereas M and F are marked [+gen, -f] and
[+gen, +f], respectively. As for number, they are only two in Bosnian. This situation can be easily
accounted for by positing a unique feature [pl], holding the distinction [-pl] and [+pl] for sg. and pl.,
respectively. Finally, I use Halle’s (1997) featural decomposition to manage the morphological
case:
(7) Halle (1997) Case features:
NOM
- oblique
+ structural
ACC
- oblique
+ structural
GEN
+ oblique
+ structural
DAT
+ oblique
+ structural
ABL
+ oblique
- structural
+ superior
- superior
- superior
+ superior
+ superior
3
Halle’s system does not provide a matrix for either LOC nor INSTR whereas ABL does not
appear in Bosnian. I propose to interpret ABL as LOC in order to account for the syncretism
between DAT and LOC throughout the system. As for INSTR, it can be easily accounted for by
positing that it has a [- superior] feature. The new matrix for Bosnian DAT-LOC and INSTR is
shown below:5
(8) DAT-LOC syncretism and INSTR:
DAT/LOC + oblique
α structural
INSTR
+ oblique
- structural
+ superior
- superior
As for VOC, given its particular syntactic nature, I will not consider it anymore. Note, however,
its similarity to NOM (except than for M and F sg.).
I return now on the claims in (6), which have strong implications in the reasoning. If they are
true, then: (a) F and NEU must be marked in some way by one of the Elements appearing in (5); (b)
if M sg. NOM is marked by zero, then each vowel appearing in M sg. in cases other than NOM
must mark that same case; (c) pl. marking must be the Element I for M and F at least.
The path I have taken until now brings to an analysis in which each final vowel in Bosnian noun
is seen as a meaningful algorithm of basic phonological Elements in the sense of Kaye et al.’s
Theory. Recall now what has been said about the underlying structure of a noun. Statements in (2)
point to the fact that the gender has to do with the declension: as a consequence, knowing a noun
means to know its gender, hence its declensional group. As mentioned, Halle & Nevins assume that
the structure of a Slavic noun is the sequence Root + Theme + Case-Number. I modify such a
sequence into the following one:
(9) Underlying structure of a Bosnian noun
Root + gender + number + case
In this view, the gender is “thematic”, in the sense that it is lexically associated to a root and it
allows for the spell-out of a given morpheme. The next section illustrates this point using NOM
nouns. In addition, it provides support to the phonological approach taken in this paper.
3. Vowel alternations in Bosnian NOM
3.1 The notion of “final vowel”
Final vowels (henceforth Vfin)6 are involved with gender and data from NOM best illustrated this
point. I repeat these data below:
(10) Bosnian NOM nouns
sg.
gender
a. okvir
M
b. kuća
F
c. selo
N
d. srce
N
pl.
okviri
kuće
sela
srca
gender
M
F
N
N
gloss
‘frame(s)’
‘house(s)’
‘village(s)’
‘heart(s)’
The item in 10.d represents a subgroup of NEU which has been skipped in (1). These nouns
display Vfin = [e] instead of [o] in NOM, ACC and VOC. Browne (1993) claims that this is due to a
palatalizing effect of the last radical consonant, namely [ts], [tš], [dž], [š] and [ž]. Hammond (2005)
5
6
Cf. Franks (1995) for a detailed discussion of Slavic case and Müller (2004) for an analysis of Russian case features.
In the case of M sg., I will refer to as Vfin = zero.
4
does not acknowledges such a situation but the example she provides for group 10.d is polje ‘field’
which has a palatal in the last radical position ([λ]). However, I am aware of at least a
counterexample: more ‘sea’. Either way, the system I provide accounts for NEU nouns.
Let me go back to Vfin’s and let me recast the data in such a way based on gender and number.
This gives three groups of Vfin’s, as illustrated below (cf. 5.a):
(11) Decomposed V fin based on gender and number
a. Masculine
b. Feminine
sg.
pl.
sg.
pl.
I
A.I
A
zero
c. Neuter
sg.
pl.
A.U - A.I
A
Recall now the implications assumptions in (6) on null morphemes make. First of all, M must be
marked by zero. Secondly, F must be marked by Element A and, finally, I propose that NEU must
be marked by either U or I. Note that NEU is characterized by NOM-ACC (and VOC) syncretism.
As by hypothesis, Element A is the ACC marking (cf. 5.d) and then it appears in NEU NOM, too. I
will return on this point later, while discussing NEU nouns (cf. infra 4.2.4). NEU plural will be
examined later, too.
What I want to point out in this section is that for a given root, an Element A, I, U or zero is
associated to. Each one of these Elements allows for a predictable gender interpretation. In addition,
plural is marked by I, henceforth Ipl.
Kaye’s et al.’s Theory of Elements allows to deconstruct each final vowel into primitive
Elements which have morpho-syntactic properties. Before introducing the syntactic structures for
Bosnian nouns, I will briefly sketch the notion of “theme” vowel.
3.2 The notion of “theme vowel”
Indo-European languages display a well-known morpho-syntactic phenomenon which has
always been referred to as “theme vowel” (henceforth Th). Each root is associated to one of these
vowels which appear between it and the inflectional morphemes. The morphological sequence root
+ Th has always been called “theme” or “stem”. Nouns and verbs are generally considered to bear a
Th, but not in all cases.
There is actually a major difference between nouns and verbs in the way they handle their theme
vowels. In the latter, theme vowel is some morphological fundamental requirement which has no
correspondence with meaning and/or other morphological properties. To correctly create the form
of a verb, the speaker has to know the root and the theme vowel which is unpredictable. Take for
example Latin verbs: the root laud corresponds to English ‘praise’, but if I want to say ‘we praise’, I
need to know that this root is associated to Th -a- giving the right result laudāmus ‘we praise’;
*laudēmus, laudĕmus or *laudīmus being excluded. Embick & Noyer (2007:305-310) refer to these
morphemes as items of “ornamental morphology”.
On the other hand, noun Th’s can be related to a property of nounness, namely the gender. Let
me take Latin again: in this language, there are five declensions which are traditionally recognized
to be marked by a specific Th. First declension is marked by -a-, second one by -o-, etc..7 In Latin,
however, there is a tiny degree of predictability about the gender once one knows the Th: first
declension nouns, for example, are almost all feminine, whereas second declension ones are almost
all masculine, and so on.
7
See Meiser (1998), a good overview on archaic and classical Latin declensional system.
5
But recall that Th is generally an unpredictable morpheme, which is clearly selected by the root.
Bosnian is totally consistent with the logic of Th, like many other modern Indo-European
languages, like Italian, Spanish, Russian, etc..8
As for Bosnian, I propose that each root has an inherent gender which is represented by a Th
Element as illustrated by (12) below. M is marked by zero, which means that Th = zero. As for F,
Th = A for the F declension. Finally, NEU nouns are the most complicated case: I propose that Th =
U or I as both Elements characterize this gender.9
(12) Bosnian Roots
a. zero-roots (M)
b. A-roots (F)
c. U-roots (N)
d. I-roots (N)
As a consequence, at least three noun classes exist in Bosnian and their difference in NOM is
given by the lexical Element.
The next section introduces the syntactic structures for NOM.
4. Syntactic structure in nouns
4.1 The Phonology-Syntax interface
I showed that Vfin’s are complex items in Bosnian. Such items are spelled-out at each terminal
node of the syntactic structure. I propose a model of the interaction between phonology and syntax,
in the spirit of Lowenstamm (2008), assuming a non-lexicalist and syntactic approach to word
formation (Halle & Marantz 1993, Marantz 2001, Embick & Halle 2005, Embick & Noyer 2001).
The basic structure is given in 13.a while 13.b shows a complex head at PF, where the node Th is
inserted (as by a general requirement of Bosnian nouns).10 At PF, each terminal node can be
associated to a CV syllable, in the sense of Lowenstamm (1996 and 2008).11 In this model, once the
derivation attains PF, only the phonological material associated to CVCV.. cluster can surface.
(13) Basic noun structure
a.
KP
K
b.
K
numP
num
num
nP
n
Th
√
CVCV..
n
√
CVCV..
num
Th
n
K
(CV)
(CV)
(CV)
(CV)
8
Cf. Oltra-Massuet (2000) for a proposal regarding Catalan and Spanish theme vowels in verbs.
If we consider the palatalizing effect illustrated above, only element U is the Th for NEU.
10
Calabrese (1998) proposes a similar approach to Latin case system and I am intellectually influenced by his
analysis, in particolar as far as the underlying structure (13.a) in considered.
11
The question whether Bosnian has a template active in morphology cannot be addressed here for space reasons.
Recent works by Caha & Scheer (2008) and Rizzolo (2007) have demonstrated that there is a clear templatic activity in
the formation of iterative and infinitive in Czech and that the CVCV.. syllable type underlies Serbian nouns,
respectively. Recall that C stands for onset and V for nucleus.
9
6
I assume that roots enter into the structure with a template and the lexical Element associated to,
as shown below:
(14) Bosnian roots:
a. zero-roots
ok vi r
| | | | |
CVCVCVCV
b. A-roots
kuć
| | |
CVCV
A
c. U-roots
s el
| | |
CVCV
U
d. I-roots
s r c
| | |
CVCV
I
The spell-out takes place at PF, where each terminal node is phonologically interpreted.
Two crucial ideas must be highlighted before continuing the discussion. First, in this theory
spell-out at PF is responsible for giving a phonological content to the featural matrixes present in
the syntactic structure. I assume that different spell-outs compete at the level of terminal nodes in
the sense of Embick & Marantz (2008) whereas I assume that it can be either segmental, skeletal or
of both types, as shown in (15) after Bendjaballah & Haiden (2008):
(15) Types of spell-out
a. segmental (floating)
[ka]
b. skeletal
CV
c. segmental & skeletal
[k a]
| |
CV
Secondly, each morpheme is independently motivated and once spelled-out at PF, then all the
morphemes combine into the output form, by associating to the CV tier. In Distributed Morphology,
the mechanism which provides phonological content to terminals is called Vocabulary Insertion and
each spelled-out item is a Vocabulary Item (VI). The view presented here is closely related to such
an interpretative device.
In the following section, I introduce the spell-out for each terminal, namely Th, n, num and K
and I show how these items interact to build the actual output forms.
4.2 Structures in Bosnian nouns: NOM
Now I explore the syntactic structures of Bosnian NOM nouns. First, I show M and F nouns;
secondly I do a detour into diminutive/augmentative nominal formations which provide useful
insights in understanding the syntactic structures in nouns. Finally, I conclude the section proposing
an account for NEU nouns.
4.2.1 M nouns
M nouns display the simplest occurrence of Vfin (zero), for this reason I start showing their
structure:
7
(16) M nouns structure: Th = zero
a.
K
|-obl |
|+str |
|+sup|
KP
b.
K
numP
num
[-pl]
num
nP
n
|+gen|
| -f |
Th
√
CVCVCV..
| | | |
o k v i ..
n
num
Th
√
n
CVCVCVCV
| | | | |
ok vir
zero
K
zero
zero
zero
output: [okvir] ‘frame’
The gender feature is introduced by n as in Kihm (2002) and Lowenstamm (2008). When
present, pl. marking Ipl is associated to the free V slot into the root template. It could be argued that
whenever a root bears “zero” as its lexical Element, no Th is required at PF, for its phonological
interpretation is always zero. However, a restricted group of M nouns points to the fact that Th is
there in any case, cf. infra 4.2.5.
Now consider that native Bosnian (Serbo-Croatian more generally) lexicon is strictly organized
in declensions as shown in (1). However, many loanwords exist in the language and these are
always reinterpreted either as M or as F, depending on their final vowels. For example, gorila
‘gorilla’ is F, jedna gorila ‘one gorilla’; balkon ‘balcony’ is M, jedan balkon ‘one balcony’, etc..
But if the loanword is oxyton, like [tabu′re] ‘stool’ it is not interpreted as it were a NEU (because
of the final [e]): jedan tabure ‘one stool’ clarifies that the noun is M. Plural is in fact taburei
‘stools’:12 this because Vfin is always unstressed.
In the representation of tabure, the final vowel occupies the last V slot in the template,
disallowing any other Element to be associated to. The structures in (16) cannot account for such an
exceptional noun unless (at least) a CV unit is associated to one of the terminal of the complex
head. This explains also why all the nouns have overt inflectional morphology. Logically, three
possibilities exist: the CV can be associated to n, num or K. As a provisional solution, I propose to
associate it to K.
I show loan M nouns below:
12
Both my informant and Corbett & Browne (2008:338-339) seem to agree on this point. The latter use the example
biro ‘office’, M sg. which declines as biroa at sg. GEN.
8
(17) M pl. loanwords: Th = zero
a.
KP
K
numP
|-obl |
|+str | num
|+sup| [+pl]
n
|+gen|
| -f |
b.
K
num
nP
Th
√
n
CVCV..
| | | |
t a b u ..
√
CVCVCV
| | | | | |
tabure
num
Th
n
K
CV
Ipl
zero
zero
output: [taburei] ‘stools’
Plural element Ipl can land to the free V slot in num at PF, hence it is pronounced. The structure
in (16) must be modified by adding a CV in num. The template in √ is not accessible to inflectional
morphology.
4.2.2 F nouns
F nouns introduce the lexical Element A in the structure, as by hypothesis above. For sake of
clarity, I show F pl. noun structure, where the interaction between the lexical Element and the plural
marking can be seen.
(18) F nouns structure: Th = A
a.
KP
K
numP
|-obl |
|+str | num
nP
|+sup| [+pl]
n
|+gen|
| +f |
b.
K
num
Th
√
CVCV..
| | |
kuć A
n
√
CVCV
| | |
kuć
num
Th
n
K
CV
Ipl
A
nounness
output: [kuće] ‘houses’
The floating Element A enters into the structure since the beginning of the derivation, as it is
lexically associated to the root. At PF, it fuses with Ipl and they associate to the free V slot on K.
Note that the free V slot in the root is not accessible to the morphology, as the comparison between
native vs. loan M nouns proves.
Th is required at PF to account for the lexical Element associated to the root, whereas n
nominalizes the root and assigns it a gender. They undergo an agreement relation. Why, then, do we
need two nodes, n and Th to account for the gender/declension assignment? Two answers can be
9
given. First, because it turns out that, in some cases, n is not empty, e.g. an overt morpheme is
spelled-out at this place. Secondly, this configuration predicts that a mismatch between the lexical
Element associated to the root and the gender in n is possibly found in the system. The prediction is
borne out, as a group of M nouns having a NOM ending [a] exist. These entirely follow the
paradigm of group 2 in (1), e.g. jedan sudija ‘one.M judge’. (19) illustrates this situation:
(19) M nouns having Th = A
a.
KP
b.
K
numP
|-obl |
|+str | num
|+sup| [+pl]
n
|+gen|
| -f |
K
num
nP
Th
√
n
CVCVCV..
| | | | |
sudij A
√
CVCVCV
| | | | |
sudij
num
Th
n
K
CV
Ipl
A
nounness
output: [sudije] ‘judges’
The first answer is discussed in the following sub-section.
4.2.3 Diminutives and augmentatives
Bosnian has a quite rich evaluative morphology which consists in a diminutive (DIM) and an
augmentative (AUG). The former attaches to the root and maintains the gender of the basic noun
whereas the latter imposes F gender to the modified noun. These data are shown below:
(20) Bosnian diminutives and augmentatives
sg.
basic okvir
DIM okvir-čić
AUG okvir-etina
‘frame’
g.
M
M
F
pl.
okvir-i
okvir-čić-i
okvir-etin-e
‘frames’
g.
M
M
F
sg.
kuć-a
kuć-ic-a
kuć-etin-a
‘house’
g.
F
F
F
pl.
kuć-e
kuć-ic-e
kuć-etin-e
‘houses’
g.
sg.
F drv-o
F drv-c-e
F drv-etin-a
‘tree’
g.
pl.
NEU drv-a.
NEU drv-c-a
F
drv-etin-e
‘trees’
g.
NEU
NEU
F
basic prozor
M prozor-i
M čaš-a
F čaš -e
F piv-o
NEU piva-a
NEU
DIM prozor-čić M prozor-čić-i
M čaš-ic-a F čaš-ic-e F piv-c-e
NEU piv-c-a
NEU
AUG √-čurin-a F prozor-čurin-e F čaš-urin-a F čaš-urin-e F piv-čurin-a F
piv-čurin-e F
‘window’
‘windows’
‘glass’
‘glasses’
‘beer’
‘beers’
Note that DIM takes specific form depending on the gender: -čić for M, -ica for F and -ce for
N.13 NEU DIM has an allomorph as in kinašce ‘little cinema’ from kino ‘cinema’
Observe now the augmentative: two different suffixes appear, -etina and -(č)urina. The latter is
perceived by my informant as typical of countryside varieties, but besides this, the meaning is the
same for both suffixes. The striking fact is that both suffixes always change the gender of the basic
noun into F: *-etin and *-(č)urin are totally ungrammatical. How is this possible?
13
Can we think that a unique form /(č)(i)c/ underlies the three diminutives? Space reasons do not let me go into this
discussion. Intuitively, I do think so.
10
If we consider that AUG suffixes are spelled-out in n which is the site where gender features are,
then it follows that they can impose their inherent gender to the root. (21) shows this case:
(21) AUG structure
a.
KP
K
numP
|-obl |
|+str | num
nP
|+sup| [+pl]
n
√
AUG
|+gen|
CVCVCV..
| +f |
| | |
o k v ..
b.
K
num
Th
n
num
Th
√
n
CVCVCVCV
| | | | |
o k vi r
CVCVCV
| | | |
e ti n
K
CV
Ipl
A
output: [okviretina] ‘big frame’
The root lexical Element (in the case of √okvir, Vfin = zero) cannot influence the gender in n as
this is occupied by the features borne by AUG. In the complex head, n and Th undergo agreement
which results in the spell-out of the F marking A. The proposal of a ‘low’ evaluative morpheme has
been already explored in Steriopoulo & Wiltschko (2007) as well as in De Belder, Faust &
Lampitelli (2009) which inspired the idea that DIM/AUG can be directly merged to the root.
The evaluative morphology opens wide discussions which are not in the focus of this study.
However, consider that DIM can be represented in the same way as AUG, with the crucial
difference that no gender features are associated to it. This explains why the gender is always as the
one of basic noun is, without exception.
This opens a further discussion on the realization of Th at PF. Note that if n is empty, then Th is
normally interpreted zero with M, A with F and U with NEU. We have seen that it can happen that
M nouns show NOM [a] though. On the other hand, if n is phonologically interpreted (as in (21) by
the AUG morpheme), then the content of Th is always predictable. For example, M sudija ‘judge’
becomes sudijć ‘small judge, who is not a good one’ (*sudijca). In the theory of locality proposed
by Embick (2009), this could be seen as a case of contextual allomorphy of Th triggered by the root
but blocked whenever the root is not anymore adjacent to it.
Finally, just note that the suffix -ica is found elsewhere, namely in F nouns of professions, such
as student-ica ‘student.F’ or profesor-ica ‘professor.F’. This supports its analysis as n.
4.2.4 NEU nouns
In section 3.1, I claim that NEU are lexically marked by either Element U or I and I show this
above in (12) and (15). This sub-section shows how these nouns are technically built. The main
characteristics of NEU nouns is that they display syncretism between NOM and ACC for both sg.
and pl., unlike M and F. I take that this is reflected in the structure by a unique case matrix [-obl,
+struct] which gives the syncretism between direct cases, namely NOM and ACC. Canonical
Distributed Morphology analysis, would justify this situation by means of an impoverishment rule,
which would erase the feature [superior] in the context {[-gen], [-obl]}. In my account, I have no
particular technical stipulation and thus I assume that a rule of that type can indeed apply. I show
the representation of selo ‘village’ below:
11
(22) NEU nouns structure: Th = U
a.
K
|-obl |
|+str |
KP
b.
K
numP
num
[-pl]
num
nP
n
|-gen|
| -f |
Th
√
n
CVCV..
| | |
sel U
√
CVCV
| | |
sel
num
Th
n
K
zero
CV
|
A[acc]
U
nounness
output: [selo] ‘village’
Note that if the lexical Element is I instead of U, this gives the surface Vfin = [e]. This
configuration allows either the view that I is the result of a palatalizing effect of the consonant in
the root (n is empty and there is a local interaction between √ and Th) or the view that such an
Element is lexically associated as so to the root.
Before turning to the other morphological cases, I want to briefly sketch a interesting sub-group
of M nouns: the -ov/-ev ones.
4.2.5 M -ov/-ev monosyllabic nouns
There is a small group of M monosyllabic nouns which take a ‘root augment’ in all instances of
pl.: e.g. grad ‘town’ M sg. NOM vs. grad-ov-i ‘towns’ M pl. NOM or grada ‘of the town’ M sg.
GEN vs. grad-ov-ā ‘of the towns’ M pl. GEN. I propose that such a thematic lengthening is an
instance of n at PF, as (22) illustrates:
(22) M -ov monosyllabic nouns structure
a.
KP
K
numP
|-obl |
|+str | num
|+sup| [+pl]
n
|+gen|
| -f |
b.
K
num
nP
Th
√
CVCVCV..
| | | |
g r a d ov
n
√
CVCVCV
| | | |
g rad
num
Th
n
K
CV
Ipl
zero
CV
|
o v
output: [gradovi] ‘towns’
12
The theme augment is a floating item lexically associated to the root. The configuration shown in
(22) predicts two facts: (1) when a DIM or a AUG is spelled-out, the theme augment cannot be in
the structure; (2) only M nouns can bear such an augment, as other roots already have a lexical
Element associated to. Both predictions are borne out. Take grad ‘town’ and its plural gradovi
‘towns’, when the sg. undergoes DIM derivation holding gradić ‘small town’, the pl. form is the
predicted gradići ‘small towns’ and never *gradovići. The main difference between DIM/AUG
morphemes and the theme augment -ov/-ev is that the latter does not appear at sg.14
In this long section, I showed how the system builds the vocalic alternations in the NOM
paradigm (cf. 5.a). By hypothesis, all other surface instances of Vfin throughout the system, are built
in the same way. The phonology operates at PF using the spell-out rules. However, as (5.b-f) shows,
the puzzle is more complicated than it appears. The following section deals with a possible solution
to this problem.
5 How Vfin surfaces in cases other than NOM (TENTATIVE)
For explanatory purposes, let me show again the table (5), without VOC endings.
(23) = (5) Decomposed vocalic case endings
group 1
M
sg.
pl.
a. NOM
I
zero
b. GEN
A
A
c. DAT/LOC U
I(ma)
d. ACC
(A)
A.I
f. INSTR
A.U(m) I(ma)
group 2
F
sg. pl.
A
A.I
A.I A
I
A(ma)
U
A.I
A.U A(ma)
group 3
NEU
sg.
pl.
A.U
A
A
A
U
I(ma)
A.U
A
A.U(m) I(ma)
The situation is opaque as our analysis predicts that each Vfin must be formed by three
morphemes: a lexical Element, a sg./pl. marking and a case marking. This does not seem to be
completely true at first sight. The expected surface forms are built on the following underlying
structures:
(24) Underlying structures for V fin
a. Spell-outs
i. Lexical Element: zero, A, I or U.
ii. number: zero ~ Ipl.
iii. case: by hypothesis these correspond to each instance of sg. M Vfin.
NOM: zero
GEN: A
DAT/LOC: U
ACC: zero or A
INSTR: A.U (maybe /m/, too)
14
The form -ev of the theme augment appears when the last consonantal segment of the root is a palatal, e.g. nož ~
noževi ‘knife(-ves)’. This is a further argument for viewing it as close as possible to the root.
13
b. Underlying forms
group 1
M
sg.
pl.
a. NOM
ø.ø.ø
ø.Ipl.ø
b. GEN
ø.ø.A
ø.Ipl.A
c. DAT/LOC ø.ø.U
ø.Ipl.U
d. ACC
ø.ø.A
ø.Ipl.A
f. INSTR
ø.ø.[A.U] ø.Ipl.[A.U]
group 2
F
sg.
pl.
A.ø.ø
A.Ipl.ø
A.ø.A
A.Ipl.A
A.Ipl.U
A.ø.U
A.ø.A
A.Ipl.A
A.ø.[A.U] A.Ipl.[A.U]
group 3
NEU
sg.
pl.
U.ø.A
U.Ipl.A
U.ø.A
U.Ipl.A
U.ø.U
U.Ipl.U
U.ø.A
U.Ipl.A
U.ø.[A.U] U.Ipl.[A.U]
Observe that, in the data in 24.b, problems arise when two or more elements combine: when a
double-lined frame appears, the actual output form is not what the theory predicts. In particular, the
following forms are problematic:
(25) Problematic case forms
a. all GEN forms except than M sg.;
b. M pl., F and NEU pl. DAT/LOC;
c. F and NEU pl. ACC;
d. M pl., F pl. and NEU pl. INSTR.
Let me first examine all those cases that can be explained by the phonological theory that has
been adopted. Kaye et al.’s theory predicts that in a five-vowel phonological system such as
Bosnian one, no rounded front vowel can exist. This helps in solving the case of pl. DAT/LOC and
INSTR for both M and NEU:15
(26) M and NEU pl. DAT/LOC and INSTR (light grey colored in 24.b)
a. M DAT/LOC
ø + Ipl + U = *[y] then either [i] or [u] is the correct output.
b. M INSTR
ø + Ipl + [A.U] = *[ø] or *[y] then either [i] or [o] is the correct output.
c. NEU DAT/LOC
U + Ipl + U = *[y] either [i] or [u] is the correct output.
d. NEU INSTR
U + Ipl + [A.U] = *[ø] or *[y] then either [i] or [u] is the correct output.
Note that in all the cases in (26), the same vowel surfaces: [i]. Cf. the mentioned loan biro [biro]
‘office’ loses the rounded front vowel [y] found in the input French word [byro]. In addition, note
that the syllable /ma/ surfaces, too (cf. data in 1).
A similar phonological solution can be adopted for F pl. ACC: uniderlying /A.Ipl.A/ can only
give the actual output form [e]. Recall that the three Elements are spelled-out simultaneously at PF,
only the last one (i.e. case marking) having a CV associated to. In this particular case, two Elements
are phonological equal and then their fusion gives the input Element, i.e. /A/ which combines to /I/
and gives the result [e] (light grey colored in 25.b, too).
As for the remaining problematic forms in (25), another analytical path must be investigated as a
phonological approach does not seem to fully account for actual output forms. I repeat these forms
classified by syntactic case:
15
For precise technical details the reader is referred to Kaye et al. 1985 and 1990.
14
(27) Complex problematic forms:
underlying structures
a. GEN
i. M pl.
ø.Ipl.A
ii. F sg./pl.
A.ø.A ~ A.Ipl.A
iii. NEU sg. U.ø.A ~ U.Ipl.A
b. DAT/LOC
i. F sg./pl.
A.ø.U ~ A.Ipl.U
c. ACC
i. F sg.
A.ø.A
ii. NEU pl.
U.Ipl.A (this is identical to NOM, as 24.b shows).
d. INSTR
i. F pl.
A.Ipl.[A.U]
output forms
[a]
[e] ~ [a]
[a] ~ [a]
[i] ~ [a-ma]
[u]
[a]
What generalization can be done observing the data in (27)?
First, GEN is clearly marked by A alone, regardless the lexical Element and plural marking. [a]
is found throughout the paradigm (in ‘regular’ M sg., too) except than in F sg., which displays an
unexpected [e].
Secondly, note F pl. DAT/LOC and F pl. INSTR. These are characterized by Vfin = [a] followed
by the syllable /ma/, as their M and NEU counterparts. The crucial difference is the quality of Vfin,
which is [a] in F instead of expected [e] or analogical [i]. Again, we find a surface [a] which has a
different underlying origin, though. In these cases, it is the lexical Element A that surfaces alone,
and not the case marking.
Thirdly, NEU pl. ACC (and NOM) show a surface [a], too. In this context, it is again the case
marking that surfaces, likewise the GEN paradigm. Note that 27.a.iii pl. is phonological equal to
27.c.ii. and therefore they have the same output form.16
Finally, F sg. GEN, DAT/LOC and ACC seem totally idiosyncratic and no prediction can be
made.
Two possible solutions can be conceived. One possibility is a rule that would make the Element
A (regardless its morpho-syntactic status) surface alone in the contexts mentioned in (27),
regardless any other intervening morpheme. On the other hand, a further possibility would be to
analyze the ‘deviant’ realization of Vfin in (27) as instances of contextual allomorphy rules.
In the case of GEN, allomorphy would apply to any node locally adjacent to K[GEN], in the sense
of Embick’s (2009) Theory of Locality. It is a case of ‘outwards allmorphy’ which turns to zero any
element preceding K. The result is a zero allomorph, as (28) illustrates for F pl. kuća ‘of the
houses’:
16
I am not claiming that this is a general tendency, as same phonological sequences do not give the same results in
all cases, cf. M pl. GEN vs. ACC. This is why the system displays opacity: not any process has the same application
domain nor the same contextual application.
15
(28) Contextual allomorphy in GEN paradigm:
a.
KP
K
numP
|+obl |
|+str | num
|-sup| [+pl]
n
|+gen|
| +f |
b.
K
num
nP
Th
√
n
CVCV
| | |
kuć
A
√
CVCV
| | |
kuć
num
Th
n
K
Ipl
CV
|
A
A
nounness
c. output: [kuća] ‘of the houses’ instead of [*kuće].
d. allomorphy is triggered by K: num takes its zero-allomorph
allomorph: ø
Note that the allomorphy strictly applies at PF and by local interaction, as it affects any non-null
morpheme preceding K: in NEU sg., it is lexical Element U that takes a zero-allomorph. It can be
formalized as follows:
(29) Allormophic rule R1: a locally adjacent morpheme → ø /___ A[+ oblique, + structural, - superior].
As already noticed, the case-marking Element surfaces alone in NEU pl. ACC and NOM, too.
These have the same underlying representation as NEU pl. GEN and for this reason, I propose the
same allomorphic rule, as shown below:
(30) Contextual allomorphy in NEU (ACC, NOM)
a.
KP
K
numP
|-obl |
|+str | num
(sup) [+pl]
n
|-gen|
| -f |
b.
K
num
nP
Th
√
CVCV
| | |
s e l U
n
√
CVCV
| | |
s e l
num
Th
n
K
Ipl
CV
|
A
U
nounness
c. output: [sela] ‘the villages’ NOM, ACC instead of [*sele]
d. allomorphy is triggered by K and num takes its zero-allomorph.
allomorph: ø
Note that there is the lexical Element U, too and therefore [o] is expected at the surface.
However, if one considers, again, that U and I cannot stay at the same level of the representation as
16
ruled out by Kaye et al.’s theory, then Element I wins the competition as in the cases at study in
(26). Consider also that the Element U never surfaces in NEU pl. paradigm.17 Then it undergoes the
allomorphy rule (cyclicity should be mention, I think). Medium-dark grey in 24.b. shows the places
of application for these two contextual allomorphy rules.
Let me turn the attention on F pl. DAT/LOC and INSTR, which behave in a different way
compared to M and NEU ones. Phonologically, we expect either [o] or [e], which both contain the
Element A. The actual output form contains in fact only this Element, thus being phonetically
[a(ma)]. It is curious that only this vowel surfaces again. Nevertheless, the only way to account for
these forms is a Readjustment Rule applying on output forms. Such a Rule lowers either [o] or [e]
produced at the interface between Syntax and Phonology.
Finally, F sg. GEN, DAT/LOC and ACC display unexpected output forms which can be
accounted for by specific Readjustment Rules, too. These rules apply once the derivation has been
completed.
Before concluding, let me sketch a group of nouns which I have put aside at the beginning of the
paper. Recall Hammond’s (2005) group 3, where nouns having a GEN [i] marking have been
classed. In my terms (Corbett & Browne’s 2008 ones more precisely) these nouns cannot be classed
in group 1 (cf. (1)) as they are not M. These are all F, i.e. stvar ‘thing’ or noć ‘night’ and they do
not follow the M declension, except than in NOM sg. and pl. This shown in what follows:
(31) Stvar-type declension (only F)
group 4
F
sg.
pl.
a. NOM
stvar
stvar-i
b. GEN
stvar-i
stvar-ī
c. DAT/LOC stvar-i
stvar-ima
d. ACC
stvar
stvar-i
e. VOC
stvar
stvar-i
f. INSTR
stvar-i/ju stvar-ima
‘frame’
‘frames’
This paradigm is restricted to a minority of nouns all displaying a F agreement: jedna[F] stvar ‘a
thing’ plus the abstract nouns ending in -ost and collective ones ending in -ad, i.e. mladost ‘youth’
(cf. mlad ‘young’) and jagnjad ‘lambs’, respectively. Along the lines of my account, the underlying
structure for such a group of nouns is as shown below:
(32) Underlying forms for stvar-type nouns:
group 4
F
sg.
pl.
a. NOM
ø.ø.ø
ø.Ipl.ø
b. GEN
ø.ø.I
ø.Ipl.A
c. DAT/LOC ø.ø.I
ø.Ipl.U
d. ACC
ø.ø.ø
ø.Ipl.ø
f. INSTR
ø.ø.I/U ø.Ipl.[A.U]
17
A further allomorphy rule could be introduced here. U takes a zero allomorph in the context of Ipl. I prefer the
pure phonological solution as it seems to me less ad hoc for the case in handle.
17
The sg. is characterized by a zero lexical Element (as group 1 M nouns) which triggers a F
agreement, though. This mismatch mirros the one we observed for sg. NOM [a] nouns triggering M
agreement, i.e. sudija ‘judge’ cf. supra 4.2.2. Given that, the roots entering this paradigm (a given
list) trigger the allomorphy of case marking Elements, namely zero for those marked [-obl] and /I/
for those marked by [+obl].18 Note that in case of inanimate referents, M nouns show a zero ACC
marking: I assume that this is the case for this group, too.
On the other hand, because of the intervening Ipl which blocks the allomorphy triggered by the
root (cf. Embick 2009), pl. paradigm should not display the allomorphy. NOM and ACC do not
present any particular problem, whereas DAT/LOC and INSTR on one side and GEN on the other
need a clarification. In the first case, the theory of Elements itself explains why [i] surfaces (cf. 26).
Note that, as expected, DAT/LOC and INSTR regularly surface as [ima]. As for pl. GEN, the
predicted form is [a] because of the Allomorphy Rule R1 (cf. 29) application. Indeed, the surface
form is still [i], that is the Ipl surfaces alone, deleting GEN /A/ (I have to better justify this, as it is
central for my analysis).
6. Conclusions
In this paper I have discussed a non-lexicalist and a piece-based approach to word formation,
proposing specific interactions between the syntactic structure and the phonological representation,
in the spirit of Lowenstamm (2008).
The advantage of such an approach is in the fact that it attains the phono-morpho-syntactic basics
of morphological items words are made of. It attempts to rule out the way such basic elements are
combined and what the laws governing their combination are. I showed that, given the feature
matrixes manipulated by the syntactic structure, it is at PF that the phonology of complex items is
first spelled-out node-by-node, then combined. This part of the work takes inspiration from Embick
(2009), although in his model a node does not manipulate a phonological object, but only features.
For the case in handle, I believe that complex heads terminal nodes do actually manipulate basic
phonological Elements which are morphemes in the sense of Distributed Morphology.
Finally, I discussed the late application of both Allomorphy Rules and Readjustment Rules,
which account for the mismatches between input and output forms (I have to briefly discuss OT
somewhere in the paper).
7. References
Bendjaballah, Sabrina & Martin Haiden. 2008. “A typology of Emptiness in Templates”. In
The Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology, ed. by Jutta, Hartmann, V.
Hegedus & Henk van Riemsdjik, 21-57. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Browne, Wayles. 1993. “Serbo-Croat”. In The Slavonic Languages, ed. by Bernard Comrie and
Greville Corbett, XX-XX. London.
Calabrese, Andrea. 1998. “Some remarks on the Latin case system”. Theoretical Analyses of
Romance Languages. Selected Papers from the 26th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages
(LSRL XXVI), Mexico City, 28-30 March 1996, ed. by José Lema & Esthela Treviño, 71-126.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Caha, Pavel & Tobias Scheer. 2008. “The Syntax and Phonology of Czech Templatic
Morphology. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, The Stony Brook Meeting 2007, ed. by
Andrei Antonenko, John F. Bailyn & Christina Y. Bethin, 68-83. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Michigan
Slavic Publications.
18
Note that INSTR can have a /U/ allomorph, too. Cf. Hammond (2005: 168-171) for the a detailed list.
18
Corbett, Grevill & Wayles Browne. 2008. “Serbo-Croat. Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin,
Serbian. In The World’s Major Languages, ed. by Bernard Comrie, 330-346. New York: Routledge.
De Belder, Marijke, Faust, Noam & Nicola Lampitelli. 2009. “On an inflectional and a
derivational diminutive”. Talk given at the Root Workshop, Universität Stuttgart, June 2009.
Embick, David. 2009. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. MIT Press
Monograph.
Embick, David & Morris Halle. 2005. “On the status of stems in Morphological Theory”.
Proceedings of Going Romance 2003, ed. by Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginneken & Haike Jacobs, 3762. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Embick, David & Alec Marantz. 2008. “Architecture and Blocking”. Linguistic Inquiry 39.1:153.
Embick, David & Ralf Noyer. 2001. “Movement Operations after Syntax”. Linguistic Inquiry
32.4:555-595.
Embick, David & Ralph Noyer. 2007. “Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology
Interface”. Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, ed. by Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss,
289-324. Oxford University Press.
Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford University Press.
Halle, Morris. 1997. “Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and Fission”. MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 30. 425-449.
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection”.
The view from the Building 20, ed. by Kenneth Hale & Samuel J. Kayser, 111-176. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Halle, Morris & Andrew I. Nevins. 2009. “Rule Application in Phonology”. Contemporary
Views on Architecture and Representations in Phonology, ed. by Eric Raimy and Charles Cairns,
355-382. MIT Press.
Hammond, Lila. 2005. Serbian. An essential grammar. Routledge: New York.
Jakobson, Roman. 1948. “Russian Conjugation”. Words 4:155-167.
Kaye, J., J. Lowenstamm & J. R. Vergnaud (1985) “The internal structure of phonological
elements: a theory of charm and government” Phonology Yearbook 2:305-328.
Kaye, J., J. Lowenstamm & J. R. Vergnaud. 1990. “Constituent structure and government in
phonology”. Phonology Yearbook 7.193-231.
Kihm, Alain. 2002. “What’s in a Noun: Noun Classes, Gender and Nounness. Ms., Université
Paris 7.
Lowenstamm, Jean. 1996. “CV as the only syllable type”. Current Trends in Phonology:
Models and Methods, ed. by Jacques Durand & Bernard Laks, 419-441. Manchester: Salford.
Lowenstamm, Jean. 2008. “On n, nP and √”. In The Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in
Syntax and Phonology, ed. by Jutta Hartmann, V. Hegedus & Henk van Riemsdjik, 105-144.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Magner, T. F. & L. Matejka. 1971. Word Accent in Modern Serbo-Croatian. Pennsylvania
State University Press: University Park & London.
Marantz, Alec. 2001. “Words and Things”. Ms. MIT.
Matešić, Josip. 1970. Der Wortakzent in der serbokroatischen Schriftsprache. Heidelberg: C.
Winter.
Meiser, Gerhard. 1998. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinische Sprache.
Wissenschaftlichte Buchgesellschaft.
Müller, Gereon. 2004. “A Distributed Morphology Approach to Syncretism in Russian Noun
Inflection”. Formal Approaches to Slavic Languages. The Ottawa Meeting 2003, ed. by Olga
Aranaudova, Wayles Browne, Maria L. Rivero & Danijela Stojanović, 353-374. Michigan Slavic
Publications: Ann Arbor, Mich.
Oltra-Massuet, Isabel. 2000. “On the Constituent Structure of Catalan Verbs”. MITWPL 33,
279-322.
19
Rizzolo, Olivier. 2007 “The Syllable Is Not a Valid Constituent: Evidence from Two SerboCroatian Languages Games”. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Toronto Meeting 2006,
ed. by Richard Compton, Magdalena Goledzinowska & Ulyana Savchenko, 264-281. Michigan
Slavic Publications: Ann Arbor, Mich.
Steriopoulo, Olga & Martina Wiltschko. 2007. “Parameters of Variation in the Syntax of
Diminutives”. Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Conference of Canadian Linguistic Association,
ed. by Milica Radišić.
20