Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Adjectival Flection and N-deletion in the Dutch Dialect Regions Ton Goeman Meertens Instituut / KNAW - Amsterdam Variflex Variation in Inflection resumé.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Adjectival Flection and N-deletion in the Dutch Dialect Regions Ton Goeman Meertens Instituut / KNAW - Amsterdam Variflex Variation in Inflection resumé."— Presentation transcript:

1 Adjectival Flection and N-deletion in the Dutch Dialect Regions Ton Goeman Meertens Instituut / KNAW - Amsterdam Variflex Variation in Inflection resumé van het nieuwe NWO-programma 21 augustus 2003 UVA

2 The role of morphology in a phonological process Does Morphological conditioning emerge from Phonology? A. Anttila “Morphological Conditioned phonological alternations” ‘morphological conditions emerge in environments where the phonological conditions are at their weakest’ Are there indications for level ordering:? N-deletion on every level So that uninflected&(un)derived forms show more deletion than inflected forms

3 Morphological or (morpho)syntactical? In our case w.r.t N-deletion: Do we have to think primarily in syntactic terms confronted with morphological categories? Or, are morphological categories explained away by functional syntactic terms? N.B. I can not yet answer the parallel question Is morphological conditioning emerging from syntax?

4 The case Word final N-deletion Adnominal word final -N Word final -N in other Morphological categories

5 Adnominal -N in Masc. Adjectives Ene goeien oogst “a good harvest” Enen droge kerel “a flat character” Enen houten boom “a wooden beam” N retained if before: VOWEL T/D B R N Deleted: before the other CONSONANTS

6 N.B. This phonological conditioning is variable Variability according to region

7 Word final -N in other Word Classes Adv/Prepbuiten ‘out of’ > buite Noun sing.: jongen ‘boy’ > jonge Noun plur.: jongen ‘young animals’ > jonge Verb infinitive: geven ‘to give’ > geve Verb pret. particip.: gegeven ‘(been) given’ > gegeve Verb present:zij geven ‘they give’ > geve Verb past:zij gaven ‘they gave’ > gave

8 Language internal factors: Phonology Word internal phonology: Influence of preceding consonant Labial, Labiodental, Coronal, Velar, Liquid Phrase-phonology: Influence of following Vowel, h, t/d, b, nasal, r, other Consonant or Pause

9 Word internal Phonology: -(e)N after Vowel & Consonant Darkgreen: 0-12 % to Darkbrown: 88-100 %

10 Phrasal Phonology

11 -N before Vowel Non-adnominal(black) Adnominal(brown) Ten onder?

12 -N before H…. Non-adnominal(black) Adnominal(brown)

13 -N before T, D…. Non-adnominal(black) Adnominal(brown)

14 -N before B…. Non-adnominal(black) Adnominal(brown)

15 -N before other Consonants…. Non-adnominal(black) Adnominal(brown)

16 How is the fate of Wordfinal -N in the other Morphological Classes?

17 Morphological Classes: N-deletion in green area’s Adv/Adj/P/Num(mono-) Nsing (mono-) Nplur (bi-morph.) Darkgreen: 0-12 % (deletion) to Darkbrown: 88-100 % (retained )

18 Morphological Classes: N-deletie in green area’s Infinitive Past Participle Finite Verb (plur.) Darkgreen: 0-12 % to Darkbrown: 88-100 % (deletion) (retained)

19 Morphology…… What are the relevant Morphological classifications?

20 Morphological Theory: classes are allocated differently by morphological characteristics: 9 divisions 1Syntactical Word classes (A P N V ) eigen (A), tegen (P), Pasen (Nsing.), glazen (Nplur.), krijgen (V) 2Finite-Infinite jongen ‘young animals’(finite) – jongen ‘boy’ (sing.), tegen (P) zij lopen (finite) -lopen (infinitive), gelopen (Past Participle)

21 3Derivation-Inflection krijgen (plur.) V krijgen (infinitive) N, gekregen (past participle) N Flection after/on) Derivation (default) 4Affixal-Nonaffixal = Bi-morphemic- Monomorphemic jongen Nplur. ‘young animals’ jongen Nsing.‘boy’ 5Finer grained morphological classification than A P N and V: Afin, APinf, NOMinf, NOMfin, Infinitive, Pastparticiple, Present, Past

22 6Morphological Theory; Booij 1994 Lexical Phonology: - Inherent inflection - Contextual inflection

23 7Morphological Theory: Kiparsky (1972) : Strong-Weak Features

24 8Theory: Kiparsky (1994) w.r.t. Word final t-deletion: strata Morphological conditioning by constraint interaction Deletion is the outcome by different ordering of PARSE with a family of SyllableWellFormednes Conditions: SyllWFF-root ≈ no inflection eigen SyllWFF-stem≈ irregular inflection kregen (plur. Pret.) gekregen (part. Pret.) SyllWFF-word≈ regular derivation & flection krijgen (inf.) krijgen (plur. Pres.)

25 9Theory: Morpho-syntactic (Kean): N-Plur and Infinitive are derivational, all other Verbal forms are inflectional Agrammatic patients Deficit where the ‘minimal word’ remains intact Patients drop inflection in A, V (un)derived words - derived Nplur. and Infinitive - remain intact

26 Survey of Morphological features in 9 Morphological Models Morpholo- gical Class Word Class Finite- Infinite Affixal- Nonaffixal Derivation - Inflection Inherent- Contextual (Booij) Strong- Weak (Kiparsky 1972) Syllable WFF (Kiparsky 1994) Morpho- syntax (Kean) AfinAFinAffixInflectedContextualWeakWordInflected APinfA/PInfNonaffixNoneMixed Root(Un)Derived NOMinfNInfNonaffixNoneInherentStrongRoot(Un)Derived NOMfinNFinAffixInflectedInherentStrongWord(Un)Derived InfinitiveNInfAffixDerivedInherentStrongWord(Un)Derived PastparticNInfAffixDerivedInherentStrongStemInflected PresentVFinAffixInflectedContextualWeakWordInflected PastVFinAffixInflectedContextualWeakStemInflected

27 Selected items: 114 wordforms -Adjectives -Adverbs -Prepositions -Nouns -Verbs Data selected from GoemanTaeldemanVanReenen-database http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/projecten/mand/MANDintroE.html

28 Social characteristics in database

29 Dialect areas & Number of localities

30 What are the structural differences between dialect area’s ? Discern the significant factors that condition the variation The relative strenght of those factors A. What is the influence of social context: Social characteristics of speakers and interaction with fieldworkers B.Influence of linguistic structural factors: linguistic social Unexplainable restfactors N-deletion 0% ………………………………………………… 100%

31 The Strategy is Partitioning Partition off all unexplained variation Partition off all non-linguistic variation (social factors and interaction in fieldwork) Then the linguist gets his part The real linguistic variation, uncontaminated by non-linguistic factors: linguistic structure

32 Patterns in the dialects General structure of models used: Linguistic variables Explanatory Phonological variables Wordphonology:Influence of preceding Consonant Phrase-phonology:Influence of following Vocaal, h, t/d, b, nasal, r, other Consonant or Pause Explanatory Morphological variables The 9 Morphological Classifications allocated differently by Theoretical positions

33 Structure of models 2 Social factors Main effects Sex speaker Age speaker Occupational prestige speaker Sex fieldworker Social Interactions (accommodation of speaker) Sex speaker x Sex fieldworker Age speaker x Sex fieldworker Occupational prestige speaker x Sex fieldworker N.B. Fieldworkers (students) were young and their Occupational prestige is rather undefined yet Given the areal differences: analysis by Region (5) This gives 5 (Region) * 9 (Morph. Classifications) = 45 statistical models to test for

34 Which of the models are best? Those morphological allocations that explain most of the variation Measure % Variance explained Over all 5 regions In what follows: Morphological Models are ordered from left to right as best to less

35 Percent explained variance in 9 different Morphological Models North5148 51 48 Zealand49414038 413635 South3532 313231 RiverArea2624 22 West151413 11 1211 Models Morph Class Deri v / Infl Kip- Syll WFF Affix /Non - affix Kip- Strong / Weak Word Class Kean Agra mmat ism Inher ent/C onte xtual Fini te/ Infi nite Best ………………………………………………………………………………………………. Less

36 Choose the best Morphological Model (9) over 5 geographical Regions: Percent explained Variance: Best model is Morphological Classes, followed by Derivation-Inflection

37 Conclusion 1 A division between inflected and non- inflected forms has less explanatory power Therefore, a stratum view based on these divisions is not applicable here

38 Conclusion 2: Social effects All main social factors and interactions are significant Except: North-East main effect: sex fieldworker Westmain effects: age, occupational prest interaction: age*sex fieldworker Zealandmain effects: sex speaker, occupational prest interaction: sex speaker*sex fieldworker Southmain effect:occupational prestige interactions:all

39 Concentration on Linguistic Main Effects Model by Region To see where Morphology outweighs Phonology The effect of Word internal Phonology is less than that of Phrase Phonology

40 PhrasePhon exceeds Morph ………………… Morph exceeds PhrPhon ………………… Morph exceeds PhrPhon …………………. PhrPhon exceeds Morph …………………. PhrPhon exceeds Morph

41 Conclusions 3 In all regions, Morphology is a significant factor In two regions: North and West, Morphology is stronger than Phonology West: Nouns inhibit N-deletion North: masc Adj. show N-deletion, all other categories inhibit it In North and West, phonological conditions (albeit significant) are relatively weaker than in the other regions and morphology is stronger (cfr. Antilla) In the River Area and in Zealand Morphology could grow stronger

42 Conclusions (last) There are only weak indications for level ordering The best model does not embody it The second best model (Derivation-Inflection) fares best in the North-East Inflection pushes deletion This runs counter to expectation: in level ordering (un)derived forms should show more deletion

43 Pending Problems Is morphology emerging from syntax? Antilla-style: where syntactic factors are weak I have no answer to that now Indications via morpho-syntactic aspects of the models Remember ------->> Survey of Morphological features in 9 Morphological Models

44 Survey of Morphological features in 9 Morphological Models (repeated) Morpholo- gical Class Word Class Finite- Infinite Affixal- Nonaffixal Derivation - Inflection Inherent- Contextual (Booij) Strong- Weak (Kiparsky 1972) Syllable WFF (Kiparsky 1994) Morpho- syntax (Kean) AfinAFinAffixInflectedContextualWeakWordInflected APinfA/PInfNonaffixNoneMixed Root(Un)Derived NOMinfNInfNonaffixNoneInherentStrongRoot(Un)Derived NOMfinNFinAffixInflectedInherentStrongWord(Un)Derived InfinitiveNInfAffixDerivedInherentStrongWord(Un)Derived PastparticNInfAffixDerivedInherentStrongStemInflected PresentVFinAffixInflectedContextualWeakWordInflected PastVFinAffixInflectedContextualWeakStemInflected

45 Global Character of these Morphological Models Morphology(Morpho)Syntax Morphological Classes Major Wordclasses APNV Derivation-InflectionDerivation-Inflection Affixal-Non-affixal Inherent-ContextualInherent-Contextual Strong-WeakStrong-Weak Syllable-WFMorphosyntax (agramm.)

46 The result That Morphological Classes is best Thus a very traditional Priscinianus-type of morphological model is better than any other model Specifically this result suggests That it is better than models with syntactic ramifications

47 Ton Goeman +31 (0) 20 - 46 28 532 ton.goeman@meertens.knaw.nl www.meertens.knaw.nl/projecten/mand/MANDintroE.html Meertens Instituut Amsterdam-Netherlands Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences Workshop Variation in Inflection Meertens Instituut August 21, 2003


Download ppt "Adjectival Flection and N-deletion in the Dutch Dialect Regions Ton Goeman Meertens Instituut / KNAW - Amsterdam Variflex Variation in Inflection resumé."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google