Adjectival Flection andN-deletion in the Dutch

Dialect Regions

Ton GoemanMeertens Instituut / KNAW - Amsterdam

Variflex Variation in Inflection resumé van het nieuwe NWO-programma

21 augustus 2003 UVA

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

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?

The case

Word final N-deletion

Adnominal word final -N Word final -N in other Morphological categories

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

N.B.

This phonological conditioning is variable

Variability according to region

Word final -N in other Word Classes Adv/Prep buiten ‘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

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

Word internal Phonology: -(e)N after Vowel & Consonant

Darkgreen: 0-12 % to Darkbrown: 88-100 %

Phrasal Phonology

-N before Vowel Non-adnominal(black) Adnominal(brown)

Ten onder?

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

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

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

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

How is the fate of Wordfinal -N

in the other

Morphological Classes?

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)

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Morphological Classes: N-deletie in green area’s

Infinitive Past Participle Finite Verb (plur.)

Darkgreen: 0-12 % to Darkbrown: 88-100 %

(deletion) (retained)

Morphology……

What are the relevant Morphological classifications?

Morphological Theory:classes are allocated differently by morphological characteristics: 9 divisions

1 Syntactical Word classes (A P N V ) eigen (A), tegen (P), Pasen (Nsing.), glazen (Nplur.),

krijgen (V)

2 Finite-Infinite jongen ‘young animals’(finite) – jongen ‘boy’ (sing.),

tegen (P) zij lopen (finite) -lopen (infinitive), gelopen (Past

Participle)

3 Derivation-Inflection• krijgen (plur.) V• krijgen (infinitive) N, gekregen (past participle) N

Flection after/on) Derivation (default)

4 Affixal-Nonaffixal = Bi-morphemic-Monomorphemic

• jongen Nplur. ‘young animals’• jongen Nsing.‘boy’

5 Finer grained morphological classification than A P N and V: Afin, APinf, NOMinf, NOMfin, Infinitive, Pastparticiple,

Present, Past

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

Wordclass Inherent inflection Contextual inflection

N number

A comparative superlative [number~gender~definiteness] (portmanteaumorpheme)

V infinitive participle tense [number~person](portmanteau morpheme)

7 Morphological Theory: Kiparsky (1972):

Strong-Weak Features

Weak Strong

case number

verb agreement(in languages with no pronoundeletion)

tense

gender

verb agreement(in languages with pronoun deletion)

8 Theory: 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.)

9 Theory: 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

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)

Afin A Fin Affix Inflected Contextual Weak Word Inflected

APinf A/P Inf Nonaffix None Mixed Mixed Root (Un)Derived

NOMinf N Inf Nonaffix None Inherent Strong Root (Un)Derived

NOMfin N Fin Affix Inflected Inherent Strong Word (Un)Derived

Infinitive N Inf Affix Derived Inherent Strong Word (Un)Derived

Pastpartic N Inf Affix Derived Inherent Strong Stem Inflected

Present V Fin Affix Inflected Contextual Weak Word Inflected

Past V Fin Affix Inflected Contextual Weak Stem Inflected

Selected items:

114 wordforms

-Adjectives

-Adverbs

-Prepositions

-Nouns

-Verbs

Data selected from GoemanTaeldemanVanReenen-database

http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/projecten/mand/MANDintroE.html

Social characteristics in database

N Range MeanSex speaker m/f 252 / 117Age 25-84 61Occupational Prestige 13-89 46Sex fieldworker m/fmostly younger than speaker

201 / 158

Dialect areas& Number of localities

Regions Number of localities

River area dialects 31

North East dialects 152

West dialects 81

Zeeland dialects 29

South East dialects 76

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%

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

Patterns in the dialectsGeneral 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

Structure of models 2Social 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

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

Percent explained variance in 9 different Morphological Models

North 51 48 48 48 51 51 48 48 48

Zealand 49 41 40 38 38 38 41 36 35

South 35 32 32 32 32 32 31 32 31

RiverArea 26 24 24 24 22 22 22 22 22

West 15 14 13 13 11 11 12 11 11

Models

Morph Class

Deriv / Infl

Kip-SyllWFF

Affix/Non-affix

Kip-Strong/

Weak

Word Class

KeanAgrammatism

Inherent/Contextual

Finite/

Infinite

Best ………………………………………………………………………………………………. Less

Choose the best Morphological Model (9) over 5 geographical Regions:Percent explained Variance:

0

20

40

60

NorthZealand

SouthRiverArea

West

MorphClassDerivation-Inflection

Kiparsky-SyllWFFAffix-NonAffix

Kiparsky_Strong-WeakWordclass

Kean-AgrammatismInherent_Contextual

Finite-Infinite

MorphClassDerivation-InflectionKiparsky-SyllWFFAffix-NonAffixKiparsky_Strong-WeakWordclassKean-AgrammatismInherent_ContextualFinite-Infinite

Best model is Morphological Classes,

followed by Derivation-Inflection

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

Conclusion 2: Social effects All main social factors and interactions are

significant Except:

• North-East main effect: sex fieldworker• West main effects: age, occupational prest

interaction: age*sex fieldworker• Zealand main effects: sex speaker, occupational

prestinteraction: sex

speaker*sex fieldworker• South main effect: occupational prestige

interactions: all

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

Mean(@n_Ndel_@)

1.299

0

0.840109

Sex speaker

mv

Age

46 7661.7332

Occup_prestige

13 7843.789

Sex-fieldworker

mv

PostCV

cor lab

labdentlabvel

liq

nasvel

vel

Word_Init_Cons

B H

TD

cons

liqnas

pausa

voc

Morphol_class

apfinapinf

infinitive

nomfinnominf

pastparticiple

pres pret

River Area

Mean(@n_Ndel_@)

1

0

0.830749

Sex speaker

mv

Age

25 8461.0296

Occup_prestige

13

86.9

47.5459

Sex-fieldworker

mv

PostCV

cor lab

labdentlabvel

liq

nasvel

vel

Word_Init_Cons

B H

TD

cons

liqnas

pausa

voc

Morphol_class

apfin apinf

infinitive

nomfinnominf

pastparticiple

pres pret

North

Mean(@n_Ndel_@)

1.125

0

0.916137

Sex speaker

mv

Age

39 8461.5919

Occup_prestige

14 7843.4477

Sex-fieldworker

mv

PostCV

cor lab

labdentlabvel

liq

nasvel

vel

Word_Init_Cons

B H

TD

cons

liqnas

pausa

voc

Morphol_class

apfin apinf

infinitive

nomfinnominf

pastparticiple

pres pret

Wes t

Mean(@n_Ndel_@)

1.104

-0.216

0.6764

Sex speaker

mv

Age

26 7461.4232

Occup_prestige

13

73.4

43.0743

Sex-fieldworker

mv

PostCV

cor lab

labdentlabvel

liq

nasvel

vel

Word_Init_Cons

B H

TD

cons

liqnas

pausa

voc

Morphol_class

apfin apinf

infinitive

nomfinnominf

pastparticiple

pres pret

Zealand

Mean(@n_Ndel_@)

1.144

0

0.742333

Sex speaker

mv

Age

39 7762.3043

Occup_prestige

18.9 89.1

47.5988

Sex-fieldworker

mv

PostCV

cor lab

labdentlabvel

liq

nasvel

vel

Word_Init_Cons

B H

TD

cons

liqnas

pausa

voc

Morphol_class

apfin apinf

infinitive

nomfinnominf

pastparticiple

pres pret

South

PhrasePhon exceedsMorph

…………………Morph exceeds PhrPhon

…………………Morph exceeds PhrPhon

………………….PhrPhon exceeds Morph

………………….PhrPhon exceeds Morph

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

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

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

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)

Afin A Fin Affix Inflected Contextual Weak Word Inflected

APinf A/P Inf Nonaffix None Mixed Mixed Root (Un)Derived

NOMinf N Inf Nonaffix None Inherent Strong Root (Un)Derived

NOMfin N Fin Affix Inflected Inherent Strong Word (Un)Derived

Infinitive N Inf Affix Derived Inherent Strong Word (Un)Derived

Pastpartic N Inf Affix Derived Inherent Strong Stem Inflected

Present V Fin Affix Inflected Contextual Weak Word Inflected

Past V Fin Affix Inflected Contextual Weak Stem Inflected

Global Character of these Morphological Models

Morphology (Morpho)Syntax

Morphological Classes Major Wordclasses APNV

Derivation-Inflection Derivation-Inflection Affixal-Non-affixal Inherent-Contextual Inherent-Contextual Strong-Weak Strong-Weak Syllable-WF Morphosyntax (agramm.)

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

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 InflectionMeertens Instituut August 21, 2003