Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:35:52.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Defectiveness and homophony avoidance1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2010

MATTHEW BAERMAN
MATTHEW BAERMAN*
Affiliation:
Surrey Morphology Group, University of Surrey
*
Author's address: Surrey Morphology Group, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UKM.Baerman@surrey.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The idea that certain morphological and phonological irregularities are due to speakers' desire to avoid homophony is widely invoked, yet has also come under strong criticism as an explanation which is neither necessary nor sufficient. In most cases there is no way to resolve the question, since the assumption that something is being avoided is itself a theoretical construct. In this article I attempt to address this last difficulty by looking at gaps in inflectional paradigms – where it is clear that something is being avoided – that plausibly correlate with potential homophony. These fall into two types: (i) lexical, where portions of the paradigms of two lexeme would be homophonous, and (ii) paradigmatic (i.e. syncretism), where forms within the paradigm of a single lexeme would be homophonous. Case studies of Tuvaluan, Russian, Mazatec, Tamashek and Icelandic confirm the effects of homophony avoidance as a genuine, if non-deterministic, principle.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 1 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

The research and writing of this paper were funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (UK) under grant number AH/D001579/1, and the European Research Council under grant number ERC-2008-AdG-230268 MORPHOLOGY. Their support is gratefully acknowledged. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Décembrettes 6 conference in Bordeaux, 6 December 2008. Thanks to the audience there for their questions and comments. I would also like to thank Kristín Bjarnadóttir, Dunstan Brown, Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr, Carol Capen, Greville Corbett, Gunnar Ólafur Hansson, Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Maarten Kossmann, as well as two anonymous JL referees, for helpful discussion of various points.

References

REFERENCES

Albright, Adam. 2003. A quantitative study of Spanish paradigm gaps. WCCFL 22, 1–14.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan & Corbett, Greville G.. 2005. The syntax–morphology interface: A study of syncretism (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew & Corbett, Greville G.. 2010. Defectiveness: Typology and diachrony. In Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville G. & Brown, Dunstan (eds.), Defective paradigms: Missing forms and what they tell us (Proceedings of the British Academy 163), 1–18. Oxford: The British Academy & Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beguinot, Francesco. 1942. Il Berbero NefÛsi di Fassâṭo. Rome: Instituto per l'oriente.Google Scholar
Besnier, Niko. 2000. Tuvaluan: A Polynesian language of the Central Pacific. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bjarnadóttir, Kristín. 2007. Enn um -na: um eignarfall fleirtölu af veikum kvenkynsnafnorðum í Beygingarlýsingu íslensks nútímamáls. Presented at 21st Rask Conference, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, January 21.Google Scholar
Capen, Carol Jamieson. 1996. Diccionario mazateco de Chiquihuitlán, Oaxaca. Tucson, AZ: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
Cocron, Friedrich. 1962. La langue russe dans la seconde moitié du XVIIe siècle. Paris: Institut d'études slaves.Google Scholar
Cortade, Jean-Marie. 1969. Essai de grammaire touareg (dialecte de l'Ahaggar). Algiers: Université d'Alger, Institut de Recherches Sahariennes.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, Katherine. 1999. Intra-paradigmatic homophony avoidance in two dialects of Slavic. In Gordon, Matthew (ed.), UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 1 (Papers in Phonology 2), 48–67. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Dauzat, Albert. 1944. La géographie linguistique. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Diez, Friedrich. 1838. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, vol. 2. Bonn: Eduard Weber.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert & Féry, Caroline. 2002. Ineffability in grammar. In Fanselow, Gisbert & Féry, Caroline (eds.), Resolving conflicts in grammars: Optimality Theory in syntax, morphology, and phonology, 265–307. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 2008. Paradigmatic uniformity and markedness. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Explaining linguistic universals: Historical convergence and universal grammar, 125–143. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilliéron, Jules. 1919. La faillite de l'étymologie phonétique: Étude sur la défectivité des verbes. Neuveville: Beerstecher.Google Scholar
Graudina, Ljudmila Karlovna, Ickovič, Viktor Aleksandrovič & Katlinskaja, Lija Pavlovna. 1976. Grammatičeskaja pravil′nost′ russskoj reči. Opyt častotno-stilističeskogo slovarja variantov. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 2005. A grammar of Tamashek (Tuareg of Mali). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetzron, Robert. 1975. Where the grammar fails. Language 51, 859–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, Carol [Capen]. 1982. Conflated subsystems marking person and aspect in Chiquihuatlan Mazatec. International Journal of American Linguistics 48.2, 139–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, Carol [Capen]. 1988. Gramatica mazateca. Mexico City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Snaebjörn. 1927. A primer of modern Icelandic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 2010. A grammar of Teiwa. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kossmann, Maarten. 2009. La flexion du prétérit d'état en berbère: questions de morphologie comparée. In Chaker, Amina Mettouchi & Philipson, Gérard (eds.), Etudes de phonétique et linguistiques berbères. Hommage à Naïma Louali (1961–2005), 147–167. Paris & Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1980. On explaining language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2005. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 137–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondon, Jean-François. 2009. The nature of homophony and its effects on diachrony and synchrony. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Naït-Zerrad, Kamal. 1994. Manuel de conjugaison kabyle. Paris: L'Harmattan.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1981. Morphologische (Ir-)Regularitäten: Aspekte der Wortstrukturtheorie. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Prasse, Karl-G. 1973. Manuel de grammaire touarègue, vol. 6/7: Verbe. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Prasse, Karl-G. & ăg-Sidiyăn, Ekhya ăgg-Ălbosṭan. 1985. Tableaux morphologiques: dialecte touareg de l'Adrar du Mali (berbère). Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Prasse, Karl-G., Alojaly, Ghoubeïd & Mohamed, Ghabdouane. 2003. Dictionnaire touareg–français (Niger), vol. 2. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar
Rebrus, Péter & Törkenczy, Miklós. 2005. Uniformity and contrast in the Hungarian verbal paradigm. In Downing, Laura J., Hall, T. Alan & Raffelsiefen, Renate (eds.), Paradigms in phonological theory, 263–295. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rozental′, Ditmar E., Dzandzakova, Evgenija V. & Kabanova, Natalija P.. 2007. Spravočnik po russkomu jazyku, 5th edn. Moscow: Ajris-Press.Google Scholar
Russian National Corpus. http://www.ruscorpora.ru/ (accessed October 2008).Google Scholar
Russkaja virtual′naja biblioteka [Russian virtual library]. http://www.rvb.ru/ (accessed October 2008). [Includes a collection of major 18th c. texts.]Google Scholar
Slovar′ russkogo jazyka XVIII veka [Dictionary of 18th-century Russian], vol. 14. 2004. Saint Petersburg: Nauka.Google Scholar
Sudlow, David. 2001. The Tamasheq of North-East Burkina Faso. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Taine-Cheikh, Catherine. 2003. L'adjectif et la conjugaison suffixale en berbère. In Lentin, Jérôme & Lonnet, Antoine (eds.), Mélanges David Cohen, 661–674. Paris: Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Thomson, Colin D. 1987. Íslensk beygingafraeði. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Trubačev, Oleg N. (ed.). 1997. Ėtimologičeskij slovar′ slavjanskix jazykov, vol. 24. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Unbegaun, Boris. 1935. La langue russe au XVIe siècle (1500–1550). Paris: Institut d'études slaves.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit: ein Beitrag zur morphologischen Theoriebildung. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1973. O ponimanii termina ‘padež’ v lingvističeskix opisanijax. In Zaliznjak, Andrej A. (ed.), Problemy grammatičeskogo modelirovanija, 53–87. Moscow: Nauka. [Also in Andrej A. Zaliznjak, Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie, 613–647. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul′tury, 2002.]Google Scholar