http://glottopedia.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Ikirby&feedformat=atomGlottopedia - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T14:21:23ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.34.2http://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Inflection&diff=17701Inflection2021-02-08T21:53:05Z<p>Ikirby: fixed spelling, added a sentence clarifying what kinds of grammatical information inflectional morphemes typically encode, added a 'see also' section with links to agreement and concord.</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Inflection''' is a one of the main types of morphological operations by which an [[affix]] is added to a word. An inflectional affix adds a particular grammatical function to a word without changing the category of that word, or even leading to a different word. We may say that inflected forms are just variants of one and the same word. Some examples of grammatical information that can be encoded by inflectional morphemes include [[Phi-features]] (e.g. [[person]], [[number]], [[gender]], [[case]]), [[mood]], [[tense]], and [[aspect]]. <br />
<br />
===Term properties===<br />
The relational adjective is ''inflectional''. An alternative spelling (confined to British English and increasingly outdated) is ''inflexion''.<br />
<br />
=== Examples ===<br />
<br />
[[Count noun]]s in English can be pluralized by adding the inflectional ending -''s'' (''dog-dogs'', ''noun-nouns''). The plural forms ''dogs'' and ''nouns'' are variants of the base nouns ''dog'' and ''noun''. <br />
<br />
===Comments===<br />
Traditionally inflection is distinguished from [[derivation]] (the second type of major morphological operation). Although it is not possible to draw a sharp boundary between both types of operation, there are at least two differences: (i) inflection is never category-changing, while derivation often category changing, and (ii) inflection is usually peripheral to derivation. Some linguists (e.g. Aronoff (1976), Anderson (1982), Perlmutter (1988)) assume that inflection and derivation belong to different components of the grammar. This view is not uncontroversial though, since others (e.g. Halle (1973), Kiparsky (1982)) assume that inflection and derivation are reflexes of one and the same operation, namely affixation.<br />
<br />
===See also===<br />
*[[agreement]]<br><br />
*[[concord]] <br><br />
<br />
<br />
=== Link ===<br />
<br />
[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Inflection&lemmacode=674 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]<br />
<br />
=== References ===<br />
<br />
* Anderson, S.R. 1982. ''Where's Morphology?,'' Linguistic Inquiry 13, pp. 571-612, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.<br />
* Aronoff, M. 1976. ''Word Formation in Generative Grammar,'' MIT-press, Cambridge, Mass.<br />
* Chomsky, N. 1993. ''A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory,'' MIT occasional papers in linguistics, 1-67. Reprinted in: Chomsky (1995).<br />
* Chomsky, N. 1955. ''The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory,'' University of Chicago Press, Chicago(1975).<br />
* Halle, M. 1973. ''Prolegomena to a Theory of Word-Formation,'' Linguistic Inquiry 4, pp. 451-464<br />
* Haspelmath, M. and A. Sims. 2010. "Chapter 5: Inflection and Derivation" in ''Understanding Mophology'' Second edition. Routledge.<br />
* Kiparsky, P. 1982. ''From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology,'' in: Hulst, H. van der and N. Smith (eds.) The Structure of Phonological Representations (I), pp.131-175<br />
* Perlmutter, D. 1988. ''The Split-morphology Hypothesis: evidence from Yiddish,'' in: Hammond, M. and M. Noonan (eds.) Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, Orlando, Academic Press.<br />
* Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. ''Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP,'' Linguistic Inquiry 20, pp.365-424.<br />
<br />
===Other languages===<br />
German [[Flexion]]<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Morphology]]</div>Ikirbyhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Adfix&diff=17700Adfix2021-02-08T16:55:18Z<p>Ikirby: I just added a clarification that this includes prefixes and suffixes. I also added that this is a dictionary article.</p>
<hr />
<div>An '''adfix''' is an [[affix]] that is not an [[infix]], i.e. that occurs outside (rather than inside) its base. This is a broader category that includes [[prefix|prefixes]] and [[suffix|suffixes]].<br />
<br />
===Comments===<br />
Since the vast majority of affixes are adfixes, there is little practical use for this term. It occurs primarily in the discussion of infixation, where infixes need to be contrasted with adfixes.<br />
<br />
===Origin===<br />
Perhaps the term was coined by Frans Plank.<br />
<br />
===Other languages===<br />
*German [[Adfix (de)]]<br />
*Russian [[адфикс]] = [[конфикс-1]]<br />
{{dc}}{{ref}}<br />
[[Category: Morphology]]<br />
[[Category:DICT]]</div>Ikirbyhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Syncretism&diff=17699Syncretism2021-02-08T16:42:01Z<p>Ikirby: I added an example of syncretism in inflectional paradigms coming from German</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Syncretism''' is the situation where one morphological form corresponds to two or more morphosyntactic descriptions.<br />
<br />
===Examples===<br />
E.g. [[English]] ''bet'' (in ''I bet you ten pounds'') is syncretic between Present and Past, as seen in comparison with I give/gave you ten pounds.<br />
<br />
An example of syncretism in inflectional paradigms is seen in [[German]] verbs. In present-tense, there is syncretism between first- and and third-person in the plural. This syncretism extends to the first- and third-singular forms in in past-tense.<br />
<br />
<div><ul><br />
<li style="display:inline-table;"><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+German ''gehen'' 'to go' (present)<br />
|-<br />
! !! SG !! PL<br />
|-<br />
| 1 || ''gehe'' || '''''gehen'''''<br />
|-<br />
| 2 || ''gehst'' || ''geht''<br />
|-<br />
| 3 || ''geht'' || '''''gehen'''''<br />
|}</li><br />
<li style="display: inline-table;"><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|+German ''gehen'' 'to go' (past)<br />
|-<br />
! !! SG !! PL<br />
|-<br />
| 1 || '''''ging''''' || '''''gingen'''''<br />
|-<br />
| 2 || ''gehst'' || ''gingt''<br />
|-<br />
| 3 || '''''ging''''' || '''''gingen'''''<br />
|}</li><br />
</ul></div><br />
<br />
In [[Ancient Greek]], the nominative and vocative of the feminine singular/plural case forms are identical (e.g. ''khóoraa'' 'a land', ''khôoraa'' 'O, land', ''khôoray'' 'lands', ''khôoray'' 'O, lands'). The same is true for the nominative and accusative of the neuter singular/plural case forms: ''dôoron'' 'house-nom./acc.sg.', ''dôora'' 'house-nom./acc.pl.'.<br />
<br />
{{Incomplete|correct greek spelling}}<br />
<br />
===Origin===<br />
The term has originally been used in the sense of "combining different religions", and was transferred to linguistics in the 19th century.<br />
<br />
===Links===<br />
[http://www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/ Syncretism database] of the [[Surrey Morphology Group]]<br />
[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Syncretism&lemmacode=306 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]<br />
<br />
<br />
===References===<br />
*Baerman, Matthew & Brown, Dunstan & Corbett, Greville G. 2005. ''The syntax-morphology interface: A study of syncretism.'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
<br />
===Other languages===<br />
*German [[Synkretismus]] <br />
*Russian [[синкретизм]]<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Morphology]]</div>Ikirbyhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=De_dicto_and_de_re&diff=17698De dicto and de re2021-02-08T01:40:35Z<p>Ikirby: discuss the general distinction between the two readings, added topics for further sections that are relevant (e.g. the scope ambiguity theory) and also 'de se' readings, added links and a few references</p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub}}<br />
<br />
==Definition==<br />
<br />
The terms ''de re'' (Latin: "about the thing") and ''de dicto'' (Latin: "about what is said") refer to two distinct interpretations of Noun Phrases that emerge in [[Intension|intensional]] environments involving a participant's knowledge or belief states about a [[proposition]] (also known as [[propositional attitude reports]]). A classic example from Quine (1956) is (i), which displays the two readings.<br />
<br />
(i) Ralph believes that someone is a spy.<br />
''de re'' reading: Ralph believes of somebody x that x is a spy.<br />
''de dicto'' reading: Ralph believes that there is a spy, though he doesn't know who in particular it is.<br />
<br />
The ''de re'' reading of (i) states that Ralph has a belief about a particular person being a spy. For example if Ralph observes his coworker Hubert making photocopies of top-secret documents, (i) would be appropriately used because Ralph believes that someone (namely Hubert) is a spy. The ''de dicto'' reading is a statement about the subject's beliefs about the more general existence of a spy. For example, if Ralph has not directly observed behavior indicative of spying, but has suspicions that there is a spy in his midst (e.g. if the enemy intelligence agency is consistently receiving top-secret intelligence information), then (i) would describe Ralph's beliefs ''de dicto'' that somebody is a spy.<br />
<br />
(ii) Estefan thinks a dog bit him.<br />
''de re'' reading: Estefan believes he was bitten by Fido.<br />
''de dicto'' reading: Estefan believes he was bitten by some dog (or other)<br />
<br />
==Scope Ambiguity Theory==<br />
<br />
==''de se''==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
===Links===<br />
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_dicto_and_de_re Wikipedia]<br><br />
[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prop-attitude-reports/dere.html Stanford Encyclopedia Entry]<br />
<br />
===References===<br />
<br />
Cresswell, Maxwell J. and Arnim von Stechow. 1982. "''De re''" belief generalized. ''Linguistics and Philosophy'' (5: 505-535)<br><br />
Kaplan, David. 1969. "Quantifying in" ''Synthese'' (19: 178-214) <br><br />
Lewis, David. 1979. "Attitudes de dicto and de se". ''The Philosophical Review'' (88: 513-543) <br><br />
Quine, W. V. 1956. "Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes", ''The Journal of Philosophy'' (53: 177-187) <br />
<!-- Romoli, Jacopo & Yautada Sudo. 2009. "''De Re/De Dicto''" Ambiguity and Presupposition Projection. In Riester, Arndt & Torgrim Solstad (eds.). ''Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13''<br> --><br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:En]]<br />
[[Category:SURV]]<br />
[[Category:Semantics]]</div>Ikirbyhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Underspecification&diff=17697Underspecification2021-02-07T21:45:05Z<p>Ikirby: Undo revision 17696 by Ikirby (talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>==Definition==<br />
'''Underspecification''' is the theory that [[underlying representation]]s are not fully specified i.e. that predictable information is not underlyingly present.<br />
<br />
== Example ==<br />
In English there is no lexical distinction between aspirated and non-aspirated stops. Still there is a phonetic difference between the [pʰ] in [pʰ]''in'' and the non-aspirated [p] in ''s''[p]''in''. Underspecification theory expresses this by assuming that underlyingly both p's are not specified for aspiration. The aspiration feature is later (post-lexically) specified by a context-sensitive rule inserting [+spread glottis] at the beginning of a syllable; the non-aspiration is a consequence of a universal rule which inserts [-spread glottis] in all other contexts. See [[Structure preservation]], [[structure-building rule]].<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
*[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Underspecification&lemmacode=131 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Phonology]]<br />
<br />
{{stub}}{{cats}}</div>Ikirbyhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Underspecification&diff=17696Underspecification2021-02-07T21:44:44Z<p>Ikirby: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Definition==<br />
'''Underspecification''' is the theory that [[underlying representation]]s are not fully specified i.e. that predictable information is not underlyingly present.<br />
<br />
== Example ==<br />
In English there is no lexical distinction between aspirated and non-aspirated stops. Still there is a phonetic difference between the [pʰ] in [pʰ] ''in'' and the non-aspirated [p] in ''s''[p]''in''. Underspecification theory expresses this by assuming that underlyingly both p's are not specified for aspiration. The aspiration feature is later (post-lexically) specified by a context-sensitive rule inserting [+spread glottis] at the beginning of a syllable; the non-aspiration is a consequence of a universal rule which inserts [-spread glottis] in all other contexts. See [[Structure preservation]], [[structure-building rule]].<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
*[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Underspecification&lemmacode=131 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Phonology]]<br />
<br />
{{stub}}{{cats}}</div>Ikirbyhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Underspecification&diff=17695Underspecification2021-02-07T21:44:29Z<p>Ikirby: changed "i.c" (?) to "i.e.", made aspiration notation superscript</p>
<hr />
<div>==Definition==<br />
'''Underspecification''' is the theory that [[underlying representation]]s are not fully specified i.e. that predictable information is not underlyingly present.<br />
<br />
== Example ==<br />
In English there is no lexical distinction between aspirated and non-aspirated stops. Still there is a phonetic difference between the [pʰ] in [pʰ]''in'' and the non-aspirated [p] in ''s''[p]''in''. Underspecification theory expresses this by assuming that underlyingly both p's are not specified for aspiration. The aspiration feature is later (post-lexically) specified by a context-sensitive rule inserting [+spread glottis] at the beginning of a syllable; the non-aspiration is a consequence of a universal rule which inserts [-spread glottis] in all other contexts. See [[Structure preservation]], [[structure-building rule]].<br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
*[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Underspecification&lemmacode=131 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Phonology]]<br />
<br />
{{stub}}{{cats}}</div>Ikirbyhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=User:Ikirby&diff=17694User:Ikirby2021-02-07T21:39:50Z<p>Ikirby: </p>
<hr />
<div>Ian Kirby. Graduate student in linguistics at Harvard University. Research areas: morphology, morphosyntax, morphosemantics, syntax-semantics interface, historical syntax, Turkic languages, Germanic languages<br />
<br />
[https://scholar.harvard.edu/ikirby homepage.]</div>Ikirbyhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=User:Ikirby&diff=17693User:Ikirby2021-02-07T21:39:40Z<p>Ikirby: </p>
<hr />
<div>Ian Kirby. Graduate student in linguistics at Harvard University. Research areas: morphology, morphosyntax, morphosemantics, syntax-semantics interface, historical syntax, Turkic languages<br />
<br />
[https://scholar.harvard.edu/ikirby homepage.]</div>Ikirbyhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=User:Ikirby&diff=17692User:Ikirby2021-02-07T21:07:04Z<p>Ikirby: </p>
<hr />
<div>Ian Kirby. Graduate student in linguistics at Harvard University.<br />
<br />
[https://scholar.harvard.edu/ikirby homepage.]</div>Ikirbyhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=User:Ikirby&diff=17691User:Ikirby2021-02-07T21:06:39Z<p>Ikirby: making profile</p>
<hr />
<div>Ian Kirby. <br />
Graduate student in linguistics at Harvard University.<br />
[https://scholar.harvard.edu/ikirby homepage.]</div>Ikirby