- Email: [email protected]
English plurals in Construction Morphology
Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Language Sciences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/langsci
English plurals in Construction Morphology Andrew van der Spuy University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 19 February 2019 Received in revised form 11 July 2019 Accepted 25 August 2019 Available online xxx
Halle and Marantz (1993) criticize Anderson’s (1992) Extended Word-and-Paradigm Theory of morphology on two grounds: first, it does not account for the fact that a plural like oxen clearly consists of a root ox combined with a suffix –en; and second, Anderson’s ‘blocking’ principle (1992:134), formulated in order to prevent the generation of incorrect doubly marked forms like *oxens, also prevents the formation of correct doubly marked forms like wives. The theory of Construction Morphology (Booij, 2010, 2016), like Anderson’s theory, is based on words and their paradigmatic relations. This article demonstrates how the theory of Construction Morphology can account for both the regular and irregular plural forms of English nouns, while avoiding the problems Halle and Marantz have identified in the Extended Word-and-Paradigm Theory. The fact that Construction Morphology (CxM) allows representations ‘at varying degrees of abstraction’ (Goldberg 2013) enables it to account for the morphological structure of forms like oxen. The fact that it is non-derivational precludes incorrect forms like *oxens, while allowing correct forms like wives. Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: English Noun plurals Construction Morphology Generalizations Multiple marking
1. Introduction1 Halle and Marantz (1993) present a critique of Anderson’s (1992) Extended Word-and-Paradigm Theory, using evidence from the plural morphology of English nouns to illustrate their case. They argue (a) that Anderson’s theory does not account for the fact that a plural like oxen clearly consists of a root ox combined with a suffix –en; and (b) that Anderson’s ‘blocking’ principle (1992:134), formulated in order to prevent the generation of incorrect forms like *oxens, also prevents the formation of correct forms like lives (the plural of life), because such words are doubly marked as plural, once by the stem change and once by the suffix. The present article demonstrates how the theory of Construction Morphology (Booij, 2010, 2016), specifically as applied to inflection, can account for both the regular and irregular plural forms of English nouns, while at the same time avoiding the problems raised by Anderson’s Extended Word-and-Paradigm Theory (EWP) (1992). The fact that Construction Morphology (CxM) allows representations ‘at varying degrees of abstraction’ (Goldberg, 2013) enables it to capture generalizations, and to account for the morphological structure of irregular forms like oxen. The fact that it is non-derivational precludes incorrect forms like *oxens. This article is organized as follows: Section 2 gives an outline of the theory of Construction Morphology. Section 3 summarizes Halle and Marantz’s (1993) critique of Anderson’s (1992) Extended Word-and-Paradigm Theory. Section 4
E-mail address: [email protected]. I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers whose helpful comments have greatly improved this article. All errors and deficiencies, of course, remain my own. 1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240 0388-0001/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
2
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
gives a CxM analysis of English plural formation. Section 5 explains in more detail how the theory avoids the problems of EWP. Section 6 concludes. 2. A brief outline of Construction Morphology Construction Morphology is a branch of Construction Grammar (Fillmore et al., 1988; Goldberg, 1995, 2003, 2006; 2013; Hoffmann and Trousdale, 2013), a linguistic framework which postulates that there is only one kind of linguistic entity, the construction. Constructions are defined as ‘form–meaning pairings’ (Goldberg, 2003:219). Syntactic structures are constructions (e.g. the inverted auxiliary–subject word order of English yes–no questions), idioms like rattle X’s cage are constructions, and words are constructions – the last being the domain of Construction Morphology. With regard to the word, Booij (2010:6–7) refines the definition of ‘construction’ somewhat: ‘a word has a tripartite parallel structure.’ The three parts are a ‘phonic dimension. [a] semantic dimension. and. a grammatical dimension’ (Booij, 2010:6fn). The lexical entry for a word can be formally represented as follows (cf. Booij, 2010):
(1)
[ɒks]i 4 [N, sg]i4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘ox’2
Croft (2001) and Booij (2010) hypothesize that words are stored in their phonetic rather than their phonological forms. This hypothesis is assumed here. The notation in this article differs from that used by Booij (2010, 2016) in several respects. First, the phonetic representation on the left of the formula is enclosed in square brackets rather than round ones. Second, where it is necessary to name the attribute of a feature, the components are given in the order attribute:value (e.g. [stri:þ]), whereas Booij prefers the opposite order. Third, I assume that the variables C (consonant), V (vowel) and SEM (meaning) maintain their values across any given schema, unless differentiated by subscript indices like i or 1. Such indexed variables likewise maintain their values across a given schema. The formula in (1) is read as follows: a phonetic form [ɒks] maps onto the morphosyntactic features [N, sg] (i.e., it is a singular noun), and has the meaning ‘ox’. The subscript i’s affirm the identity between the phonetic representation, the morphosyntactic feature representation, and the semantics. In addition to lexical entries like (1), there are also entries linking words to other forms of the same paradigm. An example is (2). (2)
<[ɒks]i 4 [N, sg]i4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘ox’> z <[ɒksən]j 4 [N, pl]j4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘oxen’]>
Here the construction in (1) is shown linked to its plural form, which is another construction. Each construction is enclosed in angle brackets. The symbol z indicates a paradigmatic link. Currently no term exists for such a paradigmatic linking between two inflected forms of a specified word. I shall use the term ‘linking entry’ to refer to such concrete or specific paradigmatic links. In Construction Grammar it is theorized that children first acquire vocabulary items like (1), and their paradigmatic relationships as in (2), and later advance their knowledge of the grammar of their language by generalizing wherever possible (see Tomasello, 2000, 2003). The formal representations of such generalizations are referred to as ‘schemas’. (3) is an example of a schema, namely a very general schema for English nouns (cf. Booij, 2016:440): (3)
Schemas are ‘abstractions over sets of complex words’ (Booij, 2010:42). As they are abstractions, the representation of words in a schema is assumed to be phonological rather than phonetic (van der Spuy, 2017). A schema like (3) is not very informative; it simply says ‘an English singular noun consists of a sequence of phonemes which constitute a phonological word (u)’. However, it becomes more meaningful when viewed in the context of a schema like the following, namely the most general schema for English noun plurals: (4)
‘/z/ suffixation’ z
2 Abbreviations and symbols: C – ‘consonant’; CxM – Construction Morphology; EWP – Extended Word-and-Paradigm Theory; N – noun; SEM – a variable over lexical meanings; PL/pl – plural; SG/sg – singular; stri – ‘strident’; vd – voiced; angle brackets < > mark the boundaries of a schema; – ‘either marked or not marked for a given feature’; 4 – ‘corresponds with’; z – ‘is in a paradigmatic relationship with’; m – vowel mora; u – phonological word; * – a non-productive schema. Capital letters X, Y, Z are variables over sequences of phones or phonemes.
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
̣
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
3
(Booij, 2016:435 refers to such paradigmatic schemas as ‘second-order schemas’, because they are schemas of schemas.) This reads: ‘Given a singular noun with the phonological form /X/, its plural will have the form /Xz/’. The singular and plural subschemas are marked with different indices because of the formal and semantic differences between them. However, as explained above, the symbol SEM is assumed to retain its value across the whole second-order schema: it represents what remains constant to the meaning. Actual words instantiate the schemas, and a speaker who does not know what a particular inflection of a word looks like can refer to the mental equivalent of the schema. Thus, for example, a child who has acquired the general schema (4), and acquires the singular noun [pʰɔ:kjʊpʰaɪn] ‘porcupine’, will be able to correctly predict the plural [pʰɔ:kjʊpʰaɪnz] by making reference to the schema. As Matthews (1974:42) puts it (speaking of word-formation generally), ‘The Plural is merely a mechanical consequence of the Singular.’ An even more abstract schema can be formulated embracing a range of paradigms, such as the regular dogzdogs as well as the irregular oxzoxen and cherubzcherubim: (5)
‘plural morpheme suffixation’ z
This is read: ‘Given a singular noun of the form /X/, the plural is formed by adding a sequence of phonemes /Y/ to the end of /X/,’ or, in more traditional language, ‘English plurals are formed by suffixation.’ This, of course, is not true of all plurals, but the exceptions will be described in more specific schemas and linking entries, as explained below. A particular abstract generalized schema like (5) may be entirely a linguist’s observation; an individual speaker may or may not have subconsciously internalized the same generalization. Such questions are a matter for psycholinguistic research. If there is a linking entry for some inflected form, then that will automatically apply. Otherwise, in formulating a Construction Morphology account of some phenomenon, a single principle is required in order to produce the correct inflected forms. This is a version of the Elsewhere Principle or P anini’s Principle (Kiparsky, 1973; Stump, 2001): (6)
The narrowest schema applies.3
As there is no process of derivation, the principle can apply only once to produce the correct form. That is, given a choice between several plural schemas, only one may be chosen. A given schema can represent the unification of two or more other schemas (Booij, 2010). An example is (20) ‘fricative voicing with /z/ affixation’ in section 5.1 below: see the discussion there. Unification is not a process: both the more concrete entries and linking entries and the abstract generalized schemas are presumed to be stored in the lexicon: reference is made to the relevant generalized schema when the speaker requires a word that is not lexically stored (cf. Booij, 2010:42). A schema like (2) is a more concrete instance of the very general schema (5). The ability to abstract the characteristics of a plural noun as /XY/, where /X/ is the base form and Y is a suffix, means that a form like oxen can be readily analysed as a base ox þ plural suffix –en.
3. Halle and Marantz’s critique of Anderson’s Extended Word-and-Paradigm Theory In order to prevent the production of irregular forms like ‘*oxes or *oxens’ (Anderson, 1992:123), Anderson (1992:133) postulates that words are stored as ‘lexical stem sets’. Thus oxen is listen as a plural stem of ox, and the following principle applies: (7) (¼ Anderson’s 19) In interpreting a given Morphosyntactic Representation M, from among the stems in the lexical set S of a given lexical item, only that stem S i, which is characterized for the maximal subset of the features compatible with M may serve as the basis of an inflected form {S, M}. (Anderson 1993:133).
To illustrate this with an example: assume that the entry for ox contains the stem set {ox, oxen}, and that the latter stem is characterised by an abstract Morphosyntactic Representation [N, pl]. When the plural ([N, pl]) of ox is required, the stem oxen will be chosen, as it is characterized for the maximal subset of these features (cf. Anderson 1992:133). Halle and Marantz (1993) point out that Anderson is effectively accounting for the irregularity by means of suppletion: ‘.there is no way in which his solution takes account of the partial identity of oxen and ox. Instead of being composed of the latter two stems, the stem set could equally well have contained ox and any phonetically well formed string of phonemes.’ (Halle and Marantz, 1993:130). This is their first critique of his theory, as far as it applies to English plural morphology.
3 This principle, together with the Construction Morphology conception of the lexicon, can be used to describe exceptions to generalizations, for example, most English noun–noun compounds have the form [[N sg] N], with the first, modifying, noun being singular. But there are exceptions like arms race, systems analyst, whose [[N pl] N] form will be given precedence, as being associated with these specific entries.
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
4
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
Anderson (1992) himself goes on to point out that Principle (7) does not rule out forms like *oxens, where the irregular form acquires a regular marker as well. In order to prevent the generation of such forms, he postulates another Principle ‘of blocking’ (1992:134): (8) (¼ Anderson’s 20) When a rule R of the grammar would apply to a stem S on the basis of the features F of a given position to be interpreted, application of R is blocked, if F constitutes a subset of the lexical specifications of S.
In other words, if a stem is already marked for a feature like [pl], then another rule which adds a feature [pl] to a stem cannot apply. The stem oxen is marked [pl], as is the suffix –s, therefore *oxens cannot be generated. But Halle and Marantz point out that this principle also blocks correct forms like lives (the plural of life), which are doubly marked for plural, in this case once by the voicing of the final consonant of the stem, and once by the addition of the plural suffix, orthographic -s/ phonetic [-z]. They state that the problem is that Anderson’s theory does not recognize that phonological "modifications" produced by what we have called Vocabulary insertion (the addition of phonological material) are separate from and independent of those produced by readjustment rules (which may change and delete features, as well as add them). An approach such as Anderson’s, which denies the existence of this distinction, is unabledas a matter of principledto distinguish cases of total suppletion such as be/were from cases of partial suppletion such as go/wen-t, from different stem readjustments such as goose/geese, life/live-s, and from cases of irregular suffixation such as ox/ox-en and child/childr-en, and is therefore forced to subsume all of these clearly different cases under the rubric of suppletion (Halle and Marantz, 1993: 131–132). This is their second critique of Anderson’s theory. Now, being non-derivational, CxM also fails to distinguish between phonological modifications and readjustment. Nevertheless, it does not produce incorrect forms like *oxens, nor does it block regular forms like wives, nor does it prevent the observation that in such a word, wive-is the stem and –s is a suffix. The section that follows will present a brief account of English noun plurals, including all the kinds of irregularities that occur. It will show that Construction Morphology circumvents the two criticisms that Halle and Marantz (1993) have levelled against EWP, which are outlined above. 4. English noun plurals The schemas and linking entries that are required for an account of English noun plurals will be presented in this section. In CxM, there are no ‘rules’, rather, all constructions are described in terms of schemas or linking entries. No formal distinction is made between ‘morphologically conditioned’ alternations, ‘lexically conditioned’ phonological alternations, and purely phonological alternations; however, here the schemas will be grouped according to these distinctions, as they will be familiar to most readers. All schemas are uniform in their general structure, differing only in the stipulation of their range of applicability. This emphasises the fact that the grammar is regarded as ‘non-componential’, that is, unlike Principles and Parameters Theory (Chomsky and Lasnik, 1995) or Lexical–Functional Grammar (Bresnan, 2001), it does not postulate that the grammar is divided into separate components of phonology, morphology, syntax and lexicon. 4.1. ‘Phonological’ schemas The most general rule of plural formation in English is (4) ‘/z/ suffixation’ above. This schema applies to all regular nouns ending on vowels or else on non-strident voiced consonants. Examples (given in the plural form) are arias, sopranos, seas, shoes, cabs, kids, rags, gulls, gears, guns, gums, rings. It is unnecessary to specify the phonological environments where (4) applies, because the more specific schemas below, taken in conjunction with the Elsewhere Principle (6), ensure that it cannot apply to any other phonological class of noun. Booij (2016:439) gives only the equivalent of (4) and does not discuss allomorphic forms in any detail, ‘The default option is suffixation with /-z/ (a suffix with three allomorphs [s], [z] and [ɪz]’. Booij (2016:439) states that his equivalent of (4) is what we find ‘[a]t the phonological level’. He encloses the ‘allomorphs’ in square brackets, indicating that they are phonetic. However, because all the segments involved are phonemes of English, I assume that the allomorphic forms are alternations at the phonological level, and therefore generalized schemas are required for all the regular ‘allomorphs’ of the English plural. Two general ‘phonological’ schemas are required in addition to (4): one for nouns that end on strident consonants and one for nouns that end on non-strident voiceless consonants. In most English varieties, there are six strident consonants, namely [s z ʃ ʒ tʃ dʒ], and five non-strident voiceless consonants that occur at the end of words, namely [p t k f q]. The schema applying to the latter, having a smaller scope, would thus be the narrower one. So, for example, the narrower schema for words that end on voiceless consonants can be formulated as in (9)(a), while the slightly broader schema for words that end on strident consonants can be formulated as in (9)(b): (9)
(a) ‘/s/ suffixation’ z (b) ‘/əz/ suffixation’ z
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
5
Schema (9)(a) reads: ‘Given a singular noun of the form /XC/, where C is a voiceless non-strident consonant, the corresponding plural will have the form /XCs/’. The inclusion of the feature [stri:-] ‘non-strident’ ensures that (9)(a) will apply only to words ending in [p t k f q]. Examples of plurals formed according to schema (9)(a) are lips, pits, ducks, riffs, myths. Schema (9)(b) reads: ‘Given a singular noun of the form /XC/, where C is a strident consonant, the corresponding plural will have the form /XCəz/’. Examples of plurals formed according to schema (9)(b) are: lasses, roses, wishes, mirages, churches, judges. (9)(a) is narrower than (9)(b) because the /C/ at the end of the singular phonological form is specified for two features, while that in (9)(b) is specified for only one. If (9)(a) were formulated without the feature [stri:-], then the two schemas would be equally narrow, and there is no protocol for choosing one over the other. Incorrect instantiations could be implied, because (9)(a) could then apply to words like lass, wish, church, ([læs], [wɪʃ], [tʃʰɜ:tʃ]) to produce *[læss], *[wɪʃs], *[tʃʰɜ:tʃs]. Therefore (9)(a) must be formulated more narrowly than (9)(b). The narrower formulation of this schema makes sense in view of the fact that, in most varieties of English, there are only five non-strident voiceless consonants that occur at the end of words, while there are six strident consonants. But in some varieties (including mine), the voiceless velar fricative [x] is a marginal phone, occurring in words such as loch [lɒx] with plural lochs [lɒxs]. In such varieties, there are equal numbers of strident consonants and word-final non-strident voiceless consonants. Therefore the choice of which schema should be formulated more narrowly is arbitrary. The schema applying to strident consonants could be formulated more narrowly as in (10)(a), while that applying to non-strident voiceless consonants could be reformulated more broadly as (10)(b).
(10)
(a) ‘/əz/ suffixation’ z (b) ‘/s/ suffixation’ z
Schema (10)(a) reads: ‘Given a singular noun of the form /XC/, where C is a strident consonant, either voiced or voiceless, the corresponding plural will have the form /XCəz/’. Schema (10)(b) reads: ‘Given a singular noun of the form /XC/, where C is a voiceless consonant, the corresponding plural will have the form /XCs/’. Schema (10)(a) would apply only to words ending on strident consonants, whether voiced or voiceless. Schema (10)(b) would apply to all other voiceless consonants. In the case of varieties that have words like [lɒxs], it is immaterial which schema is formulated as the narrower: the correct results will be produced, whether the option in (9) is chosen, or that in (10). Psycholinguistic experiments can no doubt be devised to determine whether individual speakers regard the schema for strident consonants as the narrower, as in (10)(a), or that for non-strident voiceless consonants as the narrower, as in (9)(a). The lexicon will contain the following schemas as ‘types’ of plural nouns (these are the second subschemas in (4), (9)(a) and (9)(b)):
(11)
(a) (b) (c)
Schemas like these will also account for the fact that pluralia tantum nouns like trousers, jeans, scissors, glasses, which have the forms of plurals, and take plural agreement (‘these trousers’) can exist without corresponding singular forms except for a few that occur in restricted constructions like trouser in the compound trouser leg. 4.2. ‘Morphologically conditioned’ plurals The kinds of plurals discussed in this section would count as ‘morphologically conditioned’ in other frameworks. In a Construction Morphology lexicon, plurals like these are coupled to their base words by means of linking entries. The schemas for forming such plurals would be tagged (by the language-acquirer, or by a linguist compiling a grammar of English) as nonproductive. They include plurals in -en (section 4.2.1), learned plurals formed by suffixation (section 4.2.2), syncretic plurals (section 4.2.3), and the suppletive plural (section 4.2.4). Here, I use an asterisk * at the end of a generalized schema to show that it is non-productive. 4.2.1. Plurals in -en There are three fairly common nouns in contemporary use that form their plurals in -en, but two of them undergo additional modification, so that only a very abstract generalization can be based on them. They are ox z oxen, child z children and (particularly in religious contexts – Collins English Dictionary) brother z brethren.
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
6
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
(12)
(a) <[ɒks]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘ox’> z <[ɒksən]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘oxen’> (b) <[tʃaɪɫd]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘child’> z <[tʃɪɫdɹən]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘children’> (c) <[bɹʌðə]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘brother’> z <[bɹ3ðɹən]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘brethren’>
A very abstract generalization can be made.
(13)
‘/ən/ suffixation’ z * where X { ¼ , s} Y.
This is read: ‘Given a singular noun of the form /X/, its plural can have the form /Yən/, where /Y/ may or may not be identical to /X/. In [ɒks] z [ɒksən], the X of (13) is identical to the Y; in child z children and brother z brethren, it is not. This schema is a slightly more concrete instantiation of schema (5).4 In section 5, I explain how CxM avoids the problems that Halle and Marantz (1993) have identified in Anderson’s EWP (1992), specifically with regard to the plural oxen. 4.2.2. Learned plurals Learned plurals are plural forms that are native to other languages, like Latin, Greek or Hebrew. An example where the plural is formed by affixation, rather than a change to the basic form of the word, is words derived from Hebrew which have plurals of the form /Xɪm/ (e.g. cherubim, seraphim, kibbutzim).
(14)
‘/ɪm/ suffixation’ z *
In the lexicon, nouns that take such plurals will have linked entries, as in the following example:
(15)
<[tʃ3ɹəb]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘cherub’> z (<[tʃ3ɹəbɪm]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘cherubim’>)
The linked plural is enclosed in optionality parentheses because a regular plural cherubs is also found. Such examples, too fall under the very general schema (5) ‘plural morpheme suffixation’. 4.2.3. Syncretic plurals English has a restricted set of nouns where the singular and the plural are identical in form. These include the names of certain animals and birds (e.g. sheep, deer, grouse), and also some ethnonyms like Chinese.
(16)
‘syncretic plurals’ z *
The nouns that fall into this class will likewise have linked entries in the lexicon, as:
(17)
<[ɡɹaʊs]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘grouse’> z <[ɡɹaʊs]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘grouse’>
Also included in this set are compound words like policeman. Although the orthography distinguishes the plural (policemen) from the singular, in speech, singular and plural are pronounced identically [pʰəli:smən]. 4.2.4. The suppletive plural Halle and Marantz (1993:30) state, ‘It is an accident of English that it contains no truly suppletive pairs of singular-plural noun stems.’ In many varieties of English, however, the word person has two possible plurals, the regular persons, and the
4 Such ‘non-productive’ schemas are sometimes used productively for facetious reasons. Thus, computer experts refer to VAX computers as vaxen; and similarly, boxen and foxen are used as joking plurals (see Urban Dictionary).
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
7
suppletive people. In these varieties, the latter is in more general use, while the former is restricted to formal or legal language (Collins English Dictionary; Merriam-Webster Dictionary). CxM can handle such suppletive forms with a linking entry:
(18)
‘suppletive plural’ <[pʰɜ:sən]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘person’> z <[pʰi:pəɫ]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘people’>
This reads: ‘[pʰɜ:sən] is a singular noun with the meaning ‘person’. Its plural is [pʰi:pəɫ]’. 4.3. ‘Lexical phonological’ alternations Lexical phonological alternations are those alternations which involve a phonological difference that cannot be generalized to more than a restricted number of stems. As with the ‘morphologically conditioned’ plurals of the previous section, the schemas for lexical phonological alternations must be marked as non-productive. In the morphology of the English plural, such alternations are found in certain stems that end in voiceless fricatives in the singular but voiced ones in the plural (section 4.3.1), certain stems whose singular and plural forms have different vowels (section 4.3.2), and certain learned borrowings which have differing terminations in the singular and plural (section 4.3.3). 4.3.1. Stems where the final voiceless consonant alternates with a voiced one English has a number of words which end on voiceless fricatives [f q s] in the singular and whose plural contains the corresponding voiced fricative, followed by [z] or [əz]. Examples are: half z halves, thief z thieves, loaf z loaves, wife z wives, bath [bɑ:q] z baths [bɑ:ðz], path [pʰɑ:q] z paths [pʰɑ:ðz], and wreath z wreaths (pronounced with final [ðz] by some speakers – Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2011, Collins English Dictionary). I am aware of only one word that has the alternation [s]z[z], namely house z houses. Sample linking entries are:
(19)
(a) <[loʊf]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘loaf’> z <[loʊvz]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘loaves’> (b) <[qi:f]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘thief’> z <[qi:vz]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘thieves’> (c) <[pʰɑ:q]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘path’> z <[pʰɑ:ðz]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘paths’> (d) <[ɹi:q]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘wreath’> z <[ɹi:ðz]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘wreaths’> (e) <[haʊs]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘house’> z <[haʊzəz]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘houses’>
The following is a generalization across linking entries (19)(a)–(d): (20)
‘fricative voicing with /z/ affixation’ z
The sequence m1m2 stands for ‘two vowel moras’, which may either be the same (i.e. a long vowel), or different (i.e. a diphthong). Schema (20) reads: ‘A singular noun whose stem contains either a long vowel or a diphthong and ends on a voiceless fricative alternates with a corresponding plural which ends on the voiced equivalent of that fricative, followed by the phoneme /z/.’ Linking entry (19)(e) is not accommodated in the generalization, because the plural form has a different suffix. However, see the discussion in section 5. There are no examples (to my knowledge) where the singular form is /XmC[cont:þ, son:-, vd:-]/, that is, a root with a short (single-mora) vowel, where the final voiceless fricative C alternates with a voiced C in the plural stem. Words like riff, pith, gaff, moth, Goth, myth, tiff, buff, huff all have plurals in conformance with schema (9)(a) ‘/s/ suffixation’, that is, the plural form is the singular form þ [s]. In rhotic varieties of English, a small number of words that end in voiceless fricatives in the singular with corresponding voiced fricatives in the plural are of the form /XVVɹC[cont:þ, son:-, vd:-]/. The words in question are (21)
wharf z wharves, scarf z scarves, and (for some speakers), dwarf z dwarves.
In each case, the voiceless fricative at the end is [f]; words like births, hearths, fourths, do not fall into this class, as here the orthographic sequence represents the voiceless fricative [q]. The words in (21) will naturally fall into schema (20) in nonPlease cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
8
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
rhotic varieties, as in each case the vowel is long. In rhotic varieties they can be accommodated by slightly modifying (20) as follows: (22)
‘fricative voicing: stems ending in (ɹ)C’ z , where m1 { ¼ , s} m2.
This allows for words ending in either a single consonant, or in two consonants, the first of which is [ɹ]. This reads: ‘A singular noun whose stem contains a long vowel or a diphthong and ends on either a voiceless fricative, or a cluster consisting of /ɹ/ followed by a voiceless fricative, alternates with a corresponding plural which ends on the voiced equivalent of that fricative, followed by the phoneme /z/.’ In all varieties, the words that fall under second-order schema (20) will have be coupled with a linked entry, as in (19) and (23): (23)
<[skɑːɹf]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘scarf’> z <[skɑːɹvz]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘scarves’>
There are several words whose phonology matches the phonological specification of the singular first-order schema, but whose plurals are regular, in accordance with schema (9)(a) ‘/s/ suffixation’. Examples are roofs [ɹu:fs], graphs [ɡɹɑ:fs], giraffes [dʒəɹɑ:fs], reefs [ɹi:fs] as well as the examples given earlier, [bɜ:qs], [hɑ:qs], [fɔ:qs]. The linking entries of the type in (19) and (23) will ensure that only the grammatically appropriate words of this phonological shape will have plurals ending in /vz/, etc. There are four words which have the ‘voiceless fricativezvoiced fricative’ alternation that are not accommodated in (20), namely self, shelf, elf, wolf. These words have short vowels and the phone [l] before the voiceless labiodental fricative. As there are so few words of this type, and the alternation is non-productive, it is more transparent to accommodate them in a separate schema, rather than reformulating (20) to include them. The schema for these words is: (24)
‘fricative voicing: stems in /-lf/’ z *
This reads: ‘A singular noun whose stem ends on the sequence “short vowel, followed by /lf/”, alternates with a plural form ending in /lvz/.’ This schema appears to be completely unproductive. There are many words to which it does not apply, for example, sylph, gulf, Guelph, Ralph (‘There are three Ralphs in the class’), and recently-coined words like the taboo slang term milf ‘sexually attractive older woman’. 4.3.2. Umlaut Modern English retains a few remnants of the old Anglo-Saxon umlauting process in the words man z men, woman z women, goose z geese, tooth z teeth, foot z feet, mouse z mice, louse z lice. Formal representations of the linking entries are given in (25), (26) and (27). (25)
(a) <[ɡu:s]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘goose’> z <[ɡi:s]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘geese’> (b) <[tʰu:q]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘tooth’> z <[tʰi:q]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘teeth’> (c) <[fʊt]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘foot’> z <[fi:t]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘feet’>
(26)
(a) <[maʊs]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘mouse’> z<[maɪs]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘mice’> (b) <[laʊs]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘louse’> z<[laɪs]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘lice’>
(27)
(a) <[mæn]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘man’> z <[m3n]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘men’> (b) <[wʊmən]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘woman’> z <[wɪmən]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘women’>
The following generalization can be made over (25). Once again these schemas have to be marked ‘non-productive’. (28)
‘/i:/ umlaut’ z *
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
9
This reads: ‘A singular noun of the form /C1VC2/, where V is a high back vowel (/u:/ or /ʊ/) has a corresponding plural form /C1i:C2/’. The following generalization can be made over (26): (29)
‘/aʊ/z/aɪ/ umlaut’ z *
This reads: ‘a singular noun of the form /Xaʊs/ has a corresponding plural form /Xaɪs/. The words man/men and woman/women cannot be accommodated in a generalized schema, as they are unique examples, but see the discussion of the former in section 5. 4.3.3. Learned plurals Latin nouns of the second declension had the general form /Xus/, with plural /Xi:/ (radius, radii). Where words of this kind have been borrowed into modern English, the singular forms are phonologically /Xəs/, while the plural is /Xaɪ/. Examples are: (30)
(a) <[əlʌmnəs]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘alumnus’> z <[əlʌmnaɪ]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘alumni’> (b) <[mɒdjʊləs]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘modulus’> z <[mɒdjʊlaɪ]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘moduli’> (c) <[ɹeɪdɪəs]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘radius’> z(<[ɹeɪdɪaɪ]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘radii’>)
The second subschema in (30)(c) is shown as optional, because an acceptable regular alternative plural radiuses exists (Collins English Dictionary; Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Such facts can be captured in schemas like the following: (31)
‘/-əs/z/-aɪ/ alternation’ z *
There are several other kinds of learned plurals that occur in English, for example Latin nouns of the third declension like genus/genera, or Greek nouns like automaton/automata. Schemas for such nouns will be very similar to (31), and so are not discussed here. 5. Generalizations and partial generalizations As explained section 3, one of the defining characteristics of CxM is that it postulates the formation of generalized abstract mental schemas which describe the relationships between one more concrete construction and another. The degree of abstraction of these schemas can range considerably. It is argued below that it is the ability to make these abstractions that allows CxM to avoid the criticisms levelled at the EWP by Halle and Marantz (1993). 5.1. Stems ending in voiceless fricatives The following abstract schema is a generalization over all the stem alternations associated with fricative voicing, except for those accounted for by (24). It therefore accounts for all the examples in (19)(a)–(e) and (21): (32)
‘fricative voicing’ z *
This reads: ‘A singular noun whose stem contains a long vowel or a diphthong, and ends on a voiceless fricative C or a sequence of /ɹ/ and voiceless fricative C, alternates with a plural form which ends on the voiced equivalent of C followed by a suffix’. The schema is able to include both nouns of the wife/wives type, and the noun house/houses because it does not specify the form of the suffix. It merely describes the kind of stem alternation that occurs. In order to describe the suffix part of the alternation, the phonological schemas in (4) ‘/z/ suffixation’ and (9)(b) ‘/əz/ suffixation’ will have to be generalized further. As formulated above, these schemas do not account for alternations which include differences in the stems. More generalized schemas that do account for such differences are given below: (33)
‘/z/ suffixation with possible stem alternation’ z , where Y { ¼ , s} Z
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
10
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
Schema (33) reads: ‘A singular noun with stem /XY/ alternates with a plural form with stem /XZ/, followed by a suffix /z/. /Y/ and /Z/ may or may not be identical.’ (34)
‘/əz/ suffixation with possible stem alternation’ z , where C1 { ¼ , s} C2.
Schema (34) reads: ‘A singular noun ending on a strident consonant C1 alternates with a plural form with a stem ending on a strident consonant C2. C1 and C2 may or may not be identical.’ Schemas (33) and (34) cannot be taken to refer to suppletive alternations, as they make it clear that the initial part of each stem, symbolized /X/, remains identical in both the singular and plural subschemas. Thus, schema (20) ‘fricative voicing with /z/ affixation’, repeated below, is a unification of schemas (32) ‘fricative voicing’ and (33) ‘/z/ suffixation with possible stem alternation’ above, (32) accounting for the voicing alternation in the stem, and (33) accounting for the plural suffix /z/. (20)
‘fricative voicing with /z/ affixation’ z
Likewise, the linking entry for housezhouses (19)(e), repeated below, represents a unification of (32) ‘fricative voicing’ and (34) ‘/əz/ suffixation with possible stem alternation’, (32) accounting for the voicing alternation in the stem, and (34) accounting for the plural suffix /əz/. (19)
(e) <[haʊs]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘house’> z <[haʊzəz]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘houses’>
The possibility of formulating such generalized schemas, which relate a more specific schema to several other sets of data, means that Construction Morphology avoids Halle and Marantz’s (1993:131) second criticism of EWP, namely that it fails to account for ‘double marking’ of inflectional categories (extended exponence). Each of the marking types found in words like (19)(a)–(e) can be accounted for by separate abstract generalizations: the words that occur are instantiations of more concrete schemas and linking entries, which in turn are the unifications of the very abstract schemas.
5.2. The case of ox/oxen 5.2.1. Identifying the two morphemes This section will discuss the specific case of the alternation ox/oxen, as this was the example focused on by Halle and Marantz (1993). The generalized schema (13) ‘/ən/ suffixation’ was formulated for the three nouns that take the plural -en. It is repeated here: (13)
‘/ən/ suffixation’ z *
In addition, schema (5) ‘plural morpheme suffixation’, repeated here, is a generalization over all nouns which have identical stems in the singular and plural, and whose plural is marked by a suffix: (5)
‘plural morpheme suffixation’ z
The word oxen instantiates each of these schemas. Schema (13) identifies the plural suffix as –en. Schema (5) show that the stem (in this case, ox), remains constant in the singular and plural forms. By reference to generalized schemas such as (5) and (13), the partial identity between word-pairs like ox and oxen can be established. CxM therefore avoids Halle and Marantz’s (1993) critique of EWP. 5.2.2. Avoiding illicit extended exponence As mentioned in section 2, in CxM, a schema for a particular morphological feature can apply only once. The choice of the relevant schema is determined either by a linking entry, or by the Elsewhere Principle (6). Thus a form like *oxens cannot be Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
11
produced, because there is no schema that it instantiates. The plural of ox is determined by the linking entry, (2). But the fact that only one linking entry or schema can apply does not prevent ‘correct’ forms like lives being instantiated. Like oxzoxen, life is coupled with its plural lives by a linking entry. Schema (20) ‘fricative voicing with /z/ affixation’ is a generalized schema for words like this. As it is marked non-productive, it cannot apply to a word like fife to produce *fives, except in facetious contexts. 5.3. The case of man/men A somewhat more difficult case is that of manzmen. There is clearly a commonality between the singular and plural forms, but the exact alternation is unique. The commonality can be captured in a generalized schema which applies to all the examples in section 4.3.2: (35)
‘umlaut’ z , where V1 s V2.
This is read: ‘A singular noun beginning with a consonant C, followed by a vowel V1, followed by another phonological sequence X alternates with a plural form beginning with the same consonant C, followed by a different vowel V2, followed by the same phonological sequence X.’ The ending of the stem is shown as X rather than, say, C2, in order to accommodate the bisyllabic forms woman/women. The commonality between man and men is captured in the following partial instantiation of schema (35): (36)
z
This shows clearly that the configuration [m.n] remains constant over the two words. The differences between man and men can also be captured in a partial instantiation of (35): (37)
z
This shows that while the singular form has the vowel [æ], the plural has [3]. The ability of CxM to represent partial instantiations of schemas allows it to isolate both the commonalities between schemas, and the differences between them. Again, the question of whether speakers make such representations in their minds is a matter for psycholinguistic research. 6. Conclusion It has been shown above that the possibility of formulating abstract generalizations means that CxM is not vulnerable to the criticisms that Halle and Marantz (1993) have levelled at EWP. The fact of abstraction ensures that the theory can account for what is in common in paradigmatic word-pairs like ox and oxen, and even isolate the commonalities and unique alternations in words like manz men, which cannot be generalized. Nothing like the Blocking Principle is required to prevent the formation of words like *oxens. This is adequately prevented by the fact that only one schema or linked entry can apply in the formation of a plural. The lack of a Blocking Principle means that there is nothing to prevent the formation of perfectly correct forms like the doubly-marked English noun lives. Insofar as it avoids Halle and Marantz’s (1993)critique of Anderson’s (1992) EWP, Construction Morphology can thus be seen to be a robust approach to morphology. References Anderson, Stephen R., 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Booij, G., 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Booij, G., 2016. Construction morphology. In: Hippisley, Andrew, Stump, Gregory (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 424–448. Bresnan, J., 2001. Lexical–Functional Syntax. Blackwell, Oxford. Chomsky, N., Lasnik, H., 1995. The theory of principles and parameters. In: Chomsky, N. (Ed.), The Minimalist Program. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 13–127. Collins English Dictionary. www.collinsdictionar.com. (Accessed 17 February 2019). Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2011. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Croft, W., 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul, O’Connor, Mary, 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language 64 (3), 502–538. Goldberg, Adele, 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Goldberg, Adele, 2003. Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7 (5), 219–224. Goldberg, Adele, 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
12
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
Goldberg, Adele, 2013. Constructionist approaches. In: Hoffmann, T., Trousdale, G. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 15–31. Halle, Morris, Marantz, Alec, 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In: Hale, K., Keyser, S.J. (Eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 111–176. Hoffmann, Thomas, Trousdale, Graeme (Eds.), 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Kiparsky, P., 1973. ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In: Anderson, S.R., Kiparsky, P. (Eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Austin, Texas, pp. 91–106. Matthews, P.H., 1974. Morphology: An Introduction to the Theory of Word-Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. www.merriam-webster.com. (Accessed 17 February 2019). Stump, Gregory, 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tomasello, Michael, 2000. Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74, 209–253. Tomasello, Michael, 2003. Constructing a Language. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Urban Dictionary. https://www.urbandictionary.com. (Accessed 9 July 2019). Van der Spuy, A., 2017. Construction Grammar and inflectional morphology. Lingua 199, 60–71.
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Language Sciences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/langsci
English plurals in Construction Morphology Andrew van der Spuy University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 19 February 2019 Received in revised form 11 July 2019 Accepted 25 August 2019 Available online xxx
Halle and Marantz (1993) criticize Anderson’s (1992) Extended Word-and-Paradigm Theory of morphology on two grounds: first, it does not account for the fact that a plural like oxen clearly consists of a root ox combined with a suffix –en; and second, Anderson’s ‘blocking’ principle (1992:134), formulated in order to prevent the generation of incorrect doubly marked forms like *oxens, also prevents the formation of correct doubly marked forms like wives. The theory of Construction Morphology (Booij, 2010, 2016), like Anderson’s theory, is based on words and their paradigmatic relations. This article demonstrates how the theory of Construction Morphology can account for both the regular and irregular plural forms of English nouns, while avoiding the problems Halle and Marantz have identified in the Extended Word-and-Paradigm Theory. The fact that Construction Morphology (CxM) allows representations ‘at varying degrees of abstraction’ (Goldberg 2013) enables it to account for the morphological structure of forms like oxen. The fact that it is non-derivational precludes incorrect forms like *oxens, while allowing correct forms like wives. Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: English Noun plurals Construction Morphology Generalizations Multiple marking
1. Introduction1 Halle and Marantz (1993) present a critique of Anderson’s (1992) Extended Word-and-Paradigm Theory, using evidence from the plural morphology of English nouns to illustrate their case. They argue (a) that Anderson’s theory does not account for the fact that a plural like oxen clearly consists of a root ox combined with a suffix –en; and (b) that Anderson’s ‘blocking’ principle (1992:134), formulated in order to prevent the generation of incorrect forms like *oxens, also prevents the formation of correct forms like lives (the plural of life), because such words are doubly marked as plural, once by the stem change and once by the suffix. The present article demonstrates how the theory of Construction Morphology (Booij, 2010, 2016), specifically as applied to inflection, can account for both the regular and irregular plural forms of English nouns, while at the same time avoiding the problems raised by Anderson’s Extended Word-and-Paradigm Theory (EWP) (1992). The fact that Construction Morphology (CxM) allows representations ‘at varying degrees of abstraction’ (Goldberg, 2013) enables it to capture generalizations, and to account for the morphological structure of irregular forms like oxen. The fact that it is non-derivational precludes incorrect forms like *oxens. This article is organized as follows: Section 2 gives an outline of the theory of Construction Morphology. Section 3 summarizes Halle and Marantz’s (1993) critique of Anderson’s (1992) Extended Word-and-Paradigm Theory. Section 4
E-mail address: [email protected]. I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers whose helpful comments have greatly improved this article. All errors and deficiencies, of course, remain my own. 1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240 0388-0001/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
2
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
gives a CxM analysis of English plural formation. Section 5 explains in more detail how the theory avoids the problems of EWP. Section 6 concludes. 2. A brief outline of Construction Morphology Construction Morphology is a branch of Construction Grammar (Fillmore et al., 1988; Goldberg, 1995, 2003, 2006; 2013; Hoffmann and Trousdale, 2013), a linguistic framework which postulates that there is only one kind of linguistic entity, the construction. Constructions are defined as ‘form–meaning pairings’ (Goldberg, 2003:219). Syntactic structures are constructions (e.g. the inverted auxiliary–subject word order of English yes–no questions), idioms like rattle X’s cage are constructions, and words are constructions – the last being the domain of Construction Morphology. With regard to the word, Booij (2010:6–7) refines the definition of ‘construction’ somewhat: ‘a word has a tripartite parallel structure.’ The three parts are a ‘phonic dimension. [a] semantic dimension. and. a grammatical dimension’ (Booij, 2010:6fn). The lexical entry for a word can be formally represented as follows (cf. Booij, 2010):
(1)
[ɒks]i 4 [N, sg]i4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘ox’2
Croft (2001) and Booij (2010) hypothesize that words are stored in their phonetic rather than their phonological forms. This hypothesis is assumed here. The notation in this article differs from that used by Booij (2010, 2016) in several respects. First, the phonetic representation on the left of the formula is enclosed in square brackets rather than round ones. Second, where it is necessary to name the attribute of a feature, the components are given in the order attribute:value (e.g. [stri:þ]), whereas Booij prefers the opposite order. Third, I assume that the variables C (consonant), V (vowel) and SEM (meaning) maintain their values across any given schema, unless differentiated by subscript indices like i or 1. Such indexed variables likewise maintain their values across a given schema. The formula in (1) is read as follows: a phonetic form [ɒks] maps onto the morphosyntactic features [N, sg] (i.e., it is a singular noun), and has the meaning ‘ox’. The subscript i’s affirm the identity between the phonetic representation, the morphosyntactic feature representation, and the semantics. In addition to lexical entries like (1), there are also entries linking words to other forms of the same paradigm. An example is (2). (2)
<[ɒks]i 4 [N, sg]i4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘ox’> z <[ɒksən]j 4 [N, pl]j4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘oxen’]>
Here the construction in (1) is shown linked to its plural form, which is another construction. Each construction is enclosed in angle brackets. The symbol z indicates a paradigmatic link. Currently no term exists for such a paradigmatic linking between two inflected forms of a specified word. I shall use the term ‘linking entry’ to refer to such concrete or specific paradigmatic links. In Construction Grammar it is theorized that children first acquire vocabulary items like (1), and their paradigmatic relationships as in (2), and later advance their knowledge of the grammar of their language by generalizing wherever possible (see Tomasello, 2000, 2003). The formal representations of such generalizations are referred to as ‘schemas’. (3) is an example of a schema, namely a very general schema for English nouns (cf. Booij, 2016:440): (3)
Schemas are ‘abstractions over sets of complex words’ (Booij, 2010:42). As they are abstractions, the representation of words in a schema is assumed to be phonological rather than phonetic (van der Spuy, 2017). A schema like (3) is not very informative; it simply says ‘an English singular noun consists of a sequence of phonemes which constitute a phonological word (u)’. However, it becomes more meaningful when viewed in the context of a schema like the following, namely the most general schema for English noun plurals: (4)
‘/z/ suffixation’ z
2 Abbreviations and symbols: C – ‘consonant’; CxM – Construction Morphology; EWP – Extended Word-and-Paradigm Theory; N – noun; SEM – a variable over lexical meanings; PL/pl – plural; SG/sg – singular; stri – ‘strident’; vd – voiced; angle brackets < > mark the boundaries of a schema; – ‘either marked or not marked for a given feature’; 4 – ‘corresponds with’; z – ‘is in a paradigmatic relationship with’; m – vowel mora; u – phonological word; * – a non-productive schema. Capital letters X, Y, Z are variables over sequences of phones or phonemes.
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
̣
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
3
(Booij, 2016:435 refers to such paradigmatic schemas as ‘second-order schemas’, because they are schemas of schemas.) This reads: ‘Given a singular noun with the phonological form /X/, its plural will have the form /Xz/’. The singular and plural subschemas are marked with different indices because of the formal and semantic differences between them. However, as explained above, the symbol SEM is assumed to retain its value across the whole second-order schema: it represents what remains constant to the meaning. Actual words instantiate the schemas, and a speaker who does not know what a particular inflection of a word looks like can refer to the mental equivalent of the schema. Thus, for example, a child who has acquired the general schema (4), and acquires the singular noun [pʰɔ:kjʊpʰaɪn] ‘porcupine’, will be able to correctly predict the plural [pʰɔ:kjʊpʰaɪnz] by making reference to the schema. As Matthews (1974:42) puts it (speaking of word-formation generally), ‘The Plural is merely a mechanical consequence of the Singular.’ An even more abstract schema can be formulated embracing a range of paradigms, such as the regular dogzdogs as well as the irregular oxzoxen and cherubzcherubim: (5)
‘plural morpheme suffixation’ z
This is read: ‘Given a singular noun of the form /X/, the plural is formed by adding a sequence of phonemes /Y/ to the end of /X/,’ or, in more traditional language, ‘English plurals are formed by suffixation.’ This, of course, is not true of all plurals, but the exceptions will be described in more specific schemas and linking entries, as explained below. A particular abstract generalized schema like (5) may be entirely a linguist’s observation; an individual speaker may or may not have subconsciously internalized the same generalization. Such questions are a matter for psycholinguistic research. If there is a linking entry for some inflected form, then that will automatically apply. Otherwise, in formulating a Construction Morphology account of some phenomenon, a single principle is required in order to produce the correct inflected forms. This is a version of the Elsewhere Principle or P anini’s Principle (Kiparsky, 1973; Stump, 2001): (6)
The narrowest schema applies.3
As there is no process of derivation, the principle can apply only once to produce the correct form. That is, given a choice between several plural schemas, only one may be chosen. A given schema can represent the unification of two or more other schemas (Booij, 2010). An example is (20) ‘fricative voicing with /z/ affixation’ in section 5.1 below: see the discussion there. Unification is not a process: both the more concrete entries and linking entries and the abstract generalized schemas are presumed to be stored in the lexicon: reference is made to the relevant generalized schema when the speaker requires a word that is not lexically stored (cf. Booij, 2010:42). A schema like (2) is a more concrete instance of the very general schema (5). The ability to abstract the characteristics of a plural noun as /XY/, where /X/ is the base form and Y is a suffix, means that a form like oxen can be readily analysed as a base ox þ plural suffix –en.
3. Halle and Marantz’s critique of Anderson’s Extended Word-and-Paradigm Theory In order to prevent the production of irregular forms like ‘*oxes or *oxens’ (Anderson, 1992:123), Anderson (1992:133) postulates that words are stored as ‘lexical stem sets’. Thus oxen is listen as a plural stem of ox, and the following principle applies: (7) (¼ Anderson’s 19) In interpreting a given Morphosyntactic Representation M, from among the stems in the lexical set S of a given lexical item, only that stem S i, which is characterized for the maximal subset of the features compatible with M may serve as the basis of an inflected form {S, M}. (Anderson 1993:133).
To illustrate this with an example: assume that the entry for ox contains the stem set {ox, oxen}, and that the latter stem is characterised by an abstract Morphosyntactic Representation [N, pl]. When the plural ([N, pl]) of ox is required, the stem oxen will be chosen, as it is characterized for the maximal subset of these features (cf. Anderson 1992:133). Halle and Marantz (1993) point out that Anderson is effectively accounting for the irregularity by means of suppletion: ‘.there is no way in which his solution takes account of the partial identity of oxen and ox. Instead of being composed of the latter two stems, the stem set could equally well have contained ox and any phonetically well formed string of phonemes.’ (Halle and Marantz, 1993:130). This is their first critique of his theory, as far as it applies to English plural morphology.
3 This principle, together with the Construction Morphology conception of the lexicon, can be used to describe exceptions to generalizations, for example, most English noun–noun compounds have the form [[N sg] N], with the first, modifying, noun being singular. But there are exceptions like arms race, systems analyst, whose [[N pl] N] form will be given precedence, as being associated with these specific entries.
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
4
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
Anderson (1992) himself goes on to point out that Principle (7) does not rule out forms like *oxens, where the irregular form acquires a regular marker as well. In order to prevent the generation of such forms, he postulates another Principle ‘of blocking’ (1992:134): (8) (¼ Anderson’s 20) When a rule R of the grammar would apply to a stem S on the basis of the features F of a given position to be interpreted, application of R is blocked, if F constitutes a subset of the lexical specifications of S.
In other words, if a stem is already marked for a feature like [pl], then another rule which adds a feature [pl] to a stem cannot apply. The stem oxen is marked [pl], as is the suffix –s, therefore *oxens cannot be generated. But Halle and Marantz point out that this principle also blocks correct forms like lives (the plural of life), which are doubly marked for plural, in this case once by the voicing of the final consonant of the stem, and once by the addition of the plural suffix, orthographic -s/ phonetic [-z]. They state that the problem is that Anderson’s theory does not recognize that phonological "modifications" produced by what we have called Vocabulary insertion (the addition of phonological material) are separate from and independent of those produced by readjustment rules (which may change and delete features, as well as add them). An approach such as Anderson’s, which denies the existence of this distinction, is unabledas a matter of principledto distinguish cases of total suppletion such as be/were from cases of partial suppletion such as go/wen-t, from different stem readjustments such as goose/geese, life/live-s, and from cases of irregular suffixation such as ox/ox-en and child/childr-en, and is therefore forced to subsume all of these clearly different cases under the rubric of suppletion (Halle and Marantz, 1993: 131–132). This is their second critique of Anderson’s theory. Now, being non-derivational, CxM also fails to distinguish between phonological modifications and readjustment. Nevertheless, it does not produce incorrect forms like *oxens, nor does it block regular forms like wives, nor does it prevent the observation that in such a word, wive-is the stem and –s is a suffix. The section that follows will present a brief account of English noun plurals, including all the kinds of irregularities that occur. It will show that Construction Morphology circumvents the two criticisms that Halle and Marantz (1993) have levelled against EWP, which are outlined above. 4. English noun plurals The schemas and linking entries that are required for an account of English noun plurals will be presented in this section. In CxM, there are no ‘rules’, rather, all constructions are described in terms of schemas or linking entries. No formal distinction is made between ‘morphologically conditioned’ alternations, ‘lexically conditioned’ phonological alternations, and purely phonological alternations; however, here the schemas will be grouped according to these distinctions, as they will be familiar to most readers. All schemas are uniform in their general structure, differing only in the stipulation of their range of applicability. This emphasises the fact that the grammar is regarded as ‘non-componential’, that is, unlike Principles and Parameters Theory (Chomsky and Lasnik, 1995) or Lexical–Functional Grammar (Bresnan, 2001), it does not postulate that the grammar is divided into separate components of phonology, morphology, syntax and lexicon. 4.1. ‘Phonological’ schemas The most general rule of plural formation in English is (4) ‘/z/ suffixation’ above. This schema applies to all regular nouns ending on vowels or else on non-strident voiced consonants. Examples (given in the plural form) are arias, sopranos, seas, shoes, cabs, kids, rags, gulls, gears, guns, gums, rings. It is unnecessary to specify the phonological environments where (4) applies, because the more specific schemas below, taken in conjunction with the Elsewhere Principle (6), ensure that it cannot apply to any other phonological class of noun. Booij (2016:439) gives only the equivalent of (4) and does not discuss allomorphic forms in any detail, ‘The default option is suffixation with /-z/ (a suffix with three allomorphs [s], [z] and [ɪz]’. Booij (2016:439) states that his equivalent of (4) is what we find ‘[a]t the phonological level’. He encloses the ‘allomorphs’ in square brackets, indicating that they are phonetic. However, because all the segments involved are phonemes of English, I assume that the allomorphic forms are alternations at the phonological level, and therefore generalized schemas are required for all the regular ‘allomorphs’ of the English plural. Two general ‘phonological’ schemas are required in addition to (4): one for nouns that end on strident consonants and one for nouns that end on non-strident voiceless consonants. In most English varieties, there are six strident consonants, namely [s z ʃ ʒ tʃ dʒ], and five non-strident voiceless consonants that occur at the end of words, namely [p t k f q]. The schema applying to the latter, having a smaller scope, would thus be the narrower one. So, for example, the narrower schema for words that end on voiceless consonants can be formulated as in (9)(a), while the slightly broader schema for words that end on strident consonants can be formulated as in (9)(b): (9)
(a) ‘/s/ suffixation’ z (b) ‘/əz/ suffixation’ z
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
5
Schema (9)(a) reads: ‘Given a singular noun of the form /XC/, where C is a voiceless non-strident consonant, the corresponding plural will have the form /XCs/’. The inclusion of the feature [stri:-] ‘non-strident’ ensures that (9)(a) will apply only to words ending in [p t k f q]. Examples of plurals formed according to schema (9)(a) are lips, pits, ducks, riffs, myths. Schema (9)(b) reads: ‘Given a singular noun of the form /XC/, where C is a strident consonant, the corresponding plural will have the form /XCəz/’. Examples of plurals formed according to schema (9)(b) are: lasses, roses, wishes, mirages, churches, judges. (9)(a) is narrower than (9)(b) because the /C/ at the end of the singular phonological form is specified for two features, while that in (9)(b) is specified for only one. If (9)(a) were formulated without the feature [stri:-], then the two schemas would be equally narrow, and there is no protocol for choosing one over the other. Incorrect instantiations could be implied, because (9)(a) could then apply to words like lass, wish, church, ([læs], [wɪʃ], [tʃʰɜ:tʃ]) to produce *[læss], *[wɪʃs], *[tʃʰɜ:tʃs]. Therefore (9)(a) must be formulated more narrowly than (9)(b). The narrower formulation of this schema makes sense in view of the fact that, in most varieties of English, there are only five non-strident voiceless consonants that occur at the end of words, while there are six strident consonants. But in some varieties (including mine), the voiceless velar fricative [x] is a marginal phone, occurring in words such as loch [lɒx] with plural lochs [lɒxs]. In such varieties, there are equal numbers of strident consonants and word-final non-strident voiceless consonants. Therefore the choice of which schema should be formulated more narrowly is arbitrary. The schema applying to strident consonants could be formulated more narrowly as in (10)(a), while that applying to non-strident voiceless consonants could be reformulated more broadly as (10)(b).
(10)
(a) ‘/əz/ suffixation’ z (b) ‘/s/ suffixation’ z
Schema (10)(a) reads: ‘Given a singular noun of the form /XC/, where C is a strident consonant, either voiced or voiceless, the corresponding plural will have the form /XCəz/’. Schema (10)(b) reads: ‘Given a singular noun of the form /XC/, where C is a voiceless consonant, the corresponding plural will have the form /XCs/’. Schema (10)(a) would apply only to words ending on strident consonants, whether voiced or voiceless. Schema (10)(b) would apply to all other voiceless consonants. In the case of varieties that have words like [lɒxs], it is immaterial which schema is formulated as the narrower: the correct results will be produced, whether the option in (9) is chosen, or that in (10). Psycholinguistic experiments can no doubt be devised to determine whether individual speakers regard the schema for strident consonants as the narrower, as in (10)(a), or that for non-strident voiceless consonants as the narrower, as in (9)(a). The lexicon will contain the following schemas as ‘types’ of plural nouns (these are the second subschemas in (4), (9)(a) and (9)(b)):
(11)
(a) (b) (c)
Schemas like these will also account for the fact that pluralia tantum nouns like trousers, jeans, scissors, glasses, which have the forms of plurals, and take plural agreement (‘these trousers’) can exist without corresponding singular forms except for a few that occur in restricted constructions like trouser in the compound trouser leg. 4.2. ‘Morphologically conditioned’ plurals The kinds of plurals discussed in this section would count as ‘morphologically conditioned’ in other frameworks. In a Construction Morphology lexicon, plurals like these are coupled to their base words by means of linking entries. The schemas for forming such plurals would be tagged (by the language-acquirer, or by a linguist compiling a grammar of English) as nonproductive. They include plurals in -en (section 4.2.1), learned plurals formed by suffixation (section 4.2.2), syncretic plurals (section 4.2.3), and the suppletive plural (section 4.2.4). Here, I use an asterisk * at the end of a generalized schema to show that it is non-productive. 4.2.1. Plurals in -en There are three fairly common nouns in contemporary use that form their plurals in -en, but two of them undergo additional modification, so that only a very abstract generalization can be based on them. They are ox z oxen, child z children and (particularly in religious contexts – Collins English Dictionary) brother z brethren.
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
6
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
(12)
(a) <[ɒks]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘ox’> z <[ɒksən]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘oxen’> (b) <[tʃaɪɫd]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘child’> z <[tʃɪɫdɹən]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘children’> (c) <[bɹʌðə]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘brother’> z <[bɹ3ðɹən]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘brethren’>
A very abstract generalization can be made.
(13)
‘/ən/ suffixation’ z * where X { ¼ , s} Y.
This is read: ‘Given a singular noun of the form /X/, its plural can have the form /Yən/, where /Y/ may or may not be identical to /X/. In [ɒks] z [ɒksən], the X of (13) is identical to the Y; in child z children and brother z brethren, it is not. This schema is a slightly more concrete instantiation of schema (5).4 In section 5, I explain how CxM avoids the problems that Halle and Marantz (1993) have identified in Anderson’s EWP (1992), specifically with regard to the plural oxen. 4.2.2. Learned plurals Learned plurals are plural forms that are native to other languages, like Latin, Greek or Hebrew. An example where the plural is formed by affixation, rather than a change to the basic form of the word, is words derived from Hebrew which have plurals of the form /Xɪm/ (e.g. cherubim, seraphim, kibbutzim).
(14)
‘/ɪm/ suffixation’ z *
In the lexicon, nouns that take such plurals will have linked entries, as in the following example:
(15)
<[tʃ3ɹəb]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘cherub’> z (<[tʃ3ɹəbɪm]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘cherubim’>)
The linked plural is enclosed in optionality parentheses because a regular plural cherubs is also found. Such examples, too fall under the very general schema (5) ‘plural morpheme suffixation’. 4.2.3. Syncretic plurals English has a restricted set of nouns where the singular and the plural are identical in form. These include the names of certain animals and birds (e.g. sheep, deer, grouse), and also some ethnonyms like Chinese.
(16)
‘syncretic plurals’ z *
The nouns that fall into this class will likewise have linked entries in the lexicon, as:
(17)
<[ɡɹaʊs]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘grouse’> z <[ɡɹaʊs]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘grouse’>
Also included in this set are compound words like policeman. Although the orthography distinguishes the plural (policemen) from the singular, in speech, singular and plural are pronounced identically [pʰəli:smən]. 4.2.4. The suppletive plural Halle and Marantz (1993:30) state, ‘It is an accident of English that it contains no truly suppletive pairs of singular-plural noun stems.’ In many varieties of English, however, the word person has two possible plurals, the regular persons, and the
4 Such ‘non-productive’ schemas are sometimes used productively for facetious reasons. Thus, computer experts refer to VAX computers as vaxen; and similarly, boxen and foxen are used as joking plurals (see Urban Dictionary).
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
7
suppletive people. In these varieties, the latter is in more general use, while the former is restricted to formal or legal language (Collins English Dictionary; Merriam-Webster Dictionary). CxM can handle such suppletive forms with a linking entry:
(18)
‘suppletive plural’ <[pʰɜ:sən]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘person’> z <[pʰi:pəɫ]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘people’>
This reads: ‘[pʰɜ:sən] is a singular noun with the meaning ‘person’. Its plural is [pʰi:pəɫ]’. 4.3. ‘Lexical phonological’ alternations Lexical phonological alternations are those alternations which involve a phonological difference that cannot be generalized to more than a restricted number of stems. As with the ‘morphologically conditioned’ plurals of the previous section, the schemas for lexical phonological alternations must be marked as non-productive. In the morphology of the English plural, such alternations are found in certain stems that end in voiceless fricatives in the singular but voiced ones in the plural (section 4.3.1), certain stems whose singular and plural forms have different vowels (section 4.3.2), and certain learned borrowings which have differing terminations in the singular and plural (section 4.3.3). 4.3.1. Stems where the final voiceless consonant alternates with a voiced one English has a number of words which end on voiceless fricatives [f q s] in the singular and whose plural contains the corresponding voiced fricative, followed by [z] or [əz]. Examples are: half z halves, thief z thieves, loaf z loaves, wife z wives, bath [bɑ:q] z baths [bɑ:ðz], path [pʰɑ:q] z paths [pʰɑ:ðz], and wreath z wreaths (pronounced with final [ðz] by some speakers – Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2011, Collins English Dictionary). I am aware of only one word that has the alternation [s]z[z], namely house z houses. Sample linking entries are:
(19)
(a) <[loʊf]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘loaf’> z <[loʊvz]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘loaves’> (b) <[qi:f]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘thief’> z <[qi:vz]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘thieves’> (c) <[pʰɑ:q]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘path’> z <[pʰɑ:ðz]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘paths’> (d) <[ɹi:q]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘wreath’> z <[ɹi:ðz]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘wreaths’> (e) <[haʊs]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘house’> z <[haʊzəz]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘houses’>
The following is a generalization across linking entries (19)(a)–(d): (20)
‘fricative voicing with /z/ affixation’ z
The sequence m1m2 stands for ‘two vowel moras’, which may either be the same (i.e. a long vowel), or different (i.e. a diphthong). Schema (20) reads: ‘A singular noun whose stem contains either a long vowel or a diphthong and ends on a voiceless fricative alternates with a corresponding plural which ends on the voiced equivalent of that fricative, followed by the phoneme /z/.’ Linking entry (19)(e) is not accommodated in the generalization, because the plural form has a different suffix. However, see the discussion in section 5. There are no examples (to my knowledge) where the singular form is /XmC[cont:þ, son:-, vd:-]/, that is, a root with a short (single-mora) vowel, where the final voiceless fricative C alternates with a voiced C in the plural stem. Words like riff, pith, gaff, moth, Goth, myth, tiff, buff, huff all have plurals in conformance with schema (9)(a) ‘/s/ suffixation’, that is, the plural form is the singular form þ [s]. In rhotic varieties of English, a small number of words that end in voiceless fricatives in the singular with corresponding voiced fricatives in the plural are of the form /XVVɹC[cont:þ, son:-, vd:-]/. The words in question are (21)
wharf z wharves, scarf z scarves, and (for some speakers), dwarf z dwarves.
In each case, the voiceless fricative at the end is [f]; words like births, hearths, fourths, do not fall into this class, as here the orthographic sequence represents the voiceless fricative [q]. The words in (21) will naturally fall into schema (20) in nonPlease cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
8
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
rhotic varieties, as in each case the vowel is long. In rhotic varieties they can be accommodated by slightly modifying (20) as follows: (22)
‘fricative voicing: stems ending in (ɹ)C’ z , where m1 { ¼ , s} m2.
This allows for words ending in either a single consonant, or in two consonants, the first of which is [ɹ]. This reads: ‘A singular noun whose stem contains a long vowel or a diphthong and ends on either a voiceless fricative, or a cluster consisting of /ɹ/ followed by a voiceless fricative, alternates with a corresponding plural which ends on the voiced equivalent of that fricative, followed by the phoneme /z/.’ In all varieties, the words that fall under second-order schema (20) will have be coupled with a linked entry, as in (19) and (23): (23)
<[skɑːɹf]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘scarf’> z <[skɑːɹvz]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘scarves’>
There are several words whose phonology matches the phonological specification of the singular first-order schema, but whose plurals are regular, in accordance with schema (9)(a) ‘/s/ suffixation’. Examples are roofs [ɹu:fs], graphs [ɡɹɑ:fs], giraffes [dʒəɹɑ:fs], reefs [ɹi:fs] as well as the examples given earlier, [bɜ:qs], [hɑ:qs], [fɔ:qs]. The linking entries of the type in (19) and (23) will ensure that only the grammatically appropriate words of this phonological shape will have plurals ending in /vz/, etc. There are four words which have the ‘voiceless fricativezvoiced fricative’ alternation that are not accommodated in (20), namely self, shelf, elf, wolf. These words have short vowels and the phone [l] before the voiceless labiodental fricative. As there are so few words of this type, and the alternation is non-productive, it is more transparent to accommodate them in a separate schema, rather than reformulating (20) to include them. The schema for these words is: (24)
‘fricative voicing: stems in /-lf/’ z *
This reads: ‘A singular noun whose stem ends on the sequence “short vowel, followed by /lf/”, alternates with a plural form ending in /lvz/.’ This schema appears to be completely unproductive. There are many words to which it does not apply, for example, sylph, gulf, Guelph, Ralph (‘There are three Ralphs in the class’), and recently-coined words like the taboo slang term milf ‘sexually attractive older woman’. 4.3.2. Umlaut Modern English retains a few remnants of the old Anglo-Saxon umlauting process in the words man z men, woman z women, goose z geese, tooth z teeth, foot z feet, mouse z mice, louse z lice. Formal representations of the linking entries are given in (25), (26) and (27). (25)
(a) <[ɡu:s]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘goose’> z <[ɡi:s]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘geese’> (b) <[tʰu:q]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘tooth’> z <[tʰi:q]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘teeth’> (c) <[fʊt]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘foot’> z <[fi:t]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘feet’>
(26)
(a) <[maʊs]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘mouse’> z<[maɪs]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘mice’> (b) <[laʊs]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘louse’> z<[laɪs]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘lice’>
(27)
(a) <[mæn]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘man’> z <[m3n]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘men’> (b) <[wʊmən]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘woman’> z <[wɪmən]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘women’>
The following generalization can be made over (25). Once again these schemas have to be marked ‘non-productive’. (28)
‘/i:/ umlaut’ z *
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
9
This reads: ‘A singular noun of the form /C1VC2/, where V is a high back vowel (/u:/ or /ʊ/) has a corresponding plural form /C1i:C2/’. The following generalization can be made over (26): (29)
‘/aʊ/z/aɪ/ umlaut’ z *
This reads: ‘a singular noun of the form /Xaʊs/ has a corresponding plural form /Xaɪs/. The words man/men and woman/women cannot be accommodated in a generalized schema, as they are unique examples, but see the discussion of the former in section 5. 4.3.3. Learned plurals Latin nouns of the second declension had the general form /Xus/, with plural /Xi:/ (radius, radii). Where words of this kind have been borrowed into modern English, the singular forms are phonologically /Xəs/, while the plural is /Xaɪ/. Examples are: (30)
(a) <[əlʌmnəs]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘alumnus’> z <[əlʌmnaɪ]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘alumni’> (b) <[mɒdjʊləs]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘modulus’> z <[mɒdjʊlaɪ]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘moduli’> (c) <[ɹeɪdɪəs]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘radius’> z(<[ɹeɪdɪaɪ]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘radii’>)
The second subschema in (30)(c) is shown as optional, because an acceptable regular alternative plural radiuses exists (Collins English Dictionary; Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Such facts can be captured in schemas like the following: (31)
‘/-əs/z/-aɪ/ alternation’ z *
There are several other kinds of learned plurals that occur in English, for example Latin nouns of the third declension like genus/genera, or Greek nouns like automaton/automata. Schemas for such nouns will be very similar to (31), and so are not discussed here. 5. Generalizations and partial generalizations As explained section 3, one of the defining characteristics of CxM is that it postulates the formation of generalized abstract mental schemas which describe the relationships between one more concrete construction and another. The degree of abstraction of these schemas can range considerably. It is argued below that it is the ability to make these abstractions that allows CxM to avoid the criticisms levelled at the EWP by Halle and Marantz (1993). 5.1. Stems ending in voiceless fricatives The following abstract schema is a generalization over all the stem alternations associated with fricative voicing, except for those accounted for by (24). It therefore accounts for all the examples in (19)(a)–(e) and (21): (32)
‘fricative voicing’ z *
This reads: ‘A singular noun whose stem contains a long vowel or a diphthong, and ends on a voiceless fricative C or a sequence of /ɹ/ and voiceless fricative C, alternates with a plural form which ends on the voiced equivalent of C followed by a suffix’. The schema is able to include both nouns of the wife/wives type, and the noun house/houses because it does not specify the form of the suffix. It merely describes the kind of stem alternation that occurs. In order to describe the suffix part of the alternation, the phonological schemas in (4) ‘/z/ suffixation’ and (9)(b) ‘/əz/ suffixation’ will have to be generalized further. As formulated above, these schemas do not account for alternations which include differences in the stems. More generalized schemas that do account for such differences are given below: (33)
‘/z/ suffixation with possible stem alternation’ z , where Y { ¼ , s} Z
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
10
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
Schema (33) reads: ‘A singular noun with stem /XY/ alternates with a plural form with stem /XZ/, followed by a suffix /z/. /Y/ and /Z/ may or may not be identical.’ (34)
‘/əz/ suffixation with possible stem alternation’ z , where C1 { ¼ , s} C2.
Schema (34) reads: ‘A singular noun ending on a strident consonant C1 alternates with a plural form with a stem ending on a strident consonant C2. C1 and C2 may or may not be identical.’ Schemas (33) and (34) cannot be taken to refer to suppletive alternations, as they make it clear that the initial part of each stem, symbolized /X/, remains identical in both the singular and plural subschemas. Thus, schema (20) ‘fricative voicing with /z/ affixation’, repeated below, is a unification of schemas (32) ‘fricative voicing’ and (33) ‘/z/ suffixation with possible stem alternation’ above, (32) accounting for the voicing alternation in the stem, and (33) accounting for the plural suffix /z/. (20)
‘fricative voicing with /z/ affixation’ z
Likewise, the linking entry for housezhouses (19)(e), repeated below, represents a unification of (32) ‘fricative voicing’ and (34) ‘/əz/ suffixation with possible stem alternation’, (32) accounting for the voicing alternation in the stem, and (34) accounting for the plural suffix /əz/. (19)
(e) <[haʊs]i 4 [N, sg]i 4 [SG[SEM]]i: ‘house’> z <[haʊzəz]j 4 [N, pl]j 4 [PL[SEM]]j: ‘houses’>
The possibility of formulating such generalized schemas, which relate a more specific schema to several other sets of data, means that Construction Morphology avoids Halle and Marantz’s (1993:131) second criticism of EWP, namely that it fails to account for ‘double marking’ of inflectional categories (extended exponence). Each of the marking types found in words like (19)(a)–(e) can be accounted for by separate abstract generalizations: the words that occur are instantiations of more concrete schemas and linking entries, which in turn are the unifications of the very abstract schemas.
5.2. The case of ox/oxen 5.2.1. Identifying the two morphemes This section will discuss the specific case of the alternation ox/oxen, as this was the example focused on by Halle and Marantz (1993). The generalized schema (13) ‘/ən/ suffixation’ was formulated for the three nouns that take the plural -en. It is repeated here: (13)
‘/ən/ suffixation’ z *
In addition, schema (5) ‘plural morpheme suffixation’, repeated here, is a generalization over all nouns which have identical stems in the singular and plural, and whose plural is marked by a suffix: (5)
‘plural morpheme suffixation’ z
The word oxen instantiates each of these schemas. Schema (13) identifies the plural suffix as –en. Schema (5) show that the stem (in this case, ox), remains constant in the singular and plural forms. By reference to generalized schemas such as (5) and (13), the partial identity between word-pairs like ox and oxen can be established. CxM therefore avoids Halle and Marantz’s (1993) critique of EWP. 5.2.2. Avoiding illicit extended exponence As mentioned in section 2, in CxM, a schema for a particular morphological feature can apply only once. The choice of the relevant schema is determined either by a linking entry, or by the Elsewhere Principle (6). Thus a form like *oxens cannot be Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
11
produced, because there is no schema that it instantiates. The plural of ox is determined by the linking entry, (2). But the fact that only one linking entry or schema can apply does not prevent ‘correct’ forms like lives being instantiated. Like oxzoxen, life is coupled with its plural lives by a linking entry. Schema (20) ‘fricative voicing with /z/ affixation’ is a generalized schema for words like this. As it is marked non-productive, it cannot apply to a word like fife to produce *fives, except in facetious contexts. 5.3. The case of man/men A somewhat more difficult case is that of manzmen. There is clearly a commonality between the singular and plural forms, but the exact alternation is unique. The commonality can be captured in a generalized schema which applies to all the examples in section 4.3.2: (35)
‘umlaut’ z , where V1 s V2.
This is read: ‘A singular noun beginning with a consonant C, followed by a vowel V1, followed by another phonological sequence X alternates with a plural form beginning with the same consonant C, followed by a different vowel V2, followed by the same phonological sequence X.’ The ending of the stem is shown as X rather than, say, C2, in order to accommodate the bisyllabic forms woman/women. The commonality between man and men is captured in the following partial instantiation of schema (35): (36)
z
This shows clearly that the configuration [m.n] remains constant over the two words. The differences between man and men can also be captured in a partial instantiation of (35): (37)
z
This shows that while the singular form has the vowel [æ], the plural has [3]. The ability of CxM to represent partial instantiations of schemas allows it to isolate both the commonalities between schemas, and the differences between them. Again, the question of whether speakers make such representations in their minds is a matter for psycholinguistic research. 6. Conclusion It has been shown above that the possibility of formulating abstract generalizations means that CxM is not vulnerable to the criticisms that Halle and Marantz (1993) have levelled at EWP. The fact of abstraction ensures that the theory can account for what is in common in paradigmatic word-pairs like ox and oxen, and even isolate the commonalities and unique alternations in words like manz men, which cannot be generalized. Nothing like the Blocking Principle is required to prevent the formation of words like *oxens. This is adequately prevented by the fact that only one schema or linked entry can apply in the formation of a plural. The lack of a Blocking Principle means that there is nothing to prevent the formation of perfectly correct forms like the doubly-marked English noun lives. Insofar as it avoids Halle and Marantz’s (1993)critique of Anderson’s (1992) EWP, Construction Morphology can thus be seen to be a robust approach to morphology. References Anderson, Stephen R., 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Booij, G., 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Booij, G., 2016. Construction morphology. In: Hippisley, Andrew, Stump, Gregory (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 424–448. Bresnan, J., 2001. Lexical–Functional Syntax. Blackwell, Oxford. Chomsky, N., Lasnik, H., 1995. The theory of principles and parameters. In: Chomsky, N. (Ed.), The Minimalist Program. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 13–127. Collins English Dictionary. www.collinsdictionar.com. (Accessed 17 February 2019). Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2011. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Croft, W., 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul, O’Connor, Mary, 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language 64 (3), 502–538. Goldberg, Adele, 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Goldberg, Adele, 2003. Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7 (5), 219–224. Goldberg, Adele, 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240
12
A. van der Spuy / Language Sciences xxx (xxxx) xxx
Goldberg, Adele, 2013. Constructionist approaches. In: Hoffmann, T., Trousdale, G. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 15–31. Halle, Morris, Marantz, Alec, 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In: Hale, K., Keyser, S.J. (Eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 111–176. Hoffmann, Thomas, Trousdale, Graeme (Eds.), 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Kiparsky, P., 1973. ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In: Anderson, S.R., Kiparsky, P. (Eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Austin, Texas, pp. 91–106. Matthews, P.H., 1974. Morphology: An Introduction to the Theory of Word-Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. www.merriam-webster.com. (Accessed 17 February 2019). Stump, Gregory, 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tomasello, Michael, 2000. Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74, 209–253. Tomasello, Michael, 2003. Constructing a Language. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Urban Dictionary. https://www.urbandictionary.com. (Accessed 9 July 2019). Van der Spuy, A., 2017. Construction Grammar and inflectional morphology. Lingua 199, 60–71.
Please cite this article as: van der Spuy, A., English plurals in Construction Morphology, Language Sciences, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.langsci.2019.101240