Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-72crv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-05T21:55:00.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Directionality and (un)natural classes in syncretism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Matthew Baerman
Matthew Baerman*
Affiliation:
Surrey Morphology Group, University of Surrey
*
Linguistics, Cultural & International Studies, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom [m.baerman@surrey.ac.uk]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Syncretism, where a single form corresponds to multiple morphosyntactic functions, is petvasive in languages with inflectional morphology. Its interpretation highlights the contrast between different views of the status of morphology. For some, morphology lacks independent structure, and syncretism reflects the internal structure of morphosyntactic features. For others, morphological structure is autonomous, and syncretism provides direct evidence of this. In this article, I discuss two phenomena that argue for the second view. Directional effects and unnatural classes of values resist attempts to reduce them to epiphenomena of more general rule types and require purely morphological devices for their expression.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 80 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 807 - 827
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anttila, Raimo. 1972. An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter. 1981. A grammar of Diyari, South Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2002. Syncretism: An annotated bibliography. Online: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/LIS/MB/Bibliography.htm.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2005. Typology and the formal modelling of syncretism. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, and Brown, Dunstan. 2005a. Case syncretism. In Haspelmath et al, to appear.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, and Brown, Dunstan. 2005b. Verbal person/number syncretism. In Haspelmath et al., to appear.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1967. Syntactic features in morphology: General problems of so-called pronominal inflection in German. To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, 239–70. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2002. Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. Yearbook of Morphology 2001. 53–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockelmann, Carl. 1908-13. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan. 1998. From the general to the exceptional: A network morphology account of Russian nominal inflection. Guildford: University of Surrey dissertation.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea. 1998. Some remarks on the Latin case system and its development in Romance. Theoretical analyses on Romance languages, ed. by Lema, José and Treviño, Esthela, 71–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in inflection. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1998. Comments on the paper by Noyer. In Lapointe et al., 286–301.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G., and Fraser, Norman M.. 1993. Network morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29. 113–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardona, George, and Suthar, Babu. 2003. Gujarati. The Indo-Aryan languages, ed. by Cardona, George and Jain, Dhanesh, 658–97. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Brown, Dunstan; and Corbett, Greville G.. 2001. Dalabon pronominal prefixes and the typology of syncretism: A network morphology analysis. Yearbook of Morphology 2000. 187–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldstein, Ronald. 2003. On the structure of syncretism in Romanian conjugation. Bloomington: Indiana University, ms.Google Scholar
Fischer, Wolfdietrich. 1997. Classical Arabic. The Semitic languages, ed. by Hetzron, Robert, 187–219. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar. 1996. Productive syncretism and morphological theory: A case study of North Sami inflectional morphology. Berkeley: University of California, ms.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78. 482–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew, Gil, David; and Comrie, Bernard (eds.) 2005. World atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1982. Scandinavian language structures: A comparative historical survey. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman O. 1936. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 6. 240–99.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj. 1969. A reference grammar of Kashmiri. Urbana: Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Kettunen, Lauri. 1938. Livisches Wörterbuch mit grammatischer Einleitung. Helsinki: Suomalais Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Kienast, Burkhart. 2001. Historische semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1949 [1960]. De la nature des procès dits ‘analogiques’. Reprinted in Esquisses linguistiques, 66–86. Wroclaw: Zakład narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Google Scholar
Lapointe, Steven, Brentari, Diane; and Farrell, Patrick (eds.) 1998. Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Meillet, Paul, and Vaillant, André. 1934. Le Slave commun. Paris: Institut d’études slaves.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2005. A distributed morphology approach to syncretism in Russian noun inflection. Proceedings of formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 12, ed. by Arnaudova, Olga, Browne, Wayles, Rivero, Maria Luisa, and Stojanovi, Dejan. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, to appear.Google Scholar
Neue, Friedrich, and Wagener, C.. 1902. Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache, vol. I: Das Substantivum. Leipzig: O. R. Reisland.Google Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1997. Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. London: Garland.Google Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1998. Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness. In Lapointe et al., 264–85.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David, and Orešnik, Janez. 1973. Language-particular rules and explanation in syntax. A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, Steven and Kiparsky, Paul, 419–59. New York: Holt Rinehart.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1976. Dasenech. The non-Semitic languages of Ethiopia, ed. by Bender, M. Lionel, 196–221. East Lansing: African Studies Center, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Sologub, A. L. 1983. Osinkretizme form v sklonenii suščestvitePnyx ženskogo roda edinstvennogo čísla po dialektnym dannym. Russkie narodnye govory, ed. by Avanesov, Ruben I., 82–88. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 1993. On rules of referral. Language 69. 449–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2001. Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SzEMERÉNYi, Oswald. 1989. Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenchaft. Darmstadt: Wissenshaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Todaeva Buljaš, X. 1997. Baoan'skij jazyk. Jazyki mira: mongol'skie jazyki, tunguso-man’čiurskie jazyki, japonski] jazyk, korejskij jazyk, ed. by Alpatov, V. M., Kormušin, I. V., Pjurbeev, G. C., and Romanova, O. I., 29–36. Moscow: Indrik.Google Scholar
Tosco, Mauro. 2001. The Dhaasanac language. Köln: Koppe.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 2005. Is there any need for the concept of directional syncretism? Explorations in nominal inflection, ed. by Gunkel, Lutz, Müller, Gereon, and Zifonun, Gisela. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, to appear.Google Scholar
Žirkov, L. I. 1995. Laskij jazyk. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
ZwicKY, Arnold. 1985. How to describe inflection. Berkeley Linguistics Society 11. 372–86.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 2000. Describing syncretism: Rules of referral after fifteen years. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar