ハンドアウト

Suppletion & Syncretism
sg
pl
基本概念と WP アプローチ
nom
komnata
komnaty
乙黒亮
acc
komnatu
komnaty
早稲田大学法学学術院・言語情報研究所
gen
komnaty
komnat
Morphological Theory in the 21st Century, 早稲田大学 2015.10.17.
dat
komnate
komnatam
inst
komnatoj
komnatami
loc
komnate
komnatax
1 標準型屈折からの逸脱
表 4: ロシア語 komnata ‘room’ の同形態 (Corbett 2007a:26)
■標準型屈折
同語彙素
異語彙素
sg
pl
sg
pl
構造
同
同
nom
dog-a
dog-i
cat-a
cat-i
語幹
同
異
acc
dog-e
dog-o
cat-e
cat-o
接辞
異
同
語形
異
異
■標準型からの逸脱（異語彙素）
標準型
逸脱
構造
同
異
活用欠乏，過剰差異化など
タイプ
語幹
異
同
同音異義（homonymy）など
接辞
同
異
異態（deponency）など
表 1: 標準型屈折の例 (cf. Corbett 2007a:23–4)
deponency
■標準型からの逸脱（同語彙素）
suppletion
タイプ
syncretism
標準型
逸脱
構造
同
異
迂言形など
dog-a
dog-i
dog-a
dog-i
語幹
同
異
補充法（suppletion）など
dog-e
cat-o
dog-e
dog-i
接辞
異
同
同形態（syncretism）など
表 2: 標準型からの逸脱（同語彙素） (cf. Corbett 2007a:27–8)
sg
pl
sg
pl
sg
dog-a
dog-i
cat-a
cat-i
pig-i
dog-e
dog-o
cat-e
cat-o
pig-o
表 5: 標準型からの逸脱（異語彙素） (cf. Corbett 2007a:27–9)
amāre ‘love’
active
mı̄ror ‘admire’
passive
active
1sg
amō
amor
mı̄ror
2sg
amās
amāris
mı̄rāris
sg
pl
3sg
amat
amaātur
mı̄rātur
1
jest-em
jest-eśmy
1pl
amāmus
amāmur
mı̄rāmur
2
jest-eś
jest-eście
2pl
amātis
amāmini
mı̄rāmini
3
jest
s-a̧
3pl
amant
amantur
mı̄rantur
表 3: ポーランド語 być ‘be’（現在形）の補充法 (Corbett 2007a:26)
passive
表 6: ラテン語の態 (Corbett 2007a:29)
• 関連データの DM による分析は Embick (2000)．それに対する批判は Sadler and Spencer (2001)．
1
2
The Surrey Suppletion Database
http://www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/syncretism/
■データベース
http://www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/suppletion/
The Surrey Syncretisms Database
• SMG のデータベース一覧: http://www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/databases/
3 Suppletion
■Morphological vs Morphosyntactic
2 形態論における 2 つの軸
sg
pl
nom
rebenok
deti
acc
rebenka
detej
gen
rebenka
detej
dat
rebenku
detjam
inst
rebenkom
det’mi
loc
rebenke
detjax
表 8: ロシア語の rebenok ‘child’ (Corbett 2007b:18)
lexical
inferential
incremantal
IA/IP
AM
realisational
DM
WP
Syntax
Morphology
-t
表 7: 形態論のアプローチ (Stump 2001:1–3)
past
-d
Fpast
-@d
• Item-and-Arrangment (IA)/Item-and-Process (IP) (Hockett 1954)
...
• Distributed Morphology (DM) (Halle and Marantz 1993)
-z
• Articulated Morphology (AM) (Steele 1995)
• Word-and-Paradigm (WP) (Robins 1959, Matthews 1972, Anderson 1992, Stump 2001)
Incremental
Realisational
具現形（exponent）の付加により活用形が形態統語素性を獲得する
Lexical
形態統語素性が具現化された結果活用形が作られる
形態素（morpheme）を仮定する（DM では音形とは独立した素性）
Inferential
語根・語幹と活用形とは規則（rule）や定式（formula）によって関係づけられる
-s
plural
Fplural
passive
Past Participle
-en
perfect
Fen
...
-@z
...
表 9: Morphomic level (cf. Aronoﬀ 1994:22–29)
Morphomic (Aronoﬀ 1994)
•「形態論それ自体（Morphology by Itself ）」のレベル
• 形態統語的素性（morphosyntactic features）を形態音韻的具現化（morphophonological realisations）する関数が morphomes（Fpast , Fplural , Fen , . . .) ．
■Morphomic な語幹選択
sg
pl
sg
pl
sg
pl
nom
dog-a
dog-i
cat-a
cat-i
1
vais
allons
acc
dog-e
dog-o
cat-e
cat-o
2
vas
allez
3
va
vont
⇒ IA で事が済む．
Phonology
でも canonical ̸= prototypical/frequent (Corbett 2007b:10)
表 10: フランス語の aller ‘go’ (現在時制) (Corbett 2007b:19)
3
4
sg
pl
1
wie-m
wie-my
2
wie-sz
wie-cie
3
wie
wiedz-a̧
(6)
PF(⟨good , {DEG : compar}⟩)
= Nar[I,0] (⟨good , {DEG : compar}⟩)
= NarI (Nar0 (⟨good , {DEG : compar}⟩))
= RRI,{DEG:compar},A (RR0,{DEG:compar},good (⟨good , {DEG : compar}⟩))
表 11: ポーランド語 wiedzieć ‘know’（現在時制） (Corbett 2007b:22)
Paradigm Function Morphology (PFM)
= ⟨better , {DEG : compar}⟩
■PFM による分析例
• Paradigm Function (PF)
(7)
a. RR[I,0],{TNS:past,MOOD:indic,AGR:{NUM:sg}},{be} (⟨X, σ⟩) =def ⟨was, σ⟩
PF(⟨be, σ⟩)
∗ Rules of exponence
∗ Rules of referral
= Nar[I,0] (⟨be, σ⟩)
∗ Rules of stem formation
= ⟨was, σ⟩
= RR[I,0],{TNS:past,MOOD:indic,AGR:{NUM:sg}},{be} (⟨X, σ⟩)
– Morphomic rules
∗ Rules of stem indexing
(9)
– Morphophonological metageneralisations
(Stump 2001:200)
a. RR0,{},A (⟨X, σ⟩) =def ⟨Y, σ⟩, where Y is X’s bare stem
Where σ = {TNS : pres, MOOD : indic, AGR : {PER : 3, NUM : sg}},
= Nar[I,0] (⟨be, σ⟩)
= NarI (Nar0 (⟨be, σ⟩))
= RRI,σ,V (RR0,σ,{be} (⟨X, σ⟩))
(2) Where X is the root of an adjectival lexeme
= ⟨is, σ⟩
PF(⟨X, σ⟩) =def Nar[I,0] (⟨X, σ⟩)
taller の具現化
■Suppletion と morphosemantic mismatch
PF(⟨tall , {DEG : compar}⟩)
(10)
= Nar[I,0] (⟨tall , {DEG : compar}⟩)
= RRI,{DEG:compar},A (RR0,{},A (⟨tall , {DEG : compar}⟩))
= ⟨taller , {DEG : compar}⟩
̸≡ not happier
(Stump 2001:209)
(11)
a. happy → happier → unhappier
b. happy → unhappy ̸→ unhappier
Stem-selection rule:
a. RR[I,0],{DEG:compar},{bad} (⟨X, σ⟩) =def ⟨worse, σ⟩
b. RR[0],{DEG:compar},{good} (⟨X, σ⟩) =def ⟨bett, σ⟩
(5)
unhappier
≡ more unhappy
= NarI (Nar0 (⟨tall , {DEG : compar}⟩))
(4)
is の具現化
PF(⟨be, σ⟩)
b. RRI,{DEG:compar},A (⟨X, σ⟩) =def ⟨Xer , σ⟩
(3)
was の具現化
Where σ = {TNS : past, MOOD : indic, AGR : {PER : 3, NUM : sg}},
– Realisation rules
(1)
(Stump 2001:209–210)
Stem-selection rules for be:
b. RR0,{TNS:pres,MOOD:indic,AGR:{PER:3,NUM:sg}},{be} (⟨X, σ⟩) =def ⟨i , σ⟩
(8)
• Inflectional rules
better の具現化
(12)
[un[happier ]]（語形成）
[[unhappi ]er ]（意味解釈）
worse の具現化（portmanteau stem-selection）
PF(⟨bad , {DEG : compar}⟩)
= Nar[I,0] (⟨bad , {DEG : compar}⟩)
= RR[I,0],{DEG:compar},{bad} (⟨bad , {DEG : compar}⟩)
= ⟨worse, {DEG : compar}⟩
(Marantz 1988)
sg
pl
‘water mill’
milin-zour [mill-water]
milinoù-dour
‘straw hat’
tok-kolo [hat-straw]
tokoù-kolo
‘lighthouse’
tour-tan [tower-fire]
tourioù-tan
表 12: ブレトン語の複合名詞 (Stump 2001:248)
5
6
sg
pl
‘milk cow’
bioc’h-laezh [cow-milk]
saout-laezh
‘otter’
ki-dour [dog-water]
chas-dour
‘bicycle’
marc’h-houarn [horse-iron]
kezeg-houarn
• 3sg → 2sg in the preterite
sg
pres
表 13: ブレトン語の複合名詞と補充法 (Stump 2001:248)
Hypothesis of Paradigm-Based Inflectional Semantics
of ⟨W, σ⟩ is determined by L and σ.
Where ⟨W, σ⟩ is a cell in the inflectional paradigm of some lexeme L, the semantic representation
(13)
Where X is the root of an adjectival lexeme L having the semantic representation X ′ , the cell
PF(⟨X, {DEG : compar}⟩) in L’s paradigm has the semantic representation More y (X ′ ).
(14)
= ⟨unhappier , {DEG : compar}⟩
(15)
krad-e-m
krad-e-š
krad-e-te
3
krad-e-e
krad-e-@t
1
krad-A-x
krad-A-x-me
2
krad-A-x-e
krad-A-x-te
3
krad-A-x-e
krad-A-x-a
1
krád-o-x
krád-o-x-me
2
krád-e
krád-o-x-te
3
krád-e
krád-o-x-a
a sufla ‘to breath’
Conj:1
′
a. PF(⟨tour -tan, {NUM : pl}⟩)
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
a umplea ‘to fill’
Conj:2
= ⟨tourioù-tan, {NUM : pl}⟩
b. pl ′ (tour -tan ′ )
a şti ‘to know’
Conj:4
a. PF(⟨ki -dour , {NUM : pl}⟩)
= ⟨chas-dour , {NUM : pl}⟩
b. pl ′ (ki -dour ′ )
(Stump 2001:251–252)
4 Syncretism
Syncretism の 4 つのタイプ (Stump 2001:212–218)
• 有方向性
a fi ‘to be’
Conj:4
– bidrectional
• 無方向性
• 3 人称における sg と pl の区別消失
sg
pl
sufla ‘breath’
1
súfl-u
˙
suflă-m
Conj:1
2
súfl-i
suflá-ţi
3
súfl-ă
súfl-ă
invita ‘invite’
1
invı́t
invită’-m
Conj:1
2
invı́ţ-i
invitá-ţi
3
invı́t-ă
invı́-ă
– unstipulated
– symmetrical
• 異なった視点からの分類は Baerman et al. (2005)．
7
pl
˙
suflă-m
suflá-ţi
súfl-ă
úmple-m
úmple-ţi
úmpl-u
ştı́-m
ştı́-ţi
ştı́-u
sı̂’nte-m
sı̂’nte-ţi
sı̂’nt
表 15: ルーマニア語の現在時制 (Stump 2001:214)
– unidirectional
sg
súfl-u
súfl-i
súfl-ă
úmpl-u
úmpl-i
úmpl-e
ştı́-u
ştı́-i
ştı́-e
sı̂’nt
éşt-i
ést-e
Where X is the root of a nominal lexeme L having the semantic representation X ′ , the cell
PF(⟨X, {NUM : pl}⟩) in L’s paradigm has pl (X ) as its semantic representation.
(17)
krad-e-@
2
• 1sg → 3pl/3pl → 1sg
(Stump 2001:249–250)
′
(16)
aorist
1
表 14: ブルガリア語の krad ‘steal’ (Stump 2001:40)
a. PF(⟨unhappy, {DEG : compar}⟩)
b. M orey (unhappy ′ )
impf
pl
表 16: ルーマニア語の第 1 活用型現在時制 (Stump 2001:214)
8
Hockett, Charles F. (1954) Two Models of Grammatical Description. Word 10, 210–234.
■Rules of referral
(18) In the context of [PRET : yes], [PERS : 2, NUM : sg] has the same realisation as [PERS : 3, NUM : sg]
(cf. Zwicky 1985:378)
(19)
Where n is any of rule blocks A to D,
Marantz, Alec (1988) Clitics, Morphological Merger, and the mapping to phonological structure.
In Hammond, Michael and Michael Noonan, eds. Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern
Linguistics. San Diego: Academic Press, 253–270.
Matthews, Peter H. (1972) Inflectional Morphology: A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin
RRn,←{PRET:yes,AGR:{PERS:2,NUM:sg}}→,V (⟨X, σ)⟩ =def ⟨Y, σ⟩, where
Narn (⟨X, σ/{AGR : {PERS : 3}}⟩) = ⟨Y, σ/{AGR : {PER : 3}}⟩
Verb Conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robins, Robert H. (1959) In Defence of WP. Transactions of Philological Society, 116–144.
(Stump 2001:218; cf. Stump 1993)
• Zwicky (2000) は Rules of Referral は symmetrical rules で代替可能と主張．その批判は Baerman
et al. (2005:139–45)．
Sadler, Louisa and Andrew Spencer (2001) Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. In Booij,
Geert and Jaap van Marle, eds. Yearbook of Morphology 2000. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 71–96.
Steele, Susan (1995) Towards a theory of morphological information. Language 71, 260–309.
(20)
Bidrectional Referral Principle:
Stump, Gregory T. (1993) On Rules of Referral. Language 69, 449–479.
The existence of a rule of referral ‘RRn,τ,C (⟨X, σ⟩) =def ⟨Y, σ⟩,
(2001) Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge
where Narn (⟨X, σ/ρ⟩) = ⟨Y, σ/ρ⟩’ with referral domain D entails the existence of a second rule
of referral ‘RRn,τ /ρ,D−C (⟨X, σ⟩) =def ⟨Y, σ⟩, where Narn (⟨X, σ/τ ⟩) = ⟨Y, σ/τ ⟩’ with referral
domain D.
(21)
University Press.
Zwicky, Arnold M. (1985) How to Describe Inflection. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the
Berkeley Linguistics Society. 11, 372–385. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Where n = 0 or I, RRn,{AGR(su):{PER:1,NUM:sg}},{a
fi} (⟨X, σ⟩)
=def ⟨Y, σ⟩,
where Narn (⟨X, σ/{AGR(su) : {PER : 3, NUM : pl}}⟩) = ⟨Y, σ/{AGR(su) : {PER : 3, NUM : pl}}⟩
(2000) Describing Syncretism: Rules of Referral After Fifteen Years. Presentation at the
annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 26.
Referral domain: V
(22)
Where n = 0 or I, RRn,{AGR(su):{PER:3,NUM:sg}},V−{a
fi} (⟨X, σ⟩)
=def ⟨Y, σ⟩,
where Narn (⟨X, σ/{AGR(su) : {PER : 1, NUM : pl}}⟩) = ⟨Y, σ/{AGR(su) : {PER : 1, NUM : pl}}⟩
Referral domain: V
参考文献
Anderson, Stephen R. (1992) A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aronoﬀ, Mark (1994) Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown, and Greville G. Corbett (2005) The Syntax-Morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corbett, Greville G. (2007a) Deponency, Syncretism, and What Lies Between. In Baerman, Matthew,
Greville G. Corbett, Dunstan Brown, and Andrew Hippisley, eds. Proceedings of the British Academy
145: Deonency and Morphological Mismatches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 21–43.
(2007b) Typology, Suppletion, and Possible Words. Language 83, 8–42.
Embick, David (2000) Features, Syntax, and Categories in the Latin Perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31,
185–230, 185-.
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz (1993) Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In Hale,
Ken and Sammuel Jay Keyser, eds. The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of
Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111–176.
9
10

Download Report