Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2013: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' Amsterdam 2013
Edited by Enoch O. Aboh, Jeannette Schaeffer and Petra Sleeman
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 8] 2015
► pp. 175–202

Productivity and Portuguese morphology

How experiments enable hypothesis-testing

| University College London
This paper examines to what extent, as evidenced by productivity studies, just as the robustness and learnability of phonological patterns may be grounded and biased by naturalness considerations, so may morphology. Four case studies (L-morphomes, competing nominalizing affixes, athematic participles, and defective verbs), that are carried out with experimental tasks using wug-words, jointly demonstrate that choices in the realization of morphological categories may depend on submorphemic (features) and supramorphemic (phrasal syntax) principles, and show that both morphology-internal and interface considerations may modulate the extent of productivity of generalizations.
Published online: 2 December 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.8.10nev
References (40)
References
Albright, Adam. 2009. “Lexical and Morphological Conditioning of Paradigm gaps.” In Modeling Ungrammaticality, ed. by Curt Rice, and Sylvia Blaho, 117–164. London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen. 1981. “Why Phonology Isn’t ‘Natural’.” Linguistic Inquiry 12: 493-539.Google Scholar
. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anshen, Frank, and Mark Aronoff. 1997. “Morphology in Real Time.” In Yearbook of Morphology, ed. by Geert Booij, and Jaap van Marle, 9–12. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bachrach, Asaf, and Andrew Nevins (eds). 2008. Inflectional Identity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Becker, Michael, Nihan Ketrez, and Andrew Nevins. 2011. “The surfeit of the Stimulus: Analytic Biases Filter Lexical Statistics in Turkish Devoicing Neutralization.” Language 87: 84–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, Iris, Tracy Lennertz, Paul Smolensky, and Vered Vaknin-Nusbaum.“Listeners’ Knowledge of Phonological Universals: Evidence from Nasal Clusters.” Phonology 26: 75-108. DOI logo
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2012. Universals in Comparative Morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bourne, L.E. 1970. “Knowing and Using Concepts.” Psychological Review 77: 546-556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chagas, Paulo. 2007. “Athematic Participles in Brazilian Portuguese: A Syncretism in the Making.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 54: 119–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang, Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl, and Wolfgang Wurzel. 1987. Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2004. “On the Structure of Resultative Participles in English.” Linguistic Inquiry 35: 355-292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Jacob. 2000. “Minimization of Boolean Complexity in Human Concept Learning.” Nature 407: 630-633 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finley, Sara. 2012. “Typological Asymmetries in Round Vowel Harmony: Support from Artificial Grammar Learning.” Language and Cognitive Processes 27: 1550-1562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freitas, Maria Luisa. 2014. “Two Nominalizing Suffixes in Brazilian Portuguese: Locality Constraints on Morphophonological Realization.” Generals paper, UNICAMP.
Freitas, Maria Luisa, and Nevins, Andrew (in prep). “Conjugation-specific Knowledge and Nominalizing Affix Choice.” Unpublished manuscript.
Graf, Thomas. 2012. “An Algebraic Perspective on the Person Case Constraint.” UCLA Working Papers 17: 85-90.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark, and Charles Reiss. 2008. The Phonological Enterprise. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, James. 1974. “Evidence from Portuguese for the “Elsewhere Condition” in Phonology.” Linguistic Inquiry 5: 61-80.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Donca Steriade, and Robert Kirchner (eds.). Phonetically-Based Phonology. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo
Heinz, Jeffrey. 2010. “Learning Long-Distance Phonotactics.” Linguistic Inquiry, 41: 623-661. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2008. “Monotonicity at the Lexical Semantics-Morphosyntax Interface.” In Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the Northeast Linguistic Society, Volume 2, ed. by Emily Elfner, and Martin Walkow, 15–28. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Lindsay, Mark, and Mark Aronoff. 2013. “Natural Selection in Self-Organizing Morphological Systems.” In Morphology in Toulouse: Selected Proceedings of Décembrettes 7, ed. by Fabio Montermini, Gilles Boyé, and Jesse Tseng. Germany: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Lobato, Lucia. 1999. “Sobre a forma do particípio do Português e o estatuto dos traços formais.” DELTA 15.1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2005. “Morphological Autonomy and Diachrony.” In Yearbook of Morphology, ed. by Geert Booij, and Jaap van Marle, 137–175. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin, and Paul O’Neill. 2010. “On Morphomic Defectiveness: Evidence from the Romance Languages of the Iberian Peninsula.” In Defective Paradigms: Missing Forms and what they Tell us, ed. by Matthew Baerman, Greville Corbett, and Dunstan Brown, 103-124. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moreton, Elliott. 2008. “Analytic Bias and Phonological Typology.” Phonology 25: 83–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew, Gean Damulakis, and Maria Luisa Freitas. 2014. “Phonological Regularities among Defective Verbs.” Cadernos de Estudos Lingüísticos 56 (1): 11–21.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew, Cilene Rodrigues, and Kevin Tang. 2015. “The Rise and Fall of the L-Shaped Morphome: Diachronic and Experimental Studies.” Probus 27 (1): 101–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew, and Cilene Rodrigues. (2014). “Athematic Participle Choice is Predicted by Argument Structure.” Revista da ABRALIN 13 (2): 225–62.Google Scholar
Oltra-Massuet, Isabel. 1999. “On the Notion of Theme Vowel: A New Approach to Catalan Verbal Morphology.” MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 19. Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL.
Pertsova, Katya. 2011. “Grounding Systematic Syncretism in Learning. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 225-266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postma, Gertjan. 2013. “Metaphonic Blocking in Portuguese as a Linearization Deadlock.” Paper presented at “Workshop on Metaphony”, Meertens Institute.
Tang, Kevin, and Andrew Nevins. 2013. “Quantifying the Diachronic Productivity of Irregular Verbal Patterns in Romance.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 25.
Steriade, Donca. 2008. “A Pseudo-cyclic Effect in Romanian Morphophonology.” In Inflectional Identity, ed. by Asaf Bachrach, and Andrew Nevins, 313-359. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles. 2005. “On Productivity.” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5.1, 265–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, Karl. 1969. “Psychological Correlates of some Turkish Morpheme Structure Conditions.” Language 45.2: 309–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Chen, Sihan, Richard Futrell & Kyle Mahowald
2023. An information-theoretic approach to the typology of spatial demonstratives. Cognition 240 ► pp. 105505 ff. DOI logo
Saldana, Carmen, Borja Herce & Balthasar Bickel
2022. More or Less Unnatural: Semantic Similarity Shapes the Learnability and Cross-Linguistic Distribution of Unnatural Syncretism in Morphological Paradigms. Open Mind 6 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Schwenter, Scott A., Mark Hoff, Eleni Christodulelis, Chelsea Pflum & Ashlee Dauphinais
2019. Variable past participles in Portuguese perfect constructions. Language Variation and Change 31:1 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.