Cover not available
Part of
Recent Developments in Functional Discourse Grammar
Edited by Evelien Keizer and Hella Olbertz
[Studies in Language Companion Series 205] 2018
► pp. 233–272

Measuring polysynthesis

A Functional Discourse Grammar approach

| University of Lethbridge
This chapter proposes a framework for a quantitative approach to the typology of polysynthesis based in Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG). FDG’s strict separation between the Interpersonal, Representational and Morphosyntactic Levels of analysis combined with its approach to morpheme types allows for a detailed examination of the scalar nature of polysynthesis. The analysis refines FDG’s treatment of morphological typology, which characterizes languages according to two parameters, viz. transparency and synthesis. Inspired by recent FDG treatments of transparency (esp. Leufkens 2015; Hengeveld & Leufkens 2018), and building on FDG work by Fortescue (2007) and Smit (2005), I propose the following set of parameters: (1) (verbal) lexical density (qualitative and quantitative); (2) anisomorphism between Formulation and Encoding levels; (3) anisomorphism within the Morphosyntactic Level (word-internal layering in the verbal word); (4) alignment restrictions; (5) optionality (availability of analytic alternative). This quantitative approach is intended to complement the qualitative typology developed by Mattissen (2004, 2017).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Features of polysynthesis
    • 2.1Morpheme-to-word ratio
    • 2.2Polypersonalism
    • 2.3Incorporation and serialization
    • 2.4Lexical affixation
    • 2.5Holophrasis
    • 2.6What is (prototypical) polysynthesis?
    • 2.7Mattissen’s typology of polysynthesis
  • 3.The Functional Discourse Grammar approach to polysynthesis
    • 3.1Lexical density and the classification of morphemes in FDG
    • 3.2What counts as “lexical content”?
    • 3.3Anisomorphism and word-internal layering
  • 4.A new approach to polysynthesis
    • 4.1Verbal lexical density
    • 4.2Anisomorphism between Formulation and Encoding levels
    • 4.3Internal layering within the Word
    • 4.4Alignment
    • 4.5Optionality
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.205.08gen
References (92)
References
Allen, Barbara J., Gardiner & Frantz, Donald G. 1984. Noun incorporation in Southern Tiwa. International Journal of American Linguistics 50: 292–311.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allen, Shanley E. 2017. Polysynthesis in the acquisition of Inuit languages. In Fortescue et al. (eds), 449–472.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter & van der Voort, Hein. 2017. Polysynthesis and language contact. In Fortescue et al. (eds), 408–427.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Zúñiga, Fernando. 2017. The ‘word’ in polysynthetic languages. In Fortescue et al. (eds), 158–185.Google Scholar
Bugaeva, Anna. 2017. Polysynthesis in Ainu. In Fortescue et al. (eds), 882–905.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, Peter. 1976. Kunwinjku (Gunwinggu): A Language of Western Arnhem Land. MA thesis, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Creemers, Ava, Don, Jan & Fenger, Paula. 2017. Some affixes are roots, others are heads. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2017: n.p. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity [Studies in Language Companion Series 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Polysynthesis and complexity. In Fortescue et al. (eds), 17–29.Google Scholar
De Reuse, Willem. 2009. Polysynthesis as a typological feature: An attempt at a characterization from Eskimo and Athabaskan perspectives. In Variations on Polysynthesis [Typological Studies in Language 86], Marc-Antoine Mahieu & Nicole Tersis (eds), 19–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon. 1989. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part I: The Structure of the Clause. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Drapeau, Lynn. 2017. Innu (Algonquian). In Fortescue et al. (eds), 560–582.Google Scholar
Dorais, Louis-Jacques. 2017. The lexicon in polysynthetic languages. In Fortescue et al. (eds), 135–157.Google Scholar
Drossard, Werner. 2002. Ket as a polysynthetic language, with special reference to complex verbs. In Evans & Sasse (eds), 223–256.Google Scholar
. 1997. Polysynthesis and polysynthetic languages in comparative perspective. In Proceedings of Linguistics and Phonetics 1996, B. Palek (ed.), 251–264. Prague: Charles University Press.Google Scholar
Duponceau, Peter S. 1819. Report of the corresponding secretary to the committee of his progress in the investigation of the language of the American Indians. Transactions of the Historical and Literary Committee of the American Philosophical Society, held at Philadelphia, for promoting useful knowledge 1: xvii–xlvi.Google Scholar
Dyck, Carrie. 2009. Defining the word in Cayuga (Iroquoian). International Journal of American Linguistics 75(4): 571–605.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 2002. Problems of Polysynthesis. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. 2017. Polysynthesis in New Guinea. In Fortescue et al. (eds), 336–359.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 1983. A Comparative Manual of Affixes for the Inuit Dialects of Greenland, Canada and Alaska. Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Forlag.Google Scholar
. 1994. Polysynthetic morphology. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, R. E. Asher & J. M. Y. Simpson (eds), 2600–2602. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. The typological position and theoretical status of polysynthesis. Tidsskrift for Sprogforskning 5(1): 1–18. DOI logo.Google Scholar
. 2016. Polysynthesis: A diachronic and typological perspective. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press (online). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. What are the limits of polysynthesis? In Fortescue et al. (eds), 115–134.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael, Mithun, Marianne & Evans, Nicholas (eds). 2017a. The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017b. Introduction. In Fortescue et al. (eds), 1–16.Google Scholar
Frantz, Donald G. 2017. Blackfoot Grammar, 3rd edn. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Frantz, Donald G. & Russell, Norma Jean. 1995. Blackfoot Dictionary of Stems, Roots and Affixes, 2nd edn. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 2005. Lexical V-V compounds in Japanese: Lexicon vs. syntax. Language 81(3): 586–612.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genee, Inge. 2013. On the representation of roots, stems and finals in Blackfoot. In Casebook in Functional Discourse Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 137], J. Lachlan Mackenzie & Hella Olbertz (eds), 95–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Blackfoot causative formation between lexicon and grammar. Linguistics 54(5): 1055–1100. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Genee, Inge, Keizer, Evelien & García Velasco, Daniel. 2016. The lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar: Theory, typology, description. Linguistics 54(5): 877–906. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy 2017. Is polysynthesis a valid theoretical notion? In Fortescue et al. (eds), 392–407.Google Scholar
Grández Ávila, Magaly. 2011. Language transparency in Functional Discourse Grammar: The case of Quechua. Linguistics in Amsterdam 4(2): 22–56.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1960. A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language. International Journal of American Linguistics 26(3): 178–194.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Magnus Pharao. 2010. Polysynthesis in Hueyapan Nahuatl: The status of noun phrases, basic word order, and other concerns. Anthropological Linguistics 52(3–4): 274–299.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harmelink, Bryan. 1992. La incorporación nominal en el mapudungun. Lenguas Modernas 19: 129–137.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. On the evolution of grammatical forms. In The Transition to Language, Alison Wray (ed.), 376–397. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Leufkens, Sterre. 2018. Transparent and non-transparent languages. Folia Linguistica 52(1): 139–176.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 2011a. Transparency in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistics in Amsterdam 4(2): 1–22.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Epilogue: Degrees of transparency. Linguistics in Amsterdam 4(2): 110–114.Google Scholar
Hernández, Arturo, Ramos, Nelly & Huenchulaf, Rosa. 2006. Gramática básica de la lengua mapuche, Tomo I. Temuco: Universidad Católica de Temuco.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Jansen, Wim. 2011. Esperanto: A language made transparent? Linguistics in Amsterdam 4(2): 57–74.Google Scholar
Jansen, Bert, Koopman, Hilda & Muysken, Pieter. 1978. Serial verbs in Creole languages. Amsterdam Creole Studies 2: 125–159.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 39–76.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keizer, M. Evelien. 2007. The lexical-grammatical dichotomy in Functional Discourse Grammar. Alfa 51(2): 35–56.Google Scholar
. 2016. Idiomatic expressions in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistics 54(5): 981–1016.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kusters, Wouter. 2003. Linguistic Complexity: The Influence of Social Change on Verbal Inflection. Utrecht: LOT Publications. (PhD dissertation, Leiden University).Google Scholar
Lee, Kee-dong. 1975. Kusaiean Reference Grammar. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Leufkens, Sterre. 2011. Kharia: A transparent language. Linguistics in Amsterdam 4(2): 75–95.Google Scholar
. 2013. The transparency of creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 28(2): 323–362.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Transparency in Language: A Typological Study. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean. 2015. Derivational affixes as roots: Phasal spell-out meets English stress shift. In The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax, Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer & Florian Schäfer (eds), 230–259. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lupyan, Gary & Dale, Rick. 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLoS ONE 5(1): 1–10.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mattissen, Johanna. 2003. Dependent-head Synthesis in Nivkh: A Contribution to a Typology of Polysynthesis [Typological Studies in Language 57]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. A structural typology of polysynthesis. Word 55(2): 189–216.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Sub-types of polysynthesis. In Fortescue et al. (eds), 70–98.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60(4): 847–894.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. System-defining structural properties in polysynthetic languages. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 41(4): 442–452.Google Scholar
. 2009. Polysynthesis in the Arctic. In Variations on Polysynthesis [Typological Studies in Language 86], Marc-Antoine Mahieu & Nicole Tersis (eds), 3–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Argument marking in the polysynthetic verb. In Fortescue et al. (eds), 30–58.Google Scholar
Mulder, Mijke. 2013. Transparency in Modern Hebrew: A Functional Discourse Grammar analysis. Linguistics in Amsterdam 6(1): 1–27.Google Scholar
Nordhoff, Sebastian. 2011. Transparency in Sri Lankan Malay. Linguistics in Amsterdam 4(2): 96–110.Google Scholar
Olbertz, Hella. 2016. Lexical auxiliaries in Spanish: How and why? Linguistics 54(5): 947–979.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, Sally. 2017. Phraseology and polysynthesis. In Fortescue et al. (eds), 203–214.Google Scholar
Rosen, Sara T. 1989. Two types of noun incorporation: A lexical analysis. Language 65: 294–317.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, Kevin. 1999a. What’s with all these long words anyway? In MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17, Leora Bar-el, Rose-Marie Déchaine & Charlotte Reinholtz (eds), 119–130. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
. 1999b. The “word” in two polysynthetic languages. In Studies on the Phonological Word, [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 174], T. Allen Hall & Ursula Kleinhenz (eds), 203–221. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, Lena Heavy Shields & Genee, Inge. 2014. Ákaitsinikssiistsi. Blackfoot Stories of Old. [First Nations Language Readers] Regina: University of Regina Press.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold. 2017. The subjectivity of the notion of polysynthesis. In Fortescue et al. (eds), 99–114.Google Scholar
Salas, Adalberto. 2006. El mapuche o araucano. Santiago: Centro de Estudios Públicos.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Smit, Niels. 2005. Noun incorporation in Functional Discourse Grammar. In Morphosyntactic Expression in Functional Grammar, Casper de Groot & Kees Hengeveld (eds), 87–134. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoll, Sabine, Mazara, Jekaterina & Bickel, Balthasar. 2017. The acquisition of polysynthetic verb forms in Chintang. In Fortescue et al. (eds), 495–514. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1995. Incorporation in Chukchi. Language 71(3): 439–489.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suárez, Jorge A. 1983. The Mesoamerian Indian Languages. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Towards a cognitive semantics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Structure and Complexity. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2017. The anthropological setting of polysynthesis. In Michael Fortescue et al. (eds), 186–202.Google Scholar
Werner, Heinrich. 1994. Das Klassensystem in den Jenissej-Sprachen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 1997. Die ketische Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Wolvengrey, Arok. 2005. Inversion and the absence of grammatical relations in Plains Cree. In Morphosyntactic Expression in Functional Grammar, Casper de Groot & Kees Hengeveld (eds), 419–445. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony C. 2004. Morphological orthodoxy in Yupik-Inuit. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Marc Ettlinger, Nicholas Fleisher, & Mischa Park-Doob (eds), 151–171. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
2017. Central Alaskan Yupik (Eskimo-Aleut): A sketch of morphologically orthodox polysynthesis. In Fortescue et al. (eds), 536–559.Google Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2017. Mapudungun. In Fortescue et al. (eds), 696–712.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Olthof, Marieke, Eva van Lier, Tjeu Claessen, Swintha Danielsen, Katharina Haude, Nico Lehmann, Maarten Mous, Elisabeth Verhoeven, Eline Visser, Marine Vuillermet & Arok Wolvengrey
2021. Verb-based restrictions on noun incorporation across languages. Linguistic Typology 25:2 ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
Olthof, Marieke
2020. Referentiality and modifiability of incorporated nouns. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 73:3 ► pp. 305 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.