Download Report

OPTIMIZING VERBAL AGREEMENT
IN MORDVIN
Raúl Aranovich
Abstract. In the Mordvin deﬁnite conjugation, portmanteau verbal aﬃxes crossreference the person and number of both subject and object. This complex
agreement system shows extensive syncretism, which is more acute among the
most marked members of the paradigm. I argue that Optimality-Theory gives a
more explanatory account of the pattern of neutralizations in the Mordvin verb
than rule-based theories. Predictions of the analysis are tested against data from
other Finno-Ugric and Uralic languages.
1. Introduction
In Inﬂectional languages, it is common to see that the contrast between
two or more members of a paradigm is neutralized. This is known as
syncretism. This phenomenon is often regarded as too exceptional and
unsystematic to deserve any consideration as a serious issue in morphology, but the frequent occurrence of syncretic forms in all kinds of
inﬂectional paradigms underscores its importance. Moreover, syncretisms display some regular properties that require explanation, in
particular the fact that syncretic forms tend to aﬀect the more marked
components of a paradigm. In this paper I examine a quite dramatic case
of syncretism in the verbal paradigm of Mordvin, an Uralic (FinnoUgric) language of central Russia. I argue that the more marked an
agreement morpheme is in Mordvin, the more likely it is to be syncretic.
This hypothesis, I show, can be elegantly captured in an OptimalityTheoretic treatment of syncretism. The analysis is based on a ranking of
faithfulness constraints partially motivated by a universal, multidimensional agreement hierarchy of person and number. My analysis assumes
that syncretic morphemes are underspeciﬁed for certain features, an
assumption shared with impoverishment theories of syncretism (Bonet
1995, Noyer 1998). But I argue that an OT treatment of syncretism is
more explanatory than a rule-based impoverishment account, as well as
an account based on rules of referral (Zwicky 1985, Stump 1993, 2001).
My analysis also makes some cross-linguistic predictions, which I test
against data from other members of the Finno-Ugric and Uralic family.
In this paper I assume a realizational theory of morphology (Matthews
1972, Anderson 1992, Stump 2001). In realizational theories, there is a
distinction made between morphemes, which are abstract speciﬁcations
of morphosyntactic features, and the morphophonological units that
realize them. Morphemes and their realizations are connected by rules of
exponence. Realizational theories are better suited than sign-based
Studia Linguistica 61(3) 2007, pp. 185–211. The author 2007. Journal compilation
The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK, and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
186 Raúl Aranovich
theories to deal with cases of multiple exponence (one morpheme
expressed by more than one morph), or cumulative exponence (more
than one morpheme encoded in one morph). This is relevant to a
treatment of verbal inﬂection in Mordvin, given its heavily synthetic
character: subject and object agreement are encoded in a single
portmanteau suﬃx.
2. Verbal agreement: basic types and the Mordvin system
Verbal agreement is a systematic covariation between verbal morphology
and some characteristic features of its arguments, most frequently person
and number (although agreement in gender or class is also possible).
Agreement can be marked by verbal aﬃxes or pronominal clitics. Turkish
exempliﬁes a very common pattern, in which the verb agrees in person
and number with its subject. Other languages (v.g. Classical Nahuatl)
may have additional aﬃxes to agree with a complement.1
(1) a. Ben mektubu okudu-m.
I
letter.acc read-1sg
ÔI read the letter.Õ
b. ni-mitz-itta.
1sg.subj-2sg.obj-see
ÔI see you.Õ
[TURKISH]
(Underhill 1976)
[NAHUATL]
(Andrews 1975)
Yet in other languages, subject and complement are not cross-referenced
by independent aﬃxes. Rather, a portmanteau aﬃx is used to express
agreement with a pair of subject-complement arguments. Aymara is a
language with this kind of agreement.
(2) Jum
t’’aq-tam.
you.acc look.for-3.subj.2obj.aor
ÔHe was looking for you.Õ
[AYMARA]
(Hardman et al. 1988)
Mordvin is a Uralic language spoken in the Russian republic of Mordva.
Like other languages in the Uralic and Finno-Ugric family (i.e.
Hungarian, Ostyak, etc.), Mordvin distinguishes an ÔindeﬁniteÕ set of
agreement aﬃxes (used for intransitives and transitives with indeﬁnite
objects) from a ÔdeﬁniteÕ set of agreement aﬃxes (used for transitive
sentences with deﬁnite objects). Morphologically speaking, Mordvin is
the most complex language in its family. In the deﬁnite conjugation,
portmanteau agreement suﬃxes inﬂect for person and number of subject
and object. Some examples are given below, followed by a table listing
1
The following abbreviations are used for grammatical categories. subj: subject; obj:
object; sg: singular; pl: plural; per: person; def: deﬁnite; acc: accusative; aor: aorist; loc:
local; pol: polite; fam: familiar; gen: genitive.
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
Optimizing verbal agreement in Mordvin 187
the past and non-past agreement suﬃxes in the Erza dialect (from Raun
1988).2 In the tables below, syncretic forms are in italics. The widespread
syncretism in forms that agree with a plural argument is apparent.3
(3) a. sÕormada-n ÔI writeÕ
b. sÕormada-sa ÔI write itÕ
[MORDVIN]
The non-past deﬁnite conjugation diﬀers from the past deﬁnite conjugation by the presence of an additional aﬃx, placed closer to the stem.
The non-past aﬃx has three allomorphs, conditioned by the person of the
object: -sa- Ônonpast.1objÕ, -ta- Ônonpast.2objÕ, and -s(i)- Ônonpast.3objÕ.
In addition, some formatives can be distinguished: dental stops characterize agreement with a second person, while nasals show up in some
agreement aﬃxes that mark 1st person. These formatives may be
morphophonologically related to the system of personal pronouns (mon
ÔIÕ, ton Ôyou (sg)Õ and son Ôhe/she/itÕ), suggesting that agreement
morphemes are aﬃxal forms with a pronominal origin (Honti 1998–
1999).4 Beyond the formative level, the inﬂected verb cannot be
segmented into individual subject and object agreement suﬃxes. Even if
formatives are analyzed as independent morphemes (which is not possible
in all cases), the remnants cannot be clearly identiﬁed. Formatives may
Table 1. Mordvin (Erza) agreement suﬃxes, non-past
OBJECT ﬁ
Indeﬁnite
SUBJECTﬂ
1sg
2sg
3sg
1pl
2pl
3pl
Deﬁnite
1sg
-n
-t
-i
-tano/-dano
-tado/-dado
-it¢
2sg
-tan
-samak
-samam -tanzat
-tadiz¢
-samiz¢
-samiz¢ -tadiz¢
3sg
1pl
-sa
-sak
-si
-sin¢ek
-sink
-sinz¢
-tadiz¢
-samiz¢
-samiz¢ -tadiz¢
-tadiz¢
-samiz¢
-samiz¢ -tadiz¢
2
2pl
3pl
-sin¢
-sit¢
-sinze
-sin¢ek
-sink
-sinz¢
Mordvin has two dialects, Erza and Moksha, each with its own literary tradition. Since
the diﬀerences between the two dialects are not relevant for the present study, I only give
examples from the Erza dialect. The inﬂections in tables 1 and 2 diﬀer slightly from the ones
given by Bátori (1990) (e.g. -ik for -k Ôpast.2sg.subj.3sg.obj.Õ), probably due to the inclusion
of a thematic vowel or orthographic conventions. There is some degree of allomorphy
induced by vowel harmony and palatalization in Erza, which I will overlook in the present
study.
3
In the past tense, Mordvin distinguishes perfective from imperfective. There is also a
periphrastic future tense, in which subject agreement is expressed by an aﬃx on the auxiliary
verb, and object agreement by a possessive aﬃx on the non-ﬁnite form of the main verb
(Ackerman 2000). My analysis is limited to the synthetic tenses.
4
Honti argues this point against Keresztes (1998–1999). Keresztes claims that the deﬁnite
conjugation in Mordvin originates out of a rudimentary Proto-Uralic object agreement
suﬃx, which is still manifested in related languages. For other points of view see Mikola
(1998–1999) and Redei (1998–1999).
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
188 Raúl Aranovich
Table 2. Mordvin (Erza) agreement suﬃxes, past
OBJECT ﬁ
Indeﬁnite
SUBJECTﬂ
1sg
2sg
3sg
1pl
2pl
3pl
Deﬁnite
1sg
-n¢
-t¢
-s¢
-n¢ek
-d¢e
-s¢t¢
-mik
-mim
-miz¢
-miz¢
2sg
3sg
-t¢in¢
-ja
-k
-z¢e
-n¢ek
-nk
-z¢
-n¢z¢it
-diz¢
-diz¢
1pl
-miz¢
-miz¢
-miz¢
-miz¢
2pl
3pl
-diz¢
-n¢
-t¢
-n¢z¢e
-n¢ek
-nk
-z¢
-diz¢
-diz¢
-diz¢
oﬀer a glimpse of an older state of the language in which subject and
object agreement where encoded in two distinct verbal aﬃxes, the object
agreement one preceding the subject agreement one and placed closer to
the root. But from a synchronic point of view, it is better to analyze the
Mordvin deﬁnite conjugation as consisting of portmanteau morphemes,
similar to the Aymara pattern.
3. Syncretism in the Mordvin agreement system
The fact that the Mordvin deﬁnite conjugation is heavily syncretic is in all
likelihood related to the cumulative nature of its agreement system, a
hypothesis that follows from Carstairs-McCarthyÕs (1987) Systematic
Homonymy Claim. Forms with a ﬁrst or second person plural object
neutralize contrasts in subject person or number, and forms with a plural
subject show no distinctions with respect to the number of the object. The
result is a system in which there is one aﬃx for all forms with a plural
argument and a ﬁrst person object, and another aﬃx for all forms with a
plural argument and a second person object. Forms with a third person
object preserve distinctions in subject person and number, but the
contrast between singular and plural third person objects is only overt in
combinations where the subject is singular. Following some approaches
to syncretism (Bonet 1995, Noyer 1998, Grimshaw 2001) I propose to
deal with neutralizations of person and number in the Mordvin
agreement system as underspeciﬁcation (or feature deletion). Inﬂectional
elements are only speciﬁed for features shared by the syncretic
morphemes (in cases where more than one form can be selected to agree
with a subject/object pair, the more speciﬁc form takes precedence).
I propose the following conditions for Mordvin:
(4) Agreement Underspeciﬁcation Conditions:
a) If the Mordvin verb agrees with a plural subject, then no
number features are speciﬁed for object agreement.
b) If the Mordvin verb agrees with an object that is a local person
and plural, then no subject agreement features are speciﬁed.
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
Optimizing verbal agreement in Mordvin 189
The fact that forms which agree with a plural subject and a local person
singular object are syncretic with forms that agree with a singular subject
and a local person plural object is a necessary consequence of the
interaction of the two conditions in (4). A morpheme with a ﬁrst or
second person object, and plural subject and object, must be indistinguishable from a morpheme with a plural subject and a local person
plural object (condition 4a), and indistinguishable from a morpheme with
a singular subject and a plural local person object (condition 4b). The
only arrangement in which these two requirements can be satisﬁed
simultaneously is one in which a morpheme with a plural subject and a
local person singular object is identical to a morpheme with a singular
subject and a local person plural object. The pattern of syncretism in the
Mordvin verb, then, is the result of two constraint acting in concert: one
neutralizing object number contrasts, the other one neutralizing number
and person contrasts in the subject. This ÔglobalÕ property of Mordvin
morphology is naturally accounted for in OT, as I show in section (7).
The feature speciﬁcations for the inventory of agreement morphemes in
the Mordvin deﬁnite conjugation are as in Table 3 (see Bátori 1990 for a
similar analysis).
An alternative that needs to be considered is one in which the
syncretism of all forms with a second person or a ﬁrst person object and
a plural argument is accounted for by one single condition. Such
condition states that if the object is a local person, and either argument
is plural, then contrasts in the person of the subject and in the number
of the other argument are neutralized. This approach, however, has two
shortcomings. First, the condition on the syncretism of forms with local
person objects is a disjunctive condition in disguise. It says that a form
Table 3. Mordvin agreement suﬃx inventory (deﬁnite object, past only)
-t¢in¢: 1sg.subj
2sg.obj
-mik: 2sg.subj
1sg.obj
-mim: 3sg.subj
1sg.obj
-n¢z¢it: 3sg.subj
2sg.obj
-ja: 1sg.subj
3sg.obj
-n¢: 1sg.subj
3pl.obj
-k: 2sg.subj
3sg.obj
-t¢: 2sg.subj
3pl.obj
-z¢e: 3sg.subj
3sg.obj
-n¢z¢e: 3sg.subj
3pl.obj
-n¢ek: 1pl.subj
3obj
-miz¢: 1obj
-d ¢iz¢: 2obj
-nk: 2pl.subj
3obj
-z¢: 3pl.subj
3obj
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
190 Raúl Aranovich
like -mizÕ will be used if the object is 1st person and plural or if the
object is 1st person and the subject is plural, or both. Disjunctions are
often a sign that a generalization has been missed. Second, an
additional condition to account for the neutralization in object number
when the subject is plural must be introduced for third person objects.
In this analysis, then, two independent conditions account for the fact
that, with plural subjects, there are no distinctions in number regarding
the object. One condition states this for ﬁrst or second person objects,
the other one for third person objects. This analysis is clearly missing a
morphological generalization, and, from this point of view, an analysis
based on the conditions in (4) gives a better explanation of syncretism
in Mordvin.
The conditions in (4) capture another remarkable property of
syncretism in the Mordvin agreement system: its relational (or quasisyntagmatic) nature. The loss of contrast in an agreement feature for one
of the arguments (i.e. number of the object) is not triggered by a feature
of the same argument (i.e. person of the object), but rather by the same
feature in the other argument (i.e. number of the subject). Likewise,
features for agreement with the object (local person plural) trigger
neutralization of subject person and number agreement. The cumulative
nature of verbal agreement in Mordvin justiﬁes an analysis of complex
feature structures that specify subject and object properties. Thus, the
relational nature of syncretism in Mordvin notwithstanding, I still
approach this problem as a paradigmatic phenomenon.5
4. Markedness and syncretism in Mordvin
A generally accepted claim about possible syncretic paradigms is that
morphological contrasts tend to neutralize in the presence of marked
features. The Mordvin deﬁnite conjugation oﬀers a striking instantiation
of this hypothesis. Little argument exists around the claim that plural
agreement is more marked than singular agreement (Moravcsik 1988).
The fact that all Mordvin syncretic forms occur when the verb agrees with
a plural subject or object, then, is expected.6 When person features are
considered, however, markedness is relative to their association with
grammatical relations. In a well-known study of split ergative systems,
Silverstein (1976) established that the local persons in the dialogic
5
Noyer (1998) discusses a case of ÔsyntagmaticÕ syncretism in the morphology of
Nimboran. He argues that the environment for a feature deletion rule in one morpheme can
be found in features of a sister morpheme. A critical element in his analysis is the fact that
the syncretic morpheme and the triggering environment are syntagmatically distinct, which
is not the case in Mordvin.
6
BaermanÕs (2004) typological study shows that syncretism in person features in
the singular implies syncretism in the plural. Mordvin conforms to this pattern as well.
BaermanÕs study, however, is limited to subject agreement. What my analysis of Mordvin
suggests is that the same implicational universal is true for object agreement.
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
Optimizing verbal agreement in Mordvin 191
Figure 1. Mordvin Agreement Markedness Lattice
situation (i.e. 1st and 2nd) are less marked than the 3rd person when
associated with the subject, but more marked that the 3rd when
associated with the object.7 What is expected, then, is that agreement
with a third person object will show less syncretism than agreement with a
local person object, but that for subject agreement the opposite will be the
case. Again, the Mordvin deﬁnite conjugation conforms to this pattern.
To understand syncretism in the Mordvin verb, it is necessary to
address markedness relations in agreement paradigms from a multidimensional perspective. Verbal agreement morphemes can be organized
in a lattice according to markedness, as in Figure (1).
7
In a typical split ergative system, local person pronouns may follow a nominative/
accusative pattern, while all third person arguments follow an ergative/absolutive pattern.
Assuming that the marked cases are ergative and accusative, they signal the marked associations: local person with object, third person with subject. However, in Baerman (2004)
many examples are given of syncretisms aﬀecting 1st and 3rd person, and of a tendency to
group 2nd and 3rd against 1st. BaermanÕs scepticism about the validity of person hierarchies
as predictors of syncretism is tempered by the observation that exceptions are more common
in ÔpartialÕ syncretisms, i.e. syncretisms that are not consistently found across all paradigms
in a language. Systems with ÔcompleteÕ syncretisms, like Mordvin verb agreement, are more
likely to show the eﬀects of person hierarchies.
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
192 Raúl Aranovich
Each morpheme is represented in Figure (1) as an ordered pair of matrix
features (for person and number). The morpheme at the bottom corner of
the lattice is the least marked one, with singular for both subject and
object, and a local person (1st or 2nd) subject along with a third person
object. At the top of the lattice is the most marked agreement morpheme:
one that has plural agreement for both arguments, a third person subject,
and a local person object. In between are other combinations of features,
arranged according to their relative degree of markedness. Each line
connects a morpheme upwards with another one that exchanges an
unmarked feature for a marked feature. The dotted and dashed lines
cover those parts of the paradigm that are aﬀected by syncretism. The
dotted line represents neutralization of number contrasts in object
agreement. The dashed line represents neutralization of subject agreement
features. The overlap of the two lines, I will argue, is responsible for the
widespread use of the syncretic morphemes -mizÕ and -dÕizÕ. But more
importantly, this graph makes apparent the implicational relations that
govern the forms that are subject to syncretism. If one member of the
paradigm is syncretic, then all members of the paradigm that are more
marked are aﬀected by the same condition. I will argue that an OT
analysis explains this implicational relation in a natural way.
5. An Optimality-Theoretical analysis of syncretism in Mordvin
Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993) is a constraint-based
framework for linguistic theory. This framework has become dominant
in phonological theory over the last decade, and is being extended to
morphology and syntax with increasing success. From an OT perspective, syncretism involves the assignment of a common, underspeciﬁed
output to two inputs with a shared set of features. This is the way
Grimshaw (2001) approaches feature neutralization in the pronominal
clitic systems of the Romance languages. Inputs are fully speciﬁed sets
of person, number, gender, case, and reﬂexivity features. The constraint
hierarchy puts some of these inputs in correspondence with underspeciﬁed outputs. Syncretic morphemes share the same underspeciﬁed
output. In Spanish, for instance, the ﬁrst person singular clitic me can
be used as a direct (or indirect) object pronoun, regardless of gender,
and also as a reﬂexive pronoun. For the third person, however, the
direct object clitics are lo for the masculine, and la for the feminine,
while the reﬂexive clitic is a distinct form se. In GrimshawÕs analysis,
lo and la are fully speciﬁed, the ﬁrst person clitic me is underspeciﬁed
for case, gender, or reﬂexivity, and the clitic se is only speciﬁed as
reﬂexive. The actual inventory of Spanish clitics, then, expresses only
some of the morphological contrasts that universal grammar makes
available. Here I adopt a similar approach to treat syncretism in the
Mordvin agreement paradigm.
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
Optimizing verbal agreement in Mordvin 193
Feature contrasts between inputs are aﬀected by two constraint families
in OT: faithfulness and markedness. Markedness constraints penalize
outputs that have a certain feature, while faithfulness constraints require
some sort of correspondence between input and output with respect to a
certain feature. When a markedness constraint *F (read Ôdo not have
feature FÕ) dominates a faithfulness constraint Faith(F), the feature F
ceases to be distinctive. Contrasts between inputs are preserved in the
outputs when faithfulness trumps markedness. These two constraint types
can be employed to account for morphological syncretism: feature
contrasts are preserved in a morphological inventory when faithfulness
dominates markedness, and neutralized if the opposite happens. In
syncretic paradigms, however, morphological features are not neutralized
across the board. Rather, they are disfavored in combination with other
features. In Spanish, for instance, gender distinctions are preserved only in
third person non-reﬂexive clitics. Because of this, Grimshaw suggests, a
grammar should have combinatory constraints, in addition to constraints
that address features in isolation. The same is true for Mordvin.
In Mordvin, then, the input is a fully speciﬁed set of subject and object
agreement features. I represent the morphological information carried by
an inﬂected verb as an ordered pair of person and number features, where
the ﬁrst member corresponds to subject agreement. Output candidates
may be speciﬁed for some or all of those features, with an X in place of
the underspeciﬁed feature. Markedness constraints penalize outputs with
a particular feature class. The markedness constraints that are active in
Mordvin are the following:
(5) a. *obj[num]: Object agreement does not have number features.
b. *subj[agr]: There is no agreement with the subject.
The eﬀect of (5a) is to neutralize contrasts in number for object
agreement. Constraint (5b) neutralizes contrasts in person and number
for subject agreement.
Not all distinctions of person and number in the Mordvin agreement
paradigm are lost, however. Some candidates are sheltered from the
eﬀects of the markedness constraints in (5a)-(5b) by faithfulness
constraints that penalize potential outputs in which a feature of the
input is not expressed. In Correspondence Theory, this role is played by
Max constraints. In my analysis of Mordvin these constraints instantiate
the schema in (6). The combinatory nature of the constraint in (6) ensures
that subject and object agreement feature oppositions are preserved in
combination with other features.
(6) Max(per/num, per/num)
To illustrate the analysis, I will discuss ﬁrst the competitions with inputs
that have 3rd person objects and local person subjects, i.e. the lower left
quadrant of the Mordvin Markedness Agreement Lattice in Figure (1).
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
194 Raúl Aranovich
The agreement morphemes with plural subject features are included in
the area delimited by the dotted line, indicating that they are syncretic
with respect to object number. In a competition against forms
underspeciﬁed for number agreement with the object, then, the fully
speciﬁed morphemes inside the dotted line will lose. This suggests a
ranking in which the markedness constraint *obj[NUM] outranks the
faithfulness constraints that preserves number distinctions in object
agreement in combination with a plural subject. But given that those
distinctions are preserved when the subject is singular, the constraints
M(loc/sg, 3/sg) and M(loc/sg, 3/pl) must dominate the markedness
constraint, yielding the ranking in (7).
(7) M(loc/sg, 3/sg) >> M(loc/sg, 3/pl) >> *obj[num] >>
M(loc/pl, 3/sg) >> M(loc/pl, 3/pl).
The tableaux below show that, for inputs with plural subject agreement
features, the optimal candidate is the one underspeciﬁed for object
number agreement. The candidate underspeciﬁed for object number in
Tableau (1) is more harmonic than the fully faithful candidate even
though the former violates the faithfulness constraint M(loc/pl, 3/sg),
because the latter violates the higher-ranked markedness constraints
*obj[num]. Candidates with underspeciﬁed object person and number
features fare badly with respect to M(loc/pl, 3/sg) on two accounts, and
therefore receive two violation marks. A similar competition selects a
candidate underspeciﬁed for object number agreement in Tableau (2).
Tableau 1.
[1pl, 3sg]
M
LOC 3
SG ; SG
M
LOC 3
SG ; PL
*obj[num]
[1pl, 3sg]
*!
[1pl, xsg]
*!
+ [1pl, 3x]
M
M
LOC 3
PL ; PL
M
LOC 3
PL ; PL
LOC 3
PL ; SG
*
*
[1pl, xx]
**!
Tableau 2.
[1pl, 3pl]
M
LOC 3
SG ; SG
M
LOC 3
SG ; PL
*obj[num]
[1pl, 3pl]
*!
[1pl, xpl]
*!
M
LOC 3
PL ; SG
+ [1pl, 3x]
[1pl, xx]
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
*
*
**!
Optimizing verbal agreement in Mordvin 195
Tableau 3.
[1sg, 3pl]
M
LOC 3
SG ; SG
M
LOC 3
SG ; PL
+ [1pl, 3pl]
*obj[num]
M
LOC 3
PL ; PL
M
LOC 3
PL ; PL
M
LOC 3
PL ; SG
M
LOC 3
PL ; SG
*
[1pl, xpl]
*!
[1pl, 3x]
*!
[1pl, xx]
**!
*
Tableau 4.
[1sg, 3sg]
M
LOC 3
SG ; SG
M
LOC 3
SG ; PL
*obj[num]
*
+ [1pl, 3sg]
[1pl, xsg]
*!
[1pl, 3x]
*!
[1pl, xx]
**!
*
The result is an inventory without contrast in object number agreement
when the subject is plural, since the inputs [1/pl,3/pl] and [1/pl,3/sg] are in
correspondence with the same underspeciﬁed output.
If the subject is singular, however, the fully faithful candidates win, in
spite of the negative eﬀect of *obj[num] (Tableaux 3, 4). The faithfulness
constraints M(loc/sg, 3/sg) and M(loc/sg, 3/pl) trump *obj[num], and
this ensures that agreement morphemes with singular subjects contrast in
number for object agreement.
6. An OT account of markedness in the Mordvin agreement system
The relative ranking of the faithfulness constraints in (7) accounts for the
fact that the syncretic forms are the more marked members of the verbal
agreement paradigm. The ranking of faithfulness constraints mirrors the
relations deﬁned in the Mordvin Markedness Agreement Lattice in
Figure (1), so that faithfulness to the less marked feature combinations
takes precedence over faithfulness to more marked combinations. This
yields the universal faithfulness sub-hierarchies in (8).
(8) Universal faithfulness sub-hierarchies (partial):
a) M(loc/sg, 3/sg) >> M(loc/sg, 3pl) >> M(loc/pl, 3/pl)
b) M(loc/sg, 3/sg) >> M(loc/pl, 3/sg) >> M(loc/pl, 3/pl)
When the markedness constraint penalizing object number agreement
features is ranked above M(loc/pl,3/sg), it also dominates the faithful The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
196 Raúl Aranovich
ness constraint M(loc/pl,3/pl), given the universal sub-hierarchy in (8b).
Syncretism between the two most marked elements of the paradigm
follows from this. The faithfulness constraint M(loc/sg, 3/pl), on the
other hand, is ranked above *obj[num], and so must M(loc/sg, 3/sg) given
the sub-hierarchy in (8a). Thus, the paradigm will show no syncretism
with respect to object number agreement between its less marked
members. But not all relative rankings in Mordvin follow from the
universal sub-hierarchies in (8). The faithfulness constraint ranking
M(loc/sg, 3/pl) >> M(loc/pl, 3/sg) has to be stipulated or made to
follow from other principles, a matter I return to in a following section.
Also, the ranking of the markedness constraints relative to the faithfulness hierarchies is particular to Mordvin. This freedom in relative
ranking is the source of a great deal of cross-linguistic variation in verb
agreement, an issue that I explore in detail in section 8.
Some logically possible rankings, however, are ruled out as empirically
impossible by the universal faithfulness hierarchies in (8). A markedness
constraint like *obj[num] may not dominate the constraints requiring
faithfulness to less marked feature combinations without dominating the
constraints requiring faithfulness to more marked combinations, because
the resulting constraint hierarchy would infringe on the universal
faithfulness ranking constraints projected from the lattice in Figure (1).
The treatment of syncretism I am proposing, then, when further
restricted by the universal hierarchies in (8), makes the prediction that
syncretism between two members of a paradigm implies syncretism
between more marked members of the same paradigm. The verbal system
of Mordvin conforms to this principle.
The use of the relations in Figure (1) to derive universal constraint
sub-hierarchies is a variation of the harmonic alignment technique
proposed in Prince and Smolensky (1993) for phonology, and applied to
the syntax of voice in Aissen (1999). Harmonic alignment starts from
two scales like a > b > ... > n and X > Y (one of the scales has to be
binary). The ﬁrst member of the binary scale is associated with the
members of the other scale in increasing order to build a Ôharmony
scaleÕ like X/a X/b ... X/n. The harmony scale is then reversed to
derive a universal sub-hierarchies of markedness constraints: *X/n >>
... >> *X/b >> *X/a. Another harmony scale is built by associating the
second member of the binary scale with the members of the other scale
in decreasing order. Harmonic alignment is not rich enough to capture
markedness relations based on the combination of several dimensions of
asymmetric oppositions, like the ones that deﬁne the agreement
paradigm of Mordvin (number, gender, and grammatical relation).
Aissen (2003) faces a similar problem in her account of diﬀerential
object marking, and her solution is to project a universal sub-hierarchy
of constraints based on the product of two harmony scales relating
deﬁniteness to animacy. In the same spirit, I am using a lattice of
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
Optimizing verbal agreement in Mordvin 197
markedness relations to derive universal sub-hierarchies of faithfulness
constraints.8
When the complete set of paradigmatic oppositions in the Mordvin
verb are considered, the number of faithfulness constraints grows. For
each feature combination, there is a constraint requiring a correspondence between it and the output candidates. These constraints are also
subject to universal rankings that mirror the markedness relations in
Figure (1). The faithfulness constraint associated with the most marked
morpheme [3/pl, loc/pl] is placed at the end of all the universal
subhierarchies in this extended family. Other constraints are ranked
with respect to each other depending on the relative degree of
markedness of their feature combinations. The resulting sub-hierarchies
are spelled out (in abbreviated form) in (9). In the next section I show
what happens when they interact with markedness constraints in
Mordvin.
(9) Universal Faithfulness sub-hierarchies (full)
a) M(loc/sg, 3/sg) >> M(loc/sg, 3/pl) >> M(loc/pl, 3/pl) >>
M(3/pl, 3/pl) >> M(3/pl, loc/pl)
b) M(loc/sg, 3/sg) >> ... >> M(loc/pl, loc/pl) >>
M(3/pl, loc/pl) ...
n) M(loc/sg, 3/sg) >> M(3/sg, 3/sg) >> M(3/sg, loc/sg) >>
M(3/sg, loc/pl) >> M(3/pl, loc/pl)
7. Generalizing the OT analysis of syncretism in Mordvin
One consequence of the sub-hierarchies in (9) is that the markedness
constraint *obj[num] forces a neutralization of object number contrasts in
all forms that are more marked than the feature combination [loc/pl,
3/sg]. This is so because *obj[num] outranks M(loc/pl, 3sg) (as already
determined), and M(loc/pl, 3sg) outranks all faithfulness constraints
with more marked feature combinations. The ranking in (10a), then,
results in syncretism for number of the object in all forms that have a
plural subject. Except for morphemes with the features local and plural
for agreement with the object (to which I will return below), all other
morphemes with singular subjects display no syncretism. Thus, the
associated Max constraints must dominate *obj[num].
8
My approach contrasts in this respect with the proposals in the works cited (and also to
Grimshaw 2001), because their sub-hierarchies are of markedness constraints. Universal
faithfulness constraint sub-hierarchies have been proposed in phonology (DeLacy 1999),
and there is no reason why they should not exist. It should be noted that there are two senses
of the term ÔmarkednessÕ: one is the typological sense, and the other one the more technical
sense it takes in OT, as output constraints. The fact that this term has these two senses may
create the misleading impression that the only way to capture the markedness relations
observed in linguistic typology is through hierarchies of markedness constraints.
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
198 Raúl Aranovich
(10) a. *obj[num] >> M(loc/pl, 3sg) >> ... >> M(3/pl, 3/sg),
M(loc/pl, loc/sg) >> ... >> M(3/pl, loc/pl)
b. M(loc/sg, 3/sg) >> M(loc/sg, 3/pl) >> ... >>
M(3/sg, 3/pl), M(3/sg, loc/sg) >> *obj[num]
Some faithfulness constraint rankings are not motivated by the markedness relations in Figure (1). From the hierarchies above, for instance, it
follows that M(3/sg, 3/pl) outranks M(loc/pl, 3/sg) (by transitivity, with
respect to *obj[num]). But there is no measurable sense in which the feature
combination [3/sg, 3/pl] is more or less marked than [loc/pl, 3/sg]. The
ranking M(3/sg, 3/pl) >> M(loc/pl, 3/sg), then, has to be stipulated or
made to follow from some other principle.
Syncretism among the morphemes with a local person plural subject is
the work of the markedness constraint *subj[agr]. This constraint
dominates M(loc/sg, loc/pl), which is associated with the least marked
combination of features with a local person plural object, resulting in the
ranking in (11). The result is that no agreement forms with local plural
object display a contrast in subject agreement features.
(11) *subj[agr] >> M(loc/sg, loc/pl) >> M(3/sg, loc/pl),
M(loc/pl, loc/pl) >> M(3/pl, loc/pl)
With the exception of M(loc/pl, loc/sg) and M(3/pl, loc/sg), which are
also dominated by *subj[agr], all faithfulness constraints with singular or
3rd person objects outrank this markedness constraint, as in (12).
Morphemes with singular or 3rd person objects, then, will not be
syncretic with respect to subject agreement features.
(12) M(loc/sg, 3/sg) >>... >>M(3/sg, loc/sg) >>
M(3/pl, 3/pl) >> *subj[agr]
The markedness constraints *obj[num] and *subj[agr] have to be applied
globally to a candidate set to account for the pattern of syncretism
among morphemes with local person objects, i.e. the fact that all
morphemes with a ﬁrst (or second) person object get the same
exponent when one of the arguments is plural. The constraint
hierarchy will assign candidates only speciﬁed for object person to
those morphemes. A tableau may serve to better illustrate how the
constraints interact to select the same output candidates for the
syncretic inputs. To simplify the exposition, the tableau has a selection
of the most relevant constraints for a given input. The candidate set is
expanded to include all possible arrangements of deleted input features
in the outputs. Tableau 5 shows that the output that corresponds to a
[3pl, 2sg] input is one in which all but object person features are
deleted. *obj[num] and *subj[agr] narrow the ﬁeld to two candidates:
[XX, 2X] and [XX, XX]. M(3/pl, 3/sg) insures that the least faithful
one is selected.
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
*!
[xpl, xx]
[xx, xx]
[xx, xsg]
*!
*!
[3x, xx]
+ [xx, 2x]
*!
[3pl, xx]
*
[xx, 2sg]
*!
*!
[3x, 2x]
*
[3x, xsg]
*!
*!
[xpl, 2x]
*
*!
*
*
*
*
*subj[agr]
[xpl, xsg]
3 3
PL ; SG
*!
*!
[3x, 2sg]
M
[3pl, 2x]
*!
[3pl, xsg]
*obj[num]
*!
[xpl, 2sg]
3 LOC
SG ; SG
*!
M
[3pl, 2sg]
[3pl, 2sg]
Tableau 5.
M
3 LOC
SG ; PL
3 LOC
PL ; SG
****!
***
***
***
***
**
**
**
**
**
**
*
*
*
*
M
M
3 LOC
PL ; PL
Optimizing verbal agreement in Mordvin 199
200 Raúl Aranovich
Since *obj[num] and *subj[agr] dominate M(3/sg, loc/pl) and M(3/pl,
loc/pl), all morphemes with a second person object and a plural feature
for either subject or object agreement correspond to the same output,
which is realized as -dÕizÕ (subject person contrasts are neutralized in the
same way). The remaining constraint that requires faithfulness to a
combination of third person subject and a local person object is more
prominent than either markedness constraint. If the input is a morpheme
like [3sg, loc.sg], then, the winning candidate will be a fully faithful
output, which is realized as -nÕzÕit. It is interesting to also consider the role
of M(3/pl, 3/sg). This faithfulness constraint is ﬂanked by the two
markedness constraints. If the input is a [3pl, 3sg] morpheme, the
corresponding output will be underspeciﬁed for object number, but it will
keep the speciﬁcations for subject agreement features. This morpheme
will be syncretic with the [3pl, 3pl] morpheme, but it will be realized
diﬀerently from a [3pl, 2sg] morpheme.
Taking another look at the lattice in Figure (1), now, it is clear that
each morpheme is associated with a combinatory faithfulness constraint.
Markedness relations among feature combinations determine the ranking
of the faithfulness constraints. The dotted line determines which
faithfulness constraints are dominated by the markedness constraint
*obj[num], and the dashed line those that are dominated by *subj[agr]. For
any morpheme that is included within one of the lines, every morpheme
that is more marked is also included. This is why a grammar is more
likely to preserve feature contrasts in the less marked members of the
paradigm. The overlap of the lines also indicates the relative ranking of
the markedness constraints. Given that *obj[num] dominates *subj[agr],
every node that is included in the dashed line will also be included in the
dotted line. These are the morphemes that are syncretic with respect to
every agreement feature, except object person.
Not all dominance relationships among constraints follow directly
from the markedness relations in the lattice. For instance, *obj[num]
dominates M(loc/sg, loc/pl) by transitivity, since *obj[num] dominates
*subj[agr], and *subj[agr] dominates M(loc/sg, loc/pl). The relative
prominence of M(loc/sg, loc/pl) with respect to other faithfulness
constraints *obj[num] dominates, v.g. M(loc/pl, 3/sg), is not universally
determined, because the two faithfulness constraints are not necessarily
ranked with respect to each other by the comparative markedness of the
feature combinations. Of more interest, however, is the fact that
*subj[agr] dominates M(loc/pl, loc/sg). I suggest that this order derives
from an independently motivated sub-hierarchy of faithfulness constraints, based on the following schema:
(13) M(i/sg, j/pl) >> M(i/pl, j/sg)
that is, a constraint that requires faithfulness to a combination of singular
subject-plural object features always outranks a combinatory constraint
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
Optimizing verbal agreement in Mordvin 201
with plural subject-singular object features, if the two are in combination
with the same arrangement of person features. This ranking can be
observed across the board. For instance, M(loc/sg, 3/pl) outranks
M(loc/pl, 3/sg), since morphemes with plural subjects are syncretic, but
morphemes with singular subjects are not. The schema in (13) puts the
faithfulness constraint M(loc/pl, loc/sg) behind M(loc/sg, loc/pl),
which requires faithfulness to the least marked combination with local
person plural object features. The constraint *subj[agr] must dominate
M(loc/sg, loc/pl) to capture the insight that neutralization of subject
agreement features is triggered by agreement with a local person
plural object. The order *subj[agr] >> M(loc/pl, loc/sg) follows by
transitivity.
The schema in (13) captures a generalization about relative rankings
between faithfulness constraints in Mordvin. The question that remains
is whether this is also motivated by markedness relations between
morphemes. In a recent exchange of opinions with Bresnan and Aissen
(2002) about the merits of functionally-motivated OT, Newmeyer (2002)
casts doubts on the claim that the universality of constraints in OT can
be justiﬁed on a functional basis. In spite of his criticism of a functional
motivation for person or animacy hierarchies like the ones used in
Aissen (1999, 2003), there is reason to believe that constraints about the
alignment of person features with subject and object are easily justiﬁable
in functional terms. First and second person are more likely to act on a
third person, for instance, given that they are necessarily animate,
sentient, etc. First and second person subjects, then, are unmarked with
respect to third person subjects, and the markedness values are reversed
with respect to objects. Markedness of plural with respect to singular
is also functionally motivated, since singular entities are cognitively
more simple than aggregates. A universal constraint ranking like
Faith(sg) >> Faith(pl), then, is also justiﬁable in functional terms.
But why should there be a functional preference for aligning singular
with the subject and plural with the object over the opposite conﬁguration? Is there any reason to consider that a single individual is more
likely to act on a plurality of individuals than the other way around? I
have found no argument in favor of a functional motivation of the
constraint schema in (13), so I am inclined to agree with NewmayerÕs
claim that not all OT constraints or rankings thereof can be justiﬁed on
functional grounds. But I disagree with his conclusion that OT is
therefore bankrupt as a syntactic theory. The reason why an OT analysis
is sound and successful has less to do with the functional motivation of
the constraints or their relative order than with their ability to capture
interesting linguistic generalizations and make predictions about grammatical phenomena. As long as the constraint schema in (13) achieves
this goal, an analysis that includes it is a sound one, regardless of
functional justiﬁcations. Nevertheless, the fact that in Mordvin singular
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
202 Raúl Aranovich
subjects seem to be less marked than singular objects should prompt an
inquiry into the functional underpinnings of diﬀerent alignments
between number and grammatical relations, which is outside the reach
of this paper.
8. Universal constraints on syncretism and cross-linguistic variation
Among the features that make OT an appealing linguistic theory is the
way in which it accounts for cross-linguistic variation. In OT, constraints
are universal. Languages do not diﬀer from one another by the presence
or absence of a constraint. Rather, cross-linguistic variation results from
changing constraint rankings. Moreover, the soundness of an OT analysis
of a linguistic phenomenon is tested against its accuracy in predicting the
range of possible languages from the allowed variations in constraint
ranking. From my analysis of Mordvin, diﬀerent agreement systems can
be obtained by promoting or demoting the markedness constraints, while
maintaining the ranking of the combinatory faithfulness constraints
relative to each other. In languages like Turkish, for instance, there is no
person or number agreement with the object. This results from a system
in which *obj[agr] outranks all the faithfulness constraints. To preserve
person and number contrasts in subject agreement, however, the
constraint *subj[agr] must be inactive, i.e. it must rank below all
agreement faithfulness constraints. Turkish has the ranking below:
(14) Turkish: *obj[agr] >> M(loc/sg, 3/sg) >> ... >>
M(3pl, loc/pl) >> *subj[agr]
In Aymara, there is agreement with object and subject, but only in person
(There is an additional contrast between inclusive and exclusive ﬁrst
person, which I will gloss over to simplify the exposition). *obj[num] and
*subj[num], then, dominate the faithfulness constraints. *obj[per] and
*subj[per] are inactive, as shown below.
(15) Aymara: *obj[num], *subj[num] >> M(loc/sg, 3/sg) >> ... >>
M(3pl, loc/pl) >> *obj[per], *subj[per]
Thus, the same set of inputs, with all person and number features
speciﬁed for subject and object agreement, is made available to Turkish,
Aymara, and Mordvin by the generative component of the grammar, as
is the set of output candidates. The same markedness and faithfulness
constraints are also available to all languages. The diﬀerence in their
particular morphological inventories comes about after diﬀerent constraint rankings evaluate the candidate set in each language, with
diﬀerent results. Examined from this point of view, the verbal paradigm
of Turkish can be said to be syncretic with respect to person and number
in object agreement, and Aymara to be syncretic with respect to number
in subject and object agreement. What makes Mordvin interesting is that
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
Optimizing verbal agreement in Mordvin 203
syncretism is not uniform across its paradigm, requiring faithfulness and
markedness constraints to be interspersed.
Of course, an important diﬀerence between Turkish and Aymara on
one side, and Mordvin on the other, is that only the latter marks a
distinction between deﬁnite and indeﬁnite objects in its agreement system.
In Turkish the verb never agrees with a complement, regardless of its
semantic status. In Aymara, a verb must agree with a complement,
whether deﬁnite or indeﬁnite. The agreement system of Mordvin, then,
reﬂects a sort of diﬀerential object marking, which is expressed in other
languages through the case system (Bossong 1998). An OT treatment of
the role of case in diﬀerential object marking is developed in Aissen
(2003). I suspect that a similar approach can succeed in accounting for
the use of agreement to mark the diﬀerence between deﬁnite and
indeﬁnite objects in Mordvin. Such an analysis may require the
introduction of another feature, [+/) deﬁnite], which combines with
person and number agreement features. I have to leave the details of this
analysis for another occasion. I should point out, however, that the
nature of the semantic feature that triggers object agreement in Mordvin
(and in other Finno-Ugric and Uralic languages) is an open matter. Some
have claimed that the deﬁnite conjugation is related to completive aspect
(Keresztes 1998–1999, Mikola 1998–1999), but Alhoniemi (1996) refutes
a similar claim based on lexical-semantic evidence, and on data showing
that the deﬁnite conjugation can have durative and frequentative uses.
A detailed discussion of the semantic mature of the deﬁnite conjugation
in these languages, however, is beyond the scope of this paper.
Using the approach to cross-linguistic variation outlined above, it is
possible to get a panoramic picture of the agreement systems of the
Finno-Ugric and Uralic language family (see Bátori 1990 for an
overview). A ﬁrst group includes Finnish, Estonian, Sámi, Cheremis,
and the Permian languages, in which only subject agreement is
contrastive. A verb does not agree with an object, whether deﬁnite or
indeﬁnite. These languages have a constraint ranking similar to the
Turkish one in (14). Another group includes the Ob-Ugrian languages
Ostyak and Vogul. In this group there is person and number agreement
with the subject, and also agreement with a deﬁnite object.9
(16) a. wels-em
kill.past-1sg.subj/sg.obj
ÔI killed you (sg), him/her/itÕ
b. wels«-lam
kill.past-1sg.subj /pl.obj
ÔI killed you (pl), themÕ
[N. Ostyak]
(Nikolaeva 1999)
9
Nikolaeva (1999) suggests that information structure plays a more important role in the
distribution of object agreement in Ostyak than deﬁniteness.
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
204 Raúl Aranovich
From the glosses of the examples above, however, it can be observed that
object agreement is limited to number, making it diﬀerent from Mordvin
(in some Ostyak dialects there is an additional contrast with dual
number, which I will not discuss here). In the ranking for the Ob-Ugrian
languages, then, the only markedness constraint to outrank the faithfulness constraints is *obj[per].
(17) Ob-Ugrian: *obj[per] >>M(loc/sg, 3/sg) >> ... >>
M(3pl, loc/pl) >> *obj[num], *subj[agr]
A fourth group within this family (counting Mordvin as a third group)
contains Hungarian and the Samoyedic languages. Like Mordvin and the
Ob-Ugrian languages, these languages agree in person and number with
the subject, and they distinguish an indeﬁnite conjugation (18a) from a
deﬁnite conjugation (18b).
(18) a. Lát-ok egy házat
see-1sg a house
ÔI see a house.Õ
b. Lát-om
a házat
see-1sg.def.obj a house
ÔI see the house.Õ
[HUNGARIAN]
The traditional view on these languages is that they do not make any
distinctions of person or number in object agreement, as shown in (19a).
However, in Hungarian there is a distinct agreement suﬃx, -lak, for ﬁrst
person singular subject and a second person object, used in familiar
contexts (Rounds 2001). An example is given in (19b).
(19) a. Lát-om: ÔI see you (sg/pl.pol), him/her/it, them.Õ
b. Lát-lak: ÔI see you (sg/pl.fam).Õ
In Hungarian, then, there is a minimal distinction in person with respect
to object agreement, which contrasts second and third person in
combination with ﬁrst person singular subject. For agreement with
a second person in the polite register, Hungarian adopts the common
cross-linguistic strategy of using a third person form (cf. Spanish canta
Ôsing.3sgÕ or Ôsing.2sg.polÕ, which contrasts with cantas Ôsing.2sg.famÕ). I
suggest that this reﬂects an inventory in which agreement morphemes
with ﬁrst person singular features can also bear a feature speciﬁcation for
object person features, while all other morphemes are underspeciﬁed for
object agreement features (except, of course, to mark deﬁniteness). The
feature speciﬁcation [1sg, 3x], realized as -om, contrasts with the feature
speciﬁcation [1sg, 2x], realized as -lak.
In the constraint ranking of Hungarian, then, the markedness
constraint *obj[per] outranks all combinatory faithfulness constraints
except for those with a 1sg subject speciﬁcation. This analysis requires a
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
Optimizing verbal agreement in Mordvin 205
reﬁnement of the markedness relations deﬁned in Figure (1), decoupling
ﬁrst from second person. The Hungarian ranking, then, is as follows:
(20) Hungarian: *obj[num] >> M(1sg, 3sg) >> M(1sg, 3pl),
M(1sg, 2sg) >> M(1sg, 2pl) >> *obj[per] >> M(2sg, 3sg),
M(1pl, 3sg) >> ... >> M(3pl, 1pl) >> *subj[agr]
By re-ranking markedness constraints penalizing agreement features with
respect to a hierarchy of faithfulness constraints, the range of crosslinguistic variation in subject and object agreement is accounted for.
When a markedness constraint *F (i.e. a constraint penalizing a feature F
in the output) ranks above all the agreement faithfulness constraints, the
result is a language which makes no distinctions for F. If the markedness
constraint partially dominates the set of faithfulness constraints, this
results in a language in which some morphemes will be syncretic for the
feature F. In those cases where this happens, the principle stating that
syncretisms are more likely to aﬀect the more marked members of a
paradigm follows from the universal faithfulness sub-hierarchies in (9).
This makes the right predictions for Mordvin, and also for Hungarian:
contrasts in the person of the object are only expressed in morphemes
with ﬁrst person singular features, which are the least marked ones.
Restricting possible rankings to those that abide by the universal subhierarchies in (9) also makes predictions about which languages cannot
exist. No language will have a ranking in which faithfulness to a more
marked combination of agreement features outranks faithfulness to a less
marked one. Given that syncretism is triggered by a markedness
constraint dominating a relevant set of faithfulness constraints, the
prediction is that a language in which a feature contrast is preserved
among the more marked morphemes in the paradigm while being
neutralized among the less marked ones is not a possible language. The
theory does not predict whether there will be syncretism in a particular
language, or which features a paradigm will be syncretic with respect to,
since the ranking of the markedness constraints relative to the faithfulness sub-hierarchy is not universally restricted. But if a feature contrast is
neutralized, there are clear predictions as to which members of the
paradigm will be syncretic. Given the range of cross-linguistic variation
this seems to be the right approach.
9. Alternative approaches to syncretism
The constraint-based, comparative approach to syncretism I propose
must be compared to rule-based analyses, such as the one that employs
rules of referral (Zwicky 1985, Stump 1993, 2001). A rule of referral
speciﬁes that the realization of a particular morpheme (one of the
syncretic terms) should be dealt with by the rule that realizes another
morpheme (the other syncretic term). Stump (2001) argues that rules of
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
206 Raúl Aranovich
referral are suitable for syncretism of the ÔstipulatedÕ kind, and not so
adequate for ÔunstipulatedÕ syncretisms. The simplest case of stipulated
syncretism is the directional one. In directional syncretisms, one member
of the paradigm, the dependent one, adopts the exponent of another
member of the paradigm.10 In Russian feminine nouns, for instance, the
genitive plural is identical to the bare stem (e.g. komnat Ôroom.acc.plÕ),
and the accusative plural adds a suﬃx (komnat-y Ôroom-gen.plÕ).
Animate nouns, however, adopt the genitive form for the accusative
case (e.g. korov Ôcow-acc/gen.plÕ). In this example, the accusative plural
is clearly the dependent member. In unstipulated syncretisms, on the
other hand, there is no distinction between dependent and determinant
members. In Mordvin, for instance, the suﬃx -nk expresses agreement
with a second person plural subject and a third person object, whether
plural or singular. There is no reason to assume that one of the syncretic
morphemes gets the exponent that the other one independently has. An
unstipulated syncretism like this one, Stump suggests, arise as the result
of a realizational rule that disregards the feature that would otherwise
distinguish the syncretic morphemes. Rules of referral are not needed in
this case.
A diﬀerent approach to syncretism is based on the notion of
morphological ÔimpoverishmentÕ (Bonet 1995, Noyer 1998). Rather than
having realizational rules that are sensitive to only the common features
among the syncretic morphemes, or having rules of referral, impoverishment theory sees syncretism as the result of feature deletion (perhaps
followed by the introduction of default features, as in NoyerÕs approach).
Bonet uses impoverishment in this way to deal with unstipulated
syncretism in the clitic system of Romance, and this approach can be
extended to the syncretism in the Mordvin deﬁnite conjugation. In the
case of the Mordvin plural subject agreement syncretic forms, an
impoverishment analysis results in those morphemes not having number
features for the object.11 In the realizational approach based on rules of
referral, on the other hand, the two morphemes are indeed distinguished
by their morphological features, i.e. they are fully speciﬁed. It is the rule
of exponence that looks at a sub-set of those features. The OptimalityTheoretic analysis of the Mordvin verbal agreement system I propose is
closer in spirit to the impoverishment approach, since feature deletion has
the eﬀect of narrowing the morphological inventory of Mordvin.
GrimshawÕs (2001) analysis of the Romance clitic system is also an OT
10
Other types of stipulated syncretism are the bidirectional kind and the symmetrical
kind, which is nondirectional. This type of syncretism needs to be stipulated because the
syncretic morphemes do not form a natural class (Stump 2001).
11
Noyer (1998) approaches impoverishment in a diﬀerent way. Besides rules deleting
morphological features, he suggests that redundancy rules ﬁll the missing feature with a
default value. This additional step seems unnecessary for unstipulated syncretisms, although
it may be needed for the stipulated cases.
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
Optimizing verbal agreement in Mordvin 207
implementation of impoverishment theory. In this approach, the realizational component of the grammar is greatly simpliﬁed, because it is
always the case that morphemes that are distinguished by one or more
features are associated with diﬀerent exponents.
The OT approach to syncretism, however, has advantages over both
rule-based theories. Referral theory can ﬁnd some clever ways to achieve
the right result for the syncretic forms with local person objects,12 but a
serious problem arises when considering the neutralization of number
distinctions in object agreement when the verb agrees with a plural
subject. These unstipulated syncretisms are dealt with by means of
realizational rules that are insensitive to the features that distinguish one
member of the syncretic pair from the other. In the case of the Mordvin
plural subject agreement morphemes, however, three such rules are
needed, since there is a contrast between ﬁrst, second, and third person
plural subject agreement. Each rule is stated independently of the other.
Thus, the generalization that number distinctions in third person object
agreement are neutralized when the verb agrees with a plural subject is
lost. In the impoverishment analysis, on the other hand, the fact that all
three plural subject agreement morphemes are syncretic with respect to
the number of a third person object is not an accident. It follows from a
single rule that deletes the feature [number] from all agreement
morphemes that also have the value plural for subject number. On this
account, then, impoverishment theory is more explanatory than referral
theory.
A rule-based impoverishment approach to syncretism, however, faces
problems of its own to explain the pattern found in Mordvin local person
object agreement morphemes. Impoverishment theory is caught in an
Ôunderspeciﬁcation paradoxÕ. LetÕs assume ﬁrst an impoverishment rule
that deletes the object agreement feature [number] in the context of plural
subject agreement. The conditioning environment for the other impoverishment rule (the one responsible for the syncretism between morphemes that agree with local plural objects) has to be stated in a
disjunctive form. As an eﬀect of the ﬁrst impoverishment rule, neutralization of subject number and person takes place if the object is a local
person and plural, or a local person underspeciﬁed for number.13 If, on
the other hand, an impoverishment rule deleting subject agreement
12
A possible analysis of the Mordvin system would have a realization rule insensitive to
the contrast in object number features when subjects are plural, followed by a directional
rule of referral stipulating that the realization of the morphemes with local person plural
objects and singular subjects is identical to the realization rule for morphemes with local
person objects and plural subjects. Such interaction between rules of exponence is allowed in
the theory, but it is unclear what is gained by it.
13
The alternative is to use a negative characterization like not singular, but the gains of
such approach are illusory. The negation of singular is equivalent in this analysis to the
disjunction plural or underspeciﬁed, so not much is gained in terms of capturing a generalization.
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
208 Raúl Aranovich
features in morphemes that agree with local person plural objects is
stated ﬁrst, then the rule deleting number features from object agreement
has to be formulated as a disjunction. That is, in a rule-based approach to
impoverishment in Mordvin, one rule destroys the natural class of
features that characterizes the triggering environment for the other rule.
An optimality-theoretical approach to syncretism like the one I have
defended here avoids the underspeciﬁcation paradox. Because OT is
parallel and global, the eﬀect of the two constraints that penalize
agreement features in the output (*obj[num] and *subj[agr]) work in
concert to select the most harmonic candidate. The violable nature of
constraints in OT avoids the need to state cumbersome triggering
environments for the impoverishment rules. Rather than specifying when
feature deletion should take place, the approach I have chosen to follow
speciﬁes the cases in which it is better for a morpheme to retain a feature,
violating the markedness constraints. This is what happens when a
faithfulness constraint violation outranks the markedness constraint
violation.
The underspeciﬁcation paradox does not arise in the referral approach,
because rules of referral do not delete morphological features. In this
sense, it is as explanatory as the OT approach, but the latter, like the
impoverishment approach, has a natural way to capture the fact that the
syncretism among third person agreement morphemes when the subject is
plural occurs in a general way. This is the result of a single constraint,
*obj[num], dominating the faithfulness constraint M(loc/pl, 3/sg). Since
faithfulness constraints requiring maximal expression of features in more
marked morphemes are also dominated by *obj[num], the neutralization of
the contrast in object number agreement when the subject is plural
follows naturally. In this sense too impoverishment theories and OT
accounts are superior to referral theories. As Noyer (1998) points out,
rules of referral are not good at capturing the markedness implicit in
syncretism. A rule of referral can arbitrarily pick any feature or
combination thereof, whether marked or unmarked, as the subordinate
features in a syncretism. Realization rules can also be underspeciﬁed for
any feature combination, regardless of markedness. Impoverishment
theory, on the other hand, is explicit in stating that the features to be
deleted (and to be replaced by default speciﬁcation rules, in NoyerÕs
analysis) are sensitive to markedness relations. In the OT account I
propose here, this is the result of the universal constraint on the ranking
of faithfulness constraints projected on it by the harmonic lattice.
The Optimality-Theoretic approach to syncretism I have proposed for
Mordvin, then, shares the insights of impoverishment theory, and it is
more explanatory than referral theory in the same ways. But the OT
analysis does not suﬀer from the Ôunderspeciﬁcation paradoxÕ that
aﬄicts the impoverishment analysis, because instead of a rule-based
serial approach it adopts a constraint-based, parallel approach.
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
Optimizing verbal agreement in Mordvin 209
A constraint-based analysis is more advantageous than either rule-based
analysis because it oﬀers a better explanation for the complexities of the
Mordvin agreement system.
10. Final summary
The Mordvin deﬁnite conjugation presents a challenge of the ﬁrst class
for any morphological theory, because of the richness of the distinctions
it encodes (person and number in object and subject agreement) and its
intricate pattern of neutralizations. Since Carstairs-McCarthy (1987)
posed the question of what are possible syncretisms, diﬀerent answers
have revised our simplistic assumptions about the relationship between
morphemes and their morphophonological realizations, and the nature of
feature co-occurrence restrictions inside and across morphemes. These
are some of the staples of morphological theory, so it is clear that
syncretism is a good area to test diﬀerent approaches to the treatment of
inﬂection. The issues that are raised by a morphological system with the
complexity of the Mordvin verbal agreement paradigm show that the
study of syncretism is not an exercise in cataloguing exceptions, but an
area of linguistics that demands well-thought explanations for interesting
generalizations.14
In this paper I have claimed that syncretism (at least the unstipulated
kind) has to be treated as feature deletion (or underspeciﬁcation).
I have developed an Optimality-Theoretic account of the problem,
based on the interaction of markedness constraints and combinatory
faithfulness constraints. These faithfulness constraints penalize feature
deletion in the output candidates, while the markedness constraints
demand it. By ranking the markedness constraints in the appropriate
way with respect to the faithfulness constraints, the right underspeciﬁed
outputs are selected. This is how I have accounted for the pattern of
neutralization in agreement features in Mordvin. This pattern, I have
argued, does not lend itself well to be analyzed in serial, rule-based
theories like impoverishment theory or referral theory. A parallel
constraint-based approach like the one Optimality Theory provides is
better equipped to explain how the interaction of two simple
constraints (one against object number features, another one against
subject number and person features) derive the complex distribution of
the aﬃxes -mizÕ and -dÕizÕ.
OT is a linguistic theory inherently geared to the comparative study of
grammar, and to the formulation of explicit typological analyses. The
possible ranking permutations among a set of constraints deﬁne a space
14
As Baerman (2004) reminds us, however, formal models of syncretism cannot be so
rigid as to exclude the results of descriptive work that reveals signiﬁcant exceptions to
alleged universals.
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
210 Raúl Aranovich
of possible variation in human languages. This is often referred to as a
Ôfactorial typologyÕ. Factorial typologies can be constrained by ﬁxing the
relative ranking of some constraints, making predictions about what kind
of linguistic structures, categories, or phenomena will not be found
among the languages of the world. On occasions, ﬁxed rankings are
motivated by functional considerations. I have claimed that aspects of
syncretism in Mordvin reﬂect markedness relations among agreement
features and grammatical relations, and I have implemented that
observation in my OT analysis through a rigid hierarchy of faithfulness
constraints that mirrors such markedness relations. This analysis makes
predictions about what sort of cross-linguistic variation can be found
regarding verbal agreement. I have tested these predictions on the FinnoUgric and Uralic family, with positive results. More work remains to be
carried on in this area, since more agreement systems are predicted to
exist than the ones I have observed. Extending this line of research to
languages rich in verbal agreement morphology, such as Tibeto-Burman,
Austronesian, Muskogean, Tupı́-Guaranı́, etc., should be a goal of future
studies.
References
Ackerman, F. 2000. Syntactic expression as morphological exponence. Papers
from the Regional Meetings, Chicago Linguistic Society 36, 1–12.
Alhoniemi, A. 1996. On the use of the object conjugation in Mordvin [Zur
Verwendung der Objektkonjugation im Mordwinischen]. Acta Universitatis
Upsaliensis: Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 26.
Aissen, J. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 673–711.
Aissen, J. 2003. Diﬀerential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 435–483.
Anderson, S. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Andrews, R. 1975. Classical Nahuatl. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Baerman, M. 2004. Typology and the formal modelling of syncretism. Yearbook
of Morphology 2004, ed. G. Booij & J. van Marle, 41–72. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bátori, I. 1990. Object marking of verbs in Mordvin: Morphological underspeciﬁcation and homomorphy [Die Markierung des Objekts am Verb im
Mordwinischen: morphologische Unterbestimmtheit und Homomorphie].
Nyelvtudomanyi Kozlemenyek 91, 15–23.
Bonet, E. 1995. Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 13, 607–647.
Bossong, G. 1998. Le marquage diﬀérentiel de lÕobjet dans les langues dÕEurope.
Actance et Valence dans les Langues de lÕEurope, ed. J. Feuillet, 193–258. Berlin/
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bresnan, J. & Aissen, J. 2002. Optimality and functionality: Objections and
refutations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 81–95.
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1987. Allomorphy in inﬂection. London: Croom Helms.
De Lacy, P. 2002. The formal expression of markedness. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.
Optimizing verbal agreement in Mordvin 211
Hardman, M, Vásquez, J. & Yapita, J. D. D. 1988. Aymara: Compendio de
estructura fonológica y gramatical. La Paz: Instituto de Lengua y Cultura
Aymara.
Honti, L. 1998–1999. On the Proto-Uralic background of the objective conjugation in Mordvin. [Gondolatok a mordvin targyas igeragozas urali alapnyelvi
hattererol]. Nyelvtudomanyi Kozlemenyek 96, 106–119.
Grimshaw, J. 2001. Optimal clitic position and the lexicon in Romance clitic
systems. Optimality-Theoretic syntax, ed. G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw & S. Vikner, 205–240. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Keresztes, L. 1998–1999. On the Development of Determinative Conjugation in
Mordvin [Gondolatok a mordvin determinativ igeragozas kialakulasarol].
Nyelvtudomanyi Kozlemenyek 96, 90–105.
Matthews, P.H. 1972. Inﬂectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mikola, T. 1998–1999. Remarks on the history of objective conjugation in
Mordvinian [Megjegyzesek a mordvin targyas igeragozas tortenetehez].
Nyelvtudomanyi Kozlemenyek 96, 120–123.
Moravcsik, E. 1988. Agreement and markedness. Agreement in natural language,
ed. M. Barlow & C. A. Ferguson, 89–106. Palo Alto: CSLI.
Newmeyer, F. 2002. Optimality and functionality: A critique of functionallybased Optimality-Theoretic syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20,
43–80.
Nikolaeva, I. 1999. Object agreement, grammatical relations, and information
structure. Studies in Language 23, 331–376.
Noyer, R. 1998. Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness.
Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, ed. S. Lapointe,
D. Brentari & P. Farrell, 264–285. Palo Alto: CSLI.
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction
in Generative Grammar. RuCCS Technical Report #2. Piscataway: Rutgers
University Center for Cognitive Science.
Raun, A. 1988. The Mordvin language. The Uralic languages, ed. D. Sinor,
96–110. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Redei, K. 1998–1999. On the objective conjugation in the Uralic languages
[Gondolatok az urali targyas igeragozasrol]. Nyelvtudomanyi Kozlemenyek 96,
124–128.
Rounds, C. 2001. Hungarian: An essential grammar. London/New York:
Routledge.
Silverstein, M. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical
categories in Australian languages, ed. R. M. W. Dixon, 112–-171. Canberra:
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Stump, G. 1993. On rules of referral. Language 69, 449–479.
Stump, G. 2001. Inﬂectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Underhill, R. 1976. Turkish grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Zwicky, A. 1985. How to describe inﬂection. Proceedings of the Berkeley
Linguistic Society meeting 11, 372–386.
Recieved April 6, 2005
Accepted May 17, 2006
Raúl Aranovich
Deptartment of Linguistics
University of California Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
USA
[email protected]
The author 2007. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2007.