1

Andrej A. Kibrik(aakibrik@gmail.com)

Qualitative morphological complexity:

The case of Athabaskan

Growth and Decline of Morphological ComplexityApril 27, 2012, Leipzig

2

Athabaskan

About 40 languages in western North America

3

Most examples: Upper Kuskokwim (Central Alaska)

4

Welcome to Nikolai

5

Crash introduction

Quantitative complexity Long words Many categories

Qualitative complexity Almost exclusive prefixation (unusual) Derivation and inflection are intermingled One grammeme is conveyed by several devices Complex morphophonemics: s+l > j ...............................

6

“Standard average Athabaskan” verb template

Between 10 and 20 positions/zones Lexical and derivationalMixed/equivocal Inflectional

7

Qualitative complexity in Athabaskan

Entangled morphological structure Many-to-many correspondences between

meanings and forms Extreme anti-agglutination

Case studies:1. Vacillating perfective2. Travesty inceptive3. Chameleonic root

8

1. Vacillating perfective: *N- > e-

Impf Pf

Ø – gh ‘cry’ 1Sg Œi-s-trih 1Sg ghi-s-trak

n – n ‘swim’ 1Sg ni-s-mash 1Sg ni-s-manh

Ø – z ‘get it’ 1Sg Œu-s-nesh

1Sg Œu-zi-s-nech

3Sg Œi-trih 3Sg gh-e-trak

3Sg Œe-mash 3Sg n-e-manh

3Sg Œu-nesh 3Sg Œu-z-nech

2Sg Œe-trih

9

gh-..-trak ‘cried’

1Sg ghi-s-trak

2Sg gh-e-n-trak

3Sg gh-e-trak

1Pl ts’i-gh-e-trak

2Pl gh-wh-trak

3Pl hi-gh-e-trak

PF present in the

absence of a pre-root pronoun

PF “displaced” by the pre-root

pronoun

PF shows up in the

presence of a pre-root pronoun

10

gh-..-di-yish ‘breathed’

1Sg ghi-s-di-yish

2Sg gh-e-n-di-yish

3Sg ghi-di-yish

1Pl ts’o-di-yish

2Pl gh-wh-di-yish

3Pl ho-di-yish

PF absent in the presence of the di- transitivity indicator

PF suddenly shows up

11

Vacillating perfective: conclusions

Intricate behaviour of the perfective morpheme Absent in the z-perfective conjugation Absent in the low transitivity verbsThese two features can possibly be explained by

semantic transitivity in the vein of Hopper and Thompson (1980), but not fully

Displaced by some personal pronouns, but not allCan be explained by formal structure, but not fully Homophonous to other, entirely different,

morphemes in the same part of the verb word

Low predictability on the basis of either semantic or formal factors

12

2. Travesty inceptive

Conjunct derivational prefixes: “qualifiers” (Kari 1989)

Surprisingly monotonous in structure: mostly n- and d-

Some other qualifiers, but incomparably rarer

13

Koyukon (Jette and Jones 2000)

d- n-

gender (phytogenic) gender (roundish)

‘extend in line, series’

‘flying, going at high speed’

onomatopoetic, ‘be sound of’

‘assume sitting, lying position’

‘in two pieces’

errative, ‘accidentally’

14

Navajo (Young, Morgan, and Midgette 1992: 851-853)

d- (14+ different prefixes)

n- (7+ different prefixes)

movement of arms/legs terminative

relaxation, opening, closing, addition or reduction

spherical

elongated object mind, mental processes

refuge, relief sight, vision

fire, light weak, sick, exhausted

mouth, stomach, food, smell, noise, speech

color, size, weight, taste, appearance

pain, hurt .......................

holiness, faith, respect

color

tilting, slanting, leaning

a “catch-all” for di-prefixes that, even speculatively, cannot be assigned to one of the foregoing categories

a category in which are placed sundry ni-prefixes that cannot be readily identified, even speculatively...

15

Inceptive

ghi-s-mał ‘I am swimming’Prog-1Sg-swim[Prog]

ta-zi-s-manh ‘I am starting to swim’Inc-Conjug-1Sg-swim[Pf]

ti-ghi-s-mał ‘I will swim’Inc-Prog-1Sg-swim[Prog]

di-ti-ni-ghi-ł-dey’ ‘I will write’dQual-Inc-nQual-Prog-[1Sg-]TI-write

16

Navajo inceptive

d-é-saał ‘I am going to dash’Inc-1Sg-TI:fly[Pf]

• (Young and Morgan 1987: 309)

di-ni-sh-dááh ‘I am getting stuck’dQual-nQual-1Sg-TI:walk[Impf]

di-dí-née-sh-dááł ‘I will get stuck’dQual-Inc-nQual:Prog-1Sg-TI:walk[Prog]

• (Young and Morgan 1987: 323-325)

17

Travesty inceptive: conclusions

Already very high polysemy of qualifiers in general Athabaskan

Significant increase in polysemy in Navajo: the highly productive and semantically transparent inceptive prefix merges, violating the principles of historical phonology, with the vast range of other, etymologically unrelated, prefixes

Impossible to define the qualifier positions in semantic/functional terms

These are positions for various conjunct derivational prefixes

In an extreme, we face the “d-position” and the “n-position”

It IS complexity: opacity of form, entropy

18

3. Chameleonic root

“Mode”

‘paddle’ ‘PL move’

Impf 2Sg n-e-kash ‘arrive paddling’

2Pl n-wh-dał ‘you guys

arrive’

Pf 3Sg n-e-kanh ‘he arrived

paddling’

3Pl hi-n-e-datł’ ‘they arrived’

Prog 3Sg to-kał ‘he will paddle’

3Pl h-o-dił ‘they are

walking’

19

Suffixation treatment (Axelrod)

Impf Pf Prog=Opt

Neuter nh Œ ŒTransitional h t~Œ hMomentan. sh nh ÈPeramb sh nh chContinuative Þ nh ÈPersistive h h hReversative h nh hDurative Þ Œ ŒConsecutive Œ Œ ŒRepetitive sh ch chDirective repet sh Œ chSemelfactive Œ Œ ŒBisective Þ~nh Þ~nh Þ~nhConclusive Þ nh È

20

If you think this is not chameleonic enough

One Koyukon verb root (Jette and Jones 2000: 17)

21

Chameleonic root: conclusions

Diachronically: suffixation, dependent on “mode” and lexical aspect

Synchronically: suffixes can only be partly discerned extreme allomorphy of verb root allomorphy is irregular

Many-to-many correspondences between meanings and forms One meaning (e.g. imperfective) is conveyed by many

suffixes One suffix corresponds to several mode-aspect

combinations

22

What all this is good for?

Awe and pityGeneral theory of morphological

complexity Typology of morphological

complexity

23

Theory: Kinds of simplicity vs. complexity

Quantitative simplicity vs. complexity Number of relevant phenomena (e.g.

Nichols 2009) Qualitative simplicity vs. complexity

Transparency vs. entaglement of structure

Roughly, one-to-one vs. many-to-many correspondence between meanings and forms

Structural order vs. entropy Agglutination vs. non-agglutination

24

Qualitative complexity resulting from diachronic processes

Meaning Form

Vacillating perfective

perfective2Sgconjugation

e-/n-zero

Travesty inceptive

elongatedrelaxationfiresound...........inceptive

d-

t-

Chameleonic root

perfectiveprogressive

-nh-ch

-Œ-ł

intricate

distribution

25

Typology of languages:disposition to complexity

Various languages have various degrees of tolerance to complexity

Some languages do not wait too long to restructure and simplify structure, when too much complexity accrues

But some other languages seem to “like” complexity, and even increase it in the domains that are already very complex

This may be a typological parameter

26

Athabaskan

In terms of quantitative complexity, Athabaskan is not the champion (Nichols 2009)

In terms of qualitative complexity, I suspect that Athabaskan is a candidate for championship

This may be related to peculiar social/cultural factors

Note the Athabaskan resistance even to lexical borrowing

Athabaskan cultures tend to bring language contact to a minimum

This kind of linguistic communities can be expected to accumulate complexity