Inflectional Morphology an Introduction

Dr. Sharon Armon-Lotem

The lexicon – an introduction

Inflectional morphology – An introduction

Morphology – The system of rules involved in word formation and interpretation

Inflectional morphology – used to indicate the grammatical subclass to which a word belongs

Derivational morphology – forms a word with a meaning and or category distinct from that of its base through the addition of an affix

Three criteria can be used to distinguish inflectional morphology from derivational morphology: category change, order, and productivity.

The order of acquisition of 14 grammatical morphemes for Adam, Sarah and Eve (Ingram, D. 1989. First Language Acquisition. CambridgeUniversity Press. p. 274)

The criterion of acquisition is three successive samples in which the morpheme appears in 90% of the obligatory contexts

1 / Present progressive –ing

2-3

In/on

4 / Plural –s
5 / Past irregular took
6 / Possessive ‘s
7 / Uncontractible copula
8 / Articles
9 / Past regular –ed
10 / Third person regular -s
11 / Third person irregular
12 / Uncontractible auxiliary
13 / Contractible copula
14 / Contractible auxiliary

What determines the order of acquisition?

Parental input (Table 53 from Ingram p. 358)

Other determining factors

Frequency?
Position in the sentence?
Syllabicity?
Semantic transparency?
Form-function relation?
Allomorphic variance?
Exceptions

Which ones of the above morphemes fall under inflectional morphology?

Present progressive -ing

An inflectional as well as derivational affix (the shooting, The sleeping beauty)

As an inflectional affix it is a full syllable with no allomorphic variants, which shows up at the end of utterances and has one-to-one form-function relation with no exceptions.

Third person and plural marking

Typical inflectional morphemes. Both are not full syllable. Both have allomorphic variance. But they are not acquired at the same time. Why?

Hsieh, L., L. B. Leonard and L. Swanson. 1999. Some differences between English plural noun inflections and third singular verb inflections in the input: the contribution of frequency, sentence position and duration. Journal of Child Language 26, 531-543

Overregularzation of English plurals (and past tense inflectional morphology)

Marchman, V. A., K. Plunkett and J. Goodman. 1997. Overregularzation in English plurals and past tense inflectional morphology: a response to Marcus (1995). Journal of Child Language 24, 767-779

Marcus, G. F. 1995. Children’s overregularzation of English plurals: a quantitive analysis. Journal of Child Language 22, 447-459

Irregular plural / Irregular past

Foot – feet

Go –went

Man – men / Get – got
Mouse - mice / Come –came

Children go through a u-shape process:

Using the irregular form
Inflecting irregular stems with regular inflection
Using the irregular form

Just a few of the possible explanations:

From rote learning to rigid rule application > past and plural are the same.
Children become temporarily overwhelmed by the regular pattern due to an influx of regular forms > past and plural are the same.
Overregularzation of past forms relates to the disappearance of optional infinitives > past and plural are different.

Karmiloff-Smith's Phases of Linguistic and Cognitive Development and Berman’s Steps in Development of Language Form and Language Use:

Karmiloff-Smith, A. 1979. Micro- and macro-developmental changes in language

acquisition and other representational systems. Cognitive Science 3: 81-118.

----. 1986. From meta-processes to conscious access: Evidence from children's

metalinguistic and repair data. Cognition 23: 95-147.

Berman, R. A. 1986. A step-by-step model of language learning. In I. Levin, ed., Stage and structure: Re-opening the debate. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 191-219.

Procedural Phase: Data-driven, bottom-up behavioral output, motivated by adaptation to environment (e.g. adultlike linguistic forms), and oriented to procedural success = match between present state and goal state, knowledge implicit

Pregrammatical: From item-based knowledge, unanalyzed, rote-learning to initial alternations, formal modifications of familiar items

Metaprocedural Phase: Output driven by top-down processes, knowledge explicit in internal representation, organization-oriented rather than success-driven, behavioral output may appear limited or violate environmental information.

Structure-bound, Class-based: from interim schemata, non-normative transitional strategies to grammaticization, rigidly normative rule-application

Conceptual Phase: Integrative interaction between data-driven bottom-up and top-down control processes, both external stimuli and internal representations guide behavior, knowledge is based on consolidation of Phase 2 reorganization plus Phase 1 environmental feedback

End-stage Usage: Rhetorical choice, rule-application constrained by lexical convention and discourse appropriateness, range of expressive options bound by: individual style, functional variation, and register distinctions

Overregularzation of English past tense inflectional morphology

Reading: Xu, F. and S. Pinker. 1995. Weird past tense forms. Journal of Child Language 22, 531-556

Marcus and Marchman et al focused on overregularzations that involve application of the past tense –ed to irregular verbs.

Xu and Pinker focus on overapplication of the irregular inflectional pattern (bring-brang)

The acquisition of Hebrew and Arabic inflectional morphology

Which morphemes are included?

Tense, Person, Number, Gender.

We do not include the binyan pattern alternation which falls under derivational morphology.

Order of acquisition

Armon-Lotem, S. and R. A. Berman. 2003. The Emergence of Grammar: Early Verbs and Beyond. Journal of Child Language 30.4: 845-877

- Early verb usage: unclear forms or aspectually limited use of particular verbs.

- Subject-verb agreement in gender (and sometimes number) - limited to third person forms in the present tense and second person in the imperative.

1.sim/simi 'put!' ms/fm, kax/kxi 'take!' ms/fm, vi/abi'i 'give (me)! bring!' ms/fm, ten/tni 'give!' ms/fm and shev/shvi 'sit!' ms/fm, all of which are imperative forms. [Smadar 1;07 ]

- An explosion of past and present forms.

2. le’exol 'to eat,' oxelet 'eating' sg,fm, axa(l)ti 'I ate,' toxli 'you (fm.) will eat,' used also for imperative in adult spoken Hebrew. [Smadar 1;10]

- First and second person.

3.gamarti ‘I finished,’ gamarta ‘you (ms.) finished,’ gamart ‘you (fm.) finished,’ gamarnu ‘we finished.’ [Lior 1;11]

Levy, Y. 1983. The acquisition of Hebrew plurals: the case of the missing gender category.J Child Lang 10(1):107-21.

Gender marking: masculine –0 > feminine -a

Plural marking: masculine -im > feminine –ot

Verbal inflections: gender (& number) > tense > person

Tenses: present > past > future

Prepositional inflection

Can the same factors that applied for English (position in sentence, syllabicity, semantic transparency, form-function relation, allomorphic variance, and exceptions) account for the order in which the particular morphemes are acquired in Hebrew? Why? How?

Overregularzation

Where do we expect overregularzations in Hebrew? Why?

How could we explain the overregularzations?

Regularity vs. anomaly: The acquisition of Hebrew inflectional morphology

Berman, R. A. 1981. Journal of Child Language 8, 265-282.

Re-analysis of imperatives ftax (ptax), ftexi (pitxi), stakel (histakel) - Simplification of an asymmetrical system

Analytic reformulation of inflectionally bound formstni li, sheli, vs. bishvil ani, , kmo hi, al hu > alo
Lexical exceptions: Irregular plural marking mazlegim, becot, shanot, ishot.
Gender agreement beycot triyot, beycim triyim
Pattern mixing: present tense mizaher (niahar), mikanes (nixnas)

Infinitive / Present
Target / Child / Target / child
Piel / lecayer / licayer / mecayer / micayer
Nif'al / lehikanes / likanes / nixnas / mikanes

Pattern mixing: plural nouns kesefim, cdaf, simlot
Root opacity: “gutturals” shatati, kantu, balta (bal’a)
Root opacity: spirantization shapaxnu, makfeca, xibes

(Children are aware of the morphological alternation in beged kefet)

Themes

Knowledge of subsystems of the language is manifested by regularizing those items which do not follow the rule
Regularization of asymmetric or otherwise anomalous patterns - opaque roots, opaque rules, lexically governed exceptions, synchronically arbitrary alternations.
Preference for analytic, non-bound expression of grammatical categories

Ravid, D. & R. Farah.1999. Learning about noun plurals in early Palestinian Arabic. First Language 19, 187-206

Ravid, D. & L. Hayek. 2003. Learning about different ways of expressing number in the development of Palestinian Arabic. First Language, 23, 41-63

The use of Root/Optional Infinitives

Reading: Harris, T., and K. Wexler. 1996. The optional infinitive stage in child English: Evidence from negation.

The phenomenon

Up to the age of three children use the infinitival form of the verbs in indicative matrix clauses in 50% of their verbal utterances in English (Wexler 1994), and to a lesser extent in other languages (Armon-Lotem 1996a, Hyams 1995, Rhee & Wexler 1995, Rizzi 1994a).
Finite sentences are produced at the same time
Children seem to know the grammatical properties of finiteness and non-finiteness (e.g., Deprez & Pierce 1994)

1)a.It only write on the pad

He bite me
My finger hurts

2) M: ma at osa?

what you do

'what are you doing?'

L: tapuax lishtot (Lior 1;08)

apple to-drink

'I drink an apple'

Infinitival forms constitute only 5% of the Italian data.
> Extensive use of root infinitives correlates with non-null subject languages.

“A language goes through an OI stage if and only if the language is not an INFL-licensed null-subject language.” (Wexler 1996)

Some of the possible accounts

Finite and non-finite forms are used randomly
Wexler (1994), Harris & Wexler (1996): Children optionally omit tense. The use of root infinitives relates to a defective Tense that has not matured yet.
Rizzi (1994a,b): the use of root infinitives relates to children’s lack of knowledge of the functions of C (e.g. C=ROOT). Truncated trees are not available once CP becomes obligatory both in matrix and embedded contexts
Schutze & Wexler (1996): AGR/TNS omission model (ATOM) - children omit either TNS or AGR or neither
Wexler (1998): Children assume the unique checking hypothesis – The features of a DP can only check against one functional category.

Wexler (1994)

There is a correlation between the use of root infinitives and the use of bare negation. “A child who is optionally “dropping” 3rd [person] singular, will have medial negative sentences [of type I] in which the s does not appear on the verb“ (Wexler, 1994: 331):

Type I: Mary not play baseball

Type II: * Mary not plays baseball.

> When negation precedes the verb, the verb should not be inflected.

Harris & Wexler (1996)

Bare negation used at the optional infinitive-stage are largely (over 90%) of type I. This proportion is larger than the share of root infinitives. (Table 5)

Do is omitted optionally where required for the same reason that -s is omitted optionally where required. Nevertheless, do-support is used more than Tense in general. (Table 11)

Tensed forms are used almost completely correctly. (Tables 8 & 9)

The bare stem is used both in present (64%) and non present (47%) contexts.(Table 12)

Schutze & Wexler (1996)

Non-nominative case on subjects used at the optional infinitive-stage will be largely with non-finite verbs

Finite / Non-finite
Nominative Subject / + (he goes) / + (he go)
Non-Nom Subject / - (him goes) / + (him go)

Only 5% of finite verbs take a non-nominative subjects, whereas 46% of non-finite verbs take a non-nominative subject.

Non-nominative is the default case. (Test: “Who wants ice-cream?”)

Armon-Lotem (1996a) for Hebrew

There’s a gradual increase in the use of inflected verbs.
Past tense morphology is acquired prior to person morphology, but this does not correlate with a decrease in the use of root infinitives, but rather with a decrease in the use of “stem-like forms”.
The use of root infinitives reduces (from 5% to less than 1%) only when questions (and subordination) are mastered (last stage of Klima & Bellugi 1966).

Are there Root/Optional Infinitives in L2?

Reading: *Haznedar, B. & B. D. Schwartz. 1997. Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? BUCLD 21.

Also on this topic:

Prevost, P. 1997. Truncation and root infinitives in second language acquisition of French. BUCLD 21.

Armon-Lotem, S. 1998. Root Infinitives in Child Second Language Acquisition. In Montrul, S and R. Slabakova (eds.) GASLA ‘97 Proceedings, McGill Working Papers in Linguistics. McGillUniversity, Montreal.

Hulk, A. & Muller, N. 2000. Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3, 227-244.

Phenomena: Root infinitives (RIs) are used both in first and second language acquisition.

Question: Is it the same phenomena in first and second language acquisition?

I. Haznedar & Schwartz (1997)’s claim: The “infinitive-like” forms in SLA do not reflect RIs.

CRITERIA:

Only in L2 English are null subjects limited to uninflected contexts.

Null subjects disappear fairly early, whereas the rate of uninflected verbs does not change.
Only in L2 subject pronouns are all nominative.
When 3rd person is used, it is largely correct.
It’s occurrence rate rises gradually.

PROBLEMS:

Crucially, Haznedar & Schwartz don’t use data from utterances with auxiliaries be/do/have and copula be, nor do they use data from yes/no questions, wh-questions and negated utterances.

Wexler (1992) predicts that “a child who is optionally “dropping” 3rd singular, will have medial negative sentences [Mary not play baseball (S.A.L.)] in which the s does not appear on the verb“ (p331):

Harris & Wexler (1996):

Bare negation used at the OI-stage are largely (over 90%) of type I.
Do is omitted optionally where required for the same reason that -s is omitted optionally where required. Nevertheless, do-support is used more than Tense in general.
Tensed forms are used almost completely correctly.
The bare stem is used in present (64%) and non present (47%) contexts.

In addition

Phillips (1995): There’s a gradual increase in the use of inflected verbs.
Brown (1970): Past tense morphology is acquired prior to person morphology, but this does not correlate with a decrease in the use of Ris.
Armon-Lotem (1996): In Hebrew, the use of RIs reduces (from 5% to less than 1%) only when questions (and subordination) are mastered (last stage of Klima & Bellugi 1966).

II. A tentative alternative claim: We are dealing with the same phenomena - The “infinitive-like” forms in CSLA reflect RIs.

CRITERIA:

There’s a gradual increase in the use of inflected verbs.

Past tense morphology is acquired prior to person morphology.
Bare negation used at the OI-stage are largely (over 90%) of type I.
Tensed forms are used almost completely correctly.
The use of RIs reduces significantly when inverted questions are used (last stage of Klima & Bellugi 1966).

FINDINGS (From Armon-Lotem):

Main Verbs: The Distribution of Verbal Inflection in Past and Present Contexts - a decrease in the use of root infinitives in the past tense, from 64% in the first month to 28% in the sixth month, that is, an increased use of inflected verbs. Note, however, that even in the first month, third of the verbs in the past tense are already inflected. There are less cases of present tense, third person, contexts, but even when there are more of them, as in the sixth month, there is a huge gap between the use of inflected verbs in the past (72%) and in the present (17%). This is in line with Harris & Wexler’s (1996) findings that bare stems are used more often in the present tense than in the non-present contexts. The huge difference in the percentage of usage suggests that past morphology is acquired prior to person morphology. > Criteria 1 & 2

Negation: The distribution of adult Aux+Neg Order -

The adult order aux+neg is used only in third of the negations in the first month, but in all the negations in the sixth month. This means that there is a clear gradual increase in the use of auxiliaries in negation. Table 2 also shows that there are transition points in the second and fifth months. Comparing the use of inflected verbs (Table 1, column 2) with the use of auxiliaries shows that the transition point in the fifth month correlates with an increase in the use of inflections. > Criterion 3

Negation: Use of inflection in Neg+V order vs. affirmative context - bare negation used at the OI-stage is largely of typeI. Type I negation significantly overrides type II negation, which reaches only 28% for Matan. There is a significant gap between the use of nonfinite verbs in negation, and their use in affirmative past contexts. > Criterion 3

Questions: The distribution of Auxiliaries and Inversion in Yes/No and Wh-questions - the use of root infinitives reduces significantly in Past contexts when questions are used with auxiliaries and partial inversion. > partially satisfies criterion 5

Tensed forms are used almost completely correctly

PROBLEMS:

In CSLA of English children seem to converge early on the universal preference for using null subjects only in non-finite clauses, rather than in finite and non-finite as in child English (Haznedar & Schwartz’ criteria 1-2). Haznedar & Schwartz attribute this phenomenon (as well as the use of nominative pronominal subjects - criterion 3) to transfer of the mechanism for assigning nominative case from L1 to L2.

Will the findings for RIs in non-present context generalize to the present context? (They do as shown in Prevost 1997)

CONSEQUENCES:

If the tentative claim is right, the relevance of theories of first language acquisition to the use of RIs in CSLA should be reevaluated:

Maturation of Tns-related features (Wexler 1994).

Though maturational factors might play role in first language acquisition, it is hard to relate the findings for second language acquisition to the same maturational agenda, since these children have clearly passed this maturational turning point in acquiring their first language long before they started producing root infinitives in English.

Truncation and/or underspecification (Hyams 1995, Rizzi 1994a,b)

There are good reasons to argue that RIs are the result of less than full specification of Tns (Hyams 1995) and of C (Rizzi 1994a,b). The result of combining a partial knowledge of the particularities of a language with the least effort principle (Chomsky 1995) is truncated trees, which can explain the use of RIs in first language acquisition (Armon-Lotem 1996). Underspecified or partially specified functional nodes seem not to be “strong” enough to surface at PF, or under a stricter version of Minimalism, they are not even projected from the lexicon. (See also Prevost)