Sipes1

PeterSipes Morphology

Itsallthesame:subjectagreementmarkersyncretism
Abstract
Inflectionalmarkersofallsortsshowsyncretism:identicalmorphemesfordifferentfunctions. Famously,Latindativeandablativepluralmarkersofthesamedeclensionareidentical.The phenomenonofmorphologicalsyncretismhoweverisnotlimitedtonouns.UsingtheSurreyPerson SyncretismDatabase,Ilookintosomeofthepatternsofsyncretisminsubjectagreementmarkerson verbs.Twofactsarequicklyapparent.Syncretisminverbagreementmarkersismostlikely,80%of cases,tobetriggeredbynothingoronecondition(e.g.inflectionclass).Theotheristhatsyncretismin subjectagreementmarkersismuchmorelikelytohappeninthepluralthananyothernumber(49%in pluralalone).

DataandMethods
TheSurreyPersonSyncretismDatabase(http://www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/PersonSyncretism/)isa databasethatIhave(asnearasIcould)putupinspreadsheetform.Thefirstsheetisanoverviewof thedata,andthesecondisthedataitself(http://bit.ly/Y4ZPQM).Afewlanguagesmayhaveevaded entry,butthosethatdidshouldbefewinnumberandshouldnotaffectanyoveralltrends. 104languagesacross43familiescomprisethesample.Itfeatureswidedistributionsoflanguage: theirdistributioniswidelygeographicallyseparatedincluding,butnotlimitedto,languagesfromNorth America,AfricaandAsia.Thoughthenumberoflanguagesfromanyonefamilyislowonaverage(2.4 languagesperfamily),thisfactisdeceiving.17ofthelanguages(16%)arefromtheTransNewGuinea family,whichaccountsfor32oftheinstances(16%)ofsyncretismrecordedinthedatabase. Allofthistalkignores,thoughnolonger,thatthemain30languagesampledoesnot

Sipes2

necessarilyreflectthe104languagesampleIgotfromthedatabase(Baerman).Additionallythe databasemakesclearthatitdoesnotdealwithlanguagesthatalsoindicatepersonoftheobjectonthe verb,sincethatfactorcanintroduceothercomplications(http://bit.ly/150G04N).

Triggeringsyncretism
Despitethemanywaysthatsyncretismonpersonmarkers,thereareonlyfiveconditionsthat triggerit.Theyarenothing,inflectionclass,gender,syntaxandtense/aspect/mood. Forthemostpart,havingmultiplesyncretismtriggersisunusualonly38ofthe192entrieshad multipletriggers(20%).Thedistributionofmultipletriggersvs.singletriggersforsyncretismdoesnt seemtohaveanypattern.Forexample,German(IndoEuropean)showsthreeinstancesofsyncretism andemployszero,oneortwotriggersdependingonthespecificinstance.Ontheotherhand,some languagesareconsistentinwhatconditionssyncretism:AwaPit(Paezan)hastwoinstancesof syncretismbothcausedbysyntacticaltriggers.Allcombinationsoftriggerscancombinesaveone,the combinationofgenderandsyntaxdoesnotoccurinthedataset. Intermsofwhatconditionsallowforsyncretism,thetense/aspect/moodconditiontriggers98of the192(51%)instancesofsyncretism.Thenextmostcommontriggerisnothing:55of192(29%). Followedbyinflectionclass(44of192,23%)andgender(26of192,14%).Theleastcommoncause ofsyncretismissyntax(8of192,4%).

Doespersonornumbermatter?
Usingthedatafromthespreadsheet,thevarianceinnumberofoccurrencesoffirst,secondand thirdpersonisprobablynotsignificantinitself.Aquickchisquareanalysisgivesp=.2764,whichsays thatthevarianceisbetterexplainedbychance(calculatoratgraphpad.com/quickcalcs/chisquared1/).

Sipes3

Thatsaid,therearesomedatapointsthatwouldindicatethatwhilethedistributionamonggrammatical personisnotsignificanttherelationswithinthatdistributionmaybe(seebelow,Someimplications). SinceImnotsophisticatedenoughwithstatistics,Icantgetintothelikelihoodofvariancein inclusivesorduals,soIwilldealwithonlysingularandpluralandagrainofsalt.Admittedly,the existenceofdualandinclusivesskewsthenumbers,butforthepurposesofthispaperIassumethat singularandpluralshouldhavea50/50splitinthesyncretismnumbers.Thechisquareanalysisgives p<0.0001ontheactualdistribution,sonumberhasastatisticallysignificanteffect. EvenifIcouldsomehowusetheothernumbers,49%(245of496)ofsyncretismdatapoints involvetheplural(sothat1s=2saretwosyncretismdatapoints).Certainlypartofthecommonnessof pluralmarkersinsyncretismisthatpluralisaverycommonnumbertomarkwithsubjectagreement markers,thoughplural(andsingular)ismuchmorecommonthantheothernumbers.Theproblemwith toomuchanalysisonthecommonnessofsyncretisminthepluralisthatwhatthelargerlanguagelooks likeisnotstated.Thisistosaythattheonlywayyoucanbecertainthatalanguagemarksfordualonits subjectagreementmarkersisthatithasapointofsyncretisminthedual.

Someimplications
Ifalanguagehasanumberless1stpersoninvolvedinsyncretism,itisalwayswithanother numberlessperson.1=2in8of11instances(73%).1=3in3of11instances(27%). Ifalanguagehasanumberless2ndpersoninvolvedinsyncretism,itisvirtuallyalwayswith anothernumberlessperson.1=2in7of16instances(44%).2=3in8of16instances(50%). Ifalanguagehasanumberless3rdpersoninvolvedinsyncretism,itisquitelikelytobewith anothernumberlessperson.1=3or2=3in11of16instances(69%).Theremaining5instances

Sipes4

arespreadoveravarietyofpersonandnumbercombinations. Thesethreeimplicationsshowastrongcorrelationfornumberlesspersonstoassociatewith eachotherinsyncretismsespeciallyforfirstpersontobeassociatedwithsecondperson(thoughnot somuchviceversa).3rdpersoninstancesofsyncretismshowabreakdown.Infirstperson1=2isok, but*1=1pinthirdperson2=3isok,butsois2s=3(Estonian,IndoEuropean).Inlightofthefindings inlastfallspronountypologypaper(http://bit.ly/YjAP8F),thisbreakdownisnotsurprising.Firstand secondpersonsharedgrammaticalsimilaritiestoeachotherinpronounsthatwerenotasapparentin thirdperson.Thesamedisjointbetween1/2and3isalsoapparentwithsubjectagreementmarker syncretism. Ifalanguagehas1dual=2dualsyncretism,italsohas1plural=2pluralsyncretism(3languages). Ifalanguagehas1dual=3dualsyncretism,italsohas1plural=3pluralsyncretism(1language). Thissetofimplicationalsalsoshowsthatdualissomehowsubordinatedtopluralinsyncretic subjectagreementmarkers.Idbewillingtopredictthatifalanguagemarkedpaucalonsubject agreementmarkersthatthosewouldsomehowbesubordinatetoeitherdual(quitepossible)orplural (certain). Ifalanguagehas1stpersondualinclusiveformswithsyncretism,theyaresyncreticwith3rd persondualorpluralforms. 2ndpersondualformsaresyncreticwith(atleast)3rdpersondualforms74%ofthetime(14 of19instancesofsyncretism). 3rdpersondualformsaresyncreticwith(atleast)2ndpersondualforms74%ofthetime(14 of19instancesofsyncretism).

Sipes5

Syncretismtendstowardstayingwithinitsownnumber,i.e.singularformstendtobesyncretic withothersingularforms. Unfortunately,Icannotfigurehowtomakethenumbersshowthispatternoutsideofjugglingthe spreadsheetoralotoftightanalysis,thoughthepvaluefromthechisquaretestonnumber(abovein Doespersonornumbermatter?)issuggestiveinthisdirection.Theanalysisofnumberlessagreement markersisalsosuggestiveinthisdirection.OldEnglishverbsshowthispatternquitenicelyinthepast tense. singular 1st 2nd 3rd lufode lufodest lufode plural lufodon lufodon lufodon

Table1:Pasttenseoflufian(tolove),atypicalOldEnglishweakverb Source:http://faculty.virginia.edu/OldEnglish/courses/handouts/magic.pdf Ascanbeseen,1s=3sand1p=2p=3pshowsyncretism.Eachinstanceofsyncretismstays withineithersingularorplural.Ofcoursethisisnotahardrule.Daga(TransNewGuinea)hasone instanceofsyncretismthatis1s=3s=3p.ButthedatadoesseemtoindicatethattheOldEnglishpattern ofsyncretismisamoreprototypicalpatternofsyncretismthanDagauses.

Conclusion
Subjectagreementmarkers,likeallinflectionalmorphology,showssyncretism.Whileitis possiblethatindividualcasesofsyncretisminsubjectagreementmarkersisdrivenbychance,thereisa largepartofitthatisnot.Theconditionsthatcancausesyncretismareeitherinherentinthelarger inflectionalsystem(i.e.notriggers)orworkalone(i.e.onetrigger).Asinmypreviousworkwith

Sipes6

pronouns,thereisatendencyforfirstandsecondpersontoworkinwaysthatdontnecessarilyplay outin3rdperson.Syncretisminsubjectmarkersisalsolikely,thoughbynomeansrequired,tostay confinedtoonenumber(i.e.syncretismaffectingpluralstendstoaffectotherplurals).

Resources
Baerman,Matthew.TheSurreyPersonSyncretismDatabase.Retrievedfrom http://www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/PersonSyncretism/index.aspx