What’s up with ‘verbal’ morphology in BCS agent nominals?
Maša Bešlin, University of Maryland
mbeslin@umd.edu
FDSL 17, Masaryk University
November 21, 2024
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Introduction
https://www.masabeslin.com/assets/pdf/beslin_fdsl_nominals.pdf
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 2 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Introduction
Main claim:
‘Verbal’ morphology in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian agentive nouns is not verbal.
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 3 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Introduction
• I’ll be looking at a sample of BCS agentive nominals, which contain what is
traditionally analyzed as verbal morphology
(1) a. pozn-av-á-telj
know-av-th-n
‘expert’
b. prouč-av-á-telj
study-av-th-n
‘researcher’
c. reš-av-á-telj
solve-av-th-n
‘solver’
(2) a. predsed-av-a-áč
chair-av-th-n
‘chair’
b. pred-av-a-áč
lecture-av-th-n
‘lecturer’
c. ugnjet-av-a-áč
oppress-av-th-n
‘oppressor’
(3) a. prod-av-a-ác
sell-av-th-n
‘seller’
b. dar-o-d-av-a-ác
gift-l-give-av-th-n
‘giftgiver’
c. posl-o-d-av-a-ác
job-l-give-av-th-n
‘employer’
• A noun like proučavatelj is often segmented as pro-uč-a-va-telj ‘lp-learn-v-si-n’,
because of the similar verbs proučavati ‘be researching’, proučiti, and učiti
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 4 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Introduction
• I’ll be looking at a sample of BCS agentive nominals, which contain what is
traditionally analyzed as verbal morphology
(1) a. pozn-av-á-telj
know-av-th-n
‘expert’
b. prouč-av-á-telj
study-av-th-n
‘researcher’
c. reš-av-á-telj
solve-av-th-n
‘solver’
(2) a. predsed-av-a-áč
chair-av-th-n
‘chair’
b. pred-av-a-áč
lecture-av-th-n
‘lecturer’
c. ugnjet-av-a-áč
oppress-av-th-n
‘oppressor’
(3) a. prod-av-a-ác
sell-av-th-n
‘seller’
b. dar-o-d-av-a-ác
gift-l-give-av-th-n
‘giftgiver’
c. posl-o-d-av-a-ác
job-l-give-av-th-n
‘employer’
• A noun like proučavatelj is often segmented as pro-uč-a-va-telj ‘lp-learn-v-si-n’,
because of the similar verbs proučavati ‘be researching’, proučiti, and učiti
⋆ We’ll see reasons to doubt that these nouns have verbal structure
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 4 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Introduction
(4) a. pozn-av-á-telj
know-av-th-n
‘expert’
b. prouč-av-á-telj
study-av-th-n
‘researcher’
c. reš-av-á-telj
solve-av-th-n
‘solver’
(5) a. predsed-av-a-áč
chair-av-th-n
‘chair’
b. pred-av-a-áč
lecture-av-th-n
‘lecturer’
c. ugnjet-av-a-áč
oppress-av-th-n
‘oppressor’
(6) a. prod-av-a-ác
sell-av-th-n
‘seller’
b. dar-o-d-av-a-ác
gift-l-give-av-th-n
‘giftgiver’
c. posl-o-d-av-a-ác
job-l-give-av-th-n
‘employer’
• Notice: (I) different n-allomorphs, and (II) the accent of -áč and -ác surfaces
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 5 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Introduction
(4) a. pozn-av-á-telj
know-av-th-n
‘expert’
b. prouč-av-á-telj
study-av-th-n
‘researcher’
c. reš-av-á-telj
solve-av-th-n
‘solver’
(5) a. predsed-av-a-áč
chair-av-th-n
‘chair’
b. pred-av-a-áč
lecture-av-th-n
‘lecturer’
c. ugnjet-av-a-áč
oppress-av-th-n
‘oppressor’
(6) a. prod-av-a-ác
sell-av-th-n
‘seller’
b. dar-o-d-av-a-ác
gift-l-give-av-th-n
‘giftgiver’
c. posl-o-d-av-a-ác
job-l-give-av-th-n
‘employer’
• Notice: (I) different n-allomorphs, and (II) the accent of -áč and -ác surfaces
• I’ll show BCS root-conditioned allomorphy and accent placement are limited to
the first spellout domain, including only one categorizing morpheme
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 5 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Introduction
(4) a. pozn-av-á-telj
know-av-th-n
‘expert’
b. prouč-av-á-telj
study-av-th-n
‘researcher’
c. reš-av-á-telj
solve-av-th-n
‘solver’
(5) a. predsed-av-a-áč
chair-av-th-n
‘chair’
b. pred-av-a-áč
lecture-av-th-n
‘lecturer’
c. ugnjet-av-a-áč
oppress-av-th-n
‘oppressor’
(6) a. prod-av-a-ác
sell-av-th-n
‘seller’
b. dar-o-d-av-a-ác
gift-l-give-av-th-n
‘giftgiver’
c. posl-o-d-av-a-ác
job-l-give-av-th-n
‘employer’
• Notice: (I) different n-allomorphs, and (II) the accent of -áč and -ác surfaces
• I’ll show BCS root-conditioned allomorphy and accent placement are limited to
the first spellout domain, including only one categorizing morpheme
⋆ Then, the ‘verbal’ morphology in these agent nominals may not be verbal after all
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 5 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Roadmap
§1 Some background on Distributed Morphology (DM), cyclic domains, the role of
categorizers, and allomorphy
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 6 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Roadmap
§1 Some background on Distributed Morphology (DM), cyclic domains, the role of
categorizers, and allomorphy
§2 Data from root-derived* vs. deadjectival agent nominals (Bešlin forthcoming)
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 6 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Roadmap
§1 Some background on Distributed Morphology (DM), cyclic domains, the role of
categorizers, and allomorphy
§2 Data from root-derived* vs. deadjectival agent nominals (Bešlin forthcoming)
• (I) Root-conditioned allomorphy and (II) accent placement determined
in the first spellout domain, centered around the first-merged categorizer
→ Second-merged categorizer can’t ‘see’ the root and can’t realize its accent
→ This follows from a DM conception of cyclic domains
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 6 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Roadmap
§1 Some background on Distributed Morphology (DM), cyclic domains, the role of
categorizers, and allomorphy
§2 Data from root-derived* vs. deadjectival agent nominals (Bešlin forthcoming)
• (I) Root-conditioned allomorphy and (II) accent placement determined
in the first spellout domain, centered around the first-merged categorizer
→ Second-merged categorizer can’t ‘see’ the root and can’t realize its accent
→ This follows from a DM conception of cyclic domains
§3 Back to ‘deverbal’ agentive nouns...
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 6 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Roadmap
§1 Some background on Distributed Morphology (DM), cyclic domains, the role of
categorizers, and allomorphy
§2 Data from root-derived* vs. deadjectival agent nominals (Bešlin forthcoming)
• (I) Root-conditioned allomorphy and (II) accent placement determined
in the first spellout domain, centered around the first-merged categorizer
→ Second-merged categorizer can’t ‘see’ the root and can’t realize its accent
→ This follows from a DM conception of cyclic domains
§3 Back to ‘deverbal’ agentive nouns...
• A general note about verbal structure in agentive nouns
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 6 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Roadmap
§1 Some background on Distributed Morphology (DM), cyclic domains, the role of
categorizers, and allomorphy
§2 Data from root-derived* vs. deadjectival agent nominals (Bešlin forthcoming)
• (I) Root-conditioned allomorphy and (II) accent placement determined
in the first spellout domain, centered around the first-merged categorizer
→ Second-merged categorizer can’t ‘see’ the root and can’t realize its accent
→ This follows from a DM conception of cyclic domains
§3 Back to ‘deverbal’ agentive nouns...
• A general note about verbal structure in agentive nouns
• They pattern in (I) and (II) with root-derived nouns (one categorizer)
• An alternative analysis for ‘verbal’ morphemes (̸= verbal extended projection)
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 6 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Roadmap
§1 Some background on Distributed Morphology (DM), cyclic domains, the role of
categorizers, and allomorphy
§2 Data from root-derived* vs. deadjectival agent nominals (Bešlin forthcoming)
• (I) Root-conditioned allomorphy and (II) accent placement determined
in the first spellout domain, centered around the first-merged categorizer
→ Second-merged categorizer can’t ‘see’ the root and can’t realize its accent
→ This follows from a DM conception of cyclic domains
§3 Back to ‘deverbal’ agentive nouns...
• A general note about verbal structure in agentive nouns
• They pattern in (I) and (II) with root-derived nouns (one categorizer)
• An alternative analysis for ‘verbal’ morphemes (̸= verbal extended projection)
→ The morpheme av as a root (also Quaglia et al. 2022);
→ Theme vowels as morphemes that attach to (certain) roots more generally;
→ ‘Lexical prefixes’ observed in contexts in which a deverbal analysis is dubious
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 6 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Roadmap
§1 Some background on Distributed Morphology (DM), cyclic domains, the role of
categorizers, and allomorphy
§2 Data from root-derived* vs. deadjectival agent nominals (Bešlin forthcoming)
• (I) Root-conditioned allomorphy and (II) accent placement determined
in the first spellout domain, centered around the first-merged categorizer
→ Second-merged categorizer can’t ‘see’ the root and can’t realize its accent
→ This follows from a DM conception of cyclic domains
§3 Back to ‘deverbal’ agentive nouns...
• A general note about verbal structure in agentive nouns
• They pattern in (I) and (II) with root-derived nouns (one categorizer)
• An alternative analysis for ‘verbal’ morphemes (̸= verbal extended projection)
→ The morpheme av as a root (also Quaglia et al. 2022);
→ Theme vowels as morphemes that attach to (certain) roots more generally;
→ ‘Lexical prefixes’ observed in contexts in which a deverbal analysis is dubious
§4 Conclusions
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 6 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Theoretical background & assumptions
• DM is a piece-based, realizational approach to morphology
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 7 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Theoretical background & assumptions
• DM is a piece-based, realizational approach to morphology
• Words are built up syntactically out of (discrete) abstract morphemes which
receive form (and meaning) at the interfaces
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 7 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Theoretical background & assumptions
• DM is a piece-based, realizational approach to morphology
• Words are built up syntactically out of (discrete) abstract morphemes which
receive form (and meaning) at the interfaces
• Morphemes: roots and functional heads (including categorizers)
• The form (and meaning) of a morpheme may be contextually determined, (7)
• Allomorphs are in competition with each other (‘Elsewhere principle’)
(7) TP
T
[+past]
vP
v
∅
√
go
= went
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 7 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Theoretical background & assumptions
• Transfer to the interfaces happens cyclically, at certain points of the derivation
• Categorizers (v, n, a) are the relevant cyclic heads
(8) Schematization of cyclic domains (Embick 2014):
a. Cyclic y merged in [ y [ X [ Y [ x
√
root ... ]]]
b. Cyclic domain centered on x = [ X [ Y [ x
√
root ]]] sent to interfaces
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 8 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Theoretical background & assumptions
• Transfer to the interfaces happens cyclically, at certain points of the derivation
• Categorizers (v, n, a) are the relevant cyclic heads
(8) Schematization of cyclic domains (Embick 2014):
a. Cyclic y merged in [ y [ X [ Y [ x
√
root ... ]]]
b. Cyclic domain centered on x = [ X [ Y [ x
√
root ]]] sent to interfaces
→ Intended outcome: The root is accessible to the first cyclic head x and any
intervening non-cyclic heads (X, Y) (think go–went)
→
√
root and y cannot interact for the purposes of allomorph selection because
they are in separate spell-out domains
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 8 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Theoretical background & assumptions
• Cyclic spellout is thought to explain many patterns of (im)possible
morphophonological interactions, including (im)possible allomorphy
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 9 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Theoretical background & assumptions
• Cyclic spellout is thought to explain many patterns of (im)possible
morphophonological interactions, including (im)possible allomorphy
• The root-conditioned n-allomorphy in (9) compared to (10) is thought to arise
due to a structural difference: root-derived versus deverbal nouns
(9) marri-age, grow-th, remov-al, free-dom, divers-ity, strateg-y, . . .
(10) marry-ing, grow-ing, remov-ing, free-ing, divers-ify-ing, strateg-iz-ing,. . .
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 9 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Theoretical background & assumptions
• Cyclic spellout is thought to explain many patterns of (im)possible
morphophonological interactions, including (im)possible allomorphy
• The root-conditioned n-allomorphy in (9) compared to (10) is thought to arise
due to a structural difference: root-derived versus deverbal nouns
(9) marri-age, grow-th, remov-al, free-dom, divers-ity, strateg-y, . . .
(10) marry-ing, grow-ing, remov-ing, free-ing, divers-ify-ing, strateg-iz-ing,. . .
(11) a. nP
n
-age
√
marry
b. nP
n
-ing
vP
v
∅
√
marry
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 9 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Theoretical background & assumptions
• Cyclic spellout is thought to explain many patterns of (im)possible
morphophonological interactions, including (im)possible allomorphy
• The root-conditioned n-allomorphy in (9) compared to (10) is thought to arise
due to a structural difference: root-derived versus deverbal nouns
(9) marri-age, grow-th, remov-al, free-dom, divers-ity, strateg-y, . . .
(10) marry-ing, grow-ing, remov-ing, free-ing, divers-ify-ing, strateg-iz-ing,. . .
(11) a. nP
n
-age
√
marry
b. nP
n
-ing
vP
v
∅
√
marry
→ Categorization has the same effect on allomorphy and accent placement in BCS
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 9 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 10 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals
• I’ll demonstrate that BCS a is a cyclic head–it imposes a locality boundary for
morphophonological processes (Bešlin forthcoming):
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 10 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals
• I’ll demonstrate that BCS a is a cyclic head–it imposes a locality boundary for
morphophonological processes (Bešlin forthcoming):
→ Root-conditioned allomorphy
→ Accent placement
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 10 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals
• I’ll demonstrate that BCS a is a cyclic head–it imposes a locality boundary for
morphophonological processes (Bešlin forthcoming):
→ Root-conditioned allomorphy
→ Accent placement
• I’ll contrast the behavior of deadjectival and root-derived (agentive) nouns
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 10 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals
• I’ll demonstrate that BCS a is a cyclic head–it imposes a locality boundary for
morphophonological processes (Bešlin forthcoming):
→ Root-conditioned allomorphy
→ Accent placement
• I’ll contrast the behavior of deadjectival and root-derived (agentive) nouns
• In §3, we’ll see that ‘deverbal’ agentive nouns pattern with root-derived nouns
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 10 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals: Allomorphy
• Looking again at agent nominals, the broadly agentive n-suffixes in BCS are at
least -ar, -aš, -er, -(a)c, -ač, -ic(a), -ik, and -džij(a)
• Root-derived nouns (ROOT-n) may take any of the n-allomorphs on offer; the
choice of n is determined by the root (‘lexically-conditioned allomorphy’)
(12) a. kormil-ar ‘helmsman’
b. batin-aš ‘beater’
c. poz-er ‘poser’
d. pis-ac ‘writer’
e. voz-ač ‘driver’
f. izdaj-ica ‘traitor’
g. proza-ik ‘prose writer’
h. bureg-džija ‘börek maker’
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 11 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals: Allomorphy
• Looking again at agent nominals, the broadly agentive n-suffixes in BCS are at
least -ar, -aš, -er, -(a)c, -ač, -ic(a), -ik, and -džij(a)
• Root-derived nouns (ROOT-n) may take any of the n-allomorphs on offer; the
choice of n is determined by the root (‘lexically-conditioned allomorphy’)
(12) a. kormil-ar ‘helmsman’
b. batin-aš ‘beater’
c. poz-er ‘poser’
d. pis-ac ‘writer’
e. voz-ač ‘driver’
f. izdaj-ica ‘traitor’
g. proza-ik ‘prose writer’
h. bureg-džija ‘börek maker’
• NB: I clearly do not subscribe to the view that all agentive nouns contain verbal
structure, even if they seem to correspond to the external argument of a verb
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 11 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals: Allomorphy
• A root may determine the choice of n only if n is the first-merged categorizer
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 12 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals: Allomorphy
• A root may determine the choice of n only if n is the first-merged categorizer
• If a intervenes between the root and n (ROOT-a-n), the root can no longer
determine the form of n (13)-(16)
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 12 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals: Allomorphy
• A root may determine the choice of n only if n is the first-merged categorizer
• If a intervenes between the root and n (ROOT-a-n), the root can no longer
determine the form of n (13)-(16)
(13) a. prlj-av-ac ‘dirty one’
b. mrš-av-ac ‘skinny one’
c. mut-av-ac ‘mute one’
d. peg-av-ac ‘freckled one’
e. prg-av-ac ‘grumpy one’
f. hvalis-av-ac ‘boastful one’
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 12 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals: Allomorphy
• A root may determine the choice of n only if n is the first-merged categorizer
• If a intervenes between the root and n (ROOT-a-n), the root can no longer
determine the form of n (13)-(16)
(13) a. prlj-av-ac ‘dirty one’
b. mrš-av-ac ‘skinny one’
c. mut-av-ac ‘mute one’
d. peg-av-ac ‘freckled one’
e. prg-av-ac ‘grumpy one’
f. hvalis-av-ac ‘boastful one’
(14) a. plaš-ljiv-ac ‘scared one’
b. smrd-ljiv-ac ‘stinky one’
c. grab-ljiv-ac ‘predatory one’
d. povod-ljiv-ac ‘gullible one’
e. var-ljiv-ac ‘cheating one’
f. vaš-ljiv-ac ‘lousy one’
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 12 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals: Allomorphy
(15) a. hajduk-ov-ac ‘H. supporter’
b. dinam-ov-ac ‘D. supporter’
c. isus-ov-ac ‘Jesuit’
d. maček-ov-ac ‘Maček follower’
e. nobel-ov-ac ‘Nobel winner’
f. oskar-ov-ac ‘Oscar winner’
(16) a. smrt-n-ik ‘mortal one’
b. put-n-ik ‘traveler’
c. boles-n-ik ‘sick one’
d. bestid-n-ik ‘shameless one’
e. duž-n-ik ‘debtor’
f. gubit-n-ik ‘loser’
• Only a can now influence the form of n, which is uniform regardless of the root
in question (either due to a-conditioned allomorphy or elsewhere)
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 13 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals: Allomorphy
• The locality effect is best observed when the same root can produce both a
root-nominal and a deadjectival nominal (cf. *gubit-n-aš, *gubit-ik)
• Same root, same meaning, different nominalizer due to the presence of a
(17) a. gubit-aš
lose-n
‘loser’
b. gubit-n-ik
lose-a-n
‘loser’
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 14 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals: Allomorphy
• The locality effect is best observed when the same root can produce both a
root-nominal and a deadjectival nominal (cf. *gubit-n-aš, *gubit-ik)
• Same root, same meaning, different nominalizer due to the presence of a
(17) a. gubit-aš
lose-n
‘loser’
b. gubit-n-ik
lose-a-n
‘loser’
• Even though the root
√
gubit clearly picks out the nominalizer -aš, it can no
longer do so if an adjectivizer intervenes between the two
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 14 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals: Allomorphy
• The locality effect is best observed when the same root can produce both a
root-nominal and a deadjectival nominal (cf. *gubit-n-aš, *gubit-ik)
• Same root, same meaning, different nominalizer due to the presence of a
(17) a. gubit-aš
lose-n
‘loser’
b. gubit-n-ik
lose-a-n
‘loser’
• Even though the root
√
gubit clearly picks out the nominalizer -aš, it can no
longer do so if an adjectivizer intervenes between the two
• This can be accounted for if a and n are cyclic heads
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 14 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals: Allomorphy
• The locality effect is best observed when the same root can produce both a
root-nominal and a deadjectival nominal (cf. *gubit-n-aš, *gubit-ik)
• Same root, same meaning, different nominalizer due to the presence of a
(17) a. gubit-aš
lose-n
‘loser’
b. gubit-n-ik
lose-a-n
‘loser’
• Even though the root
√
gubit clearly picks out the nominalizer -aš, it can no
longer do so if an adjectivizer intervenes between the two
• This can be accounted for if a and n are cyclic heads
→ In a ROOT-a-n configuration, the root is spelled out when n is merged, hence
the root (qua morpheme) can no longer be identified when n undergoes VI
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 14 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals: Accent
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 15 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals: Accent
• Exponents of BCS morphemes are idiosyncratically (un)marked for accent*
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 15 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals: Accent
• Exponents of BCS morphemes are idiosyncratically (un)marked for accent*
• Bešlin (forthcoming): Pitch-prominence in BCS is realized on the structurally
highest accent-marked element in the first spellout domain
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 15 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals: Accent
• Exponents of BCS morphemes are idiosyncratically (un)marked for accent*
• Bešlin (forthcoming): Pitch-prominence in BCS is realized on the structurally
highest accent-marked element in the first spellout domain
• The nominalizer -(á)c is underlyingly accent-marked, but only realizes that
accent if it is in ROOT-n, not in e.g., ROOT-a-n
(18) a. pis → pis-ác
√
write ‘writer’
b. alžír → alžir-ác
algeria ‘Algerian(n)’
(19) a. pŕlj-av → pŕlj-av-ac
‘dirty’ ‘dirty one’
b. smrd-ljív → smrd-ljív-ac
‘stinky’ ‘stinky one’
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 15 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals: Accent
• If the extended projection of the first categorizer contains non-cyclic heads (e.g.,
deg, neg, dim) and their exponents are accented, the accent surfaces on them
(20) a. hlad-án
cold-a
‘cold’
b. né-hlad-an
neg-cold-a
‘non-cold’
c. NegP
Neg
né-
aP
a
-án
√
hlad
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 16 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals: Accent
• If the extended projection of the first categorizer contains non-cyclic heads (e.g.,
deg, neg, dim) and their exponents are accented, the accent surfaces on them
(20) a. hlad-án
cold-a
‘cold’
b. né-hlad-an
neg-cold-a
‘non-cold’
c. NegP
Neg
né-
aP
a
-án
√
hlad
• Accent placement is determined within the first spellout domain, as in (8)/(21)
(21) Schematization of cyclic domains (Embick 2014):
a. Cyclic y merged in [ y [ X [ Y [ x
√
root ... ]]]
b. Cyclic domain centered on x = [ X [ Y [ x
√
root ]]] sent to interfaces
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 16 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals: Accent
• Root-root compounds behave as expected; the accent placement is still ‘frozen’ in
the spellout domain of the first categorizer
(22) a. dub-o-rez-ác
deep-l-cut-n
‘woodcarver’
b. pad-o-bran-ác
fall-l-defend-n
‘parachuter’
c. led-o-lom-ác
ice-l-break-n
‘ice-breaker’
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 17 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Root-nominals vs. deadjectival nominals
Interim summary I:
Root-conditioned allomorphy and accent placement in BCS are limited to the first
spellout domain, including one categorizer
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 18 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
‘Deverbal’ nouns
§1 Some background on Distributed Morphology (DM), cyclic domains, the role of
categorizers, and allomorphy
§2 Data from root-derived* vs. deadjectival agent nominals (Bešlin forthcoming)
• (I) Root-conditioned allomorphy and (II) accent placement determined
in the first spellout domain, centered around the first-merged categorizer
→ Second-merged categorizer can’t ‘see’ the root and can’t realize its accent
→ This follows from a DM conception of cyclic domains
§3 Back to ‘deverbal’ agentive nouns...
• A general note about verbal structure in agentive nouns
• They pattern in (I) and (II) with root-derived nouns (one categorizer)
• An alternative analysis for ‘verbal’ morphemes (̸= verbal extended projection)
→ The morpheme av as a root (also Quaglia et al. 2022);
→ Theme vowels as morphemes that attach to (certain) roots more generally;
→ ‘Lexical prefixes’ observed in contexts in which a deverbal analysis is dubious
§4 Conclusions
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 19 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
A note on deriving meaning from syntax
• Any ‘syntax-first’ model of grammar predicts that syntactic operations can and
will have an effect at both interfaces
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 20 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
A note on deriving meaning from syntax
• Any ‘syntax-first’ model of grammar predicts that syntactic operations can and
will have an effect at both interfaces
• This does not mean that all semantics/phonology ‘comes from’ the syntax
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 20 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
A note on deriving meaning from syntax
• Any ‘syntax-first’ model of grammar predicts that syntactic operations can and
will have an effect at both interfaces
• This does not mean that all semantics/phonology ‘comes from’ the syntax
• For starters, there are syntactic operations that only have an effect on one
interface (Quantifier Raising, Agreement)
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 20 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
A note on deriving meaning from syntax
• Any ‘syntax-first’ model of grammar predicts that syntactic operations can and
will have an effect at both interfaces
• This does not mean that all semantics/phonology ‘comes from’ the syntax
• For starters, there are syntactic operations that only have an effect on one
interface (Quantifier Raising, Agreement)
• We also don’t think that phonological phenomena exist because of syntax, though
they can be constrained by it
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 20 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
A note on deriving meaning from syntax
• Any ‘syntax-first’ model of grammar predicts that syntactic operations can and
will have an effect at both interfaces
• This does not mean that all semantics/phonology ‘comes from’ the syntax
• For starters, there are syntactic operations that only have an effect on one
interface (Quantifier Raising, Agreement)
• We also don’t think that phonological phenomena exist because of syntax, though
they can be constrained by it
• So why should we think that meaning differences necessarily arise from
differences in syntactic structure?
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 20 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Agentive noun ̸= verbal structure
• Originally, eventive (episodic) interpretation = complement structure = verbal
syntax (23a) (e.g., Alexiadou 2001), but cf. (23b-c)
(23) a. a frequent consumer *(of tobacco)
b. a frequent visitor
c. a frequent subject *(of Monet’s paintings)
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 21 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Agentive noun ̸= verbal structure
• Originally, eventive (episodic) interpretation = complement structure = verbal
syntax (23a) (e.g., Alexiadou 2001), but cf. (23b-c)
(23) a. a frequent consumer *(of tobacco)
b. a frequent visitor
c. a frequent subject *(of Monet’s paintings)
• Then, Alexiadou & Schäfer 2010 propose that both episodic and dispositional
agent nominals have an articulated verbal structure, including v, Voice, and Asp
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 21 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Agentive noun ̸= verbal structure
• Originally, eventive (episodic) interpretation = complement structure = verbal
syntax (23a) (e.g., Alexiadou 2001), but cf. (23b-c)
(23) a. a frequent consumer *(of tobacco)
b. a frequent visitor
c. a frequent subject *(of Monet’s paintings)
• Then, Alexiadou & Schäfer 2010 propose that both episodic and dispositional
agent nominals have an articulated verbal structure, including v, Voice, and Asp
• Why no accusative case on complements or adverbial modification?
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 21 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Agentive noun ̸= verbal structure
• Originally, eventive (episodic) interpretation = complement structure = verbal
syntax (23a) (e.g., Alexiadou 2001), but cf. (23b-c)
(23) a. a frequent consumer *(of tobacco)
b. a frequent visitor
c. a frequent subject *(of Monet’s paintings)
• Then, Alexiadou & Schäfer 2010 propose that both episodic and dispositional
agent nominals have an articulated verbal structure, including v, Voice, and Asp
• Why no accusative case on complements or adverbial modification?
• Completely divorced from the syntax, accounting for the fact that the -er
nominals denote the (external) argument of the corresponding verb
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 21 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Agentive noun ̸= verbal structure
• Originally, eventive (episodic) interpretation = complement structure = verbal
syntax (23a) (e.g., Alexiadou 2001), but cf. (23b-c)
(23) a. a frequent consumer *(of tobacco)
b. a frequent visitor
c. a frequent subject *(of Monet’s paintings)
• Then, Alexiadou & Schäfer 2010 propose that both episodic and dispositional
agent nominals have an articulated verbal structure, including v, Voice, and Asp
• Why no accusative case on complements or adverbial modification?
• Completely divorced from the syntax, accounting for the fact that the -er
nominals denote the (external) argument of the corresponding verb
• But we know agent entailments ̸= Voice, cf. hastily in (24)
(24) The rock rolled down the hill quickly/#hastily.
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 21 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Agentive noun ̸= verbal structure
• Moreover, if painter needs Voice, does thief too?
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 22 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Agentive noun ̸= verbal structure
• Moreover, if painter needs Voice, does thief too?
• Event entailments also don’t implicate the presence of v; cf. (25a)/(25b-c), (26)
(25) a. a beautiful dancer
b. a beautiful violinist
c. an elegant midfielder
(26) a. a just ruler
b. a just king
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 22 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Agentive noun ̸= verbal structure
• Moreover, if painter needs Voice, does thief too?
• Event entailments also don’t implicate the presence of v; cf. (25a)/(25b-c), (26)
(25) a. a beautiful dancer
b. a beautiful violinist
c. an elegant midfielder
(26) a. a just ruler
b. a just king
• At the broadest level, entailments ̸= the presence of hidden structure
(27) a. an illegitimate blond child
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 22 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
‘Deverbal’ nouns: Allomorphy
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 23 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
‘Deverbal’ nouns: Allomorphy
• As we saw in the beginning, there are different n-allomorphs in ‘deverbal’ nouns
(28) a. pozn-av-a-telj
know-av-th-n
‘expert’
b. prouč-av-a-telj
study-av-th-n
‘researcher’
c. reš-av-a-telj
solve-av-th-n
‘solver’
(29) a. predsed-av-a-ač
chair-av-th-n
‘chair’
b. pred-av-a-ač
lecture-av-th-n
‘lecturer’
c. ugnjet-av-a-ač
oppress-av-th-n
‘oppressor’
(30) a. prod-av-a-ac
sell-av-th-n
‘seller’
b. dar-o-d-av-a-ac
gift-l-give-av-th-n
‘giftgiver’
c. posl-o-d-av-a-ac
job-l-give-av-th-n
‘employer’
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 23 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
‘Deverbal’ nouns: Allomorphy
• As we saw in the beginning, there are different n-allomorphs in ‘deverbal’ nouns
(28) a. pozn-av-a-telj
know-av-th-n
‘expert’
b. prouč-av-a-telj
study-av-th-n
‘researcher’
c. reš-av-a-telj
solve-av-th-n
‘solver’
(29) a. predsed-av-a-ač
chair-av-th-n
‘chair’
b. pred-av-a-ač
lecture-av-th-n
‘lecturer’
c. ugnjet-av-a-ač
oppress-av-th-n
‘oppressor’
(30) a. prod-av-a-ac
sell-av-th-n
‘seller’
b. dar-o-d-av-a-ac
gift-l-give-av-th-n
‘giftgiver’
c. posl-o-d-av-a-ac
job-l-give-av-th-n
‘employer’
→ The material in intervening between the root and n is the same
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 23 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
‘Deverbal’ nouns: Allomorphy
• As we saw in the beginning, there are different n-allomorphs in ‘deverbal’ nouns
(28) a. pozn-av-a-telj
know-av-th-n
‘expert’
b. prouč-av-a-telj
study-av-th-n
‘researcher’
c. reš-av-a-telj
solve-av-th-n
‘solver’
(29) a. predsed-av-a-ač
chair-av-th-n
‘chair’
b. pred-av-a-ač
lecture-av-th-n
‘lecturer’
c. ugnjet-av-a-ač
oppress-av-th-n
‘oppressor’
(30) a. prod-av-a-ac
sell-av-th-n
‘seller’
b. dar-o-d-av-a-ac
gift-l-give-av-th-n
‘giftgiver’
c. posl-o-d-av-a-ac
job-l-give-av-th-n
‘employer’
→ The material in intervening between the root and n is the same
→ No syntactic difference correlates with different ns (e.g., argument structure)
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 23 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
‘Deverbal’ nouns: Allomorphy
• As we saw in the beginning, there are different n-allomorphs in ‘deverbal’ nouns
(28) a. pozn-av-a-telj
know-av-th-n
‘expert’
b. prouč-av-a-telj
study-av-th-n
‘researcher’
c. reš-av-a-telj
solve-av-th-n
‘solver’
(29) a. predsed-av-a-ač
chair-av-th-n
‘chair’
b. pred-av-a-ač
lecture-av-th-n
‘lecturer’
c. ugnjet-av-a-ač
oppress-av-th-n
‘oppressor’
(30) a. prod-av-a-ac
sell-av-th-n
‘seller’
b. dar-o-d-av-a-ac
gift-l-give-av-th-n
‘giftgiver’
c. posl-o-d-av-a-ac
job-l-give-av-th-n
‘employer’
→ The material in intervening between the root and n is the same
→ No syntactic difference correlates with different ns (e.g., argument structure)
→ No semantic or phonological factors that condition the allomorphy
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 23 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
‘Deverbal’ nouns: Allomorphy
• As we saw in the beginning, there are different n-allomorphs in ‘deverbal’ nouns
(28) a. pozn-av-a-telj
know-av-th-n
‘expert’
b. prouč-av-a-telj
study-av-th-n
‘researcher’
c. reš-av-a-telj
solve-av-th-n
‘solver’
(29) a. predsed-av-a-ač
chair-av-th-n
‘chair’
b. pred-av-a-ač
lecture-av-th-n
‘lecturer’
c. ugnjet-av-a-ač
oppress-av-th-n
‘oppressor’
(30) a. prod-av-a-ac
sell-av-th-n
‘seller’
b. dar-o-d-av-a-ac
gift-l-give-av-th-n
‘giftgiver’
c. posl-o-d-av-a-ac
job-l-give-av-th-n
‘employer’
→ The material in intervening between the root and n is the same
→ No syntactic difference correlates with different ns (e.g., argument structure)
→ No semantic or phonological factors that condition the allomorphy
⋆ Allomorphy of n in (28)-(30) is lexically conditioned by the root
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 23 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
‘Deverbal’ nouns: Accent
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 24 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
‘Deverbal’ nouns: Accent
• As we also saw in the beginning, accent in our ‘deverbal’ nouns can surface on
n-exponents that underlyingly have it (-áč and -ác):
(31) a. pozn-av-á-telj
know-av-th-n
‘expert’
b. prouč-av-á-telj
study-av-th-n
‘researcher’
c. reš-av-á-telj
solve-av-th-n
‘solver’
(32) a. predsed-av-a-áč
chair-av-th-n
‘chair’
b. pred-av-a-áč
lecture-av-th-n
‘lecturer’
c. ugnjet-av-a-áč
oppress-av-th-n
‘oppressor’
(33) a. prod-av-a-ác
sell-av-th-n
‘seller’
b. dar-o-d-av-a-ác
gift-l-give-av-th-n
‘giftgiver’
c. posl-o-d-av-a-ác
job-l-give-av-th-n
‘employer’
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 24 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
‘Deverbal’ nouns: Accent
• As we also saw in the beginning, accent in our ‘deverbal’ nouns can surface on
n-exponents that underlyingly have it (-áč and -ác):
(31) a. pozn-av-á-telj
know-av-th-n
‘expert’
b. prouč-av-á-telj
study-av-th-n
‘researcher’
c. reš-av-á-telj
solve-av-th-n
‘solver’
(32) a. predsed-av-a-áč
chair-av-th-n
‘chair’
b. pred-av-a-áč
lecture-av-th-n
‘lecturer’
c. ugnjet-av-a-áč
oppress-av-th-n
‘oppressor’
(33) a. prod-av-a-ác
sell-av-th-n
‘seller’
b. dar-o-d-av-a-ác
gift-l-give-av-th-n
‘giftgiver’
c. posl-o-d-av-a-ác
job-l-give-av-th-n
‘employer’
• Recall, accent can only surface in the first spellout domain (one categorizer)
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 24 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
‘Deverbal’ nouns
Interim summary II:
Allomorphy and accent placement patterns suggest that the n in BCS ‘deverbal’
agentive nouns is the first-merged categorizer.
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 25 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
‘Deverbal’ nouns
Interim summary II:
Allomorphy and accent placement patterns suggest that the n in BCS ‘deverbal’
agentive nouns is the first-merged categorizer.
Corollary:
‘Verbal’ morphology inside these agentive nouns is not verbal.
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 25 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
What of the ‘verbal’ morphology, then? The status of av
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 26 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
What of the ‘verbal’ morphology, then? The status of av
• The morphemes exponed by -av and -iv appear in so-called secondary
imperfective verbs and signal a shift in aspect (34)-(35)
(34) a. prouč-i-ti
study-th-inf
‘research’
b. prouč-av-a-ti
study-av-th-inf
‘be researching’
(35) a. zatašk-a-ti
coverup-th-inf
‘cover up’
b. zatašk-iv-a-ti
coverup-iv-th-inf
‘be covering up’
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 26 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
What of the ‘verbal’ morphology, then? The status of av
• The morphemes exponed by -av and -iv appear in so-called secondary
imperfective verbs and signal a shift in aspect (34)-(35)
(34) a. prouč-i-ti
study-th-inf
‘research’
b. prouč-av-a-ti
study-av-th-inf
‘be researching’
(35) a. zatašk-a-ti
coverup-th-inf
‘cover up’
b. zatašk-iv-a-ti
coverup-iv-th-inf
‘be covering up’
• They also appear in some agent nominals; same meaning in (36a-b) vs. (36c-d)
(36) a. prouč-av-a-telj
study-av-th-n
‘researcher’
b. zatašk-iv-a-ač
coverup-iv-th-n
‘cover up agent’
c. uruč-i-telj
serve-th-n
‘process server’
d. istovar-a-ač
unload-th-n
‘unloader’
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 26 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
What of the ‘verbal’ morphology, then? The status of av
• They can appear in the context of so-called verbs of creation
(cf. Kratzer 2000, Embick 2004)
(37) 3D
3D
štampač
printer
je
is
pokvaren
broken
pa
so
je
is
maketa
model
izašla
came_out
iz-u-ništ-av-a-n-a
sp-lp-destroy-av-th-ptcp-f.sg
/ is-pre-sav-ij-a-n-a.
sp-lp-bend-ij-th-ptcp-f.sg
‘The 3D printer is broken so the model came out destroyed/crumpled.’
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 27 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
What of the ‘verbal’ morphology, then? The status of av
• They can appear in the context of so-called verbs of creation
(cf. Kratzer 2000, Embick 2004)
(37) 3D
3D
štampač
printer
je
is
pokvaren
broken
pa
so
je
is
maketa
model
izašla
came_out
iz-u-ništ-av-a-n-a
sp-lp-destroy-av-th-ptcp-f.sg
/ is-pre-sav-ij-a-n-a.
sp-lp-bend-ij-th-ptcp-f.sg
‘The 3D printer is broken so the model came out destroyed/crumpled.’
• Quaglia et al. (2022): They also appear in the derivation of (seemingly) simple
nouns and adjectives–they are bound roots
(38) a. ruk-av-∅
arm-av-n.m.sg.nom
‘sleeve’
b. bles-av-∅
silly-av-a.m.sg.nom
‘silly’
c. maz-iv-o
daub-iv-n.neut.sg.nom
‘grease’
d. jez-iv-o
shudder-iv-a.neut.sg.nom
‘creepy’
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 27 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
What of the ‘verbal’ morphology, then? The status of av
Status of av
I tentatively conclude with Quaglia et al. (2022) that av is a root.
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 28 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
What of the ‘verbal’ morphology, then? The status of th
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 29 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
What of the ‘verbal’ morphology, then? The status of th
• Theme vowels (ths) do not seem to be a uniquely verbal phenomenon
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 29 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
What of the ‘verbal’ morphology, then? The status of th
• Theme vowels (ths) do not seem to be a uniquely verbal phenomenon
• Slavic nouns have also been claimed to have theme vowels
(Halle 1994, Bailyn & Nevins 2008, Halle & Nevins 2009, a.o.)
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 29 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
What of the ‘verbal’ morphology, then? The status of th
• Theme vowels (ths) do not seem to be a uniquely verbal phenomenon
• Slavic nouns have also been claimed to have theme vowels
(Halle 1994, Bailyn & Nevins 2008, Halle & Nevins 2009, a.o.)
• Slavic adjectives have been claimed to share the ths of nouns
(Halle & Matushansky 2006)
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 29 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
What of the ‘verbal’ morphology, then? The status of th
• Theme vowels (ths) do not seem to be a uniquely verbal phenomenon
• Slavic nouns have also been claimed to have theme vowels
(Halle 1994, Bailyn & Nevins 2008, Halle & Nevins 2009, a.o.)
• Slavic adjectives have been claimed to share the ths of nouns
(Halle & Matushansky 2006)
If all major word classes have ths, ths could then equally well be attributed to
roots, as in (39) (with contextual allomorphy able to work in the familiar way)
(39) a. root-th-n
b. root-th-a
c. root-th-v
d. root-th-root
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 29 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
What of the ‘verbal’ morphology, then? The status of th
• Theme vowels (ths) do not seem to be a uniquely verbal phenomenon
• Slavic nouns have also been claimed to have theme vowels
(Halle 1994, Bailyn & Nevins 2008, Halle & Nevins 2009, a.o.)
• Slavic adjectives have been claimed to share the ths of nouns
(Halle & Matushansky 2006)
If all major word classes have ths, ths could then equally well be attributed to
roots, as in (39) (with contextual allomorphy able to work in the familiar way)
(39) a. root-th-n
b. root-th-a
c. root-th-v
d. root-th-root
→ If this is correct, then the appearance of a th does not necessarily indicate the
presence of a verbal categorizing morpheme
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 29 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
What of the ‘verbal’ morphology, then? The status of lps
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 30 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
What of the ‘verbal’ morphology, then? The status of lps
• Is the decomposition always synchronic? Experimental work needed:
(40) a. d-a-ti
give-th-inf
‘give’
b. pro-d-a-ti
lp?-give-th-inf
‘sell’
c. pro-d-a-av-ac
lp?-give-th-av-n
‘seller’
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 30 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
What of the ‘verbal’ morphology, then? The status of lps
• Is the decomposition always synchronic? Experimental work needed:
(40) a. d-a-ti
give-th-inf
‘give’
b. pro-d-a-ti
lp?-give-th-inf
‘sell’
c. pro-d-a-av-ac
lp?-give-th-av-n
‘seller’
• Lps appear in all sorts of words for which a deverbal analysis is dubious (41)
(41) a. na-uč-i-ti
lp?-study-th-inf
‘learn/teach’
b. na-uk-a
lp?-learn-n.nom.sg
‘science’
c. na-uk-∅
lp?-learn-n.nom.sg
‘lesson’
→ Also pred-stava ‘play’, pre-preka ‘barrier’, o-stava ‘pantry’, iz-reka ‘proverb’, etc.
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 30 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Wrapping up
• I argued, based on data from root-n vs. root-a-n, that root-conditioned
allomorphy and accent placement are limited to the first spellout domain
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 31 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Wrapping up
• I argued, based on data from root-n vs. root-a-n, that root-conditioned
allomorphy and accent placement are limited to the first spellout domain
• The first spellout domain may include multiple morphemes (roots,
non-categorizing morphemes), but only one categorizer
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 31 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Wrapping up
• I argued, based on data from root-n vs. root-a-n, that root-conditioned
allomorphy and accent placement are limited to the first spellout domain
• The first spellout domain may include multiple morphemes (roots,
non-categorizing morphemes), but only one categorizer
• I showed that ‘deverbal’ agentive nouns containing morphology analyzed as
verbal behave for these morphophonological processes like root-derived nouns
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 31 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Wrapping up
• I argued, based on data from root-n vs. root-a-n, that root-conditioned
allomorphy and accent placement are limited to the first spellout domain
• The first spellout domain may include multiple morphemes (roots,
non-categorizing morphemes), but only one categorizer
• I showed that ‘deverbal’ agentive nouns containing morphology analyzed as
verbal behave for these morphophonological processes like root-derived nouns
• No syntactic evidence for verbal structure in agentive nouns; event/agent
entailments do not provide evidence either
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 31 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
Wrapping up
• I argued, based on data from root-n vs. root-a-n, that root-conditioned
allomorphy and accent placement are limited to the first spellout domain
• The first spellout domain may include multiple morphemes (roots,
non-categorizing morphemes), but only one categorizer
• I showed that ‘deverbal’ agentive nouns containing morphology analyzed as
verbal behave for these morphophonological processes like root-derived nouns
• No syntactic evidence for verbal structure in agentive nouns; event/agent
entailments do not provide evidence either
• I argued that av should be analyzed as a root, and suggested that ths and lps
may not necessarily signal the presence of verbal structure either
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 31 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
• I’m grateful to Masha Polinsky, Dave Embick, Tanja Milićev, Norbert Hornstein, Alex
Chabot, Bill Idsardi, Heather Newell, Tobias Scheer, Hannah Sande, Jim Wood, the
audience at NELS 55, & the participants of Yale’s Syntax Reading Group and UMD’s
S-lab for valuable discussion and feedback on various aspects of this work.
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 32 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
• I’m grateful to Masha Polinsky, Dave Embick, Tanja Milićev, Norbert Hornstein, Alex
Chabot, Bill Idsardi, Heather Newell, Tobias Scheer, Hannah Sande, Jim Wood, the
audience at NELS 55, & the participants of Yale’s Syntax Reading Group and UMD’s
S-lab for valuable discussion and feedback on various aspects of this work.
Thank you!
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 32 / 33
Introduction Deadjectival Ns Deverbal Ns Conclusions References Appendix
References
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional structure in nominals: Nominalization and ergativity.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Alexiadou, Artemis & Florian Schäfer. 2010. On the syntax of episodic vs. dispositional -er nominals,
9–39. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Bailyn, John & Andrew Nevins. 2008. Russian genitive plurals are impostors. In A. Bachrach &
A. Nevins (eds.), Inflectional identity, 237–270. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bešlin, Maša. forthcoming. Lexical categories, (re)categorization, and locality in morphosyntax:
University of Maryland dissertation.
Embick, David. 2004. On the Structure of Resultative Participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3).
355–392.
Embick, David. 2014. Phase cycles, φ-cycles, and phonological (in)activity. In S. Bendjaballah,
M. Lahrouchi, N. Faust & N. Lampitelli (eds.), The Form of Structure, the Structure of Form,
270–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Halle, Morris. 1994. The Russian declension. In J. Cole & C. Kisserberth (eds.), Perspectives in
phonology, 29–60. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Halle, Morris. 1997. On stress and accent in Indo-European. Language 73. 275–313.
Halle, Morris & Ora Matushansky. 2006. The morphophonology of Russian adjectival inflection.
Linguistic inquiry 37(3). 351–404.
Halle, Morris & Andrew Nevins. 2009. Rule application in phonology. In E. Raimy & C. E. Cairns
(eds.), Contemporary Views on Architecture and Representations in Phonology, 355–383.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. Building Statives. In L. J. Conathan, J. Good, D. Kavitskaya, A. Wulf &
A. Yu (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 385–399.
University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Quaglia, Stefano, Marko Simonović, Svitlana Antonyuk Yudina & Boban Arsenijević. 2022.
Allomorphy, morphological operations and the order of slavic verb-prefixes. Journal of Slavic
linguistics 30(3). 1–15.
FDSL 17, Brno Bešlin, November 2024 33 / 33
Appendix A: Post-accenting elements
• There is a group of examples that form a systematic exception to the accent
generalizations made here–so-called “post-accenting” elements (Halle 1997)
• Have an underlying accent, but realize it on the syllable following them
• Assuming the existence of such elements allows us to avoid having a list of pairs
of suffixes that are segmentally identical and only differ in presence/absence of
accent (uniform for two kinds of roots); root in (a)-(g) is post-accenting
(42) a. loz-á ‘grape-n.nom.sg.f’
b. loz-é ‘grape-n.gen.sg.fem’
c. loz-í ‘grape-n.dat.sg.f’
d. loz-ú ‘grape-n.acc.sg.f’
e. loz-óm ‘grape-n.inst.sg.f’
f. loz-í.ca ‘grape-n.dim-f’
g. loz-óv ‘grape-a.poss’
h. dúnj-a ‘quince-n.nom.sg.f’
i. dúnj-e ‘quince-n.gen.sg.f’
j. dúnj-i ‘quince-n.dat.sg.f’
k. dúnj-u ‘quince-n.acc.sg.f’
l. dúnj-om ‘quince-n.inst.sg.f’
m. dúnj-ic-a ‘quince-n.dim-f’
n. dúnj-ev ‘quince-a.poss