What explains lexical impenetrability?
Pavel Caha
Masaryk University (Brno)
Linguistic Flashmob 18 February 2021
The lexicalist hypothesis
2/14
e lexicalist hypothesis
Bruening (2018): Lexicalist hypothesis: both wrong and superfluous
2/14
RSG as a potential case of lexical impentrability
i . i ■ i i *■}
\KJ\ c jU Uj La I I LI vc  LllCUiy [JUOOlUIC.
□       g        - =
Bobaljik (2012: 67)
(1)     The Root Suppletion Generalization (RSG)
Root suppletion is limited to synthetic (i.e., morphological) comparatives.
□ s
Bobaljik (2012: 67)
(1) The Root Suppletion Generalization (RSG)
Root suppletion is limited to synthetic (i.e., morphological) comparatives.
(2) a.    good — bett-er
b. *good — more bett
□    ifp     - =
Bobaljik (2012: 67)
(1) The Root Suppletion Generalization (RSG)
Root suppletion is limited to synthetic (i.e., morphological) comparatives.
(2) a.    good — bett-er
b. *good — more bett
(3) a.    good o good
b.    good o bett- J _ ] cmpr
□    ifp    - =
Bobaljik (2012: 67)
(1)     The Root Suppletion Generalization (RSG)
Root suppletion is limited to synthetic (i.e., morphological) comparatives.
(2)	a.	good — bett-er
	b.	*good — more bett
(3)	a.	good o good
	b.	good o bett- J _ ] cmpr
(4)	a.	a ... ]X° ... P
	b.	*a ... ]XP ... p
□       g        - =
Moskal (2013)
With respect to nouns, languages can display suppletion for number (#). [...] Curiously, though, root suppletion of nouns in the context of case (K) seems to be largely unattested.
□    g     - =
Moskal (2013)
(5) With respect to nouns, languages can display suppletion for number (#). [...] Curiously, though, root suppletion of nouns in the context of case (K) seems to be largely unattested.
(6) [C]ertain nodes in the structure function as domain delimiters and morphological processes are confined to operate within domains. In syntax, cyclic domains are implemented as phases [...] In morphology, domain delimiters are category heads [i.e., little n]
5/14
phase
3        2 = category
2 1
6/14
a more substantive theory possible?
7/14
Caha et al. 2019
(7) Czech
a.    slab-y      — slab -s -\ weak-agr     weak -cmpr -agr
□ a
Caha et al. 2019
(7) Czech
a. slab-y      — slab -s -f weak-agr     weak -cmpr -agr
b. chab-y     — chab -ej-s -f faint-agr - fain -cmpr -agr
8/14
Caha et al. 2019
(7) Czech
a. slab-y      — slab -s -f weak-agr     weak -cmpr -agr
b. chab-y     — chab -ej-s -f faint-agr - fain -cmpr -agr
C2P
chab
□    ifp     - =
Caha et al. 2019
(7) Czech
a. slab-y      — slab -s -f weak-agr     weak -cmpr -agr
b. chab-y     — chab -ej-s -f faint-agr - fain -cmpr -agr
C2P
slab
C2P
B
□        [fp - =
C2P
*B
9/14
pos cmpr
dobr-ý	lep-š-í	'good'
špatn-ý	hor-š-í	'bad'
mal-ý	men-š-í	'small'
velk-ý	vet-s-i	'big'
dlouh-ý	del-š-í	'long'
10/14
POS	CMPR	
dobr-ý	lep-š-í	'good'
špatn-ý	hor-š-í	'bad'
mal-ý	men-š-í	'small'
velk-ý	vet-s-i	'big'
dlouh-ý	del-š-í	'long'
(8)
dobr -ý good -AGR *lep -ej-s -i
bett -CMPR -AGR
□    g    - =
10/14
(9)     a.    good — bett-er
11/14
(9)     a.    good — bett-er
b.    intelligent — mo-re intelligent
11/14
(9)     a.    good — bett-er
b. intelligent — mo-re intelligent
c. *good — mo-re bett
11/14
(9)     a.    good — bett-er
b. intelligent — mo-re intelligent
c. *good — mo-re bett
► One can capture the lack of suppletion in (9c) without smuggling 'words' via back door.
□ s
Conclusions
12/14
What explains lexical impenetrability?
13/14
What explains lexical impenetrability?
► ... ideally something that does not amount to drawing a red circle around a particular constituent.
13/14
References
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2018. The lexicalist hypothesis: both wrong and superfluous. Language 94(1). 1-42.
Caha, Pavel, Karen De Clercq & Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 2019. The fine structure of the comparative. Studia Linguistica 73(3) 470-521. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.l2107.
Moskal, Beata. 2013. A case study in nominal suppletion. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Williams, Edwin. 2007. Dumping lexicalism. In Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces. 353-382. Oxford: Oxford University Press.