Inflectional defectiveness by Andrea D. Sims (review)

Abstract

The Russian verb pobedit’ ‘conquer’ shows what Sims calls canonical defectiveness, “the complete lack of any word-form filling a given paradigm cell [...] in the context of a maximal expectation that there should be some form corresponding to that cell” (250). That cell is the first-person singular nonpast, in which *pobežu is bad and so are *pobedju and *pobeždu. In this wide-ranging study she cites data from two dozen languages and employs a variety of tools like statistical analysis and information theory in order to provide a context for understanding the defectiveness of pobedit’. Introductory chapter 1 poses the question: Are paradigm gaps random anomalies, epiphenomena, or normal morphological objects? They are anomalies when they are generated by the regular rules of inflection but then must be specified [–lexical insertion] to prevent their occurring in a sentence. They are epiphenomenal when they reflect morphological rule competition, such as the competition between the Russian reflex of /dj/ (in *pobežu) and the Church Slavic reflex (in *pobeždu). The epiphenomena explanation could have been pursued further. The same competition between Russian ž and Church Slavic žd is seen in the nonoccurring imperfective *pobeživat’ and the standard imperfective pobeždat’, which shows that the Church Slavic reflex, although acceptable in derivation, is not acceptable in inflection (or no longer acceptable: Pushkin had straždut as the 3pl. of stradat’ ‘suffer’, but it has been replaced by stradajut). Sims rejects these two options and throughout the book repeatedly argues that such gaps are “normal morphological objects” (209) and that inflectional defectiveness is “a systemic variant of normal inflectional structure” (11). In chapter 2 Sims defines inflectional defectiveness and evaluates candidates for it. In the Yimas sentence taŋatpul ‘You didn’t hit me’, the absence of ma ‘you’ is not a gap because the sentence is well formed and interpreted as having a second-person singular subject. (“This is thus an example of zero expression of the nominative, which is not to be confused with lack of expression” [32]) “Inasmuch as [taŋatpul] is a well-formed sentence and the ineffability requirement of the definition is thus not met, this does” [surely the author