Prosodic reflexes of categorial

relations in Serbo-Croatian
nominalizations
Boban Arsenijević, University of Niš

RTANJ, Rtanj, July 6-9 2017

1
Plan of the talk
• Introduce the relevant background in morphophonology.
• Give an overview of Serbo-Croatian (S-C) nominalization suffixes.
• Argue that suffixes themselves are not prosodically specified, but that
all the prosodic effects are exclusively structural.
• Test and confirm predictions of the modified view.
• Draw consequences for the semantic ontology of nominalizations.

2
Derivational suffixes in S-C
• Rakić (1992) recognizes prosodic classes 1-3. of derivational
(nominalizing) suffixes in S-C, and there is also the one in 4:
1. Accented: šećeHr + anaH  šećeranaH
sugar sugar-factory
2. Accent-erasing: zaveežiH + aj  zàvežljaj
tie bundle
3. Neutral: meštaHn + ka  meštaHnka
townsman townswoman
4. On another suffix: učeH + it + elj  učiHtelj
teach teacher

3
Serbo-Croatian nominalizing suffixes
• Four classes by the prosodic effects, and their properties:
Class I Class II Class III Class IV
lexical prosody of accented suffix accent on another default prosody
prosody
the base suffix
selects N bases and roots any category / root any category non-N bases
female; hyponym of wide variety event participant; eventuality;
meaning
a feminine noun bearer of property property
double behavior exclusively this class with class III with class II exclusively this class
size of the class ~three more than fifteen more than fifteen ~five
direHktor + ka  stan + aar  gled + al + ac  izdaj + a 
examples direHktorka stanaaHr gledaHlac ìzdaja
’director’’she-dir.’ ’flat’  ’inhabitant’ ’watch’  ’observer’ ’betray’  ’betrayal’

4
Questions
• Are the properties of each class interrelated?

• Can some of them be derived from others? How far can we go?

• I argue that indeed all these properties are interrelated and can be
derived from:
a) the structural configuration in combination with
b) the feature specification of the suffix,
c) without resorting to prosodic specification of suffixes.

5
Prosody and morphological derivation
• Three types of affixes: accented, neutral and accent-erasing (Chomsky
& Halle 1968, Kiparsky 1982 a.o).

(1) a. Accented (attracting) b. Neutral

prodUctive  productIv-ity prodUctive  prodUctiveness

c. Accent-erasing
bravuuHra + oozan  bràvuroozan S-C
bravUra brAvurous

6
Headmost accent wins
• Revithiadou (1999): principle of prosodic compositionality:
„The prosody of a complex form is a function of the prosodies of its
parts and of the morphological rules by which they are combined.“

• When two morphemes combine which both bear a lexical prosodic

specification (e.g. a lexically specified base and an accented suffix), or
when none does, the one that plays the role of a head surfaces with
prosodic prominence – it bears tone and/or stress.
• An affix is a head if it imposes its own formal features, instead of or
modifying the counterparts on the base (gender, argum. structure).

7
Cyclic computations
• Marvin (1999): lexical structure proceeds by phase.
• Out of two items of equal prosodic prominence, the head wins; out of
two heads – the one in the higher phase (i.e. cycle of computation).
ActP
nP
-ec nP
PassP -al
[n]i -ec
[n] gled
[Pass]u -an pit u
[n]i
[voice:Act]i ’watch’
[Pass]i ’feed’ [voice:Act]u
pìt_an_ec gled_ àl_ec
8
Lexical prosody of Serbo-Croatian
• Zec (1990), building on previous phonological descriptions: S-C lexical
items either bear a high tone specified on exactly one syllable, or are
unspecified in the lexicon.
• In phonology, the high tone spreads to the left-adjacent syllable, and
the stress goes to the leftmost high tone (H) syllable.
• When lexical items are unspecified, phonology assigns them the
default, post-lexical pattern: stress and H on the first syllable.
(2) Lexicon Phonology
Lexical: kafanaH  kafàHnaH ’tavern’
Postlexical: zapoveed  zàHpoveed ’order’

9
Traditional view of headedness
• The lexical category of the derived word is one of the main criteria for
headedness: if a suffix determines it, it is the morphological head.
• This gives the right opposition in the clearcut cases between
derivation and inflection, but leaves certain patterns traditionally
seen as derivation unaccounted for.
(3) a. Derivation (nominalization): b. Inflection:
n (+ functional features) functional features

[F] [F]
n base n …

10
Neutral suffixes
• Neutral suffixes traditionally treated as prosodically weak heads.
• S-C suffix -kinja derives feminine counterparts of human-denoting
masculine/neuter nouns.
• Gender is arguably specified on n (Kramer 2009, 2013).

(4) psiholoHg + kinja  psiholoHškinja nP

psychologist [G:F] she-psychologist
kinja
[G:F] [n] psiholog

11
Neutral suffixes are non-heads
• Suffixes N-kinja (female N) and /N-ka (female N, a related object
with a feminine hyperonym), both feminine.
(5) rob + kinja  ropkinja mašin + ka  mašinka (puška)
slave she-slave machine machine-gun (rifle.F)
• These suffixes do not carry the n category, but only a valued gender
feature: they do not themselves change the semantic type or add a
lexical semantic restriction.
• They only effect a change in gender on an already existing n to the
marked value (from N=Ø or M=[GEN] to F=[GEN:F], Arsenijević 2016).

12
Structural position of neutral suffixes
• Neutral nominalizing suffixes are derived either in SpecnP, or head-
adjoined to no (conflation, e.g. Haugen 2009)  never phase-heads.
• Condition: no gender value on n (genderless or with unvalued [GEN]).
Option 1: nP Option 2: n’
n’
-ka …
[Gen:F] n … -ka n
([Gen]) [Gen:F] ([Gen])

13
From an unmarked gender noun
• Most -ka nominalizations (over 90%) are derived from masculine
human nouns, yielding a feminine (i.e. female) counterpart.
• stan + aar  stanaar; stanaar + ka  stanaarka.
Option 1: nP Option 2: n’

-ka stan
[Gen:F] ’apartment’
ar stan -ka ar
erg. subject ’apartment’ [Gen:F] erg. subject
[Gen] [Gen]
14
From a root (unaccented  + unaccented n)
• Idiomatized from a hyperonym: mašin(ska) + puška ’machine gun’.
• mašiiHn + Ø + ka  mašiiHnØHka (hyperonim: puška ’rifle.F’)
machine machine gun
Option 1: nP Option 2: n’

-ka mašiin
[Gen:F] ’machine’
Øn mašiin -ka Øn
[Gen] ’machine’ [Gen:F] [Gen]

15
Prediction: no neutral M suffixes
• Monomorphemic and other suffixless nouns are by default masculine.
• Neutral suffixes can turn them into feminine.
• No suffix turns an underived animate feminine into masculine.
(6) sov_a + an/ac  *sovan/*sovac žiraf_a + an/ac  *žirafan / *žirafac
awl_NomFemSg giraffe_NomFemSg

• Masculine suffixes (marked to unmarked gender) are never neutral.

(7) praas + aHc  praasaHc (prààse) mač + oHr  mačoHr (màčka)
pig boar.M (piglet.N) cat he-cat (she-cat)
16
Accent-erasing as a consequence of conflict
• There is one more logical posibility: that a suffix expresses functional
features of the base (e.g. aspect, degree) and of the derived noun.

• I argue that this option is manifested in the accent-erasing suffixes.

• They express both features licensed by the n-head and by the base,
thus feeding conflicting information to phonology.

(8) Schematic representation: [Fn]

n
[Fbase] base

17
Examples
(9) a. treptaHti- + aj  trèptaj
blinkITER [n, ASP:SML] blinknSML

b. pobeediHti- + a  pòbeda padati + a  *pàda

winPERF victory fallIMPF

c. maziiHvo + Ø  màzivo podmaziHvo + Ø  *pòdmazivo

lubricableIMPF lubricant lubricablePERF

18
Structural position of accent-erasing suffixes
• Prosody-neutral suffixes realize functional features of the base and
the category of the derived word (and some of its functional features)

AspP
nP
[perf]
-a [Gen:F]
n pobed
’win’
19
Aggregate picture: prosody from the structure
• There are three relevant classes of suffixes, depending on their
content:
1. Neutral suffixes, non-heads, expressing only FP
the value of a functional feature of n,
nP
2. Accented suffixes, heads, expressing the
[Fbase]
nominal category of the derived noun and
projecting its functional layer, [Fn]
n base
3. Accent-erasing suffixes, expressing features
of both the highest head (n) and of the lower material
(the base) and deriving hybrid categories (e.g. event nouns).
20
Summary

Neutral Accented Accent-erasing

Surface prosody faithful to base suffix default

What projects base suffix base and suffix
Suffix expresses feature of n n (+ features) n + base-features
Base category N/root any non-N

21
Same suffix, two patterns
• A number of native suffixes occur both neutral and as what looks like
an accented suffix, with different semantic effects.
(10) knjižeeHvno + oost  knjižeeHvnoost / knjižeevnooHst
literary being literary literature
putovaH + :nje  putovaaHnje / putovaanjeH
travel traveling trip
• When the suffix is neutral, the base preserves its type and structural
and semantic properties (argument structure, aspect etc.) and when
it is accented – these properties appear to be erased (the nouns
derived easily develop idiomatic meanings, Arsenijević 2011).
22
The two types of nominalizations
• The suffix adds the feature [GEN:F] to a genderless (NSg) n head.
• The neutral version emerges with a PredP base, denotes a trope
(instantiated property) and is always compositionally interpreted.
• The seemingly stressed version emerges with a bare adjective,
denotes a property, and easily gets idiomatic meanings.

(11) knjižeeHvn_oost knjižeevn_ooHst

being literary literature
nominalized PredP nominalized
with an adjective lexical adjective

23
Property: lexical adjective with a local AgrP
knjižeeHv + n + oH + oost  knjižeevnooHst (Talić 2016)
liter a n [Gen:F]
[Predi] [Predu] nP
n’
-oost AgrP
NSg form of an adjective can
[Gen:F] -oH
i
[Predu][Pred ] aP
act as a noun: i
knjižeevno u ovom tekstu -ti
literary.NSg in this text -na knjižeeHv
’the literary in this text’
24
Trope: no local AgrP  no overt no
AgrP Taj tekst je knjižeevan.
that text is literary
PredP

Pred’
knjižeeHvnoost tog teksta
tog teksta nP literariness that.Gen text.Gen
-oost
[Gen:F] -oost
[Predu] [Gen:F] aP
[Pred ] -Øn
u
-na knjižeeHv knjižeeHv_n_Ø_oost
25
Theoretical implication
• The same suffix may be merged in two different structural contexts
projected over the same lexical item, yielding not just different
semantics, but also different surface prosody.

• This not only confirms Revithiadou’s (1999) phonologicaly, and

Marvin’s (2003) syntactically motivated view that it is not only the
specification of the suffix that determines its behavior (as in Chomsky
and Halle 1968 or Kiparsky 1982), but also its structural context,

• ... but supports the view that it is only the latter

26
„Wrongly“ accented nouns
• A strong prescriptive tradition in S-C linguistics recognizes the
consequence of high tone spreading as a surface rule: no falling
accent (i.e. un-spread H) can occur outside of the first syllable.
• To their utmost frustration, speakers of even the „best“ of dialects
pronounce a family of words with a medial falling accent.

(12) poljo(*H)priHvreda samo(*H)spoHznaja Jugo(*H)slaaHvija

agriculture self-cognition Yugoslavia
• One large subclass of such words are nouns composed of a
nominalization involving an accent-erasing suffix and another item.
27
Accent-erasing suffixes and their bases
• Accent-erasing suffixes select roots without their own functional
layers and cary a double categorial specification with a projection
involving both nominal and verbal/adjectival functional material.

AspP
nP
[Asp:Perf]
-a
n pobed
’win’

28
Accent-erasing suffixes as double suffixes
• I argue that they are complex suffixes, expressing the heads of two
different phases: a nominal and an aspectual one.
• Applying Marvin’s (2003) analysis, -a is marked as the head of two
different phases, a lower and a higher one.
AspP
nP
-ai
[n] ti pobed
[Asp:Perf] ’win’

29
Prosody assignment crashes
• This conflicting information leads to a crash of prosodic assignment,
and post-lexical prosody as a last resort.
• Prosody assignment universally crashes at this level, yielding
insensitivity to the higher structure.
AspP
nP
-ai
[n] ti pobed
[Asp:Perf] ’win’

30
Accent-erasing suffixes and their
prosodic constraint
• The failure of the tone to spread across the derived noun boundary is
due to the crash (freezing) which occurs locally above the noun’s nP.
(13) a. polj-o-[priHvred+a] sam-o-[spoHzn-aja] (accent-erasing)
field-o-earn+a self-o-cognize+aja
’economy’ ’self-cognition’
b. [miš-oH-loHv]+ka [brak-oH-loHm]+ka (neutral)
mouse-o-hunt+ka marriage-o-break+ka
’mouse-trap’ ’she-homewrecker’
• In cases like (14b), the base is already nominal, it takes and
incoporates a complement, and the suffix only valuates its gender
feature – all within the same phase.
31
Support: emergence of accent-erasing
suffixes in progress
• On this analysis, accent-erasing suffixes bear the type of content that
is more commonly expressed by two suffixes: a n-suffix and a f-suffix.

• There are cases where n-suffixes begin to establish one single suffix
with the f-suffix they are contextually sensitive to (-en is 4x more
frequent than -an).

(14) razočar + an/*en ?razočar + an + je razočar + enje

disapoint ed ed disapointed ed ness disappoint !!!

32
Two why’s
• Why only nominalizing suffixes transparent for the semantic type of
the base may incorporate functional suffixes?
Because transparency is conditioned by the nominalization of the right
branch (the same item that projects the functional feature gets
nominalized); when e.g. event participants are nominalized, this does
not hold.
• Why the classes with accented suffixes (n or f) are more numerous?
Because they express a variety of possible meanings (participants,
modality, degree), while neutral suffixes are limited to gender and
hyponyms, and accent erasing to the semantic type of the base.
33
Same suffix, two patterns: loan-words
• A number of loan suffixes vary between the accented and the accent-
erasing behavior (the former is somewhat archaic and is giving way to
the latter).

(15) foto + graf  fotoHgraHf/fòtograf, tele + graf  teleHgraHf/tèlegraf

psiho + log psihoHloHg/psìholog, eno + log  enoHloHg/ènolog

• Expected: items graf, log have entered the language as nominal

stems, hence heads of the composed nouns, but are developing into
suffixes expressing features of the base.

34
Contextual allomorphy and the suffix order
• S-C counterparts of Marvin’s (1999) Slovenian examples involve
contexual allomorphy sensitive to the higher structure.
• Arguably, the active participle suffix originates lower in the structure
and moves up, picking the n-suffix on its way (cf. the surface order).
nP ActP
PassP nP
Slo: -ec -al
S-C: -ik -an 
Slo: -ec 
S-C: -ac
-an-ik/ec -al-ik/ec
35
Consequences for the semantic ontology
• Neutral suffixes select individual-denoting bases and preserve their
semantic type (they are not even proper nominalizers, as they never
take non-nominal bases).
• Accented suffixes take any base and overwrite its type to derive
individual-denoting nouns.
• Accent-erasing suffixes carry features of other categories and thus
derive nouns denoting individuals, events, properties…
• Confirmed in an ongoing corpus research (very few counterexamples).

36
Surface generalizations as cues
• Accented suffix (any suffix)  compositional semantics.

• Default prosody  narrowed ontology (eventualities, properties...),

look for features of two categories, n and a/v.

• Neutral prosody  biological gender or hyponimy: look for the

hyperonym in the relevant gender and conceptual domain.

• Consequence: entrenchment and reinterpretation of certain suffixes.

37
Conclusion
• Depending on its feature-content and structural context, a suffix may:
1) valuate a feature of the phase head (and be a non-head),
2) be the phase head, in our case n,
3) express both features of the base- and of the n-phase (a clash).
• The headmost item gets prosodic prominence (Revithiadou 1999).
• Headmost translates as phase-head.
• Cyclic computation  the highest phase head (Marvin 2003) with
categorial features wins.
• In case of a clash, prosody is deleted, post-lexical prosody is assigned.

38
THANK YOU!

39
Productivity
• Due to their aspectual, modal and other constrants on compatible
bases (licensing 2 types of projections), accent-erasing suffixes are
predicted to have lower productivity than the other two types.

• A corpus-research on a sample of 18 suffixes confirms this prediction.

Accent-erasing Neutral Accented
Average productivity
(happax per token) 0.492 0.833 0.828
Standard deviation
0.062 0.050 0.119

40