Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.BickelNichols2013 #
@cite{bickel-nichols-2013a} @cite{bickel-nichols-2013b} @cite{bickel-nichols-2013c} @cite{bickel-nichols-2001}
Cross-linguistic analyses anchored on Bickel & Nichols's WALS chapters
(Ch 20 fusion, Ch 21 exponence, Ch 22 inflectional synthesis) and their
2001 paper on the orthogonality of fusion and flexivity. The 18-language
MorphProfile sample is the testbed.
Bickel & Nichols's central insight #
The traditional 1D typological scale `isolating > agglutinating > fusional
polysynthetic
conflates two orthogonal parameters: **fusion** (whether formatives are concatenative, nonlinear, or isolating) and **flexivity** (whether classes are predictable from form vs. arbitrary). Both "agglutinating" (concatenative + nonflexive) and "fusional" (concatenative + flexive`) are attested in the sample, demonstrating the two parameters are independent.
Contents #
- §1. The 18-language
MorphProfilesample (drawn from per-language Fragment profiles). - §2. Substantive structural / orthogonality theorems on the B&N decomposition: both flexivity values attested under concatenative; every concatenative language is agglutinating ∨ fusional; nonlinear cell witnessed by Arabic; isolating cell has no flexivity.
Out of scope #
The substrate types (MorphProfile, Fusion, Flexivity, ...) and WALS
converters live in Core/Morphology/MorphProfile.lean. Per-language B&N
classification commitments (e.g., "German is fusional") live in each
Fragments/{Lang}/Morph.lean as local bridge theorems.
@cite{ackerman-malouf-2013}'s E-complexity / I-complexity analysis lives
in Studies/AckermanMalouf2013.lean.
This file deliberately omits aggregate-count theorems (sample_X_count = N)
— exact counts go stale every time a Fragment is added to the sample. The
mutual-exclusion theorem MorphProfile.agglutinating_fusional_exclusive
is structural and lives in Core/Morphology/MorphProfile.lean §6.
Per-language Fragment profiles, with values derived from WALS data
via Core.Morphology.wals* lookup helpers. Aliases here for concise
reference in theorems below.
18-language morphological sample.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Sentry: ISO codes are pairwise distinct across the sample. Catches accidental cross-language duplicates (two Fragments stipulating the same ISO) that per-Fragment sentries cannot see.
@cite{bickel-nichols-2001} argue fusion and flexivity are orthogonal, and that the four cells of the (concatenative ∪ nonlinear ∪ isolating) × (flexive ∪ nonflexive ∪ none) space are independently attested. The theorems below witness the cells the sample populates.
Key orthogonality test: among concatenative languages, both flexive and nonflexive are attested. This refutes the traditional 1D scale's claim that fusion-axis values determine flexivity-axis values.
Nonlinear cell witnessed by Arabic root-and-pattern morphology. The sample's only nonlinear member is also flexive and cumulative — the classic templatic profile.
Isolating cell (Mandarin, Thai) has no flexivity / no exponence marking — the B&N parameters do not apply to isolating typology.
WALS Exponence (Ch 21A, case-specific) and B&N ExponenceScope (general) are independent: both poly+sep (Finnish, Tagalog) and mono+cum (Hindi, Georgian, Spanish) are attested in the sample.
B&N decomposition is exhaustive on the concatenative dimension: every concatenative language in the sample is either agglutinating (concatenative + nonflexive + separative) or fusional (concatenative + flexive + cumulative).
Sample partition: every language falls into exactly one of agglutinating
/ fusional / nonlinear / isolating. The disjointness half lives in
Core/Morphology/MorphProfile.lean §6 as a structural theorem
(MorphProfile.agglutinating_fusional_exclusive); this is the empirical
claim that the four cells exhaust the sample.