Paradigm Function Morphology ([Stu01]) — a lexicalist, parallel, process-based, realizational theory used by K-B 2026 §2.2 as one of the four positions in the theory space.
- features : List Feature
Instances For
Equations
- Morphology.PFM.instDecidableEqMorphPropertySet.decEq { features := a } { features := b } = if h : a = b then h ▸ isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Equations
Equations
- Morphology.PFM.instBEqMorphPropertySet.beq { features := a } { features := b } = (a == b)
- Morphology.PFM.instBEqMorphPropertySet.beq x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Morphology.PFM.instReprLexeme = { reprPrec := Morphology.PFM.instReprLexeme.repr }
- context : List Feature
- category : String
- realize : String → String
- specificity : ℕ
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
- label : String
- rules : List (RealizationRule Feature)
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
- blocks : List (RuleBlock Feature)
Instances For
Equations
- pf.apply σ lex = List.foldl (fun (stem : String) (block : Morphology.PFM.RuleBlock Feature) => (block.apply σ lex stem).getD stem) lex.stem pf.blocks
Instances For
- source : MorphPropertySet Feature
- target : MorphPropertySet Feature
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- Morphology.PFM.derive pf referrals σ lex = match List.findSome? (fun (x : Morphology.PFM.RuleOfReferral Feature) => x.apply pf σ lex) referrals with | some form => form | none => pf.apply σ lex
Instances For
[KBC+26] (§3.2) argue that solving the wordhood problem requires distinguishing at minimum two notions of "word":
ms-word (morphosyntactic/grammatical word): a constituent containing one or more morphemes, contained in a morphosyntactic phrase. Identified by cohesiveness, fixed internal order, selectivity, and domainhood for morphological operations (§3.2.1).
p-word (phonological/prosodic word): a constituent containing one or more syllables grouped into feet, contained in a phonological phrase. Identified by phonotactic bounding and edge phenomena (§3.2.2).
Crossing ms-boundedness (bound vs free) with p-boundedness yields a four-way typology of morpheme attachment (Table 3).
Equations
- Morphology.Wordhood.instDecidableEqMSBoundedness x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Phonological/prosodic boundedness. [KBC+26] §3.2.2.
- free : PBoundedness
- bound : PBoundedness
Instances For
Equations
- Morphology.Wordhood.instDecidableEqPBoundedness x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Morphology.Wordhood.instDecidableEqWordhoodProfile.decEq { ms := a, p := a_1 } { ms := b, p := b_1 } = if h : a = b then h ▸ if h : a_1 = b_1 then h ▸ isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The four-way classification of morpheme attachment. [KBC+26] §3.2.3.
- canonicalWord : WordhoodClass
ms-free, p-free: an independent word by both criteria.
- simpleClitic : WordhoodClass
ms-free, p-bound: syntactically independent but phonologically dependent. [Zwi77]
- nonCoheringAffix : WordhoodClass
ms-bound, p-free: morphosyntactically part of a word but phonologically independent.
- canonicalAffix : WordhoodClass
ms-bound, p-bound: part of a word by both criteria.
Instances For
Equations
- Morphology.Wordhood.instDecidableEqWordhoodClass x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Classify a wordhood profile into the four-way typology.
Equations
- { ms := Morphology.Wordhood.MSBoundedness.free, p := Morphology.Wordhood.PBoundedness.free }.classify = Morphology.Wordhood.WordhoodClass.canonicalWord
- { ms := Morphology.Wordhood.MSBoundedness.free, p := Morphology.Wordhood.PBoundedness.bound }.classify = Morphology.Wordhood.WordhoodClass.simpleClitic
- { ms := Morphology.Wordhood.MSBoundedness.bound, p := Morphology.Wordhood.PBoundedness.free }.classify = Morphology.Wordhood.WordhoodClass.nonCoheringAffix
- { ms := Morphology.Wordhood.MSBoundedness.bound, p := Morphology.Wordhood.PBoundedness.bound }.classify = Morphology.Wordhood.WordhoodClass.canonicalAffix
Instances For
The four classes are exhaustive.
The four classes are mutually exclusive.
Connects two independent formalizations:
- Wordhood typology (
Morphology.Wordhood): K-B 2026 §3.2 two- dimensional classification (ms-boundedness × p-boundedness → 4 wordhood classes). - Clitic vs. affix diagnostics (
Morphology.Diagnostics): [ZP83]'s six criteria for affix-vs-clitic.
The bridge: ZP's criteria diagnose ms-boundedness. The p-boundedness dimension is orthogonal (determined by prosodic diagnostics).
Map a morpheme's morphological status to its ms-boundedness.
Equations
- Morphology.WordhoodBridge.morphStatusToMSBound Morphology.MorphStatus.freeWord = Morphology.Wordhood.MSBoundedness.free
- Morphology.WordhoodBridge.morphStatusToMSBound Morphology.MorphStatus.simpleClitic = Morphology.Wordhood.MSBoundedness.free
- Morphology.WordhoodBridge.morphStatusToMSBound Morphology.MorphStatus.specialClitic = Morphology.Wordhood.MSBoundedness.free
- Morphology.WordhoodBridge.morphStatusToMSBound Morphology.MorphStatus.inflAffix = Morphology.Wordhood.MSBoundedness.bound
- Morphology.WordhoodBridge.morphStatusToMSBound Morphology.MorphStatus.derivAffix = Morphology.Wordhood.MSBoundedness.bound
Instances For
Construct a wordhood profile from MorphStatus + prosodic boundedness.
Equations
- Morphology.WordhoodBridge.wordhoodProfile status prosody = { ms := Morphology.WordhoodBridge.morphStatusToMSBound status, p := prosody }
Instances For
Map Word membership to p-boundedness.
Equations
- Morphology.WordhoodBridge.prWdMembershipToPBound isPrWdInternal = if isPrWdInternal = true then Morphology.Wordhood.PBoundedness.bound else Morphology.Wordhood.PBoundedness.free
Instances For
[KBC+26]: The Morphology/Syntax Interface #
This study file verifies the core contributions of [KBC+26]'s Elements in Generative Syntax survey against Linglib's independent formalizations of DM, PFM, Nanosyntax, and the Wordhood typology.
Structure #
- §1: Theory space (§2 of the Element) — verify that Linglib's theory-specific modules occupy the correct positions in the 4-dimensional classification, and that impossible combinations are ruled out.
- §2: Wordhood (§3) — verify the two-dimensional typology and its connection to ZP diagnostics and ProsodicWord.
- §3: Form-meaning mapping (§4) — verify coverage of the seven descriptive types.
- §4: Cross-module integration — theorems connecting the independent formalizations.
1a. The four major theories occupy correct positions #
DM is non-lexicalist, post-syntactic, piece-based, realizational.
PFM is lexicalist, parallel, process-based, realizational.
MaS is non-lexicalist, syntactic, piece-based, incremental.
All four theories are well-formed (satisfy structural constraints).
1b. DM and Nanosyntax are indistinguishable on these dimensions #
[KBC+26] §2: DM and Nanosyntax agree on all four dimensions. Their differences (Subset vs Superset Principle, terminal vs phrasal spellout) are mechanism-level, not dimension-level.
DM and Nanosyntax occupy the same position in the theory space. Their differences are in mechanism, not architecture.
1c. Structural impossibilities #
[KBC+26] §2.1: not all 2⁴ = 16 combinations are possible. Process-based theories must be lexicalist (syntax is piece-based).
No non-lexicalist, process-based theory is well-formed.
No lexicalist theory can have syntactic architecture.
1d. Distinguishing features of each theory #
PFM is the only process-based theory among the four.
MaS is the only incremental theory among the four.
2a. The 2×2 wordhood typology is exhaustive and injective #
Every combination of ms- and p-boundedness yields a wordhood class.
Distinct profiles yield distinct classes.
2b. ZP diagnostics determine ms-boundedness #
[KBC+26] §3.2.1: the six criteria from
[ZP83] diagnose whether a morpheme is ms-bound.
This is formalized in WordhoodBridge.
Affixhood (in MorphStatus) is equivalent to ms-boundedness.
Clitichood implies ms-freedom.
2c. Word diagnostics determine p-boundedness #
[KBC+26] §3.2.2: prosodic diagnostics (vowel harmony scope, minimal word constraints, hiatus resolution) diagnose p-boundedness. This is formalized via the ProsodicWord bridge.
An inflectional suffix (Word-internal) combined with ms-boundedness from the ZP criteria yields canonical affix.
A clitic (ms-free) that is Word-internal (p-bound) yields simple clitic — the canonical configuration for Romance clitics.
An affix (ms-bound) that is Word-external (p-free) yields non-cohering affix — the configuration for Dutch non-cohering prefixes.
§4 of [KBC+26] identifies seven descriptive types of form-meaning mapping — the relationships between phonological exponents and morphosyntactic features/functions.
The seven descriptive types of form-meaning mapping. [KBC+26] §4.
- oneToOne : MappingType
One meaning/function ↔ one exponent, invariant. Example: root cat is always
\/kæt\/. - allomorphy : MappingType
One meaning/function → multiple competing exponents (context-sensitive selection). Example: English plural -z, -s, -ɪz, -ən, ∅. §4.1.
- multipleExponence : MappingType
One meaning/function → multiple co-occurring exponents (non-competing, simultaneous expression). Example: Amharic k'al-at-otʃtʃ 'words' (two plural markers). §4.2.
- syncretism : MappingType
Multiple related meanings/functions → one exponent (non-co-occurring contexts share a form). Example: English -ed for past tense and past participle. §4.3.
- portmanteau : MappingType
Multiple co-occurring meanings/functions → one exponent (bundled into a single form). Example: French du = de + le. §4.4.
- morphologicalGap : MappingType
A meaning/function has no corresponding form — the paradigm cell is empty. Example: English stride lacks a standard past participle. §4.5.1.
- emptyMorph : MappingType
A form has no corresponding meaning/function. Example: Romance theme vowels, compound linkers. §4.5.2.
Instances For
Equations
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Morphology.FormMeaningMapping.instDecidableEqMappingType x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
3a. The seven descriptive types #
[KBC+26] §4 identifies seven form-meaning mapping types. Any theory of morphology must account for all of them.
The seven types are mutually exclusive.
4a. *ABA impossibility (Nanosyntax contribution) #
[Cah09]: the fseq-based Superset Principle derives the *ABA
constraint. If entry β beats entry α for case Y, β also beats α
for all cases below Y on the fseq —
Morphology.Containment.isContiguous_spellout in general.
An attempted ABA lexicon — "A" sized for the bottom grade, "B" for
the top — produces ABB instead: the larger entry also wins the
middle grade, and its pattern is contiguous by
isContiguous_spellout.
4b. PFM's Paradigm Function architecture #
[Stu01]: PFM is the only major theory that is both process-based and parallel in architecture. This combination is well-formed because process-based requires lexicalism, and parallel is a lexicalist architecture.
PFM's combination of process-based exponence and parallel architecture is well-formed precisely because both are lexicalist.
5. Theory × mapping-type matrix #
[KBC+26] Table 4 captures the culminating insight of the Element: different theories handle form-meaning mapping complexities differently, and simplification in theory trades off against empirical coverage. Each cell records whether a theory handles a mapping type:
- yes: natively, via basic mechanisms
- no: must reanalyze as a different phenomenon
- extra: can handle, but requires an additional mechanism
Key mechanisms referenced:
- DM: VI (allomorphy), Impoverishment (metasyncretism), Fission (multiple exponence), Fusion (portmanteau), Dissociated nodes (empty morphs)
- PFM: Rules of Referral (metasyncretism), rule blocks spanning (portmanteau), morphomic class indices (empty morphs)
- Nanosyntax: Superset Principle + containment (syncretism), phrasal spellout (portmanteau)
- MaS: strict one-to-one; all non-one-to-one phenomena must be reanalyzed as involving distinct morphemes or features
Equations
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.instDecidableEqCoverage x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.instBEqCoverage.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Equations
The four named theories from [KBC+26].
- pfm : TheoryName
- mas : TheoryName
- nanosyntax : TheoryName
- dm : TheoryName
Instances For
Equations
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.instDecidableEqTheoryName x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.instBEqTheoryName.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Equations
Map a named theory to its position in the theory space.
Equations
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.TheoryName.pfm.position = Morphology.TheorySpace.pfm
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.TheoryName.mas.position = Morphology.TheorySpace.mas
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.TheoryName.nanosyntax.position = Morphology.TheorySpace.nanosyntax
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.TheoryName.dm.position = Morphology.TheorySpace.dm
Instances For
[KBC+26] Table 4: for each (mapping type, theory) pair, the coverage verdicts across subcases.
Multiple values indicate different subcases receive different verdicts. For example, DM handles some portmanteaux natively (pre-syntactic feature bundling), must reanalyze others (allomorphy in disguise), and needs Fusion for the rest.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.table4 KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Morphology.FormMeaningMapping.MappingType.oneToOne x✝ = [KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Coverage.yes]
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.table4 KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Morphology.FormMeaningMapping.MappingType.allomorphy KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.TheoryName.dm = [KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Coverage.yes]
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.table4 KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Morphology.FormMeaningMapping.MappingType.allomorphy x✝ = [KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Coverage.no]
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.table4 KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Morphology.FormMeaningMapping.MappingType.multipleExponence KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.TheoryName.pfm = [KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Coverage.yes]
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.table4 KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Morphology.FormMeaningMapping.MappingType.multipleExponence x✝ = [KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Coverage.no]
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.table4 KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Morphology.FormMeaningMapping.MappingType.syncretism KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.TheoryName.dm = [KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Coverage.yes]
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.table4 KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Morphology.FormMeaningMapping.MappingType.syncretism KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.TheoryName.mas = [KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Coverage.no]
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.table4 KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Morphology.FormMeaningMapping.MappingType.portmanteau KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.TheoryName.nanosyntax = [KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Coverage.yes]
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.table4 KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Morphology.FormMeaningMapping.MappingType.portmanteau KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.TheoryName.mas = [KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Coverage.no]
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.table4 KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Morphology.FormMeaningMapping.MappingType.morphologicalGap x✝ = [KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Coverage.no]
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.table4 KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Morphology.FormMeaningMapping.MappingType.emptyMorph x✝ = [KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Coverage.no]
Instances For
Whether a theory natively handles a mapping type (has at least
one yes verdict across subcases).
Equations
- KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.handlesNatively m t = (KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.table4 m t).any fun (x : KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Coverage) => x == KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.Coverage.yes
Instances For
5a. All theories agree on one-to-one #
Every theory handles one-to-one mappings natively.
5b. DM is uniquely suited for allomorphy #
Only DM handles allomorphy natively, via Vocabulary Insertion with contextual conditioning. PFM subsumes it under multiple exponence; Nanosyntax reanalyzes structurally; MaS treats allomorphs as distinct morphemes.
DM is the only theory that handles allomorphy natively.
5c. PFM is uniquely suited for multiple exponence #
PFM's process-based, ordered rule-block architecture means independent blocks can reference the same feature, producing multiple exponence without any special mechanism.
PFM is the only theory that handles multiple exponence natively.
5d. Morphological gaps are universally problematic #
No theory handles morphological gaps natively.
5e. MaS is the most restrictive theory #
MaS's incremental mapping (form and meaning built in lockstep) forces strict one-to-one correspondence. Every apparent non-one-to-one mapping must be reanalyzed.
MaS says "no" to every non-one-to-one mapping type.
5f. Realizational vs incremental split #
[KBC+26] §4.6: realizational theories handle at least some non-one-to-one mappings natively, because separating features from exponents makes mismatches structurally possible. Incremental theories (MaS) must reanalyze all of them.
The three realizational theories all handle syncretism natively. MaS (incremental) cannot.
The realizational/incremental split matches the theory space: DM, PFM, and Nanosyntax are realizational; MaS is incremental.