Documentation

Linglib.Studies.KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026

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
    def Morphology.PFM.instDecidableEqMorphPropertySet.decEq {Feature✝ : Type} [DecidableEq Feature✝] (x✝ x✝¹ : MorphPropertySet Feature✝) :
    Decidable (x✝ = x✝¹)
    Equations
    Instances For
      def Morphology.PFM.instReprMorphPropertySet.repr {Feature✝ : Type} [Repr Feature✝] :
      MorphPropertySet Feature✝Std.Format
      Equations
      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
      Instances For
        @[implicit_reducible]
        instance Morphology.PFM.instReprMorphPropertySet {Feature✝ : Type} [Repr Feature✝] :
        Repr (MorphPropertySet Feature✝)
        Equations
        @[implicit_reducible]
        instance Morphology.PFM.instBEqMorphPropertySet {Feature✝ : Type} [BEq Feature✝] :
        BEq (MorphPropertySet Feature✝)
        Equations
        def Morphology.PFM.instBEqMorphPropertySet.beq {Feature✝ : Type} [BEq Feature✝] :
        MorphPropertySet Feature✝MorphPropertySet Feature✝Bool
        Equations
        Instances For
          • name : String
          • category : String
          • stem : String
          Instances For
            def Morphology.PFM.instDecidableEqLexeme.decEq (x✝ x✝¹ : Lexeme) :
            Decidable (x✝ = x✝¹)
            Equations
            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
            Instances For
              def Morphology.PFM.instReprLexeme.repr :
              LexemeStd.Format
              Equations
              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
              Instances For
                • context : List Feature
                • category : String
                • realize : StringString
                • specificity :
                Instances For
                  def Morphology.PFM.RealizationRule.matches {Feature : Type} [BEq Feature] (rr : RealizationRule Feature) (σ : MorphPropertySet Feature) (lex : Lexeme) :
                  Bool
                  Equations
                  Instances For
                    structure Morphology.PFM.RuleBlock (Feature : Type) :
                    Instances For
                      def Morphology.PFM.RuleBlock.apply {Feature : Type} [BEq Feature] (block : RuleBlock Feature) (σ : MorphPropertySet Feature) (lex : Lexeme) (stem : String) :
                      Option String
                      Equations
                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                      Instances For
                        Instances For
                          def Morphology.PFM.ParadigmFunction.apply {Feature : Type} [BEq Feature] (pf : ParadigmFunction Feature) (σ : MorphPropertySet Feature) (lex : Lexeme) :
                          String
                          Equations
                          Instances For
                            structure Morphology.PFM.RuleOfReferral (Feature : Type) :
                            Instances For
                              def Morphology.PFM.RuleOfReferral.apply {Feature : Type} [BEq Feature] (ref : RuleOfReferral Feature) (pf : ParadigmFunction Feature) (σ : MorphPropertySet Feature) (lex : Lexeme) :
                              Option String
                              Equations
                              Instances For
                                def Morphology.PFM.derive {Feature : Type} [BEq Feature] (pf : ParadigmFunction Feature) (referrals : List (RuleOfReferral Feature)) (σ : MorphPropertySet Feature) (lex : Lexeme) :
                                String
                                Equations
                                Instances For

                                  [KBC+26] (§3.2) argue that solving the wordhood problem requires distinguishing at minimum two notions of "word":

                                  Crossing ms-boundedness (bound vs free) with p-boundedness yields a four-way typology of morpheme attachment (Table 3).

                                  Morphosyntactic boundedness. [KBC+26] §3.2.1.

                                  Instances For
                                    @[implicit_reducible]
                                    Equations
                                    Equations
                                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                    Instances For

                                      Phonological/prosodic boundedness. [KBC+26] §3.2.2.

                                      Instances For
                                        @[implicit_reducible]
                                        Equations
                                        Equations
                                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                        Instances For

                                          A morpheme's wordhood profile. [KBC+26] Table 3.

                                          Instances For
                                            def Morphology.Wordhood.instDecidableEqWordhoodProfile.decEq (x✝ x✝¹ : WordhoodProfile) :
                                            Decidable (x✝ = x✝¹)
                                            Equations
                                            Instances For
                                              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
                                                  @[implicit_reducible]
                                                  Equations
                                                  Equations
                                                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                                  Instances For
                                                    theorem Morphology.Wordhood.classify_injective (w₁ w₂ : WordhoodProfile) (h : w₁.classify = w₂.classify) :
                                                    w₁ = w₂

                                                    The four classes are mutually exclusive.

                                                    Connects two independent formalizations:

                                                    The bridge: ZP's criteria diagnose ms-boundedness. The p-boundedness dimension is orthogonal (determined by prosodic diagnostics).

                                                    Construct a wordhood profile from MorphStatus + prosodic boundedness.

                                                    Equations
                                                    Instances For

                                                      Map Word membership to p-boundedness.

                                                      Equations
                                                      Instances For

                                                        [KBC+26]: The Morphology/Syntax Interface #

                                                        [KBC+26]

                                                        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 #

                                                        1a. The four major theories occupy correct positions #

                                                        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 #

                                                        2a. The 2×2 wordhood typology is exhaustive and injective #

                                                        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.

                                                        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 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
                                                          • 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.

                                                            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.

                                                            theorem KalinBjorkmanEtAl2026.starABA_verified :
                                                            Morphology.Containment.spellout [{ exponent := "A", spans := 0, context := none }, { exponent := "B", spans := 2, context := none }] 0 = some "A" Morphology.Containment.spellout [{ exponent := "A", spans := 0, context := none }, { exponent := "B", spans := 2, context := none }] 1 = some "B" Morphology.Containment.spellout [{ exponent := "A", spans := 0, context := none }, { exponent := "B", spans := 2, context := none }] 2 = some "B" Morphology.Containment.IsContiguous (Morphology.Containment.spellout [{ exponent := "A", spans := 0, context := none }, { exponent := "B", spans := 2, context := none }])

                                                            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.

                                                            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:

                                                            Key mechanisms referenced:

                                                            How a morphological theory handles a form-meaning mapping type. [KBC+26] Table 4.

                                                            • yes : Coverage

                                                              Handled natively by the theory's basic mechanisms.

                                                            • no : Coverage

                                                              Must be reanalyzed as a different phenomenon.

                                                            • extra : Coverage

                                                              Requires an extra mechanism beyond the basics.

                                                            Instances For
                                                              @[implicit_reducible]
                                                              Equations
                                                              Equations
                                                              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                                              Instances For

                                                                The four named theories from [KBC+26].

                                                                Instances For
                                                                  @[implicit_reducible]
                                                                  Equations
                                                                  Equations
                                                                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                                                  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
                                                                    Instances For

                                                                      Whether a theory natively handles a mapping type (has at least one yes verdict across subcases).

                                                                      Equations
                                                                      Instances For

                                                                        5a. All theories agree on one-to-one #

                                                                        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.

                                                                        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.

                                                                        5d. Morphological gaps are universally problematic #

                                                                        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.

                                                                        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.