BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:Canonical morphological complexity: a balancing act between lexico
 n and grammar - Professor Dustan Brown (University of York)
DTSTART:20170209T160000Z
DTEND:20170209T173000Z
UID:TALK70704@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Theodora Alexopoulou
DESCRIPTION:Broadly construed\, morphological complexity involves distinct
 ions in form that are not justified by syntax\, including such things as i
 nflectional classes. As with other areas where the term ‘complexity’ i
 s used it is important to examine why it applies\, and what is understood 
 when it is used. Entropy is perhaps the most well known notion associated 
 with the analysis of complexity in morphological theory. It is associated 
 with uncertainty about exponence. In this talk I focus on a different noti
 on\, called ‘central system complexity’\, making reference to three id
 ealized paradigm types (Baerman\, Brown and Corbett\, forthcoming): cross-
 classifying systems\, grid systems and hierarchical systems. In their maxi
 mal form cross-classifying systems must rely entirely on lexical listing\,
  because implicative relations between paradigm cells are non-existent. (T
 his means they have high entropy.) In grid systems\, for any cell of the p
 aradigm each inflectional class has a form unique to it\, and therefore th
 e forms in one cell predict every other form of the lexeme. (This means th
 at grid systems are very low in entropy.) If one construes complexity in t
 erms of entropy\, cross-classifying systems and grid systems are completel
 y opposed. However\, from the perspective of central system complexity the
 y are very similar\, because they can be characterized simply: either ther
 e is a reliance solely on lexical listing (cross-classifying systems)\, or
  there is a reliance solely on the morphological grammar. In both cases ce
 ntral system complexity is low. In contrast\, it is at its highest when th
 e contribution of lexical listing and implicative relations (the morpholog
 ical grammar) is in balance. Hierarchical systems are high in central syst
 em complexity\, because they can only be characterized in terms of a compr
 omise between lexical stipulation and rules based on implicative relations
 . I illustrate each of the abstract types and show how three measures prov
 ided by (Stump and Finkel 2013) can be used to understand their effect. I 
 then consider a real-life example\, using data available online (Feist and
  Palancar 2015) to model the verbal system of Tlatepuzco Chinantec and sho
 w how hierarchical patterns can also be recapitulated by structures interm
 ediate between individual paradigm cells and the whole paradigm\, termed 
 ‘inflectional series’ (Palancar 2014). These patterns can only be obse
 rved if one is prepared to abandon the ‘continuity hypothesis’\, the r
 eductive assumption that the properties of the component parts are contain
 ed within the larger scale object (an hypothesis critiqued in Blevins\, Ac
 kerman\, Malouf\, & Ramscar 2016). In a separate model of the Tlatepuzco d
 ata I show how default class assignment can be used to exploit the viable 
 implicative relations associated with larger classes and those smaller one
 s related to them.
LOCATION:GR06/07\, English Faculty Building\, 9 West Road\, Sidgwick Site
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR