Lexical splits: a novel perspective on the structure of words

许多语言通过词形的变化来表达语法意义的变化，这一过程被称为词形变化。这通常是完全透明的：在‘Talk’这样的动词上加上-S会得到第三人称单数现在时(S/他说话)，加上-ed会得到过去时(S/他说话)。但有时这个过程会更复杂，比如go，它的过去式go似乎是一个完全不同的词。我们在这里说，这个词是由两个不同的词干组成的。但分裂可能涉及的不仅仅是不同的形式。例如，俄语动词在这些形式所代表的意义类别中显示了现在和过去的分裂。现在时标记人，而过去时标记性别，因此动词在使用人称和性别特征时是分裂的。通过更抽象地看待分裂，我们开始注意到在孤立地看待单个现象时并不明显的模式。这种处理形态和形态合成不规则性的方法打开了这样一个前景：许多不同的不规则性实例是由几个基本模式的组合产生的。我们假设一种工作类型学，它标识了可根据其来区分分裂的四个二元标准：1.结构--分裂是否涉及单词的形式(例如，GO~WET)或所表达的意义的类别(例如，人与性别)？2.安排--分裂是否对应于已经在语言的句法、语义或音系学中发挥作用的区别，或者它是任意的？3.规律性--分裂是否影响同一类别的所有单词，或者只有几个？4.相关性--分裂对单词本身以外的任何事情都有影响吗(例如，它如何与其他单词互动)？将这些参数结合在一起，得出了16种逻辑上可能的分裂类型。我们的初步研究表明，每一种类型的分裂都得到了证实，但分布严重倾斜，这表明分裂的可能配置存在一些内在的限制。采用我们的方法的理论含义是令人兴奋的：不同的语法结构模型表明，不同类型的分裂应该占主导地位，并且只有某些分裂的组合(多分裂)应该是可能的；我们的类型学框架允许我们以经验的方式检验这些关于屈折结构组织的广泛假设。此外，我们预测，由语音变化发展而来的分裂与由句法或语义变化引起的分裂产生的分裂类型截然不同。我们提出的彻底的类型学研究旨在支持或反驳这些假说。在更广泛的层面上，我们对分裂的研究提供了一个新的视角：对语法结构的描述通常是划分的，所以我们谈论句法、词法和形态句法(两者的交集)。但我们的方法跨越了这些区别，并提供了对在更基本层面上运作的共享语言结构进行分类和分析的手段。鉴于语言中分裂的多样性，这项研究将解决以下问题来阐明什么是可能的词：-世界各地语言中分裂类型的类型、遗传和地理分布是什么？-分裂类型与它们的表现方式之间是否存在相关性？-16种词汇分裂类型中哪些可以共存，它们相互作用的限制是什么？(即，可以有哪些类型的多重分裂？)-多重分裂是如何发生的？随着时间的推移，它们有多稳定？

Many languages express changes in grammatical meaning through changes in word form, a process known as inflection. Often this is perfectly transparent: adding -s to a verb like 'talk' gives the 3rd person singular present tense (s/he talks), and adding -ed gives the past tense (s/he talked). But sometimes the process is more involved, as with 'go', whose past tense 'went' seems to be a different word entirely. We say here that the word is "split" between two distinct stems. But splits can involve much more than just different forms. Russian verbs, for instance, display a present-past split in the categories of meaning that the forms represent. The present tense marks person, while the past tense marks gender, so that verbs are split in their use of the person and gender features.By taking a more abstract view of splits we start to notice patterns that are not apparent when looking at the individual phenomena which define splits in isolation. This way of approaching morphological and morphosyntactic irregularity holds open the promise that many diverse instances of irregularity result from combinations of a few basic patterns. We assume a working typology which identifies four binary criteria according to which splits may be distinguished:1. Structure - does the split involve the forms of the word (e.g. go~went) or the categories of meaning expressed (e.g. person versus gender)?2. Arrangement - does the split correspond to distinctions that already play a role in the syntax, semantics or phonology of the language, or is it arbitrary? 3. Regularity - does the split affect all words of the same class, or just a few?4. Relevance - does the split have an effect on anything other than the word itself (e.g. how it interacts with other words)?Combining these parameters yields sixteen logically-possible split types. Our pilot study shows that each is attested, but the distribution is dramatically skewed, suggesting there are some inherent constraints on possible configurations of splits.The theoretical implications of adopting our approach are exciting: different models of the architecture of grammar suggest that different types of split should predominate, and that only certain combinations of splits (multiple splits) should be possible; our typological framework allows us to test some of these wide-ranging hypotheses about the organization of inflectional structure in an empirical manner. Further, we would predict that splits which developed out of sound changes result in very different split types to those splits which were induced by changes in syntax or semantics. The thorough typological study we propose is designed to support or to disprove such hypotheses. At a more general level, our investigation of splits offers a novel perspective: accounts of grammatical structure have typically been compartmentalised, so we speak of syntax, of morphology, and of morphosyntax (the intersection of the two). But our approach cross-cuts these distinctions, and provides the means for classifying and analysing shared linguistic structures that operate at a more fundamental level.In light of the diversity of splits across languages, this research will address the following questions to elucidate what constitutes a possible word: - What is the typological, genetic and geographic distribution of split types across the world's languages?- Are there correlations between split types and the way they are manifested?- Which of the sixteen types of lexical splits can co-occur and what are the restrictions on how they interact with each other? (That is, what types of multiple splits can there be?)- How do multiple splits arise and how stable are they over time?