pp 1–43 | Cite as

Oneida prepronominal prefixes in Information-based Morphology

  • Thomas S. DiazEmail author
  • Jean-Pierre Koenig
  • Karin Michelson


Oneida (Northern Iroquoian) inflectional morphology is highly complex. We focus here on the eleven so-called prepronominal prefixes. These prefixes display a number of interesting paradigmatic and syntagmatic properties that make them challenging to model in incremental or sequentialist approaches. Instead, we utilize Information-based Morphology (hereafter IbM; Crysmann and Bonami 2016), which treats inflectional rules as descriptions of regularities between features, forms, and positions. We discuss three main issues: competition for realization among semantically compatible features; borrowing of exponence from one feature realization to another; and exuberant and atypical morphotactic variability. Our analysis highlights the unique complexities of Oneida’s position class morphology and illustrates how an IbM approach is equipped to deal with such complexities.


Oneida Northern Iroquoian Information-based Morphology position class Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar templatic morphology 


  1. Abbott, C. (1984). Two feminine genders in Oneida. Anthropological Linguistics, 26, 125–137. Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, C. (2000). Languages of the world/materials 301: Oneida. Muenchen: Lincom Europa. Google Scholar
  3. Abbott, C., Christjohn, A., & Hinton, M. (1996). An Oneida dictionary. Oneida. WI. Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, S. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbeau, C. M. (1915). Classification of Iroquoian radicals with subjective pronominal prefixes. Canada Dept. of Mines, Geological Survey, Memoir 46. Anthropological Series, 7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carstairs, A. (1987). Allomorphy in inflexion. London: Croom Helm. Google Scholar
  7. Chafe, W. (1967). Seneca morphology and dictionary. Washington: Smithsonian Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corbett, G. (2007). Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language, 83, 8–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crysmann, B. (2017). Inferential-realizational morphology without rule blocks. In N. Gisborne & A. Hippisley (Eds.), Defaults in morphological theory (pp. 182–213). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  10. Crysmann, B., & Bonami, O. (2016). Variable morphotactics and Information-based Morphology. Journal of Linguistics, 52(2), 311–374. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crysmann, B., & Bonami, O. (2017). Atomistic and holistic exponence in Information-based Morphology. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 141–161). Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  12. Elm, D., & Antone, H. (2000). The Oneida creation story. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Google Scholar
  13. Flickinger, D. (1987). Lexical rules in the hierarchical lexicon. Dissertation. Stanford: Stanford University. Google Scholar
  14. Fortescue, M., Mithun, M., & Evans, N. (2017). The Oxford handbook of polysynthesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foster, M. (1985). The language of tense, mood, and aspect in Northern Iroquoian descriptions. International Journal of American Linguistics, 51, 403–405. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ginzburg, J., & Sag, I. (2001). Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  17. Inkelas, S. (1993). Nimboran position class morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 11, 559–624. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kay, M. (1979). Functional Grammar. In C. Chiarello, J. Kingston, E. Sweetser, J. Collins, H. Kawasaki, J. Manley-Buser, D. Marschak, C. O’Connor, D. Shaul, M. Tobey, H. Thompson, & K. Turner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 142–158). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Google Scholar
  19. Koenig, J.-P. (1999). Lexical relations. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  20. Koenig, J.-P., & Jurafsky, D. (1994). Type underspecification and on-line type construction in the lexicon. In Proceedings of WCCFL XIII (pp. 270–285). Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  21. Koenig, J.-P., & Michelson, K. (2014). Deconstructing syntax. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st conference on head-driven phrase-structure grammar (pp. 114–134). Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  22. Koenig, J.-P., & Michelson, K. (2015). Morphological complexity à la Oneida. In M. Baerman & G. Corbett (Eds.), Understanding and measuring morphological complexity (pp. 69–92). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lounsbury, F. (1953). Oneida verb morphology. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 48. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
  24. Manova, S., & Aronoff, M. (2010). Modeling affix order. Morphology, 20, 109–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Michelson, G. (1973). A thousand words of Mohawk. Ottava: National Museum of Man. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Michelson, K. (1988). A comparative study of Lake-Iroquoian accent. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Michelson, K. (2015). Gender in Oneida. In M. Hellinger & H. Motschenbacher (Eds.), Gender across languages (pp. 277–301). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  28. Michelson, K., & Doxtator, M. (2002). Oneida-English/English-Oneida dictionary. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Michelson, K., Kennedy, N., & Doxtator, M. (2016). Glimpses of Oneida life. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nordlinger, R. (2010). Verbal morphology in Murrinh-Patha: evidence for templates. Morphology, 20, 321–341. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. (1994). Head-driven Phrase-Structure Grammar. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Google Scholar
  32. Pullum, G. (2013). The central question in comparative syntactic metatheory. Mind & Language, 28, 492–521. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rice, K. (2000). Morpheme order and semantic scope. Word formation in the Athapaskan verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Richter, F. (2000). A mathematical formalism for linguistic theories with an application in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Dissertation. Tübingen: University of Tübingen. Google Scholar
  35. Richter, F., & Sailer, M. (2004). Basic concepts of Lexical Resource Semantics. In ESSLLI 2003 course material (Vol. 5). Wien: Collegium Logicum, Kurt Gödel Society. Google Scholar
  36. Rudes, B. (1999). Tuscarora-English/English-Tuscarora dictionary. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Google Scholar
  37. Sag, I. (2012). Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In H. Boas & I. Sag (Eds.), Signed-based construction grammar (pp. 69–202). Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  38. Shieber, S. (1986). An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  39. Simpson, J., & Withgott, M. (1986). Pronominal clitic clusters and templates. In Syntax and semantics: Vol. 19. The syntax of pronominal clitics. pp. 149–174. Orlando: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  40. Spencer, A. (2003). Putting some order into morphology: reflections on Rice (2000) and Stump (2001). Journal of Linguistics, 39, 621–646. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stump, G. (1992). Position class and morphological theory. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992. (pp. 129–180). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  42. Stump, G. (1993a). How peculiar is evaluative morphology? Journal of Linguistics, 29, 1–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stump, G. (1993b). Position classes and morphological theory. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology (pp. 129–180). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  44. Stump, G. (1996). Template morphology and inflectional morphology. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1996 (pp. 217–241). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  45. Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stump, G. (2014). Polyfunctionality and inflectional economy. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, 11, 73–93. Google Scholar
  47. Woodbury, H. (2003). Onondaga-English/English-Onondaga dictionary. Toronto: Toronto University Press. Google Scholar
  48. Zwicky, A. (1990). Inflectional morphology as a (sub)component of grammar. In W., Dressler, H., Luschützky, O., Pfeiffer, & J. Rennison (Eds.), Contemporary morphology. (pp. 217–236). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University at Buffalo, SUNYBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations