Conducive syntactic milieu for OAH

From the definition of default and option, it follows that the existence of an option always implies the existence of default. But the reverse situation is not always true: the existence of default does not automatically implies the existence of optionality, the default pattern can be obligatory and the only possible pattern a language licenses. In this section we will explore whether and how optionality can be predicted.

It seems that there is no universal parameter that triggers (or constrains) optionality cross-linguistically: in all cases observed restricting constraints are always language-specific. Neither semantic categories (like (in)animacy, semantic (a)symmetry, natural vs. accidental coordination) nor phonology, nor morphology can be considered as the ultimate factor determining the inner mechanism of OAH in all languages. But does this

really mean that no typological generalizations can be made about OAH at all? If not a universal trigger/constraint, perhaps the diversity itself can be predicted by some cross-linguistically valid principle?

If the placing of a word into a coordinate structure immediately changes the word’s inflectional (i.e morpho-syntactic) behaviour,⁶⁷ then it is safe to say that it is one of syntactic parameters of coordination that is responsible for optionality/obligatoriness of (non-) marking in conjoined structures. The parameter that can be directly associated with medial inflection is coordination tightness which has two syntax-relevant formal dimensions: distance (length) and marking pattern of coordination. The formal distance phonetically is determined by the time interval between expressions (Haiman 1985:

102), morphologically – by the nature and number of morphemes that lie between them (Haiman 1985: 105) and syntactically – by the phrase-, clause-, and sentence-like syntactic structures within the coordination (Wälchli 2005: 67). The marking pattern of coordination is mostly determined by the syndetic or asyndetic type of conjoining, i.e.

the presence or absence of an overt connector as well as the degree of its grammaticalization. These two formal parameters (distance and (c)overt connector) can be very helpful in exploring the question of the conducive syntactic milieu for optional inflection.⁶⁸

It seems reasonable to assume that the principle claiming that ‘a high degree of tightness in coordination implies minimal distance between the coordinands’ (Wälchli 2005: 67) can work in both directions and that the converse is also correct, i.e. the minimal distance implies a high(er) degree of tightness. It follows from this logic that:

• the shorter the minimal distance, the tighter the coordination

• the tighter the coordination, the less inflection is allowed to appear in between, i.e. the shorter the minimal distance the less inflection is allowed to appear in between

67 Consider, for instance, the accusative case marker in Korean, which enjoys optionality by single word specification but undergoes obligatory omission from medial conjuncts (cf. (1) and (2) in the Introduction).

68 For optionality of medial inflection in monosyndetic structures, the second parameter – ‘coordinator and degree of its grammaticalization’ is of particular significance, since not simply the formal distance between two conjuncts may be taken into account but also the distance between the non-final conjunct and overt connector.

Accordingly, the long distance creates the opposite effect:

• the longer the minimal distance, the looser the coordination

• the looser the coordination, the more inflection is allowed to appear in between, i.e. the longer the minimal distance, the more inflection is allowed to appear in between

Being applied to different syntactic environments, the principle of distance would result in different inclination to optionality/obligatoriness of medial inflection (see Table 7). In coordinate structures (i.e. in structures with two independent (equally ranked) elements conjoined), the short distance can weaken the iconic principle of affixation so that optionality of type A (optional affix omission) can be expected. The long distance, on the contrary, would just strengthen the isolated status of coordinated conjuncts implying their obligatory marking and preventing any affix dropping.⁶⁹ In the hierarchical (subordinate) environment (i.e. with dependence of one conjunct on another), we can expect optionality of type B (optional affix addition) in structures with long-distance conjoining, in which the basic tightness can be potentially loosened by the formal length and some inflection can surface in between. The close distance would increase the tightness of subordination and lead to obligatory non-marking of one

69 In Turkish, for instance, some suffixes/endings can be potentially dropped from the first predicate in

‘SOV & SOV’ structures. At the same time, omission of the same affixes is not allowed in ‘VSO &

SOV’ structures, in which subject and object placed after the first predicate lengthen the formal distance between two verbal conjuncts (Barış Kabak, personal communication).

Of course, the formal distance should not be considered as the only parameter determining optionality or obligatoriness of inflection in natural languages. Intolerance to optionality of affixation can be motivated by a number of reasons. In some languages the tight morpho-phonological cohesion (based, for instance, on fusion of morphemes or on a particular prosodic model) keeps the lexical integrity of the word. In other languages, the analytic type of morpho-syntax tends to separate lexical meaning from grammatical properties. Such languages encode inflectional categories as independent words (e.g. as auxiliary verbs or articles), but not as affixes, which leads to lexical ellipsis or gapping but not to OAH. Table 7 simply presents an (un-)favourable syntactic environment for OAH that can be influenced, however, by various factors in a particular language. Since it was difficult within a small-scale per-mail survey to verify, what effect the formal distance par excellence (i.e. being separated from all other factors) has on optionality in different languages, further research (perhaps neuro- or psycholinguistic) is needed to validate this assumption.