Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-qcl88 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T04:22:04.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Seri Verb Classes: Morphosyntactic Motivation and Morphological Autonomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Matthew Baerman*
Affiliation:
Surrey Morphology Group, University of Surrey
*
Surrey Morphology Group [I1], School of English and Languages, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom [m.baerman@surrey.ac.uk]
Get access

Abstract

The verbal suffixes of Seri (a language isolate of Sonora, Mexico) divide the lexicon into classes of unparalleled complexity. The paradigm has only four forms, which mark subject number and aspect (or event number), yet there are over 250 distinct types in a corpus of just under 1,000 verbs. This relation of forms to types means that by information-theoretic measures this is among the most complex inflection class systems yet studied. In part this complexity is due to the sheer wealth of allomorphs and the freedom with which they combine within the paradigm; however, these properties can be found in all inflection class systems of any complexity. The unique property of Seri is that although the suffix morphology and the morphosyntactic paradigm have the same featural content, the two systems are not directly coordinated. Both suffix morphology and verbal morphosyntax are based on the concatenation of markers of plurality, and an increase in the morphological marking of plurality reflects a morphosyntactic accumulation of subject and predicate plurality (i.e. aspect). In this sense, morphology is a direct exponent of featural content. But there is no consistent mapping between the two systems, and the precise calibration between morphological form and morphosyntactic function must be lexically specified; it is this specification that increases dramatically the number of inflectional types. Seri therefore represents a middle ground between the conceptual extremes of morphosyntactically motivated and morphologically autonomous morphology that serve as a basis for much of our theory building.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackerman, Farrell, and Bonami, Olivier. 2017. Systemic polyfunctionality and morphology-syntax interdependencies. Defaults in morphological theory, ed. by Hippisley, Andrew and Gisborne, Nikolas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell, and Malouf, Robert. 2013. Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language 89. 3. 429–64. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2013.0054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arensen, Jon. 1982. Murle grammar. (Occasional papers in the study of Sudanese languages 2.) Juba: University of Juba and SIL International.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2012. Paradigmatic chaos in Nuer. Language 88. 3. 467–94. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2012.0065.10.1353/lan.2012.0065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2014. Covert systematicity in a distributionally complex system. Journal of Linguistics 50. 147. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226713000030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42. 531–73. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226706004191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2008. Declension classes in Estonian. Linguistica Uralica 43.4.241–67.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2015. Inflectional paradigms. The Oxford handbook of inflection, ed. by Baerman, Matthew, 87111. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier, and Boyé, Gilles. 2006. Deriving inflectional irregularity. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2006), 360–81. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2006/abstr-bonami-boye.shtml.10.21248/hpsg.2006.20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network morphology: A defaults-based theory of word structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511794346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2015. Average conditional entropy of the Tlingit verbal inflection paradigm: A brief report. Short schrift for Alan Prince, compiled by Eric Baković. Online: https://princeshortschrift.wordpress.com/squibs/cable/.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1983. Paradigm economy. Journal of Linguistics 19. 115–28. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700007477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language 70.4.737–88. DOI: 10.2307/416326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville g., and Fraser, Norman. 1993. Network morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29. 113–42. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700000074.10.1017/S0022226700000074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura a., and Townsend, Charles E.. 2000. Czech. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Lewis, Μ. Paul (ed.) 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. 16th edn. Dallas: SIL International. Online: http://archive.ethnologue.com/16/.Google Scholar
Marlett, Stephen A. 1981. The structure of Seri. San Diego: University of California, San Diego dissertation.Google Scholar
Marlett, Stephen A. 2008a. Denominal verbs in Seri. International Journal of American Linguistics 74. 4. 471–88. DOI: 10.1086/595574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marlett, Stephen A. 2008b. Stress, extrametricality and the minimal word in Seri. Linguistic Discovery 6.1.114. DOI: 10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.321.10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marlett, Stephen A. 2016. Cmiique litom: The Seri language. Grand Forks: University of North Dakota, ms. Pre-publication version, March 9, 2016. Online: https://arts-sciences.und.edu/summer-institute-of-linguistics/faculty/marlett-steve/serigrammar.pdf.Google Scholar
Moser, Edward W. 1961. Number in Seri verbs. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania master's thesis.Google Scholar
Moser, Edward w., and Moser, Mary B.. 1976. Seri noun pluralization classes. Hokan studies, ed. by Langdon, Margaret and Silver, Shirley, 285–96. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Moser, Mary b., and Marlett, Stephen A.. 2010. Comcaac quih yaza quih hant ihiip hac = Diccionario seri-español-inglés. (Colección bicentenario.) Mexico City: Plaza y Valdés Editores, and Sonora: Universidad de Sonora.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2007. Notes on paradigm economy. Morphology 17. 1. 138. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-007-9114-x.10.1007/s11525-007-9114-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 2005. A constraint on interclass syncretism. Yearbook of Morphology 2004. 273315. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-2900-4_9.10.1007/1-4020-2900-4_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims, Andrea. 2011. Information theory and paradigmatic morphology. Paper presented at the workshop ‘Information-theoretic approaches to linguistics’, LSA Linguistic Institute 2011, Boulder, CO. Online: http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/LSAinfotheory/presentations/Sims.pdf.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2006. Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82.2.279322. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2006.0110.10.1353/lan.2006.0110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T., and Finkel, Raphael. 2013. Morphological typology: From word to paradigm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139248860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie.10.1515/9783112709658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Baerman supplementary material

Baerman supplementary material
Download Baerman supplementary material(File)
File 200.9 KB