Regularity and
irregularity in Italian
verbal inflection
Gilles Boyé
Fabio Montermini
CNRS & Université de Bordeaux 3
Gilles.Boye@u-bordeaux3.fr
CNRS & Université de Toulouse
fabio.montermini@univ-tlse2.fr
Theoretical framework
An analysis of Italian verb conjugation in a ‘Word
and Paradigm’ model
What’s new:
A more detailed analysis of the relationship between
forms
Multiple parameters are taken into account
(segmental, prosodic…)
Possible linking with psycholinguistic experimentation
Possible implementation and modelization
(cf. Pirrelli & Battista [2000] for Italian, Bonami & Boyé [2003] for
French , Boyé & Cabredo Hofherr [2006] for Spanish)
Some questions
How do speakers use (and learn) the
inflectional system of their language?
How a speaker has immediate access to
the whole paradigm of a word by
learning a single form?
Are there any limitations to the
complexity in the structure of a lexeme
(word)?
The notion of stem space
Irregularity in the paradigm of English verbs
A
A
+ed
A⊕ed
A
A
A
B
B
B
+ed
A⊕ed
=
=
A⊕ed
B
B
C
A
LOVE
MOW
LEAVE
SING
*
The notion of stem space
Italian present indicative
Infinitive
(S1)
3rd person
(S3)
1st person
(S2)
‘fear’
A
tem⊕ere
A
tem⊕e
A
tem⊕o
‘be worthy’
A
val⊕ere
A
val⊕e
B
valg⊕o
‘must’
A
dov⊕ere
B
dev⊕e
B
dev⊕o
‘keep’
A
ten⊕ere
B
tjen⊕e
C
teng⊕o
*
A
B
A
The notion of stem space
Irregularity is distributed in a systematic way.
Irregulars are not a more complex case of regulars;
rather, the latter are a simplification of the former.
A lexeme is planned to reach a certain degree of
complexity. No lexeme displays the maximal
complexity; the majority of lexemes (i.e. the
regulars) display the minimal complexity.
The stem space of Italian
verbs
1
2
3
4
5
6
Fut. Ind.
S6⊕ró
S6⊕ráj
S6⊕rá
S6⊕rémo
S6⊕réte
S6⊕ránno
Pres. Cnd.
S6⊕réj
S6⊕résti
S6⊕rébbe
S6⊕rémmo
S6⊕réste
S6⊕rébbero
Pres. Sbj.
S2
S2
S2
S4⊕iámo
S4⊕iáte
S2⊕no
Pres Ind.
S2|V ⇒ o
S2|V ⇒ i
S3
S4⊕iámo
S1⊕te
S2
i ⇒ a/a ⇒ o
⊕no
Impf. Ind.
S1⊕vo
S1⊕vi
S1⊕va
S1⊕vámo
S1⊕váte
S1⊕vano
Impf. Sbj.
S1⊕ssi
S1⊕ssi
S1⊕ssi
S1⊕ssimo
S1⊕ste
S1⊕ssero
Past Ind.
S5⊕i
S1⊕sti
S5|á ⇒ ó
S1⊕mmo
S1⊕ste
S5⊕ro(no)
Imperative
S5|e ⇒ i
Pres. part.
S1|i ⇒ e | ⊕nte
Gerund
S1|i ⇒ e | ⊕ndo
Past part.
S7|e ⇒ u | ⊕to
Infinitive
S8⊕re
How to fill the stem space?
S2
TV = last vowel of the stem
if /a/ ⇒ /i/
iʃe ⇒ iska
/kánta/ => /kánti/ (‘sing’)
if TV = /e/,
stress on Theme Vowel ⇒
on Pre-Thematic vowel
/kredévo/ ⇒ /krédere/
(‘believe’)
a⇒i|e⇒a
stress on Theme Vowel ⇒
on Pre-Thematic vowel
S3
/kantávo/ ⇒ /kánta/ (‘sing’)
i ⇒ iʃe
stress TV ⇒ PTV
S1
é : stress TV ⇒ PTV
=
TV ⇒ ∅
a⇒e
suppress stress
S6
S8
S7
S4
é ⇒ étte
S5
From stems to forms
S1
kantá
⊕vo
S3
kánta
V ⇒i
⊕te
kantávo
kantáte
1SG
IMPF
IND
1PL
PRES
IND
…
=
S2
kánti
e⇒i
=
V ⇒o
kánti
kánta
kánta
kánti
kánto
2SG
PRES
IND
3SG
PRES
IND
2SG
IMPER
123SG
PRES
SUBJ
1SG
PRES
IND
…
Conjugation
What’s in the grammar:
•The stem indexing: for every form the index of its stem
•The stem graph: the default rules for circulating between
stems
S2 = S3 iʃe ⇒ iska | a ⇒ i | e ⇒ a
S3 = S1 i ⇒ iʃe | stress TV ⇒ PTV
S4 = S1 | TV ⇒ ∅
S5 = S7 | é ⇒ étte
S6 = S8 | a ⇒ e | suppress stress
S7 = S1
S8 = S1 | é stress TV ⇒ PTV
•The form recipes: the rules for constructing each form.
Conjugation
What’s in the lexicon:
•For regulars: just one stem (typically S2 or S3,
since they are the only ones which bear
information about idiosyncratic stress, cf.
/kómpliko/ ‘I complicate’ vs /fatíko/ ‘I work hard’)
•All irregular stems (e.g. USCIRE ‘go out’, S1=uʃí /
S2=éska / S3=éʃe)
•All irregular inflected forms (e.g. sono ‘I am’)
The rules
The rules may specify a segmental operation (the
adjunction of a suffix), another kind (e.g. prosodic) of
operation, or no operation at all
Most rules are phonologically natural, but not
phonologically motivated; therefore, phonologically
unnatural rules are not excluded (e.g. /i/ ⇒ /iʃe/ in
/finívo/ ⇒ /finíʃe/)
Stem realization rules and inflected forms realization
rules have the same format. There is no qualitative
distinction. We may find suppletion at both levels
(suppletive stems, e.g. /tenére/ ‘keep’ vs /téngo/ ‘I
keep’ or suppletive forms, see sono above)
The classes
The rules refer to TVs (Theme Vowels) and not to
classes, because there is a great redundancy in the
paradigm of verbs which have different TVs.
Unlike, for instance, the 5 classes of Latin nouns:
I
II
III
IV
V
Nom
Xa
Xus
X
Xus
Xes
Gen
Xae
Xi
Xis
Xus
Xei
Dat
Xae
Xo
Xi
Xui
Xei
Acc
Xam
Xum
Xem
Xum
Xem
Voc
Xa
Xe
X
Xus
Xes
Abl
Xa
Xo
Xe
Xu
Xe
Regularity vs irregularity
A regular lexeme (verb) is a lexeme for which a
speaker is able to reconstruct the whole paradigm
from any inflected form
"Class 1"
"Class 2"
"Class 3"
LAVARE
CREDERE
FINIRE
‘wash’
‘believe’
‘end’
S1/lavávo/
S1/kredévo/
S1/finívo/
S3/láva/
S8/krédere/
S3/finíʃi/
S2/lávi/
S2/finíska/
Regularity vs irregularity
Identity between stems throughout the paradigm
(the traditional notion of regularity) is a common
case, but not the only case.
See:
verbs like FINIRE ‘end’:
S1/finívo/ - S3/finíʃi/ - S2/finíska/
regular
vs
verbs like DORMIRE ‘sleep’ (~15 entries)
S1/dormívo/ - S3/dórmi/ - S2/dórma/
irregular
verbs like CREDERE ‘believe’:
S1/kredévo/ - S8/krédere/
vs
TEMERE ‘fear’ (1 entry!)
S1/temévo/ - S8/temére/
regular
irregular
References
Bonami, O., Boyé G. (2003), Supplétion et classes flexionnelles dans la conjugaison du
français, Langages, 152: 102-126.
Boyé, G., Cabredo Hofherr P. (2006), The structure of allomorphy in Spanish verbal
inflection, Cuadernos de Lingüística del Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset, 13.3: 9-24.
Burzio L. (2004), Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations in Italian verbal inflection, in:
Auger J., Clancy Clements J., Vance B. (eds), Contemporary Approaches to Romance
Linguistics, Amsterdam, John Benjamins: 17-44.
Maiden M. (2003), Il verbo italoromanzo: verso una storia autenticamente morfologica, in:
Giacomo-Marcellesi M., Rocchetti A. (eds), Il verbo italiano. Studi diacronici, sincronici,
contrastivi, didattici, Roma, Bulzoni: 3-21.
Matthews P. (1981), Present stem alternations in Italian, in: Geckeler E. et al. (eds), Logos
Semantikos. Studia linguistica in honorem Eugenio Coseriu, vol. IV, Madrid, Gredos / New
York / Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter: 57-65.
Napoli D.J., Vogel I. (1990), The conjugations of Italian, Italica, 67.4: 479-502.
Pirrelli V., Battista M. (2000), The paradigmatic dimension of stem allomorphy in Italian verb
inflection, Rivista di Linguistica, 12.2: 307-330.
Thornton A.M. (1999), Diagrammaticità, uniformità di codifica e morfomicità nella flessione
verbale italiana, in: Benincà P., Mioni A.M., Vanelli L. (eds), Fonologia e morfologia
dell’italiano e dei dialetti d’Italia, Roma, Bulzoni: 483-502.
 (2006), Is there a partition in the present indicative of Italian regular verbs?, paper
presented at the 12th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, May 25-28.