lecture 3: process morphology - linguistic society of america · lecture 3: process morphology 1....

Morphophonology 07/14/2017

1

Lecture 3: Process morphology 1. COPHONOLOGIES

• Cophonology: the association of a phonological mapping (set of rules, constraint ranking, etc.) with a particular morphological ‘operation’

o construction in Construction Morphology: Booij 2010 (also Gurevich 2006, Orgun 1996, Riehemann 2001, etc.)

o affix in item-based morphology o realizational rule, e.g. in Paradigm Function morphology o phase in Distributed Morphology (Sande 2017) o etc.

Compounding construction with

coordinate semantics

Cophonologies by phase (Sande

2017:103)

Suffixation construction (English

plural /z/)

Alternative treatment

of English plural /z/

• Morphologically conditioned phonology: the situation in which the cophonology of a given morphological construction is other than the Identity function or differs from the cophonology of another construction in the same language

• Question for today: how, and whether, to distinguish the above from process morphology…

• …and the relevance of the answer to this question to theories of the phonology-morphology interface (e.g. strata vs. cophonologies)

Semantics = Si U Sj Phonology = ɸx(P1,P2)

Semantics = Si Phonology = P1

Semantics = Sj Phonology = P2

103

1997; Ito and Mester, 1999; Kiparsky, 2000; Anttila, 2002; Inkelas and Zoll, 2005, 2007;Kiparsky, 2008). Here I use the particular implementation of subgrammars found in Cophonol-ogy Theory (Orgun, 1996; Inkelas et al., 1997; Anttila, 2002; Inkelas and Zoll, 2005, 2007).I begin by describing my assumptions about the morphological component of the grammar,then talk about the output of morphology which I assume is the input to the phonologicalcomponent.

Like DM, the model of the morphology/phonology interface presented here assumes thatsyntactic structure is the input to the morphological component. The syntactic structure ofa regular transitive verb in Guebie, is given in (176), where the verb has head-moved throughv to T, the inflectional position. T is the position of auxiliaries, when they surface, and ofinflected verbs when there is no auxiliary present. Nothing can ever intervene between thesubject and the inflectional position. Aspectual features such as ipfv, pfv are introduced inT, and neither is associated with a vocabulary item to be inserted. A hierarchical structureof the type in (176) is assumed to be both the output of syntax and the input to morphology.

(176) The input to morphology

CPphase

C TP

DP

Subj

T’

T

VerbAsp

vP

DP

Subj

v’

VP

DP

Obj

V

pverb

v

Verb

phase

phase

phase

Following DM, I assume that morphological operations apply to the hierarchical syntacticstructure in (176). For more on the catalog of operations that apply during the morphologicalcomponent, see Embick and Noyer (2001, 2007). Here I discuss only those morphological op-erations relevant in accounting for Guebie morphophonology, including vocabulary insertionand linearization.

I assume that the syntactic structure in (176) is spelled out, or sent to the morphologicalcomponent, in small chunks. There are at least three current proposals in the DistributedMorphology literature for how often syntactic structure is spelled out, and which syntactic

Semantics = Si + PL Phonology = ɸx(P1,/z/)

Semantics = Si Phonology = P1 Phonology = /z/

Semantics = Si + PL Phonology = ɸx(P1,/z/)

Semantics = Si Phonology = P1


2

2. PROCESS MORPHOLOGY: DEFINITION AND ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES Process morphology: morphology manifested as a phonological process other than morph concatenation

(1) Tohono O’odham: perfective verbs derived from imperfectives by deleting a final segment. Examples come from Yu 2000, and Anderson 1992, citing Zepeda 1983, 1984:

gloss Imperfective Perfective [Tohono O’odham] ‘hoe object’ síkon síko ‘rub against object’ híwa híw ‘bark’ hiːnk hiːn

(2) Keley-i (Malayo-Polynesian), nonperfect aspect marked by consonant , providing a coda to the leftmost light syllable (Samek-Lodovici 1992, citing original sources)

(a) (b) (c) (d) [Keley-i] Base: pili duyag Ɂagtu duntuk Subject focus: um-pilli um-duyyag man-Ɂagtu um-duntuk Object focus: pilli duyyag Ɂagtu duntuk Access. focus: Ɂi-ppili Ɂi-dduyag Ɂi-ɁɁagtu Ɂi-dduntuk (3) English: stress shift marks the conversion from verbs to nouns in English (e.g. Kiparsky

1982bc):

condúct → cónduct abstráct → ábstract recórd → récord

3. PHONOLOGICAL SUBSTANCE OF PROCESS MORPHOLOGY Leading questions:

• Is the substance of process morphology the same as or different from the substance of morphologically conditioned phonology?

• Can process morphology be reduced to abstract phonological affixation? • Can process morphology be reduced to morphologically conditioned phonology?

3.1 SUBTRACTION (compare to deletion, section 5.1, lecture 1)

(4) Final vowel subtraction marks nominative case in Lardil (4) (Blevins 1997, citing sources):

gloss UR Nominative cf. NonFuture Accusative (/-n/) [Lardil] a. ‘dugong’ /kentapal/ kentapal kentapal-in ‘storey’ /ngaluk/ ngalu ngaluk-in b. ‘rainbow’ /mayarra/ mayarr mayarra-n ‘sea’ /mela/ mela mela-n


3

(5) In Hausa, a final long vowel is shortened in derived adverbs (Newman 2000:39-40):

‘ground’ ƙásáː ƙásá ‘on the ground, below’ [Hausa] ‘forehead’ gòːʃíː gòːʃí ‘on the forehead’ ‘wing’ fíffíkèː fíffíkè ‘on the wing’ ‘hands’ hánnàːjéː hánnàːjé ‘in/on the hands’ ‘fingers’ jáːtsúː jáːtsú ‘on the fingers’

(6) Initial vowel deletion marks imperative formation in Nanti (Kampan; Michael 2008:243, 245):

a. /oog- eNpa =ro/ → genparo consume -IRREAL.A =3NMO ‘Eat it!’ b. /ahirik -e =ro/ → hirikero hold -IRREAL.I =3NMO ‘Take it!’ c. /ag -e =ro/ → gero take -IRREAL.I =3NMO ‘Take it!’ d. /am -ak -e paryanti/ → make paryanti bring -PERF -IRREAL.I plantain ‘bring plantains!’

(7) The irrealis suffix /-eNpa/ ~ /-e/ is required in Nanti imperatives but is not a dedicated marker of the imperative construction; it is also found in negative declaratives:

/teNkaNki o= irag -e/ → teNkaNki irage NEG.FOC 3NMS= cry -IRREAL.I ‘She didn’t cry at all’

(8) VC deletes in Alabama (Muskogean;Hardy & Montler 1988), to encode argument pluralization or repetitive action, in verbs. Stems are shown with classifier suffixes -ka, -li (Broadwell 1993):

gloss singular plural ‘lie down’ bal-ka balaa-ka ‘hit’ bat-li batat-li ‘join together’ ibacas-li ibacasaa-li ‘cut’ kol-li kolof-li (→ koloffi)

• Subtractive morphology is strong argument for process morphology, in the sense that they cannot be analyzed by means of the addition of a morpheme (ch. 4, Anderson 1992).

• Trommer & Zimmerman (2010) suggest that subtraction could be the phonological response to the addition of an abstract empty mora, citing Tohono O’odham as an example.

nodes, there is no principled guarantee that a given language will fullyintegrate a floating affix mora into prosodic structure. Whereas Quechuaattaches 1st person moras to both the syllabic and the segmental structureof the base, resulting in the configuration in (7a) and straightforwardphonetic interpretation of the mora, the phonologies of other languagesmight be less cooperative, and either fail to ensure association to thesyllabic level (7b) (a configuration involving what we call a DRIFTING m),the segmental level (7c) (a HANGING m) or both (7d) (a STRAY m) (we use thesymbol ‘V ’ to denote a segmental root node).

(7) Expected typology of m-integrationa.

• • • •

Fully integrated m

m

sb. Drifting m

m

sc. Hanging m

m

sd. Stray m

m

s

On standard assumptions with respect to the phonetic interpretation ofautosegmental representations, the affix mora is not phonetically inter-preted in (7b–d). However, our central claim is that only stray moras arephonologically truly inert, whereas unilaterally associated (drifting andhanging) moras can have indirect effects on phonological representations:they may trigger vowel shortening, as shown in (8a) for a hanging mora, orsegmental subtraction, as shown in (8b) for a drifting mora. In both cases,the obligatory upward or downward association of the affix mora triggersdissociation in the prosody of the base, due to independently motivatedphonological constraints such as a ban on quadrimoraic syllables, which inturn leads to non-realisation of underlying phonological material, asin (8a). Since drifting and hanging affix moras are not pronounced, thisresults in subtraction.

(8) Subtractive QMM by m-axationa.

⁄

Shortening

m

wr

m

s

i

m -m -m

⁄-m -m

m

wr

m

s

i

b. Subtraction

m

km

m

s

a

m m m

s

m

m

km a

468 Jochen Trommer and Eva Zimmermann


4

• Most theoretical treatments capture subtraction directly, either through deletion rules (e.g.Martin 1988, Anderson 1992), prosodic circumscription rules (e.g. Lombardi and McCarthy 1991) or anti-faithfulness constraints (e.g. Horwood 2001, Kurisu 2001).

3.2 GEMINATION (compare to gemination, section 5.2, lecture 1)

(9) In Woleaian, denotatives are formed by geminating the stem-initial consonant (Kennedy 2003).

fili → ffili ‘choose it/to choose’ βuga → bbuga ‘boil it/to boil’ tabee-y → ttabe ‘follow it/to follow’ (10) Alabama: consonant gemination and high tonal accent mark imperfective aspect (Hardy

& Montler 1988):

stem Imperfective gloss ilakallo ilákkallo ‘strong’ / ‘(getting) stronger’ hayooki háyyooki ‘deep’ / ‘(getting) deeper’ kasatka kássatka ‘cold’ / ‘ cool’ litihka líttihka ‘dirty’ / ‘a little dirty’ hopaaki hóppaaki ‘far’ / ‘not as far’ lamatki lámmatki ‘straight’ / ‘pretty straight’ conotli cónnotli ‘bend over’ / ‘be bent, stooped’ wataali wáttaali ‘put around neck’ / ‘wear around neck’

(11) Gemination as affixation? • Mora: (Hardy & Montler) • Abstract morpheme, realized minimally (Kennedy) • C slot

? Even on an affixation-style analysis of consonant gemination (morphology adds empty mora, phonology supplies segmental content), not all empty moras are fleshed out in the same way. The Alabama imperfective gemination construction comes with specific phonological instructions on the realization of the added mora (antepenultimate syllable, filled with consonant). Mora affixation is only part of the story; morphologically conditioned phonology is still needed.


5

3.3 VOWEL LENGTHENING (compare to vowel lengthening, section 5.3, lecture 1)

(12) Alabama Imperfective aspect in Alabama: vowel lengthening when the syllable whose onset would be the target of consonant is initial (because the stem is disyllabic; (12a)) or when the antepenultimate syllable is closed (CVC), preventing the following onset consonant from geminating (12b) (Hardy and Montler 1988:403, 404, 408):

stem Imperfective gloss a. hofna hóofna ‘smell’ isko íisko ‘drink’ noci nóoci ‘fall asleep’ b. campoli campóoli ‘taste good’/’be sweet’ ibakpila ibakpíila ‘turn upside down’ (13) Huallaga Quechua (Weber 1988, Weber and Landeman 1985): Vowel lengthening

realizes 1st person possessive in nouns ending in a short vowel (13a); otherwise, the suffix -niː occurs (13b) (see Álvarez (2005 for discussion)

gloss noun 1SG.possessive cf. 2SG.possessive a. ‘head’ uma umaː uma-yki ‘house’ wasi wasiː [~ waseː] wasi-ki b. ‘older (sibling)’ mayur mayur-niː mayur-nin

(14) Vowel lengthening also realizes first person marking in verbs:

a. aywa ‘go’ b. aywa-ː ‘go-1SG’ aywa-paːku-n ‘go-PL-3 aywa-ː-chu ‘go-1SG-NEG’ aywa-sha ‘go-PRTC’ aywa-nan ‘go-3>3SUB’

(15) V lengthening as affixation? • Mora (Hardy & Montler; handles both and lengthening) • V slot

3.4 TRUNCATION TO A PROSODIC CONSTITUENT (compare to truncation, section 5.4, lecture 1)

(16) (Peninsular) Spanish nickname formation: proper names are truncated to their first two syllables, the second of which must be open (Piñeros 2002):

ga.briél → gá.bri Gabriel da.niél → dá.ni Daniel a.drián → á.dri Adrián dio.ní.sio → dió.ni Dionisio χer.trú.dis → χér.tru Gertrudis mont.se.rát → mónt.se Montserrat


6

(17) Yapese vocatives (Jensen 1977): names truncated to heavy syllable formed from initial material (This case is discussed in McCarthy & Prince 1996, 1999, etc.)

name vocative luɁag luɁ bajaad baj maŋɛfɛl maŋ Truncatum not necessarily identical to a foot or syllable in the longer name ⎯ it is typically a maximal or optimal syllable or foot that can be constituted from the segments at the beginning (in these cases) or end (in other cases) of the original word. See Lappe 2003 for survey

(18) Yapese: maximal syllable Spanish: optimal foot Syllabification of full name: (lu) σ(Ɂag) σ (ri) σ(kar) σ(do) σ Truncatum: (luɁ)σ [(ri) σ(ka) σ]Φ vs. minimal *(lu) σ vs. maximal *[(ri) σ(kar) σ]Φ (19) Trisyllabic long word clippping in from Peninsular Spanish (Piñeros 2002) and Japanese

(Itô & Mester 1992):

a. ‘ecologist’ ekoloχísta > ekólo [Spanish] ‘proletariat’ proletário > proléta ‘amphetamine’ aɱfetamína > aɱféta ‘anarchist’ anarkísta > anárko ‘masochist’ masokísta > masóka b. ‘trichloro-ethylene’ torikuroroetireN > torikuro [Japanese] ‘rehabilitation’ rihabiriteesyoN > rihabiri ‘asparagus’ asuparagasu > asupara ‘Hysterie (Ger.)’ hisuterii > hisu ‘hunger strike’ haNgaa sutoraiki > haNsuto ‘Akasaka Prince (hotel) akasaka puriNsu > akapuri

Difference between truncation as sole marker of morphological constructions vs. truncation that accompanies affixation (Lecture 1): truncated base to which suffixes attach does not itself have to be syllabified exhaustively, while bare truncata must be syllabifiable. (20) Truncation + suffixation in Australian English (Lappe 2007) (a), German (Itô & Mester

1997) (b)

a. aggressive, aggravation > aggr-o b. Gabriele > Gab-i (*Gabr-i) compensation > comp-o Dagmar > Dagg-i (*Dagm-i) evening > ev-o Gorbatschow > Gorb-i garbage collector > garb-o Klinsmann > Klins-i journalist > journ-o (21) Truncation as affixation?

• Empty prosodic constituent (McCarthy & Prince 1996) But: additional phonological specifications are usually still needed in order to flesh out the empty constituent appropriately. Is the syllable maximal? optimal? minimal?


7

3.5 ABLAUT AND MUTATION (compare to section 5.5, lecture 1)

(22) Seereer-Siin (Atlantic; McLaughlin 2000:338):

gloss infinitive singular plural [Seereer-Siin] a. ‘want, like’ bug bugu mbugu ‘be ill’ ɟir ɟir ɲɟir ‘stutter’ duɁ duɁa nduɁa b. ‘look for’ waaɗ waaɗa mbaaɗa c. ‘do’ fiɁ fiɁa piɁa d. ‘pour out waste water’ ɓaf ɓafa ɓafa ‘cut’ ɗeg ɗega ƭega

(23) Mutation as affixation? • Floating feature(s), e.g. [+nasal] (McLaughlin 2000) • No one feature bundle could produce all the Seereer changes (nasalization, stopping,

devoicing) • Specific phonological instructions must accompany whatever abstract representation is

posited

3.6 DISSIMILATION AND ‘EXCHANGE’ RULES (compare to section 5.6, lecture 1)

(24) Dinka (Nilotic; Sudan): singular and plural nouns usually have opposite vowel lengths: if one is short, the other is long (Malou 1988):

gloss Singular Plural a. ‘dorsal fin of fish’ ñiim ñim ‘mahogany’ tiit tit ‘razor blade’ rëët rët b. ‘bell’ löt lööt ‘kind of bread’ tak taak

(25) Itnunyoso Trique 1st person possessives: stem-final /h/ is deleted (25a; /h/ is suffixed to all other stems (i.e. those ending in a vowel or /Ɂ/, which is replaced) (25b). The result: an /h/~/Ø/ toggle (Christian DiCanio p.c.; see Baerman 2007). (Alienably possessed nouns have prefixes.)

gloss base noun 1st person possessive a. ‘foot’ ta3koh4 ta3ko43 ‘petate’ ββeh5 tu3-ββe43

‘money’ sã3Ɂãh2 si3-sã2Ɂã2 ‘corn’ Ɂnih5 si3-Ɂni43 b. ‘face’ ri3ã32 riãh3 ‘head’ tʃa31 tʃah3 ‘breath, air’ na3ne1 si3-na1neh1 ‘candle’ kkaɁ3 si3-kkah3


8

• If this is phonological dissimilation, then it’s process morphology. • But it might be what Weigel (1993) calls ‘toggle morphology’, Baerman (2007) calls

‘morphological reversals’, and DeLacy (2012), Anttila & Bodomo (2009) call ‘polarity morphology’: affix with constant phonological form toggles value of morphological feature

(26) Polarity morphology in Dagaare (Gur): suffix -ri switches the value of number encoded

by the stem between singular and plural number (Anttila & Bodomo 2009).

gloss stem singular plural a. ‘forest’ tùù- túú túú-rí ‘police’ pòlísì- pòlísì pòlísì-rí ‘moon’ kyúú- kyúù kyúú-rì c. ‘rock’ pì pìì-rí pì-é ‘book’ gán- gán-í gám-à ‘seed’ bí bí-rì bí-è ‘rope’ mí mí-rì mí-è

? Morphologically conditioned dissimilation/polarity is unusual even as a morphologically conditioned phonological alternation; it is especially interesting and worthy of scrutiny as process morphology.

3.7 STRESS/TONE/PITCH-ACCENT (RE)ASSIGNMENT (compare to section 5.7, lecture 1) (27) Somali: Masculine gender marked by penultimate H tone; feminine gender marked by

final H (Hyman 1981; Saeed 1999):

masculine feminine ínan ‘boy’ inán ‘girl’ náʕas ‘stupid man’ naʕás ‘stupid woman’ góray ‘male ostrich’ goráy ‘female ostrich’

darmáan ‘colt’ darmaán ‘filly’

(28) Hausa (Chadic): LH tone melody replacement in formation of imperatives (Newman 2000):

Declarative Imperative gloss káːmàː kàːmáː ‘catch’ rúfèː rùféː ‘close’ bíncìkéː bìncìkéː ‘investigate’ káːwóː kàːwóː ‘bring’ nánnéːmóː nànnèːmóː ‘seek repeatedly’ (cf. néːmóː ‘seek’) sòːyú sòːyú ‘be fried’

(29) Rarámuri (Uto-Aztecan): imperatives shift stress to stem-final syllable (Caballero 2008):

a. ra’amá-bo ‘give.advice-FUT:PL’ ra’amá ‘give advice!’ ra’ámi-ri ‘give.advice-PST’ b. ra’ičá-ma ‘speak-FUT:SG’ ra’ičá ‘speak!’ ra’íči-ki ‘speak-PST:1’


9

(30) Upriver Halkomelem (Salishan): stress shift to initial syllable realizes the continuative aspect (Galloway 1993) ((30a). On verbs that already have initial stress, other mechanisms are used instead (CV reduplication (30b), hə-prefixation (30c) and vowel lengthening (30d)

Noncontinuative Continuative a. ‘soak’ ɬɛl.ˈqi ˈɬɛlqi ‘bark’ ƛ’əˈwəls ˈƛ’əwəls ‘bleed’ caaləxʷəm ˈcaaləxʷəm a. ‘sing’ ˈt’iləm ˈt’ilələm b. ‘swallow’ ˈməqət ˈhə-mq’ət c. ‘walk’ ˈɁiməx ˈɁiiməx (31) Tone/stress changes as affixation?

• Tone melody as floating morpheme? Rules for associating the tones still need specific phonological instructions

• Stress as floating morpheme? morphologically specific rules for deletion of existing stress, rules for associating floating stress still needed

3.8 SUMMARY SO FAR The phonological operations used to realize morphological constructions are essentially the same operations that can accompany overt affixation, reduplication and compounding.

4. DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN MORPHOLOGICALLY CONDITIONED PHONOLOGY AND PROCESS MORPHOLOGY

• Given the overlap in phonological substance, how do we distinguish morphologically conditioned phonology from process morphology?

• Practical criterion: a phonological alternation is classified as ‘process morphology’ if it is the sole exponent of a morphological construction, whereas it is classified as ‘morphologically conditioned phonology’ if it accompanies something else which is judged to be the primary exponent of a morphological construction (affixation, reduplication, compounding).

(32) Process Morphology Diagnostic Criterion (PMDC): the phonological alternation in

question is the sole marker of the morphological construction

• Going by the PMDC, process morphology appears to be far less common than morphologically conditioned phonology.

• The explanation for this asymmetry could be diachronic; if process morphology is the result of the phonological erosion of the affix that originally triggered a morphologically conditioned phonological effect, process morphology would be a proper subtype of morphologicaly conditioned phonology, and about as common as entire affix erosion.


10

(33) Problem for the PMDC: many morphological constructions exhibit multiple phonological alternations, making it difficult or impossible to determine which phonological effect is the primary marker of the morphological construction (i.e. process morphology), and which is the secondary phonological correlate (i.e. morphologically conditioned phonology).

(34) Hausa (Newman 2000): the dimensions of whether a morphological construction is tone-replacing and/or has overt affixation are independent:

base tone replaced base tone preserved zero derivation ü ü overt affixation ü ü

(35) a. No affixation; tone replacement (imperative formation) [Hausa] káːmàː → kàːmáː ‘catch (!)’ bíncìkéː → bìncìkéː ‘investigate (!)’ nánnéːmóː → nànnèːmóː ‘seek repeatedly (!)’ (< néːmóː ‘seek’) b. No affixation, no tone replacement (Grade 2 verbal noun formation) fànsáː → fànsáː ‘redeem/redeeming’ tàmbáyàː → tàmbáyàː ‘ask/asking’ c. Overt affixation, tone replacement (various plural classes) máːlàm → màːlàm-ái ‘teacher-PL’ -LH rìːgáː → ríːg-únàː ‘gown-PL’ -HL tàmbáyàː → támbáy-óːyíː ‘question-PL’ -H d. Overt suffixation, no tone replacement (various) dáfàː → dáfàː-wá ‘cook-PPL’ -LH gàjéːréː → gàjéːr-ìyáː ‘short-FEM’ -LH hùːláː → hùːlâ-ř ‘hat-DEF’ -L (36) English truncation: MCP or process morphology?

Full name (a) Truncation (b) Truncation + affixation Daniel Dan Danny Elizabeth Liz Lizzy Michael Mike Mikey Rebecca Beck Becky Robert Rob Robby


11

(37) Two reductionist solutions (on arguments for collapsing the categories, see e.g. Ford & Singh 1983, 1985; Poser 1984; Dressler 1985; Singh 1987, 1996; Anderson 1992; Bochner 1992; Orgun 1996; Inkelas 1998, etc.) • PHONOLOGICAL REDUCTIONISM. Analyze all apparent cases of process morphology as

morphologically conditioned phonology which happens to accompany zero derivation. In this way, English Dan and Danny would both have truncation as a morphologically conditioned phonological side effect; the primary morphological process would be zero derivation (for Dan) and affixation of -y (for Danny).

• MORPHOLOGICAL REDUCTIONISM. Analyze all apparent cases of morphologically conditioned phonology as process morphology, treating forms like Lizz-y as containing two different nickname-forming constructions, or exhibiting multiple exponence. This approach is taken by Kurisu (2001) for cases in which overt morphology (affixation) is accompanied by morphologically conditioned phonology

(38) Multiple (‘extended’) exponence (see e.g. Matthews 1972; Stump 1991) exists

independently. Fox (Algonquian): subject person marked twice on plural verbs (c,d), once by a suffix encoding both person and number of the subject, and one by a prefix which encodes subject person (Dahlstrom 1997; see also Crysmann 1999). (‘!’ represents the root)

sg pl a. ne- nowiː c. ne- nowiː -pena 1 ne-! ne-!-pena 1 go.out 1 go.out -1PL 2 ke-! ke-!-pwa ‘I go out’ ‘we go out’ b. ke- nowiː d. ke- nowiː -pwa 2 go.out 2- go.out -2PL ‘you(sg) go out’ ‘you (pl.) go out

(39) Hausa: Class 13 noun plurals show triple exponence: suffix, reduplication, tone

replacement (Newman 2000):

tsíròː → tsìr-é+tsìr-é ‘shoot, sprout(s)’ kwánàː → kwàn-é+ksàn-é ‘corner, curve(s)’ hábáicìː → hàbàic-é+hàbàic-é ‘innuendo(s)’ (40) Barasana (Tucanoan; Kenstowicz and Gomez-Imbert 2000): Non3rdSubj -bɨ causes H

tone to align all the way to the right in words containing it (a), while Interrogative -ri causes H to align all the way to the left (b):

a. baa-bɨ ‘swim-NON3RDSUBJ = I/you/we swim’ [Barasana] HH H b. baa-ri ‘swim-INTERR = did he/she/they swim?’ H

These suffixes cannot co-occur. In words where both meanings are desired, we find the segments of the Interrogative -ri and the tones of the Non3rdSubj (41a): (41) a. baa-ri ‘did I/you/we swim?’ HH H b. *baa-ri-bɨ, *baa-bɨ-ri (Intended: ‘did I/you/we swim?’)


12

• Pycha 2008: Non3rdSubj and Interrogative both achieve exponence in (41a) by using the segments of one and the morphophonology of the other.

• Poses paradox for PMDC • The tone pattern of the Non3rdSubject must, by the PMDC, be analyzed as

morphologically conditioned phonology based on the fact that it co-occurs with a ‘primary’ exponent -bɨ;

• yet the ability of tone to expone Non3rdSubject when -bɨ is absent makes it process morphology.

5. THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO PROCESS MORPHOLOGY

• Documented instances of process morphology support theories of morphology other than those involving pure item-and-arrangement.

• But: Phonological Reductionism makes it possible for any theory to handle such cases, since all apparent process morphology can be classified as the phonological accompaniment to zero derivation if desired (ignoring the suggestive Barasana example).

• Therefore, the existence of process morphology is not technically probative when it comes to choosing between item-and-arrangement and realizational morphological frameworks.

• Process morphology is highly relevant to the choice of a framework for capturing the phonology-morphology interface, if one is committed to capturing the substantive overlap between it and morphologically conditioned phonology.

Cophonology Theory (e.g. Anttila 2002, Inkelas and Zoll 2007) and Indexed Constraint Theory (e.g. Alderete 2001) makes no formal distinction between morphologically conditioned phonology and process morphology; both are captured via a cophonology. (42) Hausa cophonologies a. Cophonology for -Ø imperative, -ai plural constructions: Tone=LH » IDENT-Tone b. Cophonology for tone-preserving constructions: IDENT-Tone » Tone=LH Level ordering theories

• LMP and Stratal OT theories are forced by their architecture into the dichotomy between morphologically conditioned phonology and process morphology. Because the number of lexical levels in such theories is so small, ranging from 2 (in Stratal OT; Kiparsky 2000, 2008, 2010) to 4 or 5 (e.g. Kiparsky 1984; Mohanan 1986; Hargus 1988, Buckley 1994), it is impracticable to ascribe the particular phonology of a given process morphology construction to the level that the morphological process belongs to.

• Level ordering theory is more a theory about higher-level generalizations in the phonology-morphology interface of a given language, or perhaps across languages, than it is a model of the entire phonology-morphology interface in any individual language. Level ordering theory has called very interesting generalizations to the attention of researchers into the phonology-morphology interface, highlighting in particular the phonological salience of stem-level subconstituents within words. But it is too blunt a knife to dissect the kinds of detail that make the phonology-morphology interface so compelling in individual languages, especially those with complex morphology.


13

References Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anttila, Arto & Adams Bodomo. 2009. Prosodic morphology in Dagaare. In Masangu Matondo, Fiona McLaughlin & Eric

Potsdam (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 56–68. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Baerman, Matthew. 2007. Morphological reversals. Journal of Linguistics 43(1). 33–61. Bochner, Harry. 1992. Simplicity in generative morphology. (Publications in Linguistic Sciences 37). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Broadwell, George Aaron. 1993. Subtractive Morphology in Southern Muskogean. International Journal of American Linguistics

59(4). 416–429. Buckley, Eugene L. 1994. Theoretical aspects of Kashaya phonology and morphology. (Dissertation in Linguistics Series).

Stanford: CSLI Publications. Caballero, Gabriela. 2008. Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) Phonology and Morphology. University of California, Berkeley

Ph.D. dissertation. Crysmann, Berthold. 1999. Morphosyntactic paradoxa in Fox: an anlaysis in linearization-based morphology. Constraints and

resources in natural language syntax and semantics. (Students in Constraint-Based Lexicalism). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Dahlstrom, Amy. 1997. Fox (Mesquakie) reduplication. International Journal of American Linguistics 63(2). 205–226. DeLacy, Paul. 2012. Morpho-phonological polarity. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence,

121–159. (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 41). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dressler, Wolfgang. 1985. Morphonology, the dynamics of derivation. . Vol. Edited by Kenneth C. Hill. Ann Arbor: Karoma

Publishers. Ford, Alan & Rajendra Singh. 1983. On the status of morphophonology. In John F Richardson, Mitchell Marks & Amy

Chukerman (eds.), Papers from the parasession on the interplay of phonology, morphology and syntax, 63–78. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Ford, Alan & Rajendra Singh. 1985. Towards a non-parametric morphology. In Mary Niepokuj, M VanClay, N Nikiforidou & D Feder (eds.), Papers from BLS 11, 87–95. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.

Galloway, Brent. 1993. A grammar of Upriver Halkomelem. . Vol. 96. ( University Publications in Linguistics). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gurevich, Olya. 2006. Constructional morphology: the Georgian version. University of California, Berkeley PhD dissertation. Hardy, Heather & Timothy Montler. 1988. Imperfective gemination in Alabama. International Journal of American Linguistics

54(4). 399–415. Hargus, Sharon. 1988. The lexical phonology of Sekani. (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics Series). New York: Garland

Publishing Co. Horwood, Graham. 2001. Anti-faithfulness and subtractive morphology. http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/466-0901/466-0901-

HORWOOD-0-0.PDF. Hyman, Larry M. 1981. Tonal accent in Somali. Studies in African Linguistics 12(2). 169–203. Inkelas, Sharon. 1998. The theoretical status of morphologically conditioned phonology: a case study from dominance. Yearbook

of Morphology 1997. 121–155. Itô, Junko & Armin Mester. 1992. Weak Layering and Word Binarity. Linguistic Research Center report. University of California,

Santa Cruz. Itô, Junko & Armin Mester. 1997. Sympathy Theory and German Truncations. In Viola Miglio & Bruce Morén (eds.), University

of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics: Selected papers from the Hopkins Optimality Theory Workshop 1997/University of Maryland Mayfest 1997, 117–139. College Park, MD: Linguistics Department, University of Maryland.

Jensen, J. T. 1977. Yapese grammar. . Vol. Yapese reference grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Kennedy, Robert. 2003. Confluence in phonology: evidence from Micronesian reduplication. Rutgers University Ph.D.

dissertation. Kiparsky, Paul. 1984. On the lexical phonology of Icelandic. In Claes-Christian Elert, Iréne Johansson & Eva Strangert (eds.),

Nordic prosody II: papers from a symposium, 135–164. Ume\aa: University of Ume\aa. Kurisu, Kazutaka. 2001. The phonology of morpheme realization. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, Santa Cruz Ph.D.

dissertation. Lappe, Sabine. 2003. Monosyllabicity in prosodic morphology: the case of truncated personal names in English. Yearbook of

Morphology 2002. 135–186. Lappe, Sabine. 2007. English prosodic morphology. Springer. Malou, J. 1988. Dinka vowel system. (Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics 82). Summer Institute of

Linguistics and Univeristy of Texas Arlington. Martin, Jack. 1988. Subtractive morphology as dissociation. In Hagit Borer (ed.), Proceedings of the seventh West Coast

Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CA: Stanford Linguistics Association.


14

McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1996. Prosodic Morphology 1986. Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science. McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1999. Prosodic Morphology (1986). In John Goldsmith (ed.), Phonological theory: the essential

readings, 238–288. Malden, MA: Blackwell. McLaughlin, Fiona. 2000. Consonant mutation and reduplication in Seereer-Siin. Phonology 17. 333–363. Michael, Lev. 2008. Nanti evidential practice: Language, knowledge, and social action in an Amazonian society. University of

Texas, Austin. Mohanan, K. P. 1986. Lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Newman, Paul. 2000. The Hausa language: an encyclopedic reference grammar. New Haven: Yale University Press. Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1996. Sign-based morphology and phonology: with special attention to Optimality Theory. University of

California, Berkeley. Piñeros, Carlos. 2002. Truncamientos en español [Truncated words in Spanish]. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 79(4). 437–459. Poser, William J. 1984. The phonetics and phonology of tone and intonation in Japanese. MIT PhD dissertation. Pycha, Anne. 2008. Partial blocking. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 41, vol. 1, 415–430. Chicago: University of

Chicago. Riehemann, Susanne. 2001. A constructional approach to idioms and word formation. Stanford University PhD dissertation. Saeed, John. 1999. Somali. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sande, Hannah. 2017. Distributing morphologically conditioned phonology: Three case studies from Guébie. University of

California, Berkeley Ph.D. dissertation. Singh, Rajendra. 1987. Well-formedness conditions and phonological theory. In Wolfgang Dressler, H. C. Luschützky, O. E

Pfeiffer & J. E. Rennison (eds.), Phonological 1984, 273–284. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Singh, Rajendra. 1996. Natural phono(morpho)logy: a view from the outside. In Bernhard Hurch & Richard Rhodes (eds.),

Natural phonology: the state of the art. Papers from the Bern Workshop., 1–38. Berlin: Mouton. Trommer, Jochen & Eva Zimmerman. 2010. Generalized mora affixation. University of Southern California. http://www.uni-

leipzig.de/~zimmerma/Talks/wccfl28_slides.pdf. Weigel, William. 1993. Morphosyntactic toggles. Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society,

467–478. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.

lecture 3: process morphology - linguistic society of america · lecture 3: process morphology 1....

Documents