Phonologically conditioned allomorph selection (original) (raw)
Related papers
Allomorph selection and lexical preferences: Two case studies
Lingua, 2007
Phonologically conditioned allomorphy is sometimes determined by universal marking conditions derived from low-ranked constraints, which is viewed as an effect of the emergence of the unmarked (TETU) in optimality theory. In this paper we present two case studies that make crucial use of allomorph selection as TETU but also of an additional property of the lexical representation of allomorphs, namely lexical ordering of allomorphs. The first case is the puzzling selection of definite marker in Haitian Creole (analyzed as an instance of anti-markedness in previous OT works), which yields to an appropriate analysis in terms of allomorph ordering. In the second case study, gender allomorph selection in Catalan, we propose a constraint RESPECT that ensures compliance with idiosyncratic lexical specifications, which further interacts with allomorph selection. # subjunctive markers -ra, -se ([Qa]$[se]) in (1a) or German diminutive suffix -lein, -chen ([laIn]$[ç3n]) in (1b) 1 :
Reduplication: Doubling in Morphology, by Sharon Inkelas and Cheryl Zoll, presents a new theory of reduplication, Morphological Doubling Theory (henceforth MDT), which reanalyzes the fundamental identity relation in reduplication as morphosyntactic. Most current theories of reduplication, building on and earlier work such as Wilbur , assume some version of Base-Reduplicant Correspondence Theory (BRCT), which requires surface phonological identity between the base and the reduplicant. In MDT, reduplicative constructions call for multiple copies of stems, which have independent inputs and are subject to independent phonotactic and morphotactic requirements. Surface phonological identity between the two reduplicative copies, as well as surface phonological non-identity, is therefore an indirect byproduct of identity of morphosyntactic features, as mediated by phonological and morphological requirements on each copy and on the entire reduplicative construction.
Allomorphy in Persian Past Stems
2015
Since Persian has some puzzling cases with regard to the past simple stems (i.e the stems Type II), this study focuses on the morphological treatment of the allomorphy of these verbs. This has been a long-standing issue in morphology addressed in various analyses till now. The one which is going to be described in the current article seems to work approximately well within Optimality Theory. With the evidence of phonological conditioning, the distribution of various morphs appears not to be entirely morphological in character. This study proposes an Output-Oriented morphology in which morphological processes are encoded in FIAT constraints, a type of constraint, and interact with the familiar Faithfulness constraints of Optimality Theory.
Allomorphy, morphological operations and the order of Slavic verb-prefixes
Slavic verbal prefixes form two classes, lexical prefixes, which are base-generated below the verb and superlexical prefixes, which are base-generated in the verb's functional projection (e.g. Svenonius 2004). On any principled syntactic account of linearization, this falsely predicts that they linearize on different sides of the verb. Different ad hoc measures have been proposed to get the linearization right, such as treating some prefixes as heads and others as phrases, or prefixes bearing diacritics that specify their attachment to the left. We argue that all verbal prefixes correspond to various argument-structural effects, and that consequently their locus of base generation is the head of a voice projection. On this basis, an analysis at the PF interface is formulated in terms of Embick and Noyer's (2001) local dislocation, where heads are linearized in a bottom-up fashion respecting their syntactic positionyet every step in the linearization is followed by local dislocation (LD). LD is by default string-vacuous and effects inversion only in case that the head being linearized partakes in an allomorphic realizationeither being allomorphic itself, or being part of a context of allomorphic realization. A strict implementation of this simple algorithm results exactly in the surface order empirically observed.
Palatalization in the Russian verb system: a psycholinguistic study
Kulinich, E., Royle, P. & Valois, D. (2016). Palatalization in the Russian verb system: a psycholinguistic study. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 24(2), 337-357.
In this paper, we present experimental data on the processing of loanwords and nonce words that focuses on morphonological alternations in Russian. This study addresses the issue of how stem allomorphy involving palatalization of the velar/palatal and dental/palatal types in the Russian verb system is processed in adults. Processing of morphonological alternations is shown to be quite variable (and probably unproductive) and to depend, on the one hand, on the distribution of allomorphs within the verb paradigm, and on the other hand, on verb class productivity. We hypothesize that these differences should be reflected in child language acquisition.
Split morphology and lexicalist morphosyntax: the case of transpositions
Bowern, C, Horn, L, Zanuttini, R (eds) On looking into words (and beyond). Language Science Press, 2017
I analyse the Russian participle system within Generalized Paradigm Function Morphology. The participles have the inflectional paradigm and the external syntax of an adjective, and yet they are part of the verb's inflectional paradigm (the 'paradigm-within-a-paradigm' problem). I use the feature REPR(ESENTATION) to trigger participle formation as part of the inflectional paradigm of the verb, by allowing the Generalized Paradigm Function to redefine the lexeme's MORPHOLEXICAL SIGNATURE, the lexical attribute which determines what properties a lexeme inflects for. This allows us to define the morpholexical category shift of the transposition without treating the transposition as derivational morphology: the GPF does not change the base lexeme's Lexemic Index. We thus maintain the inflection-derivation distinction ('split morphology') despite the shift in word class and morphosyntax.
Phonologically conditioned allomorphy in the morphology of Surmiran (Rumantsch)
Word Structure, 2008
About twenty years ago, Andrew Carstairs (1986, 1988) discussed some examples that seemed to fall inconveniently between the stools of phonology and morphology: cases where some alternation whose form is not plausibly attributed to the operation of phonological rules nonetheless seems to be conditioned by factors that are purely phonological. These examples then lay more or less fallow for more than a decade, apart from occasional attempts to deny their existence. With the rise of Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 2004, originally circulated in 1993), however, tools to handle such phenomena appeared to be at hand, and examples like those cited by Carstairs were revived to some extent as instances in which the actual input form, and not just its output correspondent, could be subject to selection by the constraint system. The principal reference here is a paper by René Kager (2007; actually written a number of years earlier), with additional contributions from other scholars in recent years. A current collection of papers on allomorphy (Tranel to appear) contains several papers dealing with these issues. Most examples that have been treated in the literature occupy quite limited space in the sound pattern of the language concerned, consisting of a
Morphology, divided and conquered. DRAFT
In Linguistica Brunensia, Brno. On line http://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/130163, 2016
Abstract: Concentrating on the taxonomy of grammatical morphemes, this study shows that traditional definitions of inflectional vs. derivational morphemes do not pass more rigorous testing, although they probably reflect instinctive distinctions present in a natural language system. The authors propose to define the distinctions by referring to derivational stages, namely by distinguishing levels of insertion for morphemes. Most of what is usually classified as derivational morphology and subject to Williams's (1981) Right Hand Head Rule are morphemes which enter derivations in narrow syntax. As such, they conform to what is here termed a Logical Form Interpretation Condition, which allows only one syntactic feature per morpheme. On the other hand, morphemes such as agreements are not subject to the Right Hand Head Rule and result from post-syntactic insertion and exhibit cross-classification. The authors propose that the source of these bound inflections is the process of Alternative Realisation. They argue that their new distinction between derivational and inflectional morphology correlates with testable semantic, phonetic and syntactic properties and that in terms of these properties, both are necessary parts of an adequate formal linguistic framework. 1 The basis for dividing inflection and derivation Analysts of natural language grammars never seem to tire of the quest to categorize two kinds of affixes, which are widely termed (1) inflectional and (2) derivational. 1 The persistence of these attempts indicates that linguists share intuitions about the reality of some core distinction between two kinds of elements, that this distinction is inherent to the language system, and therefore it must be part of any linguistic framework. The inconclusive discussions and variety of definitions, on the other hand, suggest that the study of the phenomena has not yet found a formalisation that can stand up to more rigorous scientific testing. We are going to address the issue from the perspective of generative grammar, accepting what is usually called Borer's Conjecture. In her study of parametric syntax, BORER (1984) proposes that the distinctions among the variety of human languages can be best expressed as distinctions among the repertory and characteristics of their grammatical morphemes. If so, a taxonomy of those morphemes must be a part of every linguistic analysis. 1 The division is in fact tripartite, but we are not going to address here free or lexical morphemes at all. Not because their status are much clearer but because of time and space reasons which force us to concentrate on a more limited topic.
How peculiar is evaluative morphology?
Journal of Linguistics 29, 1-36., 1993
1. INTRODUCTION Many languages possess morphological rules which serve to express diminution or augmentation, endearment or contempt; examples are the Breton rule relatingpotr 'boy' topotrig 'little boy', the Shona rule relating chibikiso' cooking tool' to zichibikiso' huge cooking tool' and the Italian rule relating poeta 'poet' to poetastro 'bad poet'. Because of the possibility of interpreting diminution and augmentation in affective rather than purely objective terms (Wierzbicka, 1980: 530°.; Szymanek, 1988: io6ff.), morphological expressions of diminution or augmentation are not always discrete from those of endearment or contempt; that is, diminutives and augmentatives are frequently used as expressions of endearment (such as Italianjore//a'sister'-> jore///na'dearlittlesister',rfonna'woman'-* donnotta 'fine, stout woman') or disdain (Italian uomo 'man'-> uomicciuolo 'contemptible little man', donna-> donnona 'overgrown girl'). Rules expressing these notions sometimes exhibit the distinctive property of allowing one or more morphosyntactic feature specifications to persist (or 'percolate') from a base to its derivative; for instance, the Breton rule of diminutivization preserves the gender of a nominal base (for example potr (masc.)->dim. potrig (masc); mere'ft 'girl' (fem.)-> dim. merc'hig (fern.)). Where F is a morphosyntactic feature whose specification is allowed to persist from base to derivative by a rule of this sort, the rule will here be said t o b e TRANSPARENT WITH RESPECT TO F. Rules which are transparent with respect to some morphosyntactic feature apparently never change the syntactic category of the base to which they apply. That is, for any two distinct syntactic categories X and Y, no rule which is transparent with respect to some morphosyntactic feature F ever applies to a base of category X to produce a derivative of category Y, even if F is a feature for which members of both X and Y may in principle be [1] Earlier versions of this article were presented at Wayne State University in March 1991 and at Indiana University in April 1992. I wish to thank the members of those audiences and three anonymous referees for their suggestions. Thanks also to Allan Gatibaru, Esther Kinyanjui and Alex Mutonyi for helpful information concerning spoken Kikuyu. LIN 29