POLLACK, Jay Michael, 1951- LEXICAL FEATURES IN PHONOLOGY.

The Ohio State University Ph.D., 1977 Language, linguistics

University Microfilms International,Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

© Conyripht "by Jay Michael Pollack 1977 LEXICAL FEATURES IN PHONOLOGY

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School

of the Ohio State University

By

Jay Michael Pollack, S.B., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University

1977

Reading Committee: Approved by

Professor Arnold M. Zwicky

Professor Robert Jeffers

Professor Michael Geis

Advisor

Department of Linguistics ^or my narents, who had confidence in me, even when I didn't ACOIOV7LEDGEMENTS

There are many people T would like to thank for this dissertation.

My advisor, Arnold M. Zwicky, offered me constant encouragement,

extensive comments and much of his valuable time. In addition to being the best advisor I could imagine, he served as an inspiration for me to be more professional and thorough. The other members of my reading

committee, Michael Geis, and Robert J. Jeffers, also provided helpful

comments in several areas. I give deep thanks to these people, who have helped guide me for the past four years.

For useful discussion, I would like to thank David Stampe, Yehiel

Hayon, U s e Lehiste, David Dowtv, Catherine Callaghan, Rod Goman (at

3 a.m.), Christopher Farrar, Donald Churma, Kalman Palnicki, Ann D.

Zwicky and (not least) Robert Kantor. Hone of these people necessarily

agrees with anything I say here.

For spiritual guidance and/or moral support this summer, I thank

David Oolomb, Filkie Cirker, Bonnie Hilton, Reggie Rinderer, Dennis

Garber, Jerry Feiskott, David (Captain) Diemer and the Philadelphia

Phillies. I must a.lso tip my hat to Marlene (The Boss) Payha for her

unmatched skill and for every little thing she han done for me during my

stay at Ohio State.

Finally, for days of typing, for copying French and for, well,

everything, I cannot even start here to tell my wife Caren how much I

am grateful to her. Tf it were not for her, this dissertation would

still be in progress. One lobster cannot begin to pay the debt.

iii VITA

July 1 1 , 1951 Born - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

1972 S.B., Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Cambridge, Massachusetts

1 9 7 k _ i9TT Teaching Associate, Department of Linguistics,

The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

197^ M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1977 Research Associate, Department of Linguistics,

The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

"A Re-Analysis of NEG-RAISING in English", Ohio State University Working

Papers in Linguistics 21, 1976, p.189-239

"The Cost of Referring to Semantic Redundancy Rules in the Lexicon", to appear in Michigan State University Working Papers in Linguistics. Read before the summer 1976 meeting of the Linguistic Society of America,

Oswego, New York

"On the Alleged Differences Between Word Formation Rules and Lexical

Redundancy Rules", read before the winter 1976 meeting of the Linguistic

Society of America, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

"A Problem for NEG-RAISING", to appear in The CLS Book of Squibs, 1977»

Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, Illinois "Upside-down Phonology and Natural Processes", to appear in The CL5

Book of Squihs, 1977» Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, Illinois

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Linguistics

Studies in Syntax: Professors Arnold M. Zwicky, David Dowty

and Ray Jackendoff

Studies in Phonology: Professors David Stampe and James

McCawley

Studies in Hebrew: Professors Yehiel Hayon and Dennis Pardee

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii VITA ...... iv INTRODUCTION ...... 1 CHAPTER 1 A Survey of Lexical Features 1.0 Introduction...... ^ 1.1 7 Features ...... k 1.2 Conjugation Class Features ...... 7 1.3 Inflection Features ...... 9 l.U Rule F e a t u r e s ...... 10 1.5 Diacritic F e a t u r e s ...... 12 1.6 S u m m a r y ...... • 15 Footnote to Chapter 1 ...... 16 CHAPTER 2 Historical Background 2.0 Introduction...... 17 2.1 Phonological Distinctive Features ...... 17 2.2 Lexical Features ...... 25 2.3 S u m m a r y ...... 3^ Footnote to Chapter 2 ...... 36 CHAPTER 3 Theoretical Framework 3.Q Introduction...... 37 3.1 Natural Phonology ...... 38 3.2 Upside-down Phonology ...... ll 3.3 Morphological Redundancy Rules ...... ^3 3.U Discussion...... ^6 3.5 S u m m a r y ...... 5U Footnotes to Chapter 3 - • 56 CHAPTER U Analysis of Biblical Hebrew 1+.0 Introduction...... 57 U.l Outline of Biblical HebrewStructure ... 57 h.2 Organization of the Verb Patterns ...... 62 U.3 The S e g o l a t e s ...... 78 h.U Reduced Vowels and Lengthened Vo w e l s ...... 100 1+.5 IIitpa"el M e t a t h e s i s ...... 107 U .6 Object Suffixes on the 2fsg Pe r f e c t ...... 110 It.7 Construct S t a t e ...... 11^- 1.8 Discussion...... 119 Footnotes to Chapter 1 ...... 131 CHAPTER 5 Other Parts of the Grammar 0 Introduction...... 133 5.1 The Phonological C y c l e ...... 133 5.2 External. S a n d h i ...... 118 5.3 The Organization of theGr a m m a r ...... 162 Footnote to Chapter 5 ...... 168 vi CHAPTER 6 Uses of the Features 6.0 Introduction...... 169 6.1 Rule F e a t u r e s ...... 169 6.2 X Features . 172 6.3 ConjuGation Class Features ...... 179 6.k Diacritic Features ...... l8l 6.5 Inflection Features ...... 192 6.6 Discussion...... 19^ Footnote to Chapter 6 ..... 202 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 203 LANGUAGE INDEX ...... - - 210

vii INTRODUCTION

Recent phonological analyses have operated under the assumption that the best, most efficient means of describing a system of sounds and their modifications is by using phonological features (called

’phonological distinctive features'). Each individual sound consists of a set of values, one for each of the relevant features for the lan­ guage. Rules are formulated in terms of features, where sounds or groups of sounds can be referred to as those which have a specific value for a certain feature, or as those which form the intersection of the classes which have the specified values for two or more features.

As an example, consider the following rule in English:

(1) -CONTINUANT [+ASPIRATED] / H -VOICED

The feature value [-CONTINUANT] refers to the following sounds:. p b t d k g. The feature value [-VOICED] indicates the sounds: pf+sskch.

The intersection of the two sets is: p t k. By referring to these three sounds this way, we are claiming that it is not a coincidence that p becomes ph at the beginning of a word, t becomes + h at the beginning of a word and k becomes kh at the beginning of a word, but rather that these sounds are behaving as a class in undergoing this change. The features are an advantage because with them we can state as one rule what would otherwise be three not necessarily related rules. These phonological features are usually based on phonetic charac­ teristics of the sounds. Similar features can also be defined for su- prasegmental phonetic characteristics. But there are sometimes claimed to be other characteristics which rules refer to which are not phonetic.

For instance, some rules are claimed to apply (or not to apply) only to loanwords. Some rules are claimed to apply only to words of specific lexical category, like noun or verb. Similarly to the previous example, we can refer to a specific class of lexical forms by means of a feature

(or more than one) which refers to the particular quality we are inter­ ested in. Therefore, the notion of features has been extended to these kind of characteristics, with a few differences to be noted.

First of all, these features are not based on phonetic considera­ tions. Sometimes they are based on etymological factors, sometimes on morphosyntactic characteristics and sometimes a class of items has nothing more in common than a particular rule that members under­ go (or fail to undergo).

Second, whereas phonetic features are characteristics of individual

segments, these lexical features are properties of an entire word (or morpheme). Usually, by convention, the values of the lexical feature

are assigned to each individual segment of the form.

It is generally the case for modern theories of grammar that they

are much too powerful — that is, they permit the construction within

them of many individual grammars which could not possibly correspond to

any natural language. Therefore it is worthwhile to try to limit, in as

many and as strict ways as possible, the class of grammars which can be formulated within the theory (while assuring that no real grammars are excluded), Therefore, it is important to see to what extent lexical features can be limited, both in what kinds of features phonological rules may refer to and in what kind of rules may refer to these features.

That is the task of this dissertation.

The organization of the chapters is as follows: Chapter 1 gives examples of different types of lexical features. Chapter 2 contains a brief discussion of the history of the use of features, both phonologi­ cal and lexical. Chapter 3 discusses the theoretical framework which I use in the rest of the work. Chapter U is a look at some problems in

Biblical Hebrew, showing how our framework will handle them and how the framework must be modified to do so. Chapter 5 deals with the phonolo­ gical cycle and external sandhi rules. Chapter 6 takes up the features again to determine the extent of their use in our framework. CHAPTER 1

A SURVEY OF LEXICAL FEATURES

1.0 Introduction

In this chapter, I present a preliminary typology of lexical features, along with examples which have been claimed in the litera­ ture to require phonological rules which make use of features of each type. Most of the rules are in the theoretical framework of Chomsky and Halle 1968, which I will refer to as Standard Generative Phonology

(SGP). Obviously, if we change the theoretical ground, many of the analyses and rules will change. This possibility will be explored

in later chapters. At this stage, I will make no attempt to evaluate

claims made in any of the examples.

r 1.1 X Features

1.1.1 The first class of features refers to the specific lexical

category of the word to which the phonological rule is applied. Al­

though these rules are usually stated using terms such as noun, ad.1 ec-

tive and verb to refer to the lexical categories, these categories can

be thought of as bundles of syntactic features, just as phonological

segments can be thought of as bundles of distinctive features. For

now, I will give the examples as originally formulated using the fami­

liar category terms, but it should be remembered that for the grammar to be general, if the syntactic rules are to be stated in terms of syntactic features rather than the common terms, then the phonologi­ cal rules should also use these features. This will be even more ap­ parent when the other types of lexical features are brought into the discussion. So, for example, according to Jackendoff's (1977) sys­ tem of syntactic features, noun would more properly be referred to as [+SUBJECT, -OBJECT, +COMPLEMENT] and the class including noun and ad jective can be referred to as [-OBJECT, +COMPLEMENT]. See section

2.2.U for more discussion of this type of feature, which I will re­ fer to as X features, after the name of the system of notation de­ veloped for syntactic categories®

1.1.2 The most famous examples of rules that use X features are probably rules of stress placement. So, for instance, Chomsky and

Halle 1968, in their discussion of stress in multi-syllable words in

English, formulate the Alternating Stress Rule as follows:

(1) V -* [l stress] / C ( = )C VC [l stress] C ] AT.T v O o O O N jADJjV This rule applies to certain nouns, adjectives and verbs of three or more syllables which have previously been assigned a stress by the preceding Main Stress rule. The stress is moved two syllables to the left in words like hurricane, hypoteneuse, c6ntemplate, c6n-

stitute, difficult and comatose. Certain other words like c5mpre- hend, intersect and contravene are claimed to contain a boundary be­

fore the final syllable which blocks the application of this rule.

It is of interest to note that in X features, the categories

noun, adjective and verb together do not form a natural class (see

section 2 .2 .M. It might seem at first glance that the specification of the lexi­ cal category is unnecessary in this rule, since there is little else that the rule could apply to. It happens that the importance of the specification of categories comes up vith regard to the rule's apply­ ing in the phonological cycle. Thus, the Alternating Stress rule ap­ plies only on the Noun, Verb or Adjective cycle as opposed to the

Stem cycle, the Noun Phrase cycle and so on. In fact, a large percen­ tage of the rules which refer to X features are stress placement rules, and in turn, a large percentage (if not all) of the stress placement rules apply within the phonological cycle. There will be more to say about stress rules and cyclic rules in Chapter 5.

1.1.3 There are also many examples in the literature which give phonological rules that apply only to the root or stem of the word, or conversely, only to affixes. Roots and affixes have not been in­ corporated into the system of syntactic features, but the relevant rules seem to be restricted in a way more similarly to the way X features work than to the way the other features do. For instance, any rule referring to a root or affix must have brackets in it, a characteristic which is otherwise true only of rules using X features.

On the other hand, we could be dealing with a separate class of fea­ tures, since the rules which use them seem not to be limited to stress rules. For example, Howren 1968 gives the following rules (among others) which apply in Dogrib (Northern Athapaskan):

(2a) [+FORTIS] * [-FORTIS] / pFORTIs!] +CONSONANTAL + -INTERRUPTED L v J! ROOT where ROOT[ is the initial boundary of a noun or verb root (This rule changes /s,s,h,W/ into lz,z,y,w] in root-initial posi­ tion giving [nezT] from [ne+ [sT]] 'your song' cf. NOUN NOUNSTEM [Weda] 'a living creature lies' where prefix-initial /W/ is not af­ fected. )

(2b) [-INTERRUPTED] - [ INTERRUPTED]/ T— — — — +CONSONANTAL -CONSONANTAL +SONORANT +SYLLABIC [+NASAL - NASAL

(This rule assigns to a root-initial nasal consonant the interrupted­ ness value which is opposite to the nasality value of the following vowel, cf. [k'e be] 'he swims' and [em5] 'mother'. Prefix-initial nasals are not affected by this rule, cf. [nit'a] 'he flies'.)

(2c) d ■* r / PREFIX [______

(2d) t - d / PREFIX [___ (cf. /na+te+de+h+?T/ -

[nadereh’7] 'I am hiding myself' and [dahmft] ’roof* with no prefixes where (2c) is not applicable.)

There is some question as to whether rules referring to roots and affixes all belong in the cycle. It would seem that at least some do, since some stress rules (Chomsky and Halle's (1968) Main

Stress rule, for one) do refer to stems. Whether the others belong

is an important issue and will be dealt with later in Chapter 5.

1.2 Conjugation Class Features

1.2.1 The next set of features are those which specify which con-

jugational class a word belongs to. So, for example, in Spanish, the verb comer 'to eat' will be marked [2 CONJUGATION] and amar 'to Jove' will be [l CONJUGATION], in Latin, the noun puer 'boy' will be marked 8

[2 DECLENSION] and the verb audire 'to hear' will be [U CONJUGATION], and in Arabic the verb ?izdara 'to slight' will be marked

[VIII CONJUGATION] (in each case using the traditional numbers for the conjugations). This assumes, of course, a lexicon of a specific structure, namely one in which these features are not predictable from the phonological form of the word (or from anything else).

This suggests a lexicon with stems in it (as in SGP) rather than full words. We shall see what happens if we change our assumptions about the lexicon, as we will in chapter 3.

It is possible that, for languages which do not have separate conjugations, like English or German, features like [+STRONG] or

[+REGULAR] also belong in this category, as opposed to being diacri­ tic features (see 1.5). The fact that these features are somewhat borderline suggests that perhaps there is no clear cut division be­ tween the classes.

Notice that these features (which I will refer to as conjuga-

. *T» tion class features) automatically imply the use of X features, since referring to a specific conjugation or declension assumes that a specific lexical category is intended. But by the standard conven­ tion in phonological rules, only those features which are directly relevant to the rule need be mentioned. In rules that use conjuga­ tion class features, the particular lexical category involved is usually redundant information, and is therefore not given in the rule. 1.2.2 For an example, consider Hebrew. In the verb conjugation called Hitpa"el, which takes the form hit+XaYeZ, where X, Y and Z are the three consonants of the Hebrew root, if X is a sibilant, there is a metathesis of X and the t of the prefix. Barkai 1973 writes the rule as follows:

(3) [+CORONAL] + [+STRIDENT] 1 2 3 -*321 in Hitpa"el

Thus, hit+sapeax -* histapeax 'to be joined to' cf. hit+halex-* hithalex

'to walk up and back', where rule (3 ) is not applicable.

1.3 Inflection Features

1.3.1 There are many phonological rules which are claimed to apply only to specific members of an inflectional paradigm. Accord­ ing to the theory of syntax assumed in SGP, each form in the syntactic surface structure consists of a series of syntactic features which in­ dicates which member of the paradigm the form is. This would involve features like [+PLURAL], [+2ND PERSON], [+PAST TENSE], and so on.

These features, like the conjugation class features, imply the pre­ sence of the X features. Something which is [+IMPERATIVE] is obvious­ ly a verb, but again, the phonological rules will omit the redundant features.

These features, which T will refer to as inflection features, are assumed in SGP not to be present in the lexicon, but are provided by the syntax. Some, like tense in verbs and number in nouns, will be assumed to be present from deep structure. Others like case in nouns, person and number in verbs and case, number and gender in ad- 1 Jectives, will be assigned by agreement rules . This again depends 10 on the nature of the lexicon and on the rules of agreement, which are assumed by SGP to be syntactic transformations of a nature simi­ lar to phonological assimilation rules, where values of paradigm fea­ tures are transferred from noun to verb, noun to adjective, and so on.

In later chapters we will consider how a different lexicon would af­ fect the status of agreement rules.

1.3.2 For an example of a rule which uses inflection features, con­ sider the language Kasem, as described by Anderson 197^ and Phelps

1975, among others. Phelps gives the following rule of Velar Elision:

(U) y +SYLLABIC v -SYLLABIC + [+PLURAL] < [ aNASAL]> 0 S +HIGH ' -ANTERIOR -CORONAL oNASAL

1 2 3 U -* 1 2 3

This rule applies in the formation of the plural of burju ’goat'.

The plural suffix is -ni and the plural form is buni. Also buga

•river' plural bwi where the plural suffix is -i and the vowel becomes a

glide. Compare this with forms like bSqi 'to call' where the velar

does not delete before a verbal suffix also of the form -i.

1.1* Rule Features

1.1*.1 Normally in SGP, a phonological rule applies to every form

that meets its structural description. Since there are forms in any

language which arbitrarily do not undergo certain phonological rules

which they ought to, the convention is that these items are marked

with a rule feature [-RULE n] for every rule n that they do not under­

go. By a general convention, all segments in each word are marked

[+m] for each rule m in the phonology and they are marked [-m] for 11 any rule m for which the word is lexically [-RULE m].

The phonological rule generally does not mention [+RULE n] any­ where in its structural description, since this can he stated as a general convention on the application of all phonological rules.

Rule features do occur in two other places, however. One is in the lexicon, in the individual lexical entries. The other is in the structural change of some rules. Unlike the other categories of.fea­ tures we have previously discussed, rule features can actually he changed in value in the course of a phonological derivation. There has heen some controversy involving whether phonological rules (as opposed to lexical rules alone) can assign values of rule features.

This will he taken up in section 6.6.1. l.U.2 As an example of a well-known rule that has lexical excep­ tions which must he marked with rule features, take the laxing rule in English from Chomsky and Halle 1968, where it is stated as follows:

(5) V “ROUND -* [-TENSE]/ a*BACK r (c +) p V ~lc [-CONSONANTAL] 1 -STRESS o

This rule, along with the rule of Vowel Shift, relates pairs of words with tense and lax vowels like compare - comparative, serene - serenity, and derive - derivative. But there are several exceptions to this rule, namely words like obesity, regency and irony. These items will require lexical features of the form [-RULE (5)]. The

Alternating Stress rule given above as (l) also has exceptions, among them persevere. 12

For an example of a rule that assigns values of a rule feature, consider the following example, also from Chomsky and Halle 1968:

(6 ) V -♦ [-TENSE]/ [+CONSONANTAL] +CONSONANTAL -VOCALIC

This rule laxes vowels "before consonant clusters, where the second consonant is not a liquid, cf. strict, ask, but both supple and maple occur. It has a class of exceptions, namely dental clusters (cf. hoist, find, wild). Therefore rule (7) exempts these cases from the rule.

(7) V - [-RULE (6)]/ +CONSONANTALI +C0NS0NANTA1) [.-CONSONANTAL] +ANTERI0R 1+C0R0NAL J +C0R0NAL _| [-SEGMENT] I

Rule (7 ) applies within the lexicon as a redundancy rule, so it pre- ! cedes the operation of rule (6 ) and marks the lexical entries for words with dental clusters as exceptions to the laxing rule.

1.5 Diacritic Features

1.5.1 We have so far separated out characteristics which have been

definable morphologically and have marked the lexical entries and syn­

tactic surface structures with X features, conjugation class features

and inflection features to describe these characteristics. There are

still other characteristics which affect whether a certain rule will

apply to a given form or not. In the case of a rule feature, this

reflects an idiosyncratic fact about the item. Yet there are some­

times other, more general characteristics which phonological rules

can be sensitive to. For instance, there may be some rules which ap­

ply only to words of a certain non-native origin. These words can be 13 marked [+FOREIGH], a feature which the relevant words will make refer­ ence to.

In fact however, there need not he any real-world characteristic.

The major distinction between rule features and what I will refer to as diacritic features is that rule features refer only to one speci­ fic rule, whereas diacritic features have several uses, from marking items which undergo several specific rules to marking which item3 al­ low or do not allow certain phonological rules to apply to other items in their environment.

It is not really clear how large this category of features is, since an argument can he easily made that it includes features that we have classified elsewhere, for example [+REGULAR], which we called a conjugation feature. In fact, Chomsky and Halle 1968 use the term

'diacritic feature' to include all of our categories except X features.

We will try to maintain the distinctions we have set up, however, for the present.

Like rule features, diacritic features have heen claimed to he changeable in value by lexical rules. While obviously no rule is going to change the value of [+FOREIGN] for a word, some of the more arbitrarily defined diacritic features could potentially be reassigned

in value.

1.5.2 A fairly clear example of a diacritic feature is Spanish

CiS] ('special') as used in Harris 19&9. Harris explains that it cor­

responds very roughly to a vulgar (+) vs. erudite (-) distinction, but the correspondence is partially historical, is far from complete

and, in any case, is not accessible to most speakers, so a diacritic lU feature is called for. The feature [S] is used in the following rules, among others (Harris gives eight rules which mention [S]):

(8a) +OBSTRUENT -TENSE I aCORONAL / V V nANTERIOR -BACK +S

This rule deletes <1 and & in [+S] forms, cf. leer ’to read1 and legible 'legible', incluir 'to include' and inclusion (s d+t)

'inclusion'

(8b) 0 +STRESS G -TENSE a BACK [-BACK] -HIGH -LOW a BACK +S

This is the diphthongization rule which changes o_ and e to ue and ie and which accounts for paradigms like podemos 'we can' but puedo

'I can'.

(8c) +OBSTRUENT +OBSTRUENT -CONSONANTAL [+HIGH] +HIGH +CORONAL r BACK _ +S _

1 2 -» 1 2

This rule changes k+ or ks to yc or ys (y is later deleted and s -* x) in, pairs like lactico 'lactile' and leche 'milk' or a[ks]ial - e[x]e

'axial - axle'.

Halle's (1973) rule of Stress Assignment in Slavic languages de­ pends on the location within a word of a diacritic feature [+H], which has been placed there by an earlier rule, H Assignment, which

Halle claims is part of the morphology, in line with the claim that 15 no phonological rules may affect values of diacritic features.

1.6 Summary

This has been only a preliminary classification of the lexical features. We have already seen that the divisions into categories are not very sharp. In particular, the diacritic feature class is somewhat of a wastebasket category. But our classification will serve

as a starting point from which to look at the use of lexical features

in phonological rules.

We have barely begun to scratch the surface of the problems in­ volved with these features and the assumptions on which the analysis

using rules with these features depend. In addition, there are some

even more central issues involving the theoretical status of the fea­

tures and the bases they have (if any) outside the realm of phonology.

These will be raised in later chapters. FOOTNOTE TO CHAPTER 1

hotice that gender in nouns is in some cases better considered as a conjugation class feature (although the terminology may seem strange) since nouns are not normally assigned a gender by agreement rules, although an argument can be made to that effect for certain predicate nouns. This shows that our classification is not cut-and-dried and that perhaps the deciding factor really is whether the feature is present in the lexicon or not. CHAPTER 2

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

2.0 Introduction

This chapter will provide the historical Background of the use of lexical features. It is of interest here to discuss how features were used in phonology first as means of classifying sounds according to their phonetic characteristics. A discusssion of what have come to he called phonological distinctive feature systems is also relevant to several other aspects of our investigation because the lexical fea­ ture system was modeled after its phonological counterparts, and the two types sire often treated the same way by the rules and notational conventions. It will occasionally be helpful*, therefore, to make a comparison of these two general types of features. But I will have little to say about phonological distinctive features, per se.

2.1 Phonological Distinctive Features.

2.1.1 While specific references to distinctive features (by what­ ever name) do not exist until this century, the concept of classifying speech sounds according to their articulatory characteristics was ar­ rived at considerably earlier. Unfortunately, the more ancient sources were not widely noticed until modern times.

17 18

For one example, it seems that some rudimentary form of phonetic classification appears in the First Grammatical Treatise, which was written by an anonymous author from Iceland in the twelfth century.

In this short article on the adaptation of the Latin alphabet to Ice­ landic, the author makes a classification of the vowel system of early

Icelandic by means of a long/short distinction and a nasalized/non­ nasalized distinction. More importantly, he proposes to indicate these distinctions of vowel quality in the writing system by means of

diacritic marks, whereby thirty-six separate vowels could be symbo­

lized by only nine vowel symbols and two diacritic marks.

The idea of representing a sound in the writing system as a com­ bination of characteristics is a precursor to the idea of represent­

ing a sound in a phonological rule as a bundle of features. Yet it was hundreds of years before the concept was fully developed, partially

due to the fact that the First Grammatical Treatise was not published

until centuries after it was written.

2.1.2 The ancient Indian grammarians had a very well developed

theory of phonetics and had made a thorough phonological analysis of

Sanskrit. The most famous piece of work in this tradition is, of

course, Pacini's Astadhyayl, which refers constantly to a list of • • the sounds of Sanskrit, organized into classes as if by distinctive

features, which precedes the main grammar. For reasons of economy,

in the stating of a phonological rule, rather than listing the sounds

the rule refers to, Panini merely gives the first plus a marker indi-

eating the last of the sounds affected in the list, and all the inter­

mediate sounds are included as well. Naturally, this can only be 19 useful if sounds which undergo similar rules are next to each other

in the list. As an example, consider rule 8 .U.58: anusvarasya yayi parasavarnah. which is read as 'Nasalization (anusvara) followed hy yay [see below]

is replaced by the sound homorganic (savarna) with the following'

(Cardona 1969:^). In addition to the use of the terms for nasalization

and homorganic, which could be easily described by distinctive, features,

notive the term yay, which, in the shorthand mentioned above, refers

to the class consisting of (in order): y)v r I ri m n n n jh bh gh dh

dh j b g d d kh ph ch th th c t t k p; in other words, all the semi­

vowels (resonants) and stops. Again, this rule is statable in the

shorthand only if the classes of semi-vowels and stops are recognized

and placed adjacent to one another in the list. Although Panini him­

self rarely refers to the phonetic characteristics of the classes,

letting the shorthand indicate the membership involved, the phonetic

descriptions of the classes of sounds in India definitely pre-date

him (Cardona 1969:8 ), thereby suggesting that the classification

into groups is made on a basis other than merely which sounds are af­

fected by the rules. Furthermore, in cases where the shorthand

would not work, Panini uses the phonetic terminology itself, such as

the terms for nasalization and homorganic mentioned above, as well as

the terms for labial and retroflex. This shows that the organization

of Panini's list of sounds was based on principles similar to those ♦ which now underlie systems of distinctive features.

Unfortunately, the work of the Indian grammarians was not available

in the west until the nineteenth century. Even today, not all of the sophistication of this body of work is appreciated, hut it can easily he seen that the forerunners of distinctive features (limited in des­ criptive power hy the fact that they are applied to the sounds of only one language) existed two thousand years ago.

2.1.3 In more recent times, there have heen several traditions that have used the concept of distinctive features only marginally.

Even with the development of descriptive phonetics (assisted hy the

Indian grammarians' work), as the concept of the phoneme developed

and spread to America, it was hased on 'distinctive features' which were defined purely as those which made a difference in meaning in

a particular language (i.e., which were distinctive) and which were

not phonetically grounded. In fact, the phonetic level (other than

an exact physical record of speech) was denied as a significant level

of representation hy many theorists (typified hy Bloomfield 1933:85),

and therefore, there was no possible way that distinctive features

could have a phonetic basis. In an extreme position (Karris 1951),

the phonemes are defined hy distribution alone; ,cf., 'The main re­

search of descriptive linguistics ...is the distribution or arrange­

ment within the flow of speech of some parts or features relatively

to others.' (p.5)»

An exception to this position is the Kazan school theory, as

exemplified hy Baudouin de Courtenay 1895* in which there is a dis­

cussion of pure phonetically motivated ('anthropophonic') sound

changes, some of which come about 'as a result of continuous, ...

eternally acting forces', i.e., 'they depend on the combination with

other phonemes, or more generally on the conditions of the 2 1 anthropophonic environment ...f (p.173). This is what made sound changes general, the universality of the causes not being restricted by etymological factors. As an example from Polish,

we must distinguish between conditions which favor the manifesta­ tion of the properties of a given phoneme and those which pre­ vent it. Thus, for example, the position of t_ in ta, sta is favorable for the manifestation of the properties Tof t), while in at, it is unfavorable. The same holds true of r in ra, rydz, ar as opposed to rda, rdza ..., of 1_ in ligac as opposed to lgnac, and m, m in my, migac as opposed to mgia, mgnie (p.172-173)

So, the phonetic factors clearly are a part of the theory, in contrast

to most other positions which were taken until that of the Prague

school.

2.1.U It was the Prague school, as illustrated here by Trubetzkoy

1968, that developed the idea that it was 'important for the general

classification of phonological oppositions ... that these oppositions

are phonic oppositions' (p.91)« There was a finite group of phonetic

characteristics which could potentially differentiate sounds from each

other. This group was not language-specific, although each language

made use of a subset of the total list of features.

Phonological oppositions were defined in two ways; first, in a

purely classifications! manner, in terms of the relationship between

the sounds distinguished by the opposition and in terms of the rela­

tionships between the various oppositions themselves; second (and more

important), in terms of the phonetic characteristics associated with

the groups of sounds distinguished by the feature. For example, the

opposition between /p/ and /b/ was described logically as an opposition

which also distinguished the pairs /t/-/d/ and /k/-/g/. This opposition

distinguishes pairs of sounds which differ only in the presence or absence of a specific characteristic. Phonetically, this opposition was described as one of voicing. Thus, a phoneme, rather than being

just an abstract entity as distinguished from all the other phonemes

in the system, was now considered to be the sum of the phonetic values

of the features which distinguished it from other sounds. Note that

in the American structuralist system, the habit of labelling the pho­

nemes with the same symbols as were used for phonetic entities, ob­

scured the fact that the phonemes were mere abstractions with no di­

rect correlation to the phones, and could just as well have been as­

signed numbers for symbols. In Prague school phonology, each phoneme

had a direct phonetic correlate and so the same set of symbols could

more reasonably be used to represent units on either level, phonetic

or phonemic.

2.1.5 It is a short step from Trubetzkoy to the present, as far as

features are concerned. Systems of distinctive features have been

suggested by Jakobson, Fant and Halle 1952, Chomsky and Halle 1968,

Fant 1973, and Ladefoged 1971 among others, and I will not discuss

the merits of the various systems here. A few points need to be made,

however.

Whereas Trubetzkoy's correlations were defined in terms of arti­

culatory characteristics, Jakobson, Fant and Halle 1952 introduced the

idea that the features should have acoustic reality, and several of

their features are, in fact, hard to define articulatorily, but are

easily described in acoustic terms. 23

For example, their feature STRIDENT/MELLOW is determined acousti­ cally by the uniformity of the waveforms.

’Sounds that have irregular waveforms are called strident. On the spectogram such sounds are represented by a random distribu­ tion of black, areas. They are opposed to sounds with more regu­ lar waveforms. The latter are called mellow and have spectograms in which the black areas may form horizontal or vertical stria- tions.’ (p.23)

In terms of production, the strident sounds are due to a 'more com­ plex impediment' (p.2^) involved in creating the sound, as in the use of the teeth for labiodentals (as opposed to bilabials) and sibilants

(as opposed to regular fricatives). The quality of having a more com­ plex impediment is not a direct articulatory description

(cf. NASAL/ORAL) but is a somewhat abstract characterization which describes several different specific articulations.

More recent systems have had features which are defined either articulatorily or acoustically. Ladefoged 1971 claims that feature systems must reflect both articulatory and perceptual facts.

The reason why one or the other basis is not sufficient (or necessary, for that matter) is that distinctive features have taken on a new burden in generative grammar, which in a sense, has super- ceded their old purpose. Features are part of the notational system associated with the evaluation metric of the theory. They are used to abbreviate sets of rules as one rule. Thus a rule (l)

(1) +OBSTRUENT [-VOICE]/ +VOICE is an abbreviation for a set of rules b -* p/ _jt, d -* +/ g -* k/ z -* s/ _#» etc. It is claimed that only by stating the rule as in 2b

(l), can we capture the generalization which exists across the sepa­ rate rules. Thus, phonological features can now also be defined as those characteristics which group together sounds which behave simi­ larly with respect to the rules of a language. In the obvious cases, no trouble arises; voiced sounds behave similarly in many rules and therefore ought to be classified together. However, it is not wise to admit just any feature which will allow some rule(s) to be formu­ lated more simply (assuming brevity is the chief measure associated with the evaluation metric).

Recall that the distinctive features were defined by the Prague school as having phonetic correlates. In fact, in our discussion of previous schools of linguistic thought, the only ones which could possibly have used the concept of distinctive features were those which included a well-defined level of phonetic representation.; So, there must continue to be a phonetic grounding for any feature system.

Postal's (1968) Naturalness Condition is an attempt towards retaining the natural (i.e., universal) connection between the phonological features and phonetic structure. The Naturalness Condition claims that

the categorization of lexical items given by phonological struc­ ture ... is not, from the point of view of phonetic structure, an arbitrary code. Rather this representation is closely related to the representations needed to state the phonetic properties of the various sequences which represent individual lexical items. If this claim is true, much, although by no means all, of the mapping between phonological and phonetic structures can be given universally, (p.56)

Thus for any phonological distinctive feature which is used to des­

cribe this organization and behavior of phonological segments in some language (s), there must be a universal specification of how the val­

ues for that feature correspond to phonetic values (in the absence of language-specific rules which affect the phonological-phonetic relationship for that feature).

We will see, later in our discussion of diacritic features in

section 6.4.5, that, as suggested by Kiparsky 1973. we must avoid the nonphonetically based use of distinctive features as mere diacritic features.

Even though the distinctive features are used today as means of referring to classes of sounds in order to state generalizations con­

cerning the sounds in these classes, it must be remembered that in

order for the theory to even have a chance of corresponding to psycho'

logical reality, there must be connections to the real world (in the

case of phonology, to phonetics). Otherwise, we can make up features

at will, as was done in certain structuralist theories (see section

2 .2 .3 ) in order to express generalizations which may not exist or

which may not be of real interest. This is much less a problem for

the distinctive features than it is for lexical features, since, as

we shall see, the real-world correlates of the latter are not as

clearly defined or well studied as phonetics is. Thus, the issues

just raised for phonological distinctive features are of equally

great importance in the discussion of lexical, features.

2.2 Lexical Features

2.2.1 For the earliest examples of morphologically conditioned ■

phonological rules, we can again turn to Panini. For instance, consider rule 8 .3.78 inah sldhvam lufilitam dho'ngat (murdhanyam) • • • • • which Cardona 1969:20 describes as ’A retroflex replaces dh of sidhvam, aorist endings, and perfect endings ... which occur after • • an aflga [a stem plus affixes] ending in in_r. The term in is an ab­ breviation for all the vowels, liquids and glides. This rule ap­ plies to calcr-dhve 2pl. perf. mid. of kr ’do, make' to give cakrdhve. • ,TT*~ • • It is clear that Panini understood the interdependence of the various parts of the grammar from the many examples of this type which are found in the Astadhyayl.

2.2.2 Baudouin de Courtenay 1895 also apparently realized that there could be alternations in a language which may have historically been purely phonetic, but in a synchronic description must be con­ sidered otherwise - he refers to them as psychophonetic alternations

(associated with some psychological difference between forms and words) as contrasted to anthropophonic (purely phonetic) ones. He gives several examples, including German Umlaut in noun plurals and

an example in Polish where 'one class of denominal verbs is still pro­

ductively formed by means of adding the suffix -i_ to the primary stem;

the final consonant of the stem corresponds to the palatalized con­

sonant which had developed historically by way of spontaneous degen­

eration at the time of the first Slavic palatalization (which applies

at least to the velars 1c, ch): [ brud-/brud£-i-6, tok-/+oc-y-£,... 3'

(p.176).

These are examples of phonological changes which, while they ori-

.ginally were motivated purely phonologically, have now come to be asso­

ciated with certain morphophonological factors, or in some cases, with idiosyncratic alternation. The purely phonetic motivations for the

alternations have been obscured through history and now the condition­

ing factors can be predicted only with the aid of other grammatical

information, as in the Polish example, or are grammatically unpredic­

table, where in a modern grammar, a diacritic feature [+UMLAUT] would be referred to, a feature which no longer has any simple and

invariable real-world correlation.

2.2.3 Based in part on the insights drawn from the Indian gram­

marians, and the Semitic grammarians, some Western linguists did deal

with the fact that morphological facts could have a relevance in phono­

logical changes. Many of the examples were described, as in Baudouin

de Courtnay's Polish example, as historical changes which had degen­

erated. Trubetzkoy 1968 had a criticism of many structuralist treat­

ments of morphophonology, howeverv He says, in describing the methods l that others had used, that 'all existing types of sound change, apart

from their present value, are ... traced to their historical origin.

Since productive and unproductive morpho(pho)nological facts are

J treated without distinction, and since their function is not taken

into account at all, any regularity in these facts must, of course,

go unnoticed', (p.306)

Of course, the distinction between productive and non-productive

alternations as well as the function of these alternations is some­

what less useful in a system where phonology and morphology are not

handled by means of processes, but rather consist simply of malting

lists of which alternants occur in which environments. Since these

environments are stated statically, rather than as actively 28 conditioning the changes, the use of morphological features is really not of interest in these theories.

Even more important is the fact that one of the foundations of the structuralist position is that the phonemes and their distribu­ tion are to be described totally without reference to grammatical information. Thus, in a phonological description of a language, there must be no mention of moi’phology. So, even still-alive morphological conditions on processes (or distribution) are not explored in the structuralist literature, for the most part in discussions of phonol­ ogy, although these would be mentioned under morphophonemics, which would have no bearing on phonology.

2.2.1+ in SGP, the grammar is organized so *that the input to the phonology is the output of the syntactic component (slightly modi­ fied). According to Chomsky and Halle 1968:ch.l, the syntactic com­ ponent provides a surface structure, which is a bracketing of a string of formatives, with each layer of brackets labelled with one of the

syntactic categories. Grammatical morphemes, which may not have been

specified as to phonological content by the syntax are 'spelled out' by readjustment rules. Thus, the phonological rules may make use of

certain grammatical information, at the least regarding lexical cate­

gories.

Further, in Chomsky 1965:82, the notion of the complex symbol

in syntax was introduced. Lexical entities were marked with syntactic

features which cross-classify the item with regard to various syntac­

tic characteristics. The noun boy, for example, will be marked with syntactic features which cross-classify the item with regard to various syntactic characteristics. The noun hoy, for example, will be marked with the features [+COMMON, +COUNT, +ANIMATE, +HUMAN] among others, which indicate the selectional restrictions the word bears. In addi­ tion to selectional restriction features, other items will have features to indicate the syntactic configurations they appear in. So, the verb grow will be marked with the features [+ _ HP, + __ #, + __ ADJ] to indi­ cate that it can appear in sentences like I_ grow flowers, She grew and

They grew hungry. The syntactic features are supposed to be parallel to the phonological features in terms of their cross-classificational pro­ perties. According to Chomsky 1965> the extension of features to syntax also has the purpose of 'contributing to the general unity of grammati­ cal theory'. (p.82)

Now it turns out that none of the features introduced in Chomsky

1965 are really used by the phonological rules, so they are outside of our field of interest. But the notion of syntactic features was the starting point for the idea that in the name of generality, the lexi­ cal categories could themsleves consist of syntactic features which would cross-classify. In Chomsky 1970, this idea is developed somewhat and a few examples of rules which apply to classes of syntactic cate­ gories were developed.

The problem dealt with in that paper was that nominalizations in

English reflected the same selectional restrictions and in some cases the same ability to be transformed as their sentential counterparts.

The standard approach was to allow a transformation to change sentences into noun phrases,thus claiming that the similarity of characteristics 30 of the sentence and the nominal is simply a reflection of the fact that the latter is really the former in more remote structure.

Chomsky's suggestion was to generate nominals separate from their related sentences. The similarities were explained by allowing selec­ tional restrictions and tranformations to apply to the domain of the noun phrase as well as the sentence. Thus, the same selectional restric­ tions could be claimed to hold between the subject and the verb-related nominal in a noun phrase as held between the subject and the verb in a sentence. Similarly, transformation like Passive could be generalized to apply to noun phrases, creating e.g., the city's destruction by the enemy in addition to the city was destroyed by the enemy. Thus the same relationship could exist in noun phrases as in sentences, without claim­ ing that one was derived from the other. Of course, the ability to gen­ eralize selectional restrictions and transformations was dependent on the assumption that noun phrase and sentence formed a natural class, as des­ cribed by some set of syntactic features.

In actual fact, Chomsky did not propose any specified syntactic features, nor did he formulate any generalized transformations. These matters are dealt with in Jackendoff 1977* however. Jackendoff states clearly that the Lexicalist Hypothesis, which he and Chomsky defend, claims that

Universal grammar includes a set of syntactic distinctive features which define the possible lexical categories of human language. A particular language chooses its repertoire of lexical categories from among those provided by universal grammar, just as it chooses a phonological repertoire from the possibilites provided by univer­ sal grammar. Presumably the choice is made in a constrained way — one would hardly expect a language with adverbs but no nouns. But this is parallel to phonological theory, where one does not expect a language with the sound a but no a. 31 and. also that 'rules of grammar are stated in terms of syntactic cate­ gories ... 1 (section 3.1) He then embarks on a development of a set of syntactic distinctive features, coming up with four features, the names of which he emphasizes are arbitrary and not universal, corres­ ponding merely to the attributes they have in English.

His feature system looks like this:

SUBJECT OBJECT COMPLIMENT DETERMINER

Verbs + + +

Modals + + -

Prepositions + +

Particles + -

Nouns + - +

Articles + +

Quantifiers + - - -

Adjectives - - +

Degree Words (so, too, as) - - - +

Adverbs - - -

A different set of features has been used in Bresnan 1976 and Chom­

sky and Lasnik 1977* They classify English words as follows (this is not

necessarily the entire list of features): 32

N V

Verbs - +

Nouns + -

Adjectives + +

Adverbs + +

Prepositions - -

Adverbial Particles - -

There are many interesting ramifications of this theory in syntax, but for phonology, it is just to be noted that these X features are to be treated as phonological distinctive features are, so that the rule schema can be made more general, i.e., it is claimed that not only must sounds be referred to in features, but lexical, categories must be, also.

2.2.5 With regard to the other classes of lexical features, recall that with the advent of SGP, there was a new reason to make up a new feature. Whereas previously, features had been employed to classify the sounds of the world’s languages and were used only if they corresponded to phonetic correlates, in SGP, the use of features was claimed to be the best way to state regularities which existed in the grammar. Thus, a possible argument for the existence of feature X was that the sounds which were marked similarly for X behaved similarly with respect to some rule(s) of. the phonology and a generalization would be lost if the rule could not be formulated as concisely as possible using X.

Obviously, the distinctive features fulfilled also this duty in many cases, but there still may have been some classes of items for which a rule could be stated or for which some rule failed to apply. 33

Sometimes, particularly if there seemed, to be some phonetic basis for the classes involved, a solution could motivate the addition of a new distinctive feature, or a new way of representing the phonological characteristics of a segment. For instance, Campbell 197^ made the sug­ gestion that sounds can consist of complex units of features, like (2) for c (or +s)

(2) -ANTERIOR +STRIDENT +CORONAL -CONTINUANT +CONTINUANT

Where a phonetic basis was lacking, some other type of feature was used, depending on the situation. Rule features could be used for unre­ lated items which were exceptions to a single rule. If the exceptional items have some basis for acting similarly, a different type of feature could be applied. For instance, Harris 1969 uses what we have called conjugation class features and inflection features which certain rules in Spanish are sensitive to. Lees 1961 employs a 'diacritic' which is present in entries of the lexicon of.Turkish for words which have been borrowed from Arabic, for the purpose of excepting the items from stem- interior vowel harmony. Lightner 1965 assigns the features [-SLAVIC],

[+SLAVIC, -RUSSIAN] or [+SLAVIC, +RUSSIAN] to the lexical entries in

Russian, based roughly (but not exactly) on etymological grounds.

Zwicky 1967 discusses umlaut in German and uses the features [jjJMLAUT],

[♦CONSTANT], [+MASCULINE], [+FEMININE], [+ANIMATE], [+STRONG] and

[+PLURAL er]. Of these, [+ANIMATE] is a semantic feature and [+MASCULINE] and [+_FEMININE] are used more generally to specify which set of endings the noun and adjective take. But the other-features have no motivations or justifications other than to state in a general way which items undergo umlaut. They are all clearly examples of uses of diacritic features. Note that Chomsky and Halle 1968 refer to all the features mentioned in this section as diacritic features, since they have no phonetic basis and are used only to get the rules to work right.

2.3 Summary

It can be seen from this short history of the use of the concept of features that the lexical features were developed for a different purpose than the distinctive features. The distinctive features have a firm base in phonetics, and the features are universal ones, from which each language chooses in order to describe its phonetic inven­ tory. It is possible to state a Naturalness Condition like Postal's

(1968), because of the phonetic ground of the system. Although the features were developed merely to describe phoneme systems, in SGP, the features are also defined in terms of stating phonological rules in the most general way possible.

It is for this second reason a],most entirely, that lexical fea­ tures have been used. Although Jackendoff 1977 claims that X features are universal, that remains to be demonstrated. Many of the features, especially those that we are calling diacritic features, are language- specific and have poorly-defined (or no) real-world correlates. Some

features indicate relics of historical processes which were better moti­ vated in earlier times (e.g., [+UMLAUT]). Some are just plain arbitrary

([^PLURAL er]). Anything resembling a Naturalness Condition would not make sense as applied to some of these features, at least in a SGP frame­ work. Therefore, the question arises: can there be some way to con­

strain lexical features in an interesting manner, similar to the 35 constraints on phonological distinctive features? We will bring this issue up again in section 6 .U.5. FOOTNOTE TO CHAPTER 2

^his claim is not uncontroversial; cf. Fudge 1967. CHAPTER 3

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

3.0 Introduction

Given that there are phonological operations which are subject to morphological factors and arbitrary or semi-arbitrary exceptions, what of interest can be said about these operations? As we have seen in chapter one, using the SGP framework, these operations have often been coded as phonological rules which make use of lexical features. A num­ ber of questions present themselves at this point. Perhaps the answers to some of these questions (or lack thereof) can suggest alterations in the analysis of the rules or in the framework itself which can produce more definite and, preferably, restrictive answers, thus having the ef­ fect of reducing the class of possible grammars available for the lan­ guage learner to choose from.

Among the areas we will be interested in are the following:

(a) Is the typology presented in chapter one correct? In other words, is there any justification for separating the features into the

categories listed in the typology? Are there any distinguishing charac­

teristics of rules which refer to one of the types as opposed to another

(b) Are there any ways of delimiting the classes of rules which

may refer to lexical features of a certain type? 38

(c) Is there a non-phonological basis for any of the feature types?

Can we find a counterpart to Postal*s Naturalness Condition on distinc­ tive feature usage for lexical features?

There are several other issues that will arise as we go through these broad topics, but these three questions will be the general guide­ lines for the discussion to come. This chapter will be concerned with finding a theoretical framework from which to work, based in part on the discussion of some of these matters.

3.1 Natural Phonology

To start off with, we may ask if there are any phonological rules which do not allow the use of any types of lexical features, i.e., which are not morphologically or idiosyncratically conditioned an any way.

What comes to mind are often called 'low-level phonetic rules' and

•phonetic detail rules', such as the one that gives a more palatal ver­

sion of k in English when it is followed by a front vowel, or the rule, which occurs in many languages, that nasalizes a vowel preceding a nasal.

These rules are usually considered to apply very late in the phonological

derivation, since there are usually no other known rules that have to be

ordered after them,although they might be ordered among themselves.

They also apply after slips of the tongue have occurred. So, for in­

stance, when automatic needle threader is pronounced automanic, the

prononciation is [oremSnik], If the nasalization rule applied before

the slip, the ae would not be nasalized. As another example, in the

spoonerism kin tup for tin cup, instead of [t^tn k^Ap] with a velar k,

we get [k^in +^Ap] with a fronted k. This means that the k and the t 39 were transposed "before the fronting took place. Similarly, in Pig Latin cool becomes [ulke] with the fronting following the Pig Latin changes.

These are also the rules which are hardest to suppress when speak­ ing a foreign language. Consider the rule that adds a prothetic e to

Spanish words "beginning with s followed by a consonant. When an English word is borrowed into Spanish, or when a Spanish speaker uses English, there is a tendency for the rule to apply whenever it is applicable, giving [esniz] for sneeze, for example.

Many rules of this type seem to have some basis in ease of articula­ tion. So, for instance, the velum may be lowered during the production of a vowel in slight anticipation of a following nasal sound and thus, the vowel becomes nasalized. In a case like this, it is sometimes hard for a speaker to suppress the application of the rule even with con­ scious effort, and in casual speech, this type of rule applies more often.

For instance, in casual speech, the nasalization rule can apply also to resonants and can extend across a syllable boundary (cf. swallowing

[ sw§T5WTr] ]). Also many of these rules appear extremely early in child

language.

These characteristics all seem to cluster together, and such phono­

logical rules are called 'natural phonological processes' by David Stampe

1969, 1973a, 1973b, in whose work the distinction between these processes

and other rules of phonology plays an important role.

In Stampe's theory (which will be referred to here as 'natural

phonology'), the child is born with a set of universal natural processes,

which are based on physical constraints on pronounceability and precep-

tability. As the child hears the phonology of a language, the 1(0 natural processes are limited, in application, reordered or suppressed

(or some combination of these) until they correctly describe the phono­ logical data. Other rules, of the non-natural type, are acquired. These non—natural rules do not represent actual constraints on pronounceability.

As an example of a non-natural rule, consider the Velar Softening

Rule mentioned in Chomsky and Halle 1968:219ff; which changes k and g to s and j before front vowels and is responsible for the alternations in regal - regency, electric - electricity and so on. This rule does not appear early in child language, is not used in loan phonology or secret languages, does not apply to the output of slips of the tongue, and does not apply more readily in casual speech. It can have lexical exceptions to it, since it is not any harder to pronounce k and g before front vowels than it is to pronounce s and j in these same positions, as wit­ nessed by dozens of words in English (get, give, kiss, keen).

The level of lexical representation in natural phonology is rela­ tively concrete. It corresponds for the most part to the classic phone­ mic level. But it may be more abstract in some cases, where there are alternants which cannot be predicted from the phonemic level. In these cases, the representation would correspond to the classic morphophone- mic level, where the substitution which takes the form from the morpho- phonemic level to the phonemic is a natural process.

So, words will be mostly listed in the lexicon on the phonemic level, with allophones excluded from lexical representation. Thus, for

example, surface-nasalized vowels in English will be non-nasal in the lexicon, since nasalized vowels are merely allophonic in English. But

in German, we cannot simply list the lexical form of Buna [bunt] l+l

'association1 as /bunt/. This is because there is another form in the plural [bunds] which shows that the + and d alternate, via a natural pro­ cess devoicing final obstruents in German. The lexical representation of Bund will be /bund/, which would be the morphophonemic level. This form contrasts with bunt [bunt] 'colorful1, which is phonetically iden­ tical in the singular to Bund, but has the plural form [bunts],

I will not give a complete description of natural phonology here

(see Stampe 1969, 1973a, 1973b). For now, it should be noted that if natural phonology is adopted, all substitutions which are made to lexi­ cal representations to give surface forms are by natural processes which have no exceptions. Therefore, all the other phonological rules must be relevant at a level more abstract than the lexical level, i.e., in the lexicon. So all rules with exceptions must be lexical rules, in this way of looking at things.

The distinction between rules and natural processes in natural phonology has ramifications in many areas, including language acquisi­ tion, loan phonology and implicational universals of phonology (cf.

Stampe). The system will be tentatively adopted here, with the under­ standing that it has not been applied to many of the problems that SGP has. In chapter four, the theory will be tested against a large body of data, which presents the analysis with problems representative of sev­ eral types. Within that discussion, many more of the details of how natural phonology works will be revealed.

3.2 Upside-down Phonology

As interesting as natural phonology is, it says relatively little about how morphology is handled. It seems clear that Stampe is not in favor of the SGP practice of having the same underlying representation

for all morphologically related forms of a stem, no matter how they are related. Only in the case where the surface alternations are relatable by natural processes will morphologically related forms be the same on the lexical level. So, electric and electricity, since they are related

not by a process but by a (non-natural) rule, will have entries that

differ as to the value of the consonant represented by the second c_ in

the spelling, with each word having the phoneme corresponding to the sur­

face sound. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to claim that these words

are related on some more abstract level by the.velar softening rule,

which does express a generalization for pairs of words in -ic/-icity,

among others. We have already mentioned that such rules in natural

phonology must apply inside the lexicon. One way they can do this is to

act as redundancy rules, which are read to mean not that one word is

formed from another actively, but that the two words have some common

information and therefore knowing the two related words involves less

independent information than knowing two unrelated words.

One particularly interesting idea that has been developed recently

which involves phonological rules being used as redundancy rules is the

theory of 'Upside-down'phonology (Leben and Robinson 1977). This theory

claims that the lexicon contains surface forms of words and that phono­

logical rules 'undo' the lexical forms until the forms can be related to

other words in the lexicon. Thus, electric and electricity will be in

the lexicon in their surface forms and the velar softening rule changes

the s in [iIektrisiti] back to k, whereupon the word is recognized to be

merely [ilektrik] plus [-iti] by a morphological rule that relates adjectives to nouns in -ity. The phonological rules can be ordered> for a more complicated case, as they were in SGP, only in reverse, naturally.

The degree of abstractness necessary in lexical representations in upside-down phonology is, like in natural phonology, much less than in

SGP. Leben and Robinson actually claim that lexical representations are the surface forms used in careful speech. They claim that this is not the phonemic level, since they accept the arguments of Chomsky 196^ that the phonemic level, as a well-defined level of representation, does not exist. They are at a loss to characterize the level of lexical represen­ tation exactly, cf:

we assume that the correct level of lexical representation is some­ what closer to the surface [than the classical phonemic level] ... if we could develop a well-defined procedure for abstracting from the systematic phonetic level to a phonemic level, we might modify our proposal to provide for lexical representations in phonemic form. (p.2 )

If, however, as argued in Pollack 1977» the natural processes are ex­ cluded from the system of upside-down phonology and apply right-side up to the lexical representations, then the level of lexical representation in upside-down phonology becomes exactly the level of representation in natural phonology. The reason Leben and Robinson have trouble pinning it down is that it corresponds neither to the phonemic nor the morpho- phonemic level, but to a combination of the two, which differs for each

item in the lexicon, as mentioned above. This is the level which will be referred to here merely as the level of lexical representation.

3.3 Morphological Redundancy Rules

This analysis would not be complete without a more detailed descrip­

tion of the morphological workings of the grammar. In upside-down l»u phonology, the phonological rules undo the lexical forms until they can he related by morphological rules to other forms in the lexicon. Thus, we need some form of morphological rules to complete our system. The best suggestions so far presented are by Jackendoff 1975 and Aronoff

1976. Aronoff discusses a system of vord-formatiOn rules which create words from other words, whereas Jackendoff develops sets of lexical re­ dundancy rules which work, along with a revised evaluation metric for the lexicon, to minimize the amount of independent information the lexi­ con contains.

These mechanisms are actually quite similar in the claims they make, when it is remembered that the word-formation rules and the redundancy rules are actually meant to function in both ways (Pollack 1976b),

since the two operations are the inverses of each other. For our pur­ poses, however, Jackendofffs redundancy miles will serve better, since

they are capable of handling regularities of any generality, from the most complete to the barely recognizable and the amount of information

saved by the existence of a particular redundancy rule depends on the

degree to which the rule holds throughout the lexicon. One modification

which must be made, however, is the addition of correlation factors

(Pollack 1976a) between rules to indicate how often one rule is used

with another. With the addition of correlation factors, Jackendoff’s

rules can describe the relationships (of any strength) between specific

morphological correlations and the associated semantic correlations.

Aronoff's word-formation rules are not equipped to handle less complete

regularities between form and meaning.

To demonstrate this, consider English nominals.. There ore several 1+5

suffixes, e.g., -ion, -ment, -al, which can he added to verbs to form nouns, with several possible meanings resulting. Thus argument can be

a result nominal, but not an action nominal, whereas enlistment can be

an action nominal, but not a result nominal. Similarly, proposition is

only a result nominal but destruction is only an action nominal. The

relationship of nominal meanings to nominal suffixes is not one-to-one but many-to-many. Aronoff*s word-formation rule that adds -ment to a

verb has no way to indicate which of the several meanings a particular

nominal will have (or not have). In Jackendoff*s theory, there will be

correlation factors between the semantic redundancy rules (S-rules) and

the morphological redundancy' rules (M-rules) they are used with to in­

dicate how likely it is that a word of a given form (i.e., using a given

M-rule) will have a given meaning (i.e., use a given S-rule). So, the

-ment M-rule will be somewhat closely correlated to the result noun

S-rule, but not correlated at all with an agent noun S-rule since such

nouns do not end in -ment. Since the correlation factors can range from

completely correlated (e.g., -ness and quality nouns) to never correlated

(e.g., -ness and agent nouns) any degree of strength of the relationship

can be expressed. Aronoff claims that 'there is a direct link between

semantic coherence [i.e., the transparent compositionality of the mean­

ing — JMP] and productivity* (p.39)» but he cannot express the cases

where a productive word-formation rule does not always have the same

meaning as in the example above.

This sketch of the system I am adopting is far from complete. Many

of the facets of these proposals will be discussed in later chapters.

For now, however, there are several general issues worth mentioning here. U6

3.1* Discussion

3.U.1 The first thing to be noticed is that, unlike in SGP, the lexi­ con has complete words in it, rather than stems or even more abstract entities. If the normal mode of operation of morphological rules is as redundancy rules, then the words are already there and the redundancy rules tell us how much independent information they represent. This is reasonable, since unlike in syntax, most words we use are not new to us.

This list of words includes not only all derivationally derived words, but also all inflectional forms of every word. While this makes the number of words in the lexicon extremely large, the list is highly structured, via the M-rules and S-rules associated with paradigms (see section **.2.5 for an example),which reduce most of the content of the paradigms' entries to non-independent status, thereby not much affecting the total information content of the lexicon, as determined by the eval­ uation measure.

Vennerman 197** deals with several objections that might be raised against a lexicon with only words and no stems. In addition to the ones already mentioned here, these include the following (I have reworked the counter-arguments to reflect our system rather than Vennerman's):

1) How is the reality of morphemes indicated in the grammar? The morphemes exist as part of the operation of the M-rules, but do not need to be represented twice, once in the rules and once in lexical entries.

2) Are not we denying the existence of a basic allomorph in a paradigm?

The existence of a basic form does not imply the existence of a lexical

entry for it, only a means of finding it and using it to make new forms.

This latter capability does exist in our system via the particular M-rules which exist. Forms with inflectional affixes can he related hack to this stem which, if it is not an independently occurring word, need only he an abstract intermediate stage in the relating of two words.

3) 'How useful is the proposal for practical grammatical descriptions?

The goals of describing a language to communicate its essential features and of giving an explicit account of the competence of a language user are different1 (Vennemann, p.371). In a practical grammatical descrip­ tion it is not necessary to list every inflected form of every word, but this does not mean that the speaker's lexicon cannot contain entries for them all, assuming a suitable organization (see above).

3.U.2 Since the lexicon contains only words and since the morphologi­ cal rules act, for the most part, as redundancy rules, where does this leave productive word-formation? As Vennemann, Jackendoff and Aronoff all agree, morphological rules can act generatively in the formation of new words. Since the redundancy rule represents a regularity in the language concerning pairs of related words, this regularity can be the basis for the creation of new words having the same relationship to existing words. For instance, the existence of a rule relating hyphen­ ate to hyphen might allow an English speaker to create a word oxygenate from the word oxygen. Depending on how regular (i.e., productive) the operation is in the language, the new word will be recognizable and can be entered in the speaker's lexicon. The fact that a rule is not produc­ tive means that it is not likely to be used to create a new word, and if it is, that new word will likely not be recognized or understood. The rules may also be used actively in the adaptation and understanding of foreign words. U8

One problem with the approach which is not discussed sufficiently

"by Vennemann is raised by Linell 1976. He claims that morphological

speech errors constitute evidence that morphological rules apply actively

in normal speech. If the rules act only as redundancy rules and all words in normal speech are picked from a pre-existing lexicon, then how

can we explain morphological speech errors like motionly for motionless,

and ambigual for ambiguous (cf. Fromkin 1973:Appendix), where it seems

that inappropriate suffixes are being 'added1 to stem or words?

Obviously, no one is claiming that the rules of morphology are

never productive. But until we have a performance model of speech which

indicates how, in real-time performance, speakers decide on which word

to use, speech errors cannot be strong evidence against a redundancy rule

model.

The fact is that we can think, of things to say faster than we can

say.them. Furthermore, there is evidence from tongue slips that at least

in some cases, the syntactic construction of a phrase must precede the

actual choice of lexical items. For instance, the form of the indefinite

article is determined after a slip; a cat and an ant can be mispronounced

as an at and a, cant, but not as *a at and an cant. This suggests that

only an abstract notion of the article was present before the slip and

the actual form of the article is' determined later. (Note that this

could possibly be a phonological alternation. Other combinations of

vowels may occur in English across a word boundary,but it might be

claimed that the word boundary between an article and the noun it modi­

fies is deleted by a readjustment rule — see section 5»2.2.5.) Thus, a syntactic pattern is present and words are inserted into it.

A complete speech model must indicate what sort of access methods we use when we decide exactly which word to use, with the correct shade of mean­ ing or stylistic appropriateness. It is entirely possible that even though morphologically complex words exist in the lexicon, various fac­ tors, involving the relative rates of speed of thought and speech, and the access mechanism for lexical items might combine to casue a person to be temporarily unable to locate a complex word in time to insert it into the speech pattern. In this case, perhaps it is possible, as a default method, to use the redundancy rules creatively and re-create the word for the occasion. It is this usage of the rules which can go wrong, pro­ ducing errors like motionly. This temporary inaccessability of a word also happens, of course, with morphologically simple words, where the speaker experiences the familiar tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon. Perhaps certain types of aphasia could be attributable to this search-and-access mechanism being faulty most of the time, rather than only for an occa­ sional word.

The preceding discussion is largely speculative, of course. But the point is that until we can understand how the lexicon is organized and how we access words we want to say, we cannot depend on speech errors as an argument against a theory like that adopted here, as long as the rules are still capable of operating generatively, although that is not their usual function.

Consider the analogous case with syllables.1 Just because there are speech errors which involve transposition of two syllables, we cannot conclude that syllables are stored in the lexicon and put together to 50 form words. Syllables are a significant unit at some level of speech production, but we are not in a position to know what that level is.

Similarly, we cannot conclude from speech error data that the lexicon must have morphemes in it.

3.U.3 Another fact which is noticeable about our system is that rule p features are totally eliminated. For the phonological rules that apply actively (the natural processes), there are no exceptions. For the other rules, in upside-down phonology, there is no need to mark an item as an exception to a rule. The rule simply fails to be relevant in the relating of the word to other lexical items.

As an example, take the English laxing rule mentioned in section

1.4.2. In its normal usage, say in relating words like serene and

serenity, the rule would apply (backwards) to [saremti] giving sareniti.

The English Vowel Shift rule (cf. Chomsky and Halle 1968) would apply

(backwards) to [sarin] giving s a r e n . 3 The derivation would end with the

relating of sereni+i to saren by a morphological rule that relates nouns

in -iti to adjectives without the suffix.

For a word like obesity, in SGP, there would be a mark [-LAXING RULE]

on the lexical entry for obese. In our theory, the derivation which re­

lates obese and obesity.will simply not refer to the laxing rule. In

fact even the Vowel Shift rule would not be needed because these two

words can be related by the -iti morphological rule immediately.

There is potentially a problem here. We must see what our grammar

is claiming about former exceptions like obese. To do this, let us look

at morphological exceptions. 51

Consider a word like professor. In a sense, we can claim that it is an exception to the generalization that the -or ending indicates an agent noun. Yet professor is obviously not 'one who professes'. So, how does the grammar indicate that professor is exceptional? By not relating it to the word profess via the semantic rule which is correlated to the

-or rule. Thus, the lexical entry for professor will contain less infor­ mation which is redundant, i.e., more information which is independent, than if a professor were one who professes. Since the independent infor­ mation is what is counted by the evaluation metric, professor's being exceptional means the lexicon counts higher (worse) on the metric, just as it should.

In the case of phonology, however, we see that the shorter deriva­ tion in the case of words like obesity, which were exceptional in SGP suggests that obscsity actually contributes less information to the lexi­ con than others like serenity, since obesity is easier to parse. Thus an 'exceptional* word seemingly can make the grammar look better. We must therefore consider in what sense a word like obesity is exceptional.

Leben and Robinson suggest that obesity should simplify the lexicon, be­ cause it is easier to identify it with obese than to identify serenity with serene. They suggest that a metric for determining the closeness of the allomorphy (a quality they claim is experimentally testable) is the number of rules which must be used to parse the alternants. But for the purpose of counting the independent information a particular entry

adds to the lexicon, another factor which must be involved is the regu­

larity of the relevant rules throughout the lexicon and in the specific

type of case at hand. 52

In upside-down phonology, if a rule does not help to relate a word to another morphologically related word, then the rule is not used with regard to that item. Thus, words with no allomorphy (e.g., spa) have no derivations into more abstract forms at all, something which Chomsky and

Halle 1968 spend quite a bit of effort on. For example, their derivation for spa starts with the underlying representation /spas/ which goes through sp$w, spseu, sp$A, spaA before reaching the surface form.[spaA]

(p.215). Also remember that the lexical representation of a word is the form to which only the natural processes apply. Thus a word like scream, which in SGP would have as its lexical representation /skrem/, to which the vowel shift rule would apply, will have a lexical representation in our system of /skrTm/. Scream has the same lexical vowel as serene

/sarin/, but serene has a related word serenity. In the process of re­ lating serene and serenity as we described above, the phonological rules of vowel shift and laxing are utilized. But since any word scream is morphologically related to also has an [7] vowel, the vowel shift rule and the laxing rule will never be used in any derivation involving scream. Thus, our system differs from SGP in that the rules apply only when they are needed to relate words. Thus, we can calculate the regula­ rity of the vowel shift rule throughout the lexicon, based on the percen­ tage of places it is used where it could be.

This will yield a fairly low result, since every word with a tense vowel in it could potentially refer to the vowel shift rule. However, if we include correlation factors between rules here, we can get a better feel for the regularity of the rule. For example, the vowel shift rule

is used in conjunction with the laxing rule at a much higher regularity 53 than it is used over the entire lexicon. Therefore if the derivation uses the laxing rule, there is a greater chance that the vowel shift rule will also be used. This indicates the nature of the a-l, T-e, e-aa pattern in morphologically related words.

The more regular the rule is in the given situation, the less inde­ pendent information the lexical form contains. But if the phonological rule is not used at all, then only the relevant morphological rules help decide how much information in the entry is redundant.

As an example, obesity, which uses no phonological rules and one morphological rule to be related to another word, adds very little new information to the lexicon. Sanity will add more because we have to in­ dicate that the vowel of the stem is different from the vowel of the word it is related to. The fact that there is a close correlation of the usage of the vowel shift rule with the usage of the laxing rule (and per­ haps the -ity rule) means that the extra information is not much.

On the other hand, consider the pair detain - detention. These words are related using the laxing rule without the vowel shift rule, a rarer occurrence. When detention is parsed, it might be expected to be related to det[T]ne (cf. convene. - convention) but this is incorrect. The fact that the vowel of detain is e is unexpected. This will be indicated by the low regularity of the laxing rule when not accompanied by the vowel

shift rule. In other words, the word detention will contribute more in­

dependent information to the lexicon because it does not fit' the T-e pattern, but rather is part of a much less regular pattern.

The regularity of the pattern can help to determine how easy it is to parse a new word. It can also shed some light on certain irregular back formations like self-destruct and cohese. When words like self- destruction and cohesion are parsed, the method which assumes that they contain the least amount of independent information is the one that claims that they are self-destruct+ion and cohese+ion. Assuming this analysis will cost less to the lexicon since only relatively regular rules t -♦ s and z ■* z before -ion (or some more general formulation) are involved. In the actual situation, we need rules relating destroy to destruct and cohese to cohere, and these are rules of extremely low generality. By assuming the lexicon is the most orderly, (i.e., allo­ morphy is at a minimum) the irregular back-formation are picked.

So, in order to integrate upside-down phonology into Jackendoff's theory, his version of the evaluation metric and his method of counting information must be extended so that they apply to the phonological rules in a way similar to the way that they are used for morphological rules. In this way, a uniform concept of what an exceptional item is can be formulated, since in this theory, there are no ad hoc markings of exceptional items with rule features.

3.5 Summary

A note on the methodology used so far is in order.

It was stated in chapter one that depending on the way the theory is modified, the questions and answers we are seeking can change or dis­ appear. In other words", it is possible to redefine the questions with the result that the answers are trivial. As an example, by the adoption of the Stampe - Leben - Robinson - Jackendoff model, one type of lexical feature, the rule feature, has been eliminated. There is a point, however, to trying to simplify the system hy limiting the class of possible grammars a child can construct when con­ fronted with language. In some cases, a limitation in this direction can perhaps be a result of the restriction of a certain type of rule or notational device. Certainly, the use of phonological distinctive features themselves was a step towards the goal, of specifying the form of potential grammars of languages.

In the present case, I have claimed, along with the original pro­ ponents of the parts of our model, that there are external, considerations which would justify the choosing of the theoretical apparatus which will be used in this study. The very fact that the parts can be welded to­ gether as well as they have been, considering how different the original interests of the authors were, suggests that there can be corroborating evidence from several different directions for the same idea (e.g., that the lexicon contains words rather than stems).

The remaining point in the method is simply, to see if such a con­ glomerate system can work. This is the task of the next chapter. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER 3

^-This analogy was suggested to me by Arnold Zwicky.

^his is not completely accurate. There can be in a person's lexicon, words which are marked as foreign words and which are pronounced as foreign words, meaning that not only are they exceptions to many rules, but possibly also to some of the normally exceptionless natural pro­ cesses. These forms are always produced consciously as foreign and are not subject to casual speech processes and so on. However, these items are clearly not part of a person's knowledge of his native language.

follow Chomsky and Halle's transcription on examples from their work. CHAPTER 1*

ANALYSIS OF BIBLICAL HEBREW

1+.0 Introduction

This chapter will consist of an extended example on which to test our theory to see if it can give a descriptively adequate account of a large body of data. In the course of the discussion, many facets of the theory will be revealed in greater detail than they have been so fax.

The language on which this discussion is based is Biblical Hebrew

(BH), with special interest on the analysis of the language proposed by Prince 1975.

L-,1 Outline of Biblical Hebrew Structure lul.l The traditional description of the BII phonological system (cf.,

Gesenius 1910) lists the following phonemes:

Consonants Vowels

Labials p b m Long e a o u

Dentals t d n Short i e a o u (Phonetically) Velars k 9 [i e a o u] (or Palatals) Liquids I r

Glides y w

Sibilants s z s s

Gutturals h 7 h

Emphatics t s q

57 58

The sound s is often considered to he a palatalized s. The h is a voice­ less pharyngeal fricative and ? is the voiced counterpart. The sounds

referred to as emphatics are usually said to have a secondary articula­

tion of pharyngealization or glottalization. The inclusion of q in this

class as an emphatic velar, rather than describing it as a plain uvular

sound is not uncontroversial, but it will make little difference here,

as will the problem of exactly which distinctive features to use to refer

to the class of emphatics or the class of gutturals. I will use the cover

terms [^GUTTURAL] and [^EMPHATIC] to avoid the controversy (see Prince

1975 for a discussion of this ).

The six plain stops /p t k b d g/ are spirantized postvocalically.

The traditional practice, which I will follow here, is to transliterate

these fricatives asptkbdg, rather than as their actual values

[f G x v 8 y].

Other sounds which occur axe the vowel a and its allophones, which

are usually referred to as extra-short vowels 3 5 5.

U.1.2 Members of the major word classes in BH (everything except pro­

nouns, conjunctions, most prepositions and a few other isolated forms)

can be said to consist of a (usually triconsonantal) root plus a pattern.

The patterns are discontinuous, consisting of prefixes, suffixes, the

vowels which are pronounced between the consonants, and occasionally a

doubling of one of the root consonants. Patterns will be discussed more

in section lt.1.3 and thereafter. While the derivational morphology is

somewhat irregular, both in a semantic transparency sense and a distribu­

tional sense, the inflectional morphology is much more regular, especial­

ly with regard to the forms of the affixes themselves. 59

U.1.2.1 IJouns and adjectives are inflected for number, singular and plural (there is also a vestigial dual). All nouns are marked for masc­ uline or feminine gender, and animate nouns, as veil as adjectives, can be inflected for both. For example:

Masculine Feminine

Singular dod^ doda

Plural dodfm dodot

There are a few masculine nouns that take the feminine plural /-of/ ending (e.g., qOl, qo!5t_ ’voice') and likewise a few feminine nouns have the masculine plural ending (e.g., ml I 13, mi IITm 'word'). Also, not all * feminine singular nouns end in -a, cf. ’Sres ’earth'.

Nouns and most prepositions can be inflected with pronominal suf­ fixes to indicate possession (or object of the preposition). For example: > dodj 'my uncle' dodenu 'our uncle' ** dddaka 'your (m) uncle' dSdakem 'your (mpl) uncle' A dodek 'your (f) uncle' dodeken 'your (fpl) uncle' * dodo 'his uncle' dodam 'their (m) uncle' A d5dah 'her uncle' dSdan 'their (f) uncle'

ite set of endings for plural nouns. Thus:

doday 'my uncles' dodeynu / ^ dod_eyka etc. dodeykem

doday ik_ dSdeyken

do daw dodeyh^m

dodeyha dodeyhSn

The stems of some nouns change when suffixes are added. Thus melek

'king' malkT 'my king'. There is also often a special form of the noun 6o when used in the construct state, which is used as a genitive construct- * ion. Compare dabar ’word* with dabar^-hammelek ’the word of the king’.

This is also true in the plural, cf. dodTm’uncles' with dodey-hammelek_

’the uncles of the king’. Rome of the changes in the stem are due to the retraction of the stress onto the suffixes, or in the construct state, onto the following word (cf. Prince and helow). it. 1.2.2 Verbal forms have a different set of inflections. There are two main paradigms (which are really aspects, BII having no tenses), the perfectj which is suffixal, and the imperfect, which uses suffixes and prefixes. Each verb is inflected for person, number and gender of the

subject. Also, optionally, pronoun objects can be added to the verb as

suffixes which follow the subject suffixes. Here is the perfect of ka+ab

’write’:

Singular Plural

3 masc. ka+ab ’he wrote’ ka+.bu 3 fern. katba etc.

2 masc. ka+atrfa ka+ab_+6m

2 fern. ka+Sb+ ko+ab+gn

1 common ka+cib_+T ka+cibnu

The imperfect of the same verb is as follows:

Singular Plural

3 masc. yik+5b_ ’he will write’ yiktebii

3 fem. + i k+ob_ etc. + i k+obna

2 masc. + i k+5b + i k+ebiJ

2 fem. tik+obT +!k+obna

1 common ’ek+Sb nik+ob 6i

The imperative uses the suffixes of the second person imperfect.

Singular Plural

Masculine katob_ 'writeJ ’ ki+bu * Feminine kitbT ka+obna

The infinite construct is a verbal noun and is inflected like a noun:

ka+ob_ ’writing’, kotbf ’my writing', kotbaka 'your(msg) writing', etc. * The active participle is inflected like an adjective (koteb_ 'writing one', kotebef., ko+ab_!"m, kotabot.) as is the passive participle (katub_ ’written’, ketuba »katyfe.im» lolufcotj.

There are various stem changes in the paradigms if one of the root consonants is a glide or a guttural, and in a few other cases. Some of these changes m i l be mentioned in the discussion below. The affixes themselves vary much more rarely.

U.1.3 In traditional descriptions of BH, the root was the part of the word that carried the basic meaning and the pattern indicated the proper shade of meaning. In this study, a pattern will be referred to by the form a noun or adjective of root qtl would take in it, thus the qa+al pattern will represent all nouns of form XaYaZ, where X,Y and Z are the consonants of the root, e.g., dabar ’word’.

While several of the noun and adjective patterns have specific meanings associated with them, such as qat+al which is used for pro­ fessions or agents, and qit+el, which is used for bodily defects, most of the patterns do not have any specific meanings that are generally associated with them.

There are also several verb patterns. Following the Arab Grammarians, these were named after the form the verb with root p?l (pa?al ’to do, to act’) would take in the 3sg perfect. I will follow this practice here, using the symbol ' in place of the 9 in the pattern name.

The basic verb pattern is Pa1al, but is usually referred to as

Qal ('light1). The forms given above in U.l.2.2 are for a verb in this pattern. The other major verb patterns are Hin'al, Pi"el\ Pu"al

(passive of Pi^el), HitnaPel^, Ilin'xl, and Hun'al (passive of Hip_'Il).

Several other verb patterns occur, but they are rare. Some particular variations on the meaning of the Qal verb are associated with specific patterns, but there are always exceptions. This topic will be covered more thoroughly in the next section.

U.2 Organization of the Verb Patterns h.2.1 Before we deal with specifics, let us compare how BH morphology in general would be handled in SGP and in our system.

U.2.1.1 In SGP, where the lexicon consists of morphemes, there will be a lexical entry for every root and for every pattern which is used for at least one word in the language. A system of rules for verbs is given as follows in Aronson 1969:

(la) Verb -♦ Root + Root-Markers

(lb) Root-Markers -» Pattern + Tense + Pron.Ref. (+ Pron.Obj.)

(ic) Tense^ -♦ j Past V Present /■ ^Future j

(id) Pron.Ref. -♦ Person, Number, Gender

-PASSIVE +PASSIVE (le) Pattern -* Qal Nip'alNip' (if) Person -* J 0 in present tense y (_ 1st, 2nd or 3rd elsewherej

(ig) Humber -♦ ("Singular 7 Plural j

(lh) Gender -» ("Masculine / Feminine J

There are additional rules for expanding the pronominal objects and for the other forms of the verb like the imperative, infinitive and so on.

These rules will be followed by what Aronson calls ’word-structure1 rules. These are often referred to as ’spelling1 rules which substitute specific prefixes for the values of gender, number and so on. Also the root and the pattern will be fitted together.

For example, for the words mele_k 'king', malak_ ’he ruled*, himltk_

'he crowned', humlaj£ 'he was crowned', there will be the following lexical entries (leaving out the semantics for the moment):

(2a) /+ROOT/ (2b) j+PATTERN f (2c) /+PATTERN m I k / / +Q - P A S S l W / +H -PASSIVE/ XaYaZ / / hiXYtZ

(2d) /+PATTJ3RJT +H +PAPSIVF/ huXYaZ

The word structure rule will be approximately (3):

(3) Substitute the three consonants of the root for X,Y and Z

respectively in the pattern.

After this the various inflectional affixes will be added and phonolog­

ical rules will apply to give the surface forms mentioned above.

The important point here is that the generalization that words from

the same root have related meanings is captured by having these words

all contain one part in common, the root morpheme. 6k k.2.1.2 There are, however, serious limitations to this approach, most specifically having to do with idiosyncrasies of meaning and occurrence. First of all, this method has no way of predicting which roots will occur in which patterns, since there is only one word-struct- ure rule for all the patterns and roots cannot he exempted from the rule only when combined with certain patterns. For instance, there is no hitmal lek_ or mi I le_k. How are these words prevented from occuring?

Also, whereas the verb patterns all have some rough meanings associated with them (Nip.’al is usually passive or mediopassive, Pi"el intensive or factitive, Ilia’ll causative, Hitpanel reflexive), there are many examples of verbs which do not have the 'correct’ meaning for their pattern (Aronson herself lists several; also see below). How is the semantic idiosyncrasy to be accounted for if there is not a separate lexical entry for each verb, but only a root, a pattern and one word- structure rule? These arguments are the same as those given for English nominals in Chomsky 1970. They are part of the reason that the lexicalist system has been adopted here. k.2.2 In our system, the lexicon contains words, so the entries would be as in (h):

(ha) /meleK/ (hb) /rnalak/ (he) /himllk/ (hd) /humlak/

One possibility for a set of M-rules is (5). These are in crude form and will be refined later.

(5a) (ROOT NOUN (5h) ROOT] «-»■ F VERB L xyz _/Xeiezj/ XYZj [_/XaYaZ/

(5c) pOOT “ VERB ~ (5d) ■r o o t ] - ( - V P VERB ~ [xYZ_ /hiXYTZ/ _XYZJ [/huXYaZ/ k.2.2.1 Notice that although roots do not exist as separate lexical entries, thejr do exist as intermediate stages in relating words to each other, as when melej< is counted as partially redundant "because it can

"be related to mala_k "by (5a) and (5"b). This is not the only option, however. We could posit a rule (6)

(6) VERB -<-> VERB /XaYaZ/ /hiXYTZ/ which would relate ma I ak_ and himlT_k directly. In fact, the form XaYaZ is quite often informally taken as the basic form from which the other verbs (and sometimes even the nouns) are derived. But what about the case where no verb of the form XaYaZ exists? We.might consider hypo­ thetical lexical entries or we might simply use the form as an inter­ mediate stage as we used the root above. The first of these options is to be avoided if possible as a complication to the theory (cf. Jacken­ doff 1975:section 3). 'The second choice is not really that much differ­ ent from the system in (5). By extension of the idea, we could even eliminate (5b) and relate every word which uses a root to every other word which uses the same root via a Qal form rather than through the

root itself. But this would deny the existence of the root as an in­ tuitive concept in Hebrew (see Aronson 1969:1^-1-^ for some strong evi­

dence from orthography, acronyms and loanwords for the psychological

existence of roots in Modern Hebrew; at least the orthography argu­ ment is also relevant for BH).

It is also possible to adopt a mixed position which says that where

a Qal verb exists and the Hin'Il verb is related to it in a regular

semantic relationship, the Hrn’Il is related to the Qal directly by 66 a rule of the form (6), but in cases where no Qal exists, or where the

Qal and the Urn'll are unrelated in meaning, the Hit'll is related directly to the root instead via (5c).

We need not deny the existence of the root for any word since rule

(5c) can be retained in any of the systems. Even if every Hit'll verb is related directly to the Qal verb, then it will also be related to the root via (5b). This is true even if there are no nouns or adjectives which use the root, because (5b) permits us to say that the form XaYaZ of the word tells us that the fact that it is a Qal verb is redundant information. Thus the root is referred to in every case, supporting the intuitive feeling for roots which Aronson's evidence suggests is real. k.2.2.2 The fact that the roots have no lexical entries means that there will be no meaning formally connected with a root. This is not so serious in Hebrew, where native speakers have only a general idea about what a root 'means’. But consider a language like Latin, where stems never occur in isolation, but always have inflectional endings on them, which add transparently to the meaning of the word. In a sense, a stem like amic- has a clear meaning 'friend'. But it seems like our lexicon doesn't express this.

But rather than ask what the root means, we might ask what the root contributes to the meaning of the words it appears in. In the case of Latin, the common core of meaning of all the words the stem appears in is fairly well defined, whereas in Hebrew it is not. We can define the 'meaning' of the stem or root as this common core. In Latin, it will not differ significantly from the meaning of any of the inflected forms. In Hebrew, it is a somewhat vaguer concept. Perhaps this in­ dicates that if a part of a word does not correspond to a lexical entry

(or in the case of an affix or pattern, if it is not closely associated with an S-rule), then the question of the meaning of that part as an independent entity is not a relevant one.

In the BH case, the fact that certain meanings are sometimes assoc­ iated with certain patterns can be expressed by a correlation factor

(cf. Pollack 1976a), which indicates that the S-rule involved is used often in conjunction with a particular M-rule (pattern). In this part­ icular case, some relevant S-rules might be initially formulated as in

(T).

(7a) ROOT > ~ VERB (7b) ROOT -> [VERB Z _ _D0 Z_ Z Lbe z_

(7c) "ro ot -«->■ VERB (7d) r o o t W/ v e r b 1 Z _ CAUSE X TO DO Z z J [b e caused to do zj

The correlation factors for the pairs of rules (5b)-(7a), (5c)-(7c) and (5d)-(7d) will be low, indicating that the information in (7) is mostly predictable from the fact that the corresponding rule in (5) is being used. For non-r-corresponding pairs, e.g., (5c)-(7d), the correlation

factor is very high, indicating that the two rules are not used together, i.e., a verb in pattern (5c) (Hit'll) never has a passive meaning.

U.2.3 It might be claimed that it is wasteful having two ways of re­ lating a verb to its root, one directly and one through the Qal form.

But we are trying to express the speaker’s feeling for the fact that

some Ilin/il verbs are derived from Qal (as examples, consider the verbs

heTeblr ’to take across' and hizkTr ’to remind’ which are directly^ 68 related to Qal verts Tatar ’to go across’ and zakar *to remember’), whereas some aren’t related to any other verbs (e.g., hi^mtd fto destroy’ and hislTjk ’to throw’). These latter cases are, according to Lambdin

1971 j ’due mainly to our ignorance of the sources in the language from which they are derived' (p. 213). It is possible that, in an earlier stage of EH, there were Qal verbs on which these Hin_'xl verbs were based, but that the Qal forms either died out or were simply not attested in the BII corpus. In a synchronic grammar, however, these gaps must simply be recognized as gaps and the speaker uses whichever rule is more rele­ vant. Theoretically, rule (5c) could be used even if there is a related

Qal verb in the language, since it is possible that some speakers would acquire the Hire'll verb first or could fail to recognize the related­ ness of the Qal, even if he knows it. In this case, (5c) would be used

at one stage and (6) at a later stage, indicating the restructuring which takes place in the speaker's lexicon when he recognizes the two words are related.

The advantage of having rules like (6) is that it is easier to

correlate the semantic relationships with the morphological ones this

way. Consider how the semantics of IiirQIl verbs would be dealt with in

the system with only the rules in (5)* The relevant rules are the ones

in (7). In a system that doesn't include (6), a >Iin_’Il verb like ht>rtd_

'to bring or take down' will be morphologically related to yarad_ ’to go

down' by M-rules (5c) and (5b) and a few phonological rules. The

S-rules (7c) and (7a) will be closely correlated to (5c) and (5h) re­

spectively, so that horTd^ will be mostly redundant information, since a majority of Urn'll verbs are causatives of the corresponding Qal verb. But consider the form of rules (7c) and (7d), especially when compared to another set of S-rules, (8), for use with Pi"el and Pu"al.

(8a) ROOT VERB (8b) ROOT j VERB _Z CAUSE X TO BE Z I zj _ z [BE CAUSED TO BE

Clearly, (8a) and (8b) are related in the same way that (7c) and (jd) are. The relationship is that of passive. Also, (7a) and (7c) are in the same relationship as (7b) and (8a), namely a causative relationship.

With only the rules in (7) and (8), the similarity of relationship is just an accident.

The semantic relationship between Qal and Hijj'Il is not always via (7c). Although it is the most common, there are other semantic re­ lationships (cf. Lambdin 1971:212-3). Other S-rules would be used to express these. Yet in every case, where a Hup_'al exists, it is the passive of Hit'll, no matter what the relationship with Qal is, or even if there is no Qal at all (e.g., hurad_ 'to be taken down', huslak 'to be thrown'). By the present scheme, every possible S-rule used with

IIin_'Il will imply the existence of a separate S-rule for Hun*al (vhere it exists), which obviously misses the point. There will have to be

(among others) rules like (9),

(9 a) [VERB] -w-jvERB (9b) VERB] «-»• (VERB 1 L ZJ [caus a t i v e OF Z |_ ZJ [p a s s i v e OF ZJ which do not relate verbs to roots but to other verbs. These rules cannot be correlated to M-rules of the form (5) because those rules relate verbs to roots. Therefore in order to relate the semantics to the morphology in the regular cases, we need rules like (10). To

(lOa) (=(6)) VERB — b VERB /XaYaZ/ /hiXYTZ/

(10b) “VERB ~ VERB /hiXYTZ/ /huXYaZ/

Wow we can correlate (9a) with (lOa) and (9b) with (10b). Rules (7c) and (7d) can be eliminated.

Since all the Huo_’al cases are regular, i.e., there are no Hu£_'al verbs which are not the passives of corresponding Hit'll verbs, (10b) is sufficient for all cases and (5d) can be eliminated. But consider again verbs like hisl7_k, which have no corresponding Qal verb. We have two options. One is to relate the verb directly to its root by (5c),

The other is to relate it to the root indirectly via a non-existent Qal form which acts only as an intermediate stage in the relating. This would require rules (10a) and (5b) and would eliminate the need for (5c).

From a pure economy standpoint, this latter alternative may be better, but in terms of capturing the intuitive feeling about what a word is related to (cf. the discussion two pages back), then this is not the

correct description.

In the case of Ilio’il, there are several examples of verbs which

seem to be related only to nouns, for instance he’ezTn ’to give ear,

listen’ from ’ozen ’ear’ and heQer7b_ ’to do something in the evening1

from ?arab_ ’evening’. To claim that there are intermediate stages

*,azan and *

etymology of the verbs completely, but it is certainly a reasonable

assumption that the Kin'll verbs could have been formed directly from

the nouns, with no intermediate Qal involved. 71

We can go through the same discussion for Pi "el and Pu"al. The rules (9a) and (9h) will be sufficient to replace (8a) and (8b) if there are M-rules relating Qal to Pi"el and Pi"el to Pu"al, to which

(9a) and (9b) will be correlated closely. But we still need a rule relating a Pi"el to its root directly for the forms where no Qal verb exists (e.g., biqqes ’to seek’).

Hin'al and Hitpa"el are often the passive and reflexive respective­ ly of verbs in Qal, Pi"el or Hip_'il. Therefore we need M-rules relating

Nln'al and Hitpa"el to those patterns, rules which, will be closely cor­ related to S-rules for passives (9b) and reflexives. But since there are also verbs in those patterns which occur in no other pattern (e.g., nilham 'to fight', hi+yahec[_ 'to embrace Judaism'), there will also have to be rules relating verbs in those patterns directly to their roots.

All the major relevant M-rules and S-rules are listed in (ll) and

(12). (next page)

With regard to the cost of these rules, a problem arises. If the rules relating verbs in other patterns to Qal (VI - IX) are cheaper than the rules relating the verbs directly to their roots (II - V), then the former will always be used even when no real Qal exists (i.e., the verb is not based on a Qal verb at all). In actual fact, most

non—Qal verbs can be related (in a more or less regular semantic re­

lationship) to their Qal correspondents and the verbs related directly

to their roots will be a small minority (although this is less true

for Pi"el). Thus VI - IX will be cheaper to refer to than II - V and

for an economic counting of information, should be preferred. Yet, as

we have seen, this is counterintuitive with regard to the speaker's (ll) Morphological Redundancy Rules COST I (*ROOT] VERB [XYzJ /XaYaZ/ Qal LOW

II I ROOT] "VERB IXYZj /hiXYTZ/ Hin1II HIGH

III ROOT] VERB XYZJ /XiYYeZ/ Pi el MEDIUM

IV [ROOT! VERB [XYZ J /niXYaZ/ ITijo.1 al HIGH

V (ROOT) -*r-y VERB [XYzJ /hi+XaYYeZ/ Hitpa”el HIGH

VI [VERB J VERB [/XaYaZ/J /hiXYTZ/ Q - H LOW

VII VERB VERB /XaYaZ/ /niXyaZ/ Q - IT LOW

VIII "VERB VERB /XaYaZ/ /XiYYeZ/ Q - P MEDIUM

IX VERB VERB /XaYaZ/ /hi+XaYYeZ/ Q - Et LOW

X VERB VERB /hiXYTZ/ /huXYaZ/ II - Hu LOW

XI VERB VERB /XiYYeZ/ /XuYYaZ/ P - Pu LOW

XII VERB ~| +-*- [~VERB _/XiYY£Z/| [/hi+XaYYiZ/J P - Ht MEDIUM

XIII VERB I -w [VERB ~] 1 /hiXYTZj] [/hi+XaYYeZ/J H HT HIGH

XIV IVERB J -t-v [VERB ~| [/XiYYeZ/] [_/niXYaZ/J P - IT HIGH

XV [VERB “| -(-v [VERB "T [/hiXYTZ/j [/niXYaZ/j II - IT HIGH

(continued on next page) 73 (12) Semantic Redundancy Rules

A FROOT ~k->-p/ER3] j7, (action' [pO Zj

B [ROOT ~1 -+-*-[VERl [Z (state) BE z|

VERB1- (VERB P |_CAUSATIVE OF Z D [VERB [VERB L z _l (passive OF

E ’v e r ’b [VERB 1 z [r e f l e x i v e o f zj feelings of relatedness Between words. What we would like is for II - V to take precedence when there are no related S-rules "being used (i.e., when there is no semantic correlation to another pattern). But accord­ ing to Jackendoff’s information measure, morphological relatedness with^ out semantic relatedness still counts as redundancy (remember the case of 7)rofessor from chapter 3, where the profess, part is counted as morphologically redundant, although semantically not so), and therefore

VI - IX are still what will be used, even without the S-rules, since they are cheaper to refer to.

This case is not quite parallel to that of professor, however, and it points up a hole in the theory. We wouldn’t even consider the profess part of professor if it weren’t for the fact that the -or part of the word is also morphologically and (more importantly) semantic­ ally redundant (i.e., there are redundancy rules concerning the -or suffix and agent nouns). Consider another case, namely million. If we were to claim that morphological relatedness alone is sufficient for redundancy, then we could claim that million is mill+ion. The 'suffix’ would be redundant via the M-rule relating verbs to -ion nouns.

Of course, semantically there would be no action nominal or result nom­ inal relationship to a verb. Onee the 'suffix' is dealt with, we are left with a stem mill, which by the same non-semantic criteria is mor­ phologically redundant (because of the real verb mill). Thus, the whole word is morphologically redundant and semantically non-redundant.

But this is clearly nonsense. This could be extended to many different kinds of words. For instance, using the M-rule that relates adjectives to nouns in -th (warmth, length), we could 'parse' nouns ending in -th like bath, wreath, booth as being partially redundant information, when obviously they are not complex morphologically. So it seems that the redundancy rules are sometimes too powerful and there must sometimes be a semantic relationship for the M-rule to apply.

Jackendoff 1975 gives some convincing examples of cases where there does not need to be a semantic relationship. One case is for prefix- stern verbs in English, where the prefix is one of con-, trans-, ad-, in-, etc. and the stem is one of -mit, -for, -cede, etc. The lexicon can show the morphological redundancy of these stems and prefixes with­ out attributing specific meanings to them. The second case is for idioms, where the parts of the idiom are morphologically real words, but the meanings are different (if they weren't, you'd get a literal reading of the phrase, rather than its idiomatic reading). Aronoff

1976:section 2 .2.6 also discusses cases where words like probable have a suffix which is morphologically but not semantically redundant. These all seem legitimate to me, but there is still a way to indicate when semantic correlation is needed and when it isn't. 75 Wa must require that' a S-rule always be used, providing there is one which is applicable. Then we can claim that in the cases where there is

no semantic relationship between the two forms, there is no applicable

S-rule, therefore none need be used.

So, in the prefix-stem case, there are no rules which are applicable,

since the individual prefixes and stems have no clear meanings of their

own.1* In the case of the idioms, the M-rules are the syntactic base

rules, which might be claimed to have as associated S-rules the semantic

projection rules. But since the base rules are used in the lexicon only

for the description of idioms and in none of those cases are the pro­

jection rules used as 3-rules, we might make sure that our notion of

correlated S-rule will guarantee that the projection rules are not

correlated at all (lexically) with the base rules (although they are

obviously correlated as far as syntax and semantics of sentences is

concerned). This shouldn't be hard to do; correlation is based on how

often the rules are used together in the lexicon, which in this instance

is never. So, idioms may be considered morphologically redundant without

the semantics.

The words like probable are more difficult. It is true that the

-able doesn’t mean anything in probable, formally,when -able is at­

tached to a verb X, it means 'capable of being Xed'. We might claim that

when -able is attached to a stem, it has no meaning. This is true in

many cases, like vulnerable, amiable, etc., but there is a class of stems

which consist of a verb minus the morpheme -ate, ' which take -able

with its constant meaning based on the verb (negoti-, navig-, toler-,

etc.) What we might do in this case, however, is to claim that these 76 are verb stems, rather than just stems of an undifferentiated type, and that -able has its 'capable of being Xed' meaning when added to a verb or verb stem. This means that there would be two M-rules relating forms in

-able to other forms (there are actually more, but the others are irrele­ vant here) -- one, which refers to unmarked stems, has no closely cor­ related S-rule, and the other, which refers to verbs and verb stems, is closely associated to a S-rule. This analysis implies that verb'Stems and verbs axe definable as a natural class in X features, which means that stems should be included in the X system (cf. section 1. 1 . 3 ) . Thus, words like probable need not be semantically related to anything in order to be considered morphologically partially redundant.

Let us see how the other examples work. Consider million again. The

M-rule relating verbs to nouns in -ion will be closely associated with

S-rules that relate verbs to action nominals, result nominals, and so on, but million is none of these types. Since none of the S-rules can relate the meaning of million to that of mill, the M-rule for -ion will not be

allowed to operate, leaving million unparsed, as in should be.

There are some examples which make it seem like the -ion rule is being used without any S-rule, but these are not so. Aronoff discusses

the word transmission (of a car) (p.32-3). The divergence of meaning of

a car's transmission is not from transmit+ion, but from the other sense

of transmission, which is regularly parsable as transmit+ion. Thus, it

is not the -ion M-rule that is being used without a S-rule, but rather

an identity rule (13).

(13) NOUN 77 This rule has no regularly correlated S-rules, so it may operate without a regular semantic connection (as in the case of transmission and transmission).

To return to our BH example, rules VI - IX have associated S-rules.

When there is no regular semantic relationship between a Qal and a verb in another pattern,.including the case where no Qal exists, then VI - IX may not be used (since they require the use of a S-rule and no S-rule would be appropriate), and therefore II — V (which are associated with the very general S-rules A and B) will be used.

So, by modifying Jackendoff's information measure (in a way he con­ sidered and rejected), we are now able to express the intuitive feeling that some non-Qal verbs are derived from Qal, whereas others are not related to Qal at all.

1+.2.U The rules for nouns and adjectives are much simpler, since there are not many regular relationships between nouns. There are some patterns which have meanings associated with them, as mentioned above, but the only cases where one substantive is derived from another regular­

ly are examples of inflectional morphology, which will be discussed in

the next section. There are a few substantives which are relatable

directly to specific verb patterns (the participles, the infinitive

construct, and the so-called verbal nouns), but other than these, all

substantives will be related directly to their roots, morphologically

and semantically as well.

U.2.5 Since the inflectional affixes are always associated with a

specific meaning, the inflectional forms will always be related back to

the base form for the paradigm. The rules for verbs will be like (lU): 78 (lfca) VERB •*->- VERB (lla') V E R B ~ VERB JK _/X+tT/ 3 R D S G. M. 1 S T SG. PERFECT PERFECT

(lUb) VERB 'i.—y V E R B ~ (llfD*) "VERB ~ "VERB -/x/ _/X+ta/ 3 R D SG.M. «->• 2 N D S G . M PERFECT PERFECT

etc. etc.

For nouns, there will be rules of the type (15), among others.

(15a) NOUNNOUN (15a') NOUN <-+■ NOUN _ /x/ _/X+7/ X _MY X

(15b) NOUN "n o u n ( 1 5 b ’) NOUN "n o u n _/x/ /X+ka/ X YOUR

These rules will reduce to essentially zero the independent information content of the lexical entries for individual paradigm members, which reflects the complete transparency of form and meaning of these inflect­

ional affixes.

^.3 The Segolates

U.3.1 There is one class of nouns in BH which differs in several

interesting ways from most of the other noun classes. The immediately

notable fact is that these nouns'are stressed not on the final syllable

like most other nouns, but on the penultimate syllable. Thus we have

melek. 'king', se£er 'book' and qodes 'holiness'. From the name of the

short e vowel in the final syllable, Segol, comes the name given to these

nouns in traditional grammar, segolates.

The vowel in the final syllable of these nouns is almost always

predictable. The normal case is e, as in the examples cited above. If

the second or third root consonant is a guttural (except ’ ), the vowel

is a, cf. z e r a Y 'seed', n a Y a r 'boy*. If the second root consonant is y, 79 the vowel is i, e.g., Zciyi.t 'olive tree'.

The predictability of this vowel and the surface exceptionality of the segolates to the final stress generalization have been the tradit­ ional arguments for positing underlying representations for these words as monosyllables of the form /CVCC/. The stem vowel is usually repre­ sented as the one which the noun had historically, and which shows up in other Semitic languages, e.g., /malk/. (cf. Arabic maIik),/sipr/

(Arabic sifr), /quds/ (Arabic quds).

The e vowel in the final syllable is claimed to be epenthetic, with good reason, since an epenthetic vowel appears in other places to break up final consonant clusters. For example, in the active participle of the Qal verb, e.g., yoseb_ 'dwelling', the feminine form is y5s§be+_, which is analyzable as ySseb+t,where -t is the feminine ending occurring in several places in BH. Even more convincing is the example of certain verbs with a final root consonant of y or w. These verbs normally have

* an imperfect ending in -e, e.g., yi_bne ''he will build'. In the jussive, however, the final vowel is deleted. In some forms, the final cluster remains, e.g., yest 'may he drink', with the stress lengthening the

y* vowel after the truncation (from yis+e). But in other cases the cluster is broken up with an epenthetic vowel, as in ytben 'may he build*.

Thus, there is external motivation for positing a rule of epenthesis to

insert the e vowel into forms like /malk/ to give malej<, after which the first vowel is adjusted.

The synchronic justification for particular stem vowels is that in

inflection of the segolates, the stem vowel appears. Thus the paradigms

for me 1 e_k, se£er and qodes are as follows: 80 malkT 'my king* si£n 'my book' qudsT 'my holiness*

malkoka 'your king' sijwoka'your hook' qudsaka 'your holiness'

etc. etc. etc.

ITotice that the u vowel of /quds/ appears as short o in the inflection.

These vowels are historically related, hut I will not hother to go

through the analysis of how one is changed to another, since we will

adopt different lexical forms for these words.

U.3.2 In a system like SGP, there must he one underlying form for both mele_k and malkT and the differences in the surface forms will he

attributable to the application of phonological rules. The underlying

form will probably be /malk/ (cf. Prince, p.37), so there will not

have to be any rules which affect the inflected forms, since the stress

rule will stress any final long vowel. To derive melej<, the base form will be stressed on the stem vowel, then the epenthesis rule will apply

and finally, the a vowel will be changed to e. Prince gives these

rules as in (l6 ):

(l6a) (= Prince's (IT)) 0 "* e / C C //

(l6b) (= Prince's (18)) a __ -LONG -* e / V r c + STRESS [-GUTTURAL

As mentioned before, if the medial consonant of the root is a guttural,

the stem vowel remains as a (cf. na?ar above), hence the condition in

(l6b) that the following consonant not be a guttural. Prince orders

these rules after his rule of Tonic Lengthening which lengthens any e

and 0 when stressed and lengthens a except when followed by two con­

sonants. Thus Prince's lexical representations are /malk/, /sepr/ and

/qods/. The e and o will lengthen when stressed but the a will not. 81 This accounts for the short vowel in melek_, hut long vowels in seger and q5d_es.

Our lexical representations will be for the separate words, rather than one stern. It is not clear that each word should be represented in its surface form. Remember, natural phonology says that lexical representations are never shallower than the phonemic level (i.e., no allophones are allowed) and that they are deeper than the phonemic level only when there is a morphological alternation which is describ*- able by a natural process (cf. the German Bund/Bunt case). There are three issues here: l) Should the epenthetic vowel in melek_be represent­ ed in the lexical entry? 2) Should the stem vowel of melek_be represent­ ed as e or a? 3 ) Shold the final consonant be represented in the lexi­ con as k or k_? Each of these issues depends on whether the particular rule involved (Epenthesis (loa), a -* e (16b) and Spirantization (cf. section ^.l.l))is a natural process or not.

H.3.3 Of the three rules, the one that looks the least like a natural process is the a -* e rule. It does not seem to be based on any artic­ ulatory considerations. Furthermore, the change from a to e involves a change of values for at least two features, one for height and one for backness. Also if BII has a rule, it is, as far as I know, the only language which does. These facts, while not completely overpowering, tend to reduce the likelihood of this rule being a natural process.

The epenthesis rule is, on the other hand, much more process-like.

Fox* one thing, as a result of its application, final consonant clusters are eliminated. The rule could be construed perhaps as aiming for ease 82 of articulation. Similar epenthesis rules occur in other languages.

For example, Kuroda 19&7 formulates a rule of epenthesis in the environ­ ment C ___ C + inYawelmani. Ohso 1973 sets up an epenthesis rule in

Japanese to handle certain foreign words.

There are two facts about Yawelmani and Japanese which have a parallel in BH. The first is that the quality of the epenthetic vowel is dependent on the neighboring sounds. Thus in Yawelmani, the inserted vowel undergoes vowel harmony to match the preceding vowel in round­ ness. In Japanese, the epenthetic vowel is either i , u or o , depending on the consonants it is inserted between. In BH, the epenthetic vowel, while usually e , is a ‘ if either of the surrounding consonants is a guttural and i if it is preceded by y. This suggests that the epenthet­ ic vowel does not have much character of its own, even though the three languages use different vowels as the basic epenthetic vowel.

The second fact is that Yawelmani, Japanese and BH have reasonably strict constraints on consonant clusters. Hone of the three allows three consonants together. Yawelmani and BH generally do not allow final clusters (but see below) and Japanese does not allow clusters anywhere, except for geminates and nasal-initial clusters. These restrictions suggest that the epenthesis rules are for the purpose of eliminating difficult combinations.

On the other hand, there are exceptions to the epenthesis rule in

BH. The exceptions are limited in number and are all characterized by

the fact that the final consonant is a stop (Gesenius 1910:93). The

following examples illustrate the range of types: yes+’let him turn 83 aside', w a y y ^ s k 'and he caused t o drink', 9amar+'you (f,sg„) have said', w a y y e— b k 'and he wept', w a y e■sS r d 'and let him have dominion', w a y y i s b

'and he took captive'. It might he possible to characterize these ex­ amples phonologic ally, but this is doubtful, especially when we have the conflicting examples of yos§b++ -* yos§b_e+_ 'dwelling (f.sg.)' and y5sab+t -* yascibt 'you (f.) dwelled' , where the feminine singular part­ iciple regularly ■undergoes Epenthesis and the second singular feminine perfect regularly does not.

Prince claims that the 2fsg perfect is not a relevant example because the suffix is really /-+!/ and that the T is deleted from the suffix when the verb is not followed by a pronominal suffix. The final vowel prevents Epenthesis from applying, since there is no final con­ sonant cluster.

The T-deletion rule obviously follows Epenthesis since the T must be present to prevent Epenthesis from applying. But the T-deletion rule is not itself a natural process. It must be constrained to apply only to the T of the 2fsg perfect, since the lsg suffix in the perfect is also /—+T/ and the final T for this suffix is never deleted. Since it is morphologically conditioned, T-deletion is a rule, not a process, which means that it operates upside-down in the lexicon. Since in SGP this rule follows Epenthesis, this means that epenthesis must also be applying inside the lexicon on the derivation of the 2fsg forms. How­ ever, this cannot be evidence concerning whether Epenthesis is a pro­ cess or not since processes can apply inside the lexicon. A short di­ gression into the function of processes in natural phonology is necessa­ ry to chow this. 8U

^.3.3.1 Halle 1959 argued that the classical phonemic level was not a significant level of representation because it forced a rule of voicing assimilation to be split into two parts: one which affected voiceless phonemes like + , changing them into different phonemes like d , and one which affected c by merely changing it into an allophone

•v> j , which was not an entity on the phonemic level. To state voicing assimilation as one rule expressing the presumably one generalization involving both + and c, no phonemic level was needed.

The same argument which Halle used against the phonemic level can also be brought against SGP which distinguishes between morpheme structure rules (or constraints) and phonological rules per se.

Stampe 1973a:32-3 gives an example using the rule which assimilates nasals to a following stop in English. The same assimilation must be not only a morpheme structure rule or constraint to describe words like li[m]p, li[n]t and li[q]k, but it must also be a phonological process that applies (especially in casual speech) across word bound­ aries, e.g., on board as [onbord] or [ombord] and in custody as

[inkAstori] or [ irjkAstor i]. In SGP this is the same problem that

Halle claimed that autonomous phonemics had.

Stampe says that the problem is in claiming that there must be a strict separation of the rules governing underlying representation and those governing surface pronunciation. In natural phonology, 'any process ... may govern underlying representation if its output is not barred from the lexicon by an earlier process which eliminates that output’ (p.33). Thus, 'there is indeed just one voicing assimilation 85 process in Russian, but ... one of its substitutes (J) is barred from underlying representations by an earlier more general process ...’

(p. 31). In English, the nasal assimilation process governs the lexicon except that q is barred from underlying representation by a previous process q -» n (which is evidenced by the substitution of n for q in foreign words like Nguyen [nuyen]).

Remember, however, that for specific morphemes, the alternants may be such that they can only be derived by a deeper representation. So, the final devoicing process in German governs the lexicon for items like avcg [avek] 'away' which do not alternate, but for words like Bund, morphological considerations require that the lexical representation be deeper than the phonemic level and hence not governed by the devoic­ ing rule.

To return to our BH discussion, if the epenthesis rule is a process, it could apply not only in the phonology, but could also apply to lexical representations, except where morphological considerations force us to posit more abstract representations. In this case, the entry for y3§ab+ would be yasab+i s where the lexical representation is more abstract than the phonemic level, and hence not governed by Epen­ thesis.

In section U.6 , this analysis will be revised, and the T-deletion rule will be applicable only at a much more abstract level. This will result in a different lexical form for yasabt, but it will not affect odr analysis of Epenthesis in general. 86

^.3.3.2 It turns out, however, that there are other considerations which cast doubt on the processhood of Epenthesis. Namely, the except­ ions mentioned above cannot be characterized phonetically. It was stated that the second consonant of the final cluster was always a stop.

Yet there are several examples in segolate nouns where the final conson­ ant is a stop (for example, /malk/) where there is little trouble pro-.' nouncing the word as a monosyllable. If Epenthesis is used only to break up difficult clusters (e.g., yibn -* yiben, yicjj -* yl^el), then why does it always apply to the segolate nouns, even though some would have easy clusters, e.g., *dalt 'door', *9ars 'earth', *pard 'mule*

(actual forms are d£let^eres, pered_)? It looks as if at best we can say that Epenthesis fails to apply only in verbs, and at worst, it fails to apply only in a specific group of words. Neither statement of the exceptions is in line with the requirement that processes have no morphological or idiosyncratic conditions. Hence, Epenthesis is a rule and will apply upside-down within the lexicon. Therefore the lexical entry for 'king' will contain both of its surface vowels.

H.3.H The rule of Spirantization is not characterized by idiosyn­ cratic or morphological exceptions. Every plain stop which follows a vowel is turned into the corresponding fricative. The only system­ atic exceptions to the rule are geminated stops.

U.3.1*.l Sampson 1973 suggests that in order to formulate Spiranti­ zation most effectively, gemination should not be allowed in BH and what are traditionally called geminate stops should be characterized as [+LOITG]. Sampson claims that otherwise Spirantization would be complicated to state. The rule is (17a), which can also he stated as (l7h).

(17a) -ROHORANT -SOiJORANT ot ANTERIOR aANTERIOR 3CORONAL [+COHTIHUANT] / V BCOROHAL yVOICED _ yVOICED

(17b) -SOIJORANT f[ +SOITORANT]^ aAHTERIOR [-aAHTERIOR] V BCOROHAL [+CONTIIIUANT] / V [-BCOROHAL ] yVOICED [-yVOICED

This second formulation implies that the rule applies in any of four distinct situations, one for each of the options in the curly brackets,

If geminates are represented as [+LOHG], then Spirantization becomes merely (l8 ):

(1 8 ) -SONORAHT [+CONTINUANT] / V -LONG

Barkai 197^- answers Sampson’s claim concerning gemination by showing that there are several facts about BH structure which are missed by describing geminate stops as [+L01Ig3. I will not repeat his argu­ ments here. What is of interest is that Barkai, while convincingly demonstrating that gemination must be allowed, does nothing to defend rule (1 7 ), and does not suggest an alternative analysis.

U.3.^.2 There are other analyses possible. First of all, we could recode (17a) by means of the subscript notation, as in (19).

(19) [+CONTINUANT] / V (X) // -SONORAHT1 Condition: X does not begin with C^

There is an alternative way to formulate the environment, namely as i . / V where the condition is merely that X ^ C^, ♦s e g m e n t ] 88

Neither of these formulations is much better than (17 ) in terms of looking like a natural process, since they both contain a negative condition whose purpose is merely to indicate a class of exceptions to the rule.

One way to eliminate the exceptions is to split the rule into two parts. The first part will be Spirantization itself:

(20) [- CONTINUANT] -* [+CONTINUANT] / V _____

In the case of geminated stops, this will produce a cluster of fricative plus stop, e.g., gibbor 'hero', yasa£per ’he will relate’.

These clusters will be fixed up by an assimilation rule (21):

+CONTINUANT -CONTINUANT aANTERIOR -» [ -CONTINUANT] / aANTERIOR 3CORONAL 3C0R0NAL yVOICED yVOICED

Barkai refers to such a rule as ad hoc, but in terms of natural phonology, there is nothing wrong with a process that assimilates a fricative totally to a neighboring stop counterpart. Notice that this process eliminates exceptions to Spirantization and is itself except­ ionless.

As elegant as this solution may seem, it is problematic. Notice that (20 ) and (2l) feed each other; each creates forms for the other to apply to, since they make inverse changes. According to Stampe

1973a:6 0 , processes ’do not apply in a linear order, but rather apply and re-apply whenever the configurations they would eliminate arise'.

By this scheme, rules (20) and (21) would apply and re-apply to each other's output ad Infinitum, clearly an undesirable result. This would he prevented if we could place an extrinsic ordering

constraint on these rules, forbidding (20 ) from applying to the out­ put of (21). Stampe 1973a:67 states clearly, however, that such

constraints are learned (i.e., not natural). Hencessuch an analysis

as this must be abandoned if we are claiming that Spirantization is

a natural process.

U.3.^.3 Prince's analysis of Spirantization follows from an idea in Kim 1975. Kim notes that in Korean, geminates arising through morphological combination become 'fortis', a feature that he identifies with glottalization. This suggests that geminates in Hebrew are fortis,

and that Spirantization does not apply to fortis consonants. This anal­ ysis also correctly predicts that the emphatic consonants, which have

a secondary articulation that might be glottalization, will not undergo

Spirantization. If geminates are fortis, this means they are glottal-

ized, but as Prince notes, fortis cannot be the same as emphatic, be­

cause -ft- and -kk- are never written as -tt- or -qq-, so there must be some other factor involved. Perhaps fortis is a sort of inorganic

feature, a combination of several phonetic factors, possibly similar to

'strss', which can be considered a combination of loudness, length, etc.

While fortis may not exactly be the relevant factor here, I feel that

this is the right direction to follow in order to describe why gemin­

ates (and perhaps emphatics as well) do not undergo Spirantization.

In spite of the fact that there are problems with this formulation, I

would claim that Spirantization is a natural process. One important

reason for this is the exceptionless-on-the-surface quality of the substitution. As a secondary reason, which is clearly of lesser im­ portance, the fact is that the same consonantal characters are used in the orthography for the stops and the fricatives. It is true that in the later texts pointed with vowels, the stops are distinguished from the fricatives by the placement of a dot within the symbol. This may, however, only reflect the effort of the text pointers to describe the pronunciation of the sacred literature as close as possible to the surface for as faithful a rendition as possible of the original. This practice has parallels in the Sanskrit sacred literature, where allo- phones were sometimes indicated in the orthography to stabilize the pronunciation. For instance, fi is always indicated, even though it is always predictable from the environment (Whitney 1889:16).

A rule which spirantizes stops after vowels is a natural type of rule in that it makes a minimal substitution of an assimilatory nature

(in this case, an incomplete closure following the openness of a vowel). We can think of BH Spirantization as a limited version of a more general process we might call General Spirantization. Individual languages will have their own processes which are forms of General

Spirantization limited in various ways. One such way is to limit the rules's environment. So, for instance, Southern Paiute limits Spirant— ization to intervocalic stops, whereas BH merely limits the process to stops in postvocalic position. Another way to limit the process is to restrict the set of consonants that get spirantized. So, Spanish restricts Spirantization to voiced stops. BH limits it to non—fortis stops. Other limitations can be imposed by ordering constraints. 21 In Tamil, Spirantization follows a voicing process, so that t becomes

S, whereas in Danish, voicing must follow Spirantization (which applies only to voiced stops), because while d becomes 5, the d which comes from the voicing of t remains a stop (Stampe 1973a:15).

No language need have General Spirantization in its most general form, but the similarities among various languages’ rules of this type are enough so that we may suggest that they are all limited version of the same general process. See section U.U.l for a similar example involving vowels.

^.3.^.U There is another complication involving Spirantization, however. Although there are no examples (other than the geminates) where the process fails to apply, there are cases where it appears to apply when it should not. These cases fall into two morphologically definable types: one is in the suffixes -kem and - k e n , the 2pl masculine and feminine possessive suffixes for nouns. The k is spirantized in all cases (e.g., debarkem 'your (m.pl.) word'), and there is no evi­ dence that there is synchronically a vowel immediately before the suf­ fix to effect Spirantization. It is, of course, possible to suggest that there is a vowel there underlyingly, which would follow history in that regard, but since there is no synchronic reflex of the vowel either as part of the stem or as part of the suffix, this move is to be avoided as a type of 'absolute neutralization' (cf. Kiparsky 1973).

The other example is in the inflection of some plural nouns. Let us look at the plural paradigm of the segolates, as exemplified by m$Iek again: Regular molakTm mslakay my kings1 molakeynu ’our kings Plural mo I ak_ey_ka etc. maI keykem etc.

Construct mal_key- molakayij^ maIkeyk^n Plural^ molakaw maI keyhem

malkeyh6nmo!akeyha

The relevant forms are the construct state and the form of the stem before the second and third plural suffixes, where the k of the stem is spirantized even though it is preceded by s consonant.

Now,the obvious move is to posit a vowel in the position before the k_, a vowel that is dropped after Spirantization applies. This is the correct move, in fact, since the regular plural and the other plural forms with suffixes do show a vowel in that position. This is another 5 strange fact about the segolates. Most nouns have the same stenr m the singular as in the plural, with all changes due to the operation of phonological rules lengthening and reducing the vowels. But the second stem vowel in the plural of the segolates does not appear in the singu­ lar at all, assuming as ire have that the second vowel in words like raelej< is epenthetic. Thus, we need a redundancy rule in the lexicon of the form (22):

(22) [ITOUI'T STEM NOUN STEM SINGULAR PLURAL /cvcc/ /CVCaC/

The forms with the stem malaj<- are explainable via Prince’s lengthening and reducing rules for vowels based on their position relative to the

stress. In this case, the stress is on the syllable immediately after the stem. The plural stem malak- undergoes a rule which reduces vowels 93 two syllables before the stress to a and another rule that lengthens vowels one syllable before the stress. These same changes affect dabar+Tm giving debarTm.

When the stress is pulled even farther away, as onto the second syllable of the second and third plural suffixes , or in the construct

state, where the stress moves onto the following word, a different set of reductions takes place.

Prince claims that the second vowel of the stem is reduced to a by the reduction rule and that the a is deleted by a later rule. This loss of a obviously follows Spirantization,. which we are considering to be a natural process. Therefore, let us inspect this a-deletion a lit**'

tie more closely.

^.3.^.5 There is a problem concerning the vowel a in BH. This prob­

lem arises from the ambiguity of the vowel pointing system. The invent­

ors of the system, who added the vowel points to the consonantal text, which was hundreds of years old, used the same symbol (which I will

refer to as ’schwa*) for a as they did for the absence of a vowel.

Thus, any consonant which is pointed with this symbol (two dots beneath

the consonant, like this: X ) could either be used to close a syllable

(silent schwa) or it could have a pronounced after it (vocal schwa).

There are certain environments where one or the other value of schwa

can be predicted. Schwa is generally agreed (cf. Gesenius 1910, Lambdin

1971) to be vocal in the environments /'C C and V C C C, and silent in

the environment V C C . For the environment V C C , there is contro­

versy as to whether schwa is vocal or silent (cf. Prince's discussion 9^ p. 8l-5). In Prince*s system, vocal schwas can arise in two ways: by

epenthesis (i.e., they are zeroes in underlying structure); or by vowel

reduction (i.e., they are full-fledged vowels in underlying structure).

Since the 9-deletion rule should not delete schwas that have just been

inserted epenthetically, it cannot apply to schwas near the end (or beginning) of the word. Prince's rule is thus (23):

(23) e -♦ 0 / VC ___ CV

Prince assumes that schwa is silent after VC, but if we do not want to

accept that, then a simple [-LOVG]can be added to the preceding vowel

in rule (23).

We might normally think of this a-deletion rule as a natural pro­

cess, since syncope rules have a natural explanation in terms of the

syllabication of the consonants on each side of the syncopated vowel

(see Semiloff-Zelaslco 1973 for discussion and examples from other

languages). But there is one obstacle, a condition on the rule which

says that the two neighboring consonants cannot be the same. Thus,

for sel 'shadow', the construct plural is silaley-, where the a remains.

It is important to note that there is no general constraint against

gemination, since geminates occur in many places in BII, as we have seen.

Even in the paradigm of sel in the singular we find si I IT 'my shadow'

(the root is /sell/, this word being a special type of segolate with

the second and third consonants alike, cf. /sepr/ si£rl).

Since a-deletion is not prevented from applying in words like

silaley- by a more general constraint on pronunciation (geminates being

acceptable in Bli), these words constitute genuine exceptions to the 95 rule and therefore make us suspect that it is a rule, not a process.

Since Spirantization must precede it to get malkey-, we must have

Spirantization applying inside the lexicon in this case. Therefore, the lexical entry for malkeyhem ha s . a spirantized k in it.

This in turn means that since the spirantization process is not transparent phonetically (although we can predict morphologically where the fricatives will appear after consonants), fricatives must be allowed into lexical representations and are therefore not allophones. We could therefore have a fricative in the lexical entry for melek_ as well.

^.3.^.6 The relevant principle here is ’the underlying representation of a form is only as abstract as is required by the pronunciation of all its naturally derivable surface forms'(Stampe 197^). I take 'nat­ urally derivable’ to mean derivable by natural processes applying right-side' up out in the phonology and not upside-down in the lexicon.

Stampe 1973a gives an example from Lithuanian Yiddish where the rule

of final devoicing of obstruents is lost. The forms which were inflect­

ed which had a voiced obstruent like [vek]/[vege] ’road/roads’ became

after the rule loss [veg]/[vega], reflecting the underlying /g/, but

forms which did not have inflected alternants with voiced obstruents

like [avek] ’away’ remained the same after the rule loss, indicating

that the underlying representation was /k/. In other words, the lex-

cal representation was only deeper where the inflection obliged it to

be. Presumably, the form ’roads' is one of the ’naturally derivable

surface forms' of..’road', but no such relationship exists between

'road' and 'away' (although the two would probably have the seme lexical representation for the final consonant in SGP). In our theory, if the speaker does relate 'road' and 'away' morphologically, it will have to be at a more abstract level, i.e., by upside-down rules in the lexicon, in particular, by the final-devoicing rule applying upside-down.

But this relating on a more abstract level does not affect the lexical representations of the words since only natural processes applying right-side up (such as the final-devoicing rule applying to /veg/) can be allowed to deepen lexical representation.

In BH, we have a Spirantization rule which can apply right-side up in the phonology or upside-down in the lexicon. Vie have also seen that fricatives must be allowed in lexical representations, in particular, in forms like /malj

/ma I key hem/ it is. Also rna I kT must be represented with a /k/ because there is no natural process that changes fricatives to stops after a consonant (if there were, it would also apply to /maI_keyhem/, which would be incorrect).

But what about melek? If we want to claim that malkT is one of its

'naturally derivable surface forms', then we have to represent melej< with

/k/, again because the natural process operates as k -* _k and not the other way around.

The notion of a word’s 'naturally derivable surface forms' must be sharpened, however. According to the examples in Stampe 1973a, 197^* 97 these seem to refer only to inflectional variations and regular derivat­ ional forms, since [v£k] ’road* and [avek] ’away' are not in this relat­ ionship.

However, since malkeyhem, ma I kt and mele_k are all related inflect- ionally, we must go a little further. Consider another German example, the word Rad 'wheel* [rat] and its plural Rade [re:da]'(or [re:da]).

These two forms differ not only in the voicing of the stop but in the quality (and length) of the vowel. Final devoicing is, as we have mentioned, a process, but umlaut, which relates the stem vowels, is not.

Since the relationship is defined by a (morphologically conditioned) rule, it might be claimed that [re:da]is not one of Rad's naturally derivable surface forms. And if it is not, then they should be no more related than weg and aweg. If this is so, then the underlying stop, for Rad need not be any more abstract them the phonemic level, i.e.,

/+/.

I think, however, that this analysis violates the spirit of

Stampe's theory. Obviously, the final stop of Rad will be no less ab­ stract than that of other nouns which show the voiced alternant inter- vocalically in the plural. Therefore, the term 'naturally derivable' should be modified, since the important factor is whether the forms are related by regular morphological processes (e.g., most inflectional forms and the most productive derivational variants, like -er agent nouns in English) or not.

In our BH example again, I say that we want to claim that melek_, malkT and maJ.keyhem are related in this way. Therefore, since the k and

_k alternate and the rule changes stop to fricative, all three should lexically contain /k/. But as we have seen, we cannot have a /k/ in malkeyhem for other reasons, so we are forced to leave it as a /k/.

Wow since we have two different lexical representations for the final stop in two different alternant of the word, it might be claimed that, . the two alternants are not the same word. But this case is no different from the Rad ~ Rade case, where the stem vowels must he different lexi­ cally. Therefore, I think that our concept of alternants having the same underlying form cannot depend on phonological relatedness, i.e., their being naturally derivable from one another, but must be a morpho­ logical notion as well. Regular morphological alternants should have the same underlying representation for a sound if the surface alternants are related by a natural process. Where the surface relationship is by

a rule (or in our BH case, by a process and a rule) or where the two words are not related in a regular morphological relationship, then the

lexical representations need not be the same.

.3.^• T There are a few exceptional words which still need to be

considered. The word kese£_ 'money1, when suffixed in the plural with

the 3mpl ending gives kaspeyhem with the p unexpectedly unspirantized.

In this case, the rules of a-deletion and Spirantization will not apply

because the form can be directly related to its stem form /kasp/ immed­

iately by the rule that adds /-eyhem/ to plural nouns. The only thing

unusual here is that /kasp/ has the same stem in the plural as in the

singular, unlike other segolates, so it will not refer to rule (22),

which relates segolate singular stems to stems with a second vowel in

them. There are two nouns which appear to have undergone Spirantization when they are not supposed to, in the suffixed forms of be£ed_ ’garment’

(e.g., blcjdT) and yeqeb_ 'wine vat' (e.g., yiqbaka). The final consonants of these words never alternate between stop and fricative, so the lexical

forms will be the phonemic representations, which means the fricatives will be phonemic for these forms, similar to the case of other words which have fricatives that are always postvocalic and hence do not

alternate (e.g., the preposition ?ad_ ’until1 and ’eih, the direct object' marker).

There are two other nouns, bara_ka 'blessing' and harada 'trembling',

which have unusual forms. The usual form of the construct and the suf­

fixed forms are like that of nadaba 'voluntariness', namely nid_(a)b_a1j“

with the third consonant of the root spirantized. YJhether the schwa

is pronounced or not is arguable (see above, section ^.3.^.5), but

even if it is deleted by Q-deletion (as Prince would say it is), this

does not happen before it spira.ntizes the consonant. However, the

unusual forms are birkal^ and herdat_, with stops in third position. Our

system would have to relate these words to their roots by an upside-

down application of a-deletion, but no application of Spirantization.

Thus, these forms only avoid Spirantization when it is inside the

lexicon, where any rule may be avoided. The active right-side up

functioning of Spirantization is still without exceptions ( note that

birkat_and herda+_ are not surface exceptions to Spirantization), so it

still qualifies as a natural process.

^.3.5 One more fact of interest is worth mentioning here, but I will

put off a discussion of it until later. It is the following: In contrast 100 to the construct plural of segolates, as typefied ty malkey-, regular nouns which are bisyllabic in the singular show an I vowel in the first syllable, cf. dibrey- (from dabar). Prince posits a rule a -* i, (which has other uses besides this one), which accounts for the change from

/dabrey-/ to dijbrey-. The point is that segolates are uniformly except­ ions to this rule. In SGP, a redundancy rule can be written to assign a rule feature to the segolates, such as (2b):

(2U) STEM [a-TO-i RULE] cvcc however, in our system, since rule features do not exist, we cannot use this method to state the generalization concerning the segolates1 ex­ ceptionality to this rule.

This situation is quite similar to cases involving diacritic feat­ ures where rules have classes of exceptions rather than only sporadic

exceptions. That being the case, this problem will be relevant to the

discussion in section 6.6.1.1, to which I refer the reader.

.U Reduced vowels and lengthened vowels

The plural form for 'king' is molakTm. We have already seen that

the _k must be a /k/ in the lexical representation in order to relate

the form to the singular form where k and _k alternate. The second vowel

a is not present in the singular stem /malk/, but is a special feature

of the plural of the segolates (recall rule (22)'. , which relates the

singular and plural segolate stems). What has yet to be discussed is

whether the two vowels of the plural surface form should be represented

lexically as a and a, as they are in the abstract stem /malak-/, or

whether one or both should be represented as they are on the surface, 101 as 9 and a,respectively. (We assumed in section ^.3.^.^ that the surface forms are lexical.) Dependent on this question is the larger question of vhether 9 (and the other reduced vowels) should be allowed in lexical representations at all.

U.U.l We know that the process of vowel reduction (which consists-.of two rules in Prince 1975, one which destresses certain vowels and the other which changes stressless vowels to 3) must be followed by the rule of o-deletion (rule (23)), since in maIkeyhem, the Q that was deleted was originally an a (which turns up long in malajVTm), which was reduced when the stress moved to the rights

This , of course, does not prevent vowel reduction from being a natural process, since processes, as we have seen in the case of Spirant- isation, can operate both right-side up in the phonology and upside- down in the lexicon. Thus, in order to relate mal_keyhem back to

/ma I ak+eyhern/, the plural stem plus suffix, we must undo a-deletion,

Spirantization and vowel reduction (the order of the last two is not crucial).

Vowel reduction must also be followed by two rules which change the a to another short vowel in the vicinity of a guttural, but similarly, these will not prevent vowel reduction from being a natural process if- it should otherwise be one.

While the reduction of an unstressed vowel seems like a reasonable

example of a natural process (possibly having a rhythmic function), and while many languages have vowel reduction rules of various types, there

are a handful of exceptions to vowel reduction as a whole in BII. For

example, there are several adjectives which take a form like samehey- 102

’happy' in the plural construct instead of *simhey-. The second vowel

in these forms is not reduced as it should he. Further examples are nouns like sarTsTm 'eunuchs’, with an unreduced first vowel. The con­

struct singular is sons, which shows that the vowel is reduceable.

These examples, which have no systematic phonological basis, show

that vowel reduction as a whole cannot be considered a process. However,

since what we have been callinggvowel reduction is in fact two rules,

we might claim that the above examples are exceptions only to the rule

of destressing. Thus the rule which destresses certain, vowels is not a

process, but the second part, which reduces the unstressed vowels to o

still could be. Just as in the case of Spirantization, it is difficult

to verify conclusively whether the reduction itself is or is not natural,

but I would claim that it is.

Miller 1972 claims that 'vowel reduction is a limitation or sub­

process, sensitive to factors of vowel quality and especially to stress,

of Vowel Neutralization' (p. H88). Vowel neutralization is a process

which removes all distinguishing characteristics from a vowel: rounding,

palatality, height, sonority; The unlimited application of this process

is at work in very early child language, reducing the entire vowel in-

vertory to one vowel (the child's vowel is a rather than a because at

that point, all vowels are stressed, so that an additional process

lowering stressed vowels applies). Miller also suggests that languages

like Kabardian, which have no palatal or rounded vowels, show some of ,the

effects of Vowel neutralization.

Vowel reduction is a limited version of this process, which applies

only to unstressed vowels. By limiting other parts of the Vowel . 103

Neutralization process, various reduced-'vowel systems can occur. For example in Eastern Ojibwa, there are two reduced vowels, both a-like,but one is rounded. In this case, the vowel reduction process will not

affect the rounding feature, leaving the rounded schwa as the reduced variant of lax o (Bloomfield 1956:5-6). In some English dialects,

the palatality feature is not affected by vowel reduction, giving two

reduced vowels, a and I (cf. the reduced vowels in epoch and epic) as

reduced versions of non-palatal and palatal vowels, respectively.

So, vowel reduction has a firm basis in natural phonology as a

form of the very general process of Vowel Neutralization*

U.U.2 The other source of a, according to Prince, is by a rule he

calls Cluster Breakup, which inserts a between two consonants at either

end of the word. This rule subsumes our Epenthesis rule (discussed in

section U.3.3). Notice that Prince claims that Epenthesis inserts a into

the segolates, rather than e, as we have assumed. His claim (which is

quite plausible) is that if the vowel were pronounced as 3, there would

be no way to write it in BH. Recall that a schwa can either indicate a

a vowel or no vowel at all. Thus if we have two consonants at the end of

the word, they would each be pointed with schwa, If we want to break up

cluster with an epenthetic 3 vowel, the writing system cannot indicate

that the vowel is there, since writing a schwa could merely indicate

that there is no vowel at all (i.e., a doubly closed syllable). Hence

Prince claims that to indicate that there was an actual vowel there, the

people who pointed the vowels marked it as e, which is reasonably close

to 9 phonetically. 10U

Prince's rule looks like this:

(25) 0 -* a // // C C

This use of a mirror image rule is suspect, however, because while there axe several exceptions to the final-cluster Epenthesis (as discussed in section ^.3.3)» the only exceptions to the initial-cluster Epenthesis are the feminine forms s+ayim, stey- of the word 'two'. There is an example of a word borrowed from Persian-nerd'nard (an odiferous plant from India)', which tolerates a final cluster. Loan words with initial clusters are hard to find, but there seem to be a few words with pro- thetic 9e-, words in which CC alternates with CaC, e.g., zaroSty’ezroa?

'arm'. These alternations suggest that there is more of an effort to eliminate initial clusters than final ones, which argues against col­ lapsing the two rules into one. Because of the lexical exceptions,

especially in a loanword, Epenthesis (either as one rule or as two rules with different degrees of tolerance to exceptions) appears not to be

a natural process.

In any event, all cases of a not attributable to vowel reduction

are still the result of Epenthesis.

1J.1+.3 The other extra short vowels a e o, according to Gesenius 1910,

usually result when a guttural ought to be followed by a vocal schwa,

either as a result of Epenthesis or vowel reduction, cf. bakor 'first

born' and hamSr 'ass' from the same pattern, yosabTm'dwelling (m.pl.)'

and sS’alTm 'asking (m.pl.)'. The § tends to be associated more with 7,

whereas the other gutturals tend to favor a. Other cases of extra short

vowels are between identical consonants, e.g., wayyahalalu 'and they

praised'. 105

There are cases, however, where extra short vowels appear unpre- dictably, e.g., barakT ’bless! '

Stampe 197^ states 'a class of phonetic segments is barred from underlying representation if: a) it is exhaustively derivable through natural processes applicable in the language in question; and b) there is a paradigmatic natural process which eliminates that class of segments1.

Three of the extra short vowels, a e o, are not always predictable by the rules, as we have just seen, so they are not barred from under­ lying representation. But as far as 9 is concerned, all existing 9's are predictable either by Epenthesis or by vowel reduction. If we can consider the epenthesis rule to be a natural process (which is quest­ ionable) and if there happens to be a paradigmatic process which elim­ inates a from the language (evidence for or against which is hard to find, there being no living native speakers), then s.may be excluded from lexical representations. The question remains open. But since we are assuming that vowel reduction is a natural process, any 9 that alternates with a full vowel (as in malkey_/maIajkim) will be represented with a full vowel in the lexicon. The vowel must be marked [-STRESS], since the destressing rule operates only inside the lexicon.

The rules that change a to a or o after gutturals have no exceptions

(if we assume that ’a is changed to 9e sometimes by a later rule

(Prince:211)),therefore the extra short vowels a e o which occur after gutturals are predictable by rules which are also likely to be natural processes These vowels should not be present lexically if they alter­ nate, e.g., for ?ereb/?arab_im 'evening (sg./pl.)' the lexical forms 106 will be /?arb/ and /?arabTm/. V A short a is also inserted in the environment -LOW [+GUTTURAL]//, e.g., sameah 'happy'. This a is always predictable, and since it alter­

nates with zero when a suffix (like for the plural) is added (cf.

samehTm 'happy ones'), the vowel will be represented by zero in the • ■ lexical representation.

To sum up, the only extra short vowels which appear in lexical

representations are those few which are not predictable by natural

processes like barakT and perhaps wayyohalalu given in U.U.3. All other

surface- occurrences of a e o and all cases of alternating 9 will be

represented in the lexicon as full vowels. Whether non-alternating a

is lexical or not depends on the naturalness of the Epenthesis rules

we,.have discussed.

U.U.5 Long vowels in BH come from several sources. For one, there

are underlying long vowels, as in so’el 'asking' /so9el/. Second, there

are some long vowels which arise from contraction of diphthongs, e.g.,

bet;- 'house o f from /bayt/. Third, originally short vowels may be

lengthened. According to Prince, there are two rules which do this. They

are given here as (25a) and (25b).

(25a) Pre-tonic lengthening

V (-LOW) a -» [+L0HG] / ,7/7(X(V)b)C CV Condition: a ^ b

(25b) Tonic lenghtening

V +STRESS [+L0IIG] / C((V)bX) M (+L0W)a Condition: a D b 107

In addition to having little resemblance to any known natural process, rule (25a) has lexical exceptions, e.g., semi 'my name* and barn 'my son’ instead of *semT, *benT. So, (25a) is clearly a rule.

On the other hand, lengthening a stressed vowel seems more natural, but the condition expressing the fact that non-syllable final a remains short in a stressed closed syllable seems odd. In any event, there are lexical exceptions here also. In the jussive forms of certain verbs, the -e ending is truncated. These verbs were mentioned above in U.3.1 with regard to epenthetic vowels, but regardless of whether a vOwel.is inserted or not, there are several cases where a stressed short i fails to lengthen, e.g., wayytben 'and he built, wayytciel 'and he re­ vealed, wayytsb 'and he captured',wayythar 'and he became angry'.

Since both of these rules have sporadic exceptions, they cannot be natural processes. Therefore, they must apply in the lexicon and their results will be present in lexical representation. Thus all surface-long vowels will be long in the lexicon, except those which come from contractions.

For some examples, molakjrn will be /malakTm/, so’alTm will be

/Io7 el7m/ (original long 5), dabar /dabar/, ban! /bnT/ or perhaps /ban!/, wayyib_en /wayyiben/, yiktebu 'they (m.) will write' /yiktobu/ from

imperfect stem /-k+ob-/.

U.5 Kitpa"el metathesis

U.5.1 This substitution was mentioned in section 1.3.2 as a rule which seemingly depends on a conjugation class feature. It turns out,

that in BH the rule need not have any morphological conditions on it. 108

The rule metathesizes the t of the hit- prefix with the first consonant of the root if it is a sibilant. This situation can be described pho­ netically, however, since this conjugation is the only place in BH where these two consonants would come together in that order.

There is a limitation on which consonants may occur together in a

BH root. One of the limitations is against two similar sounds filling

successive places in the root. Thus, two gutturals together is rare, homorganic sounds never appear together, nor do liquids, and t cannot be followed or preceded by a dental (except a nasal) or a sibilant. Thus,

many uncomfortable clusters are avoided. If the t is added as a prefix,

as in the second person imperfect prefixes, there will always be at

least a schwa between it and the first root consonant. The only except­

ion to this is in the IIitpa"el conjugation, where prefix-final + and

stem-initial sibilant can be adjacent. Thus the rule can be stated

phonologically.

U.5.2 There is an-additional wrinkle to the rule. If the final root

consonant is s, the t changes to + (assimilates in emphaticness) and

metathesizes; if the consonant is a z, the + changes to d (assimilates

in voicing). Furthermore, if the root consonant is t or t or d, there

is a complete assimilation of the prefixal t. If we want to state this

rule phonologically, the metathesis may not precede the assimilation.

If the consonants switch first, and then t assimilates, there will be

nothing to prevent a similar assimilation of the t of the lsg and 2sg

perfect suffixes from assimilating to a z or s which occurred root-

finally in a verb (e.g., ’ahaz+T "I seized1 would become *9ahazd7). • • Since this does not occur, we can suggest that the assimilation be built 109 right into the rule as follows:

(26) -CONTINUANT +STRIDENT aVOICE +AHTERI0R aVOICED 0EMPHATIC +C0R0HAL 3EMPIIATIC -EMPHATIC 1 2 2 1

U.5.3 As to whether the rule is a natural process or not, this is hard to say. There are one or two cases where the rule applies when it should not, giving hinnabbe^)t7 "I made a prophesy" instead of hitnabbe(’ )t7 . But this is an exception in the wrong direction, which causes no trouble. The real exceptions are only two in number — one is hitsotatna ’run to and fro (f. pi.)I ’, where a likely explanation for the lack of metathesis is the avoidance of three t sounds so close together. One might make a reasonable argument that this is not a serious exception. The other exception is the participle miljdappakTm

'beating themselves violently1, which has no plausible excuse, as far as

I can see, for not assimilating the t to the d for middappakTm. This is only an exception to the assimilation part of the rule, not the metathesis. The metathesis was probably productive (at least it is in Modern Hebrew). Spirantization must follow it, but no other rules need to. On the basis of this sketchy evidence, plus the fact that the metathesis would make sense on some articulatory grounds , the metathesis could perhaps be a natural process, but we cannot be sure. I have no idea what these few exceptions can do to a natural process, but there is always the possibility that if there could be one exception there might be more which were just unattested in the BII corpus. So, the rule's status as a natural process is unclear. But process or not, it need not be stated with reference to the conjugation class feature [+HITPA"EL]. 110

Obviously, not all of the conjugation class feature; examples will be reanalyzable like this,T but this was the most well-known example of one in Eli, and it turns out that it is simply a phonological condition against + + sibilant, which Malone 1971 suggests exists throughout all of Northwest.Semitic.

U.6 Object Suffixes on the 2fsg Perfect

U.6.1 In section U.3.3, a rule was mentioned which deletes -T from the 2fsg suffix on the perfect verb, when there is no pronominal . object suffix following it. The relevant forms are as follows:

A (27a) samar+T 'I observed* (27b) sarnartThu 'I observed him' (20a) samarta 'You (f.sg.) observed' (28b) samartfhu 'You (f.sg.) observed him'

■Whereas the stem form for the first person is the same for the suffixed or non-suffixed forms, the stem form for the 2fsg has an -T- before the object suffix which does not appear in the unsuffixed forms (28a).

There is some fairly complicated allomorphy associated with these object suffixes and the stems they attach to, to which we shall return shortly, but what is of interest here is that Prince claims that the -7 of the 2fsg perfect form is present underlyingly in (28a) and is deleted in final position (i.e., when there is no object suffix there) by a late rule of phonology. This rule must make reference to the fact that it is the 2fsg form, since the lsg form, which is identical to the 2fsg when an object suffix is present, retains the -T in the unsuffixed case (27a).

The reason that it is a late rule is that Prince claims that the final -7 of the 2fsg form prevents the rule of Epenthesis from applying to give

* same re t_( after the a -♦ e rule applies, as in the segolate forms). In Ill addition, a rule which simplifies final geminate consonants (the second and third root consonants may be identical, so segolate nouns of stem

/XVYY/ are possible) does not apply to verb forms like kara+t 'you

(f.sg.) made a convenant' or to the 2fsg pronoun ’aft, also by virtue of the -T which is still present when the rule applies, according to Prince.

Therefore a late rule of the phonology is morphologically conditioned.

U.6.2 Unfortunately, Prince does not follow through on the phono­ logy and allomorphy of object-suffixed verbs. For instance, the 2mpl perfect verbs have -tem as the subject suffix when no object suffix follows, but have -tu as the subject suffix when there is an object suf­ fix cf. samtem 'you (m.pl.) fasted' samtunl 'you (m.pl.) fasted unto me' • • where -nT is the lsg object suffix here. Thus, using the logic that

Prince uses for the 2fsg, there should be a rule that changes -tern to

-tu in the presence of an object suffix (or a rule changing -tu to -tem in the absence of suffixes). For another example, the 2msg suffix is

-ta normally but is sometimes -t when there is an object suffix cf.

semarcinT 'he watched me' larnartanT 'you (m.sg.) watched me' where -an!

is the form of the lsg object suffix even in samartanT because if the a were part of the 2msg subject suffix, it would be long, especially since

it is stressed here. Thuss for a uniform treatment of the subject suf­

fixes there must be a rule to relate -ta (when verb-final) to -t (when

followed by another suffix). But these rules are not likely to be

forthcoming.

There are two other reasons why Prince (or anybody) would want to

relate -t to -+T in the 2fsg suffix. One is that historically, the 2fsg

suffix is indeed *-ti, as it still appeal’s in other Semitic languages. 112

Thus, it could be claimed that the -T deletion rule was added to the grammar of BH historically and remained there. But this cannot be a strong argument in a synchronic grammar, and Prince does not claim that it is. His main reason for positing the -+7 is that it fits into the system of complicated abstract representations for the BII pronouns that he sets up. Prince claims that,underlyingly, the system is actually somewhat agglutinating; thus -+T is broken up as -t (2nd person) +7

(fern.sg.), where the -7 shows up as the 2fsg suffix in the imperfect verb also.

How the system Prince sets up (sec.l.U) is very elegant, but he needs a lot of complicated machinery for a very small system of forms.

Furthermore, the analysis into smaller parts (other than the few cases which still look almost transparent) has little consequence, in terms of stating regularities elsewhere in the grammar. The major advantage of his t + 7 analysis is that it enables him to say that his 7-deletion rule does not violate a constraint stated in Aronoff 1976:91 to the ef­ fect that truncation rules which are sensitive to morphological infor­ mation can only truncate entire morphemes, not just parts of them.

U.6.3 In a synchronic grammar of BH, if all these relationships do need to be stated, it will be at a level much deeper than that of lexical representation, which in our system is much closer to the sur­ face forms than in Prince's system. Take the 2fsg pronoun 9a++, for instance. It is a surface exception to the final degemination of the

consonants rule mentioned above,. Therefore, Prince claims that it has

a final -7 in underlying, representation and also that the first t is an

n underlyingly, which is historically correct and also relates /9an+7/ 113

to /9anT/ the lsg pronoun. But since the lsg pronoun is not the same word, the only forms ’a+t alternates with are ’at+a, the 2msg pronoun

and ’at+em-’at+en the 2mpl and 2fpl pronouns, none of which show the n

or any reason why the -I should he present underlyingly, since it never

appears on the surface. The form ?at+ may he an exception to word-final

degemination hut this is in accord with upside-down phonology where one

of the hasic principles involved is that ’a rule is blocked if undoing

it would increase the compatability of forms A and B with respect to

some [Word Formation rule]' (Leben and Robinson 1977;2). Thus, if there

are M-rules relating the 2nd person pronouns to each other (ana such a

rule could hardly represent a savings in the lexicon) then undoing the

word-final degemination rule will not help these forms become more an-

alyzable by these M-rules, which means that we should expect the dege­

mination rule to be irrelevant. Similarly, with all 2fsg perfect verb

forms, a form like XaYeZet is harder to recognize as /XaYaZ + +/ than

XaYaZt itself is, so the 2fsg forms will not have to undo the epenthe­

sis in order to be related to their stems and the -7 suffix is not neces­

sary to block the rule.

As far as the word-final degemination rule is concerned, since the

2fs perfect forms do end in a geminate, the rule cannot be a process,

because of the surface exceptions. Therefore, it can be reanalyzed.

We can say that the rule is prevented from applying when the application

on the rule would neutralize the distinction between 2fsg forms and 3msg

forms. For instance, if the rule applies to karatt *you (f.sg.) made a

covenant1, the result karat_ is the 3msg form. To relate the forms with and without the object suffixes, the ir­ regularities of some of the relationships (-t and -tT- (2fsg), -ta and

-t- (2msg), -tem and —tu— (2mpl)) probably means that there are no rules directly relating these forms and that they must be related via the help of the plain unsuffixed stem. I will not go into any more details here, but I hope to have shown that in the system we have adopted, unmotivated abstract morphological solutions to problems are no better than ab­ stract phonological solutions.

4.7 Construct State

4.7.1 There are several words in BH that have a different stem

* shape in the construct state, e.g., yarek 'thigh* /yarek/ vs. y6re_k

/yark/ in construct, kate£ 'shoulder* /katep/ construct ke+e£ /ka+p/.

In these few nouns, the second stem vowel is lost in the construct state

(the"suffixed forms are regular, based on the bisyllabic stem yarekT,

'my thigh*).

Prince claims that these data constitute evidence for minor rules

in phonology. Kis argument is based on the claim that the construct

state is not a lexical category but is 'a phonological reflex of syn­

tactic structure*. This refers to the fact that a noun's being in the

construct state is an effect of the syntactic relationship between the

noun and another noun. The construct is used mainly to mark genitive

constructions like 'the son of the king*. The phonological reflex of

the construct state is that the two words, in this case ben and hammelej<,

are treated as one phonological word; ben loses its stress, and its

form in the construct is bon-; Prince's minor rule (which he calls 115

’minor surgery1 because it refers mostly to nouns indicating body parts) is of the form (29)

(29) [ V' 1 -* I / __ C//C _+M.sJ

(29) refers to the phonological environment of a word in the construct state. Prince claims this obviates the need for the feature

[+CONSTRUCT]. He also claims that listing construct forms in the lexi­ con involves duplication, since most of them are either identical to or directly derivable from the absolute state forms. Rather than list ir­ regular construct forms in the lexicon, Prince would have this change performed by the minor rule.

U.7.2 In our system, first of all, the duplication of listing the construct forms is irrelevant,since what counts is independent informa­ tion and most construct forms will add little or none to the lexicon.

Second, it is not clear to me why [+COHSTRUCT] cannot be thought of as the same kind of feature as, say, [+ACCUSATIVE] if the syntax is conceived of in a certain way compatible with a lexicon that lists en­ tire inflectional paradigms.

In generative syntax, there are assumed to be rules of agreement which, for example, mark a noun as [+ACCUSATIVE] when it is in a cer­ tain syntactic position — in this case, the position of the direct ob­

ject of the verb. However, if the lexicon contains words rather than

stems, one cannot simply insert a stem and then apply a late 'spelling

rule' which changes [+ACCUGATIVE] into an affix. Halle 1973a suggests

that 'the lexical insertion transformations insert partial or entire

paradigms, i.e., certain or all inflected forms of a given "word". 116

A perfectly general convention can then eliminate all but the one in­ flected form that fits syntactically into the configuration in which the word is found in the surface structure.' (p.9) la our case, the para­ digm would have a construct form and would insert it in the proper gram­ matical environment (but see section 5»3.^ for another possibility).

Prince's argument would hold for a phonology where all the rules applied right-side up, since in that case, the construct form would be derivable through the phonology straightforwardly from the absolute form and it would be a-waste to have the form pre-derived in the lexicon when the phonology can derive it with the same rules it uses for other forms

(remember that the only thing the phonology has to do is to treat the two nouns in construct as one phonological word).

But in upside-down phonology, most of the phonological rules, being non-natural,will apply inside the lexicon anyway. This means that lexi~. cal entries represent the output of their phonological derivations (ex­ cept the natural processes part) since that is mainly what the rules are there for — to relate the words back to their most basic form. One thing must be remembered: any given noun only has one construct form, which does not vary according to what it is in construct with.

Regularities and subregularities are expressed in the same way they

are for any other phonological rule. In place of [+MIrI0R SURGERY] and

the even greater complexity which Prince suggests that entries should

be allowed, including implicational conditions (e.g.,

[+IHESSIVE] => [-RULE N]) ,an entry either makes reference to a redundancy

rule (which would be the counterpart to the minor surgery rule itself)

or does not need to refer to it. In this case, only a few items will 117 refer to the rule, of course.

U.7«3 The regular -7m suffix of masculine nouns is not present in the construct plural, nor in the suffixed forms of the plural. We have the following forms: Masculine Feminine absolute dodTm 'uncles’ d5dot_ 'aunts' construct dodey-melej^ 'uncles of a king' d5dotey-rneI elk 'aunts of a king'

2fsg d5d_ayik_ 'your (f.sg.) uncles' dodo+ayik^ 'your (f.sg.) aunts'

In the feminine, the -ay- suffix (of which -ey- is a reflex) is added onto the plural suffix -oi^, but in the masculine, it looks as if the -ay- is replacing the -7m. Prince suggests that there are two rules

— 430a), which adds -ay- onto the plural form; and (30b) which trun­

cates -7m before -ay.

(30a) 0 -* ay/ +PLURAL "-SEGMENT [+SEGMENT] (+FEMININE) (-WORD BOUNDARY) a Condition: a r) b

(30b) 7m -* 0 / +

These rules give the right forms, but Prince claims that this example

'gives clear evidence that rules of morpheme truncation are a necessary

part of the descriptive apparatus made available to the language learner

by the theory of grammar', (p. 182, my emphasis).

But this is hardly the only analysis of these data. In our system,

there will be M-rules like (31) and S-rules like (32);

(31a) "no un NOUII (31b) NOUN NOUN MASCULINE PLURAL FEMININE +-*■ PLURAL /X+7m/ /X/ /X+5+/ L /x/ —

(31c) IrouN - NOUN (31d) NOUN NOUN " PLURAL <-* PLURAL CONSTRUCT 2F.SG. CONSTRUCT _/x/ /X+k/ /X+ay/ 118

(31e) I70UN--NOUN nOUN' /X + Y/ -tr-> n/ 7I0UN CONSTRUCT _/x/ (32a) NOUN NOUN 1 (32b) pIOUlTI I NOUN I X «-»• PLURAL W j L X J-e-J- |_X POSSESSED BY ZJ

(32c) NOUN (NOUN ~f X POSSESSED BY ± 1 [X POSSESSED BY 2F.SGJ The important thing to notice here is that [CONSTRUCT] is considered to he a feature of any noun either in what we have been calling the con­ struct form or in a form with a possessive suffix (which usually takes as a base form the construct form). Notice that abstract forms like stems which do not exist as entries in the lexicon can be related via the rules as long as the features are carried along. Thus, any rule that refers to /malak-/ will have to refer to a masculine noun in order to add the -7m suffix, since the rule that adds -7m to feminine nouns is very expensive, being used only a few times. The correlations between the K- and S-rules are fairly obvious; (31a)-(32a), (31b)-(32a),

(31c)-(32b), (31d)-(32e) will be closely correlated.

The forms will use only the rules they need, as usual. So, dod_ayij< will need only (31c-d) to be related to its stem, whereas dodo+ayik. needs (31b-d). To express the fact that (31a) and (31c) are never used together (the dual suffix -ay7m will not use (31c) but a different

M-rule with the same phonological form in it), the two rules will be poorly correlated, whereas (31c) and (31d) will be closely correlated.

The data are just as easily described by these rules. This example is important since truncation rules are part of Aronoff's (1976) morpho­

logical . system, a part which does not translate obviously into 119

Jackendoff's system, which we have adopted. We now see that at least in some of these truncation cases, the two ways of doing things are still equivalent, just as they are in so many other ways (cf. Pollack

1976b).

U.8 Discussion

This chapter has been an attempt to apply our theory to a number of specific points in the grammar of BH, with particular reference to mor­ phology and its interactions with phonology. In addition to the claims made about the description of Hebrew, there were several illustrative examples of how phonological rules with lexical features can be reanal­ yzed, with implications for the general discussion of lexical features.

In addition, some further specifications of the theoretical framework were proposed.

^.8.1 At several points in this chapter, we have discussed rules that would be considered ’readjustment rules’ in SGP. According to

Chomsky and Halle 1968, these are rules which modify the surface syn­ tactic structure of an utterance, which in some cases is not appropriate as input to the phonological component. k.8.1.1 As an example, consider Aronson’s rules (l) and (3). As a result of the applications of the rule (l), which are syntactic phrase structure rules, we might get a syntactic surface structure which would include zkr + H(ij^’il) + [-PASSIVE] + [2ND PERSON] + [SINGULAR] +

[MASCULINE]. The readjustment rule (3 ) will combine zkr and [H] and

[-PASSIVE] to give the form hizkTr. Then a further readjustment rule will translate the person, number and gender markers as the suffix -+a. In our system, readjustment rules which 'spell out' the phonological

form of grammatical morphemes and lexical features will not exist as

such. The words will appear complete in the lexicon and will be related

to their stems and roots by redundancy rules of the type in (11) and

(12). Lexical features such as person, number and gender will be deter­ mined by M-rules and 3-rules like (13).

li.0.1.2 Looking again at the form hizkTr+ta, the actual surface form

is hizkar+a, because the second vowel is subject to an independently mo­

tivated phonological rule which changes i to a. However, there are

other* types of changes which could take place on astring of morphemes.

For instance in English, when the past tense of a verb is formed, it is

usually simply a matter of adding an affix /—d/ to the present tense

form by a readjustment rule. In some cases however, the stem vowel is

changed instead (e.g., sing-sang). Chomsky and Halle 1968:201 claim

that forms like sing will be marked with a diacritic feature [+F] in

the lexicon which has two effects: l) the feature allows the rule of

Vowel Shift (p.2k3) to apply to the verb, changing the I to a and

2) it causes the readjustment rule not to add the /—d/ to the lexical

form, but merely to delete [+PAST],

A third logical possibility would be that the allomorphy is handled

by a readjustment rule itself. As an example, Prince has a rule of

Plural Breaking for segolates as follows:

(32) 0 - a/C C + PLURAL

This rule applies before the phonological rules and changes singular

stems like /maik/ to /malak/. 121

Aronoff 1976:sec.5.3 actually orders rules of allomorphy into a block. The rules apply to the output of the word-formation rules and they precede the operation of the phonological rules. Aronoff claims that there are other strict limitations on allomorphy rules, namely that they only apply to designated morphemes, and that they cannot intro­

duce segments which are not otherwise motivated as underlying phonologi­

cal segments of the language. However, Aronoff adds that since allomor­ phy rules are not phonological rules 'they are not subject to many of

the naturalness constraints that govern the latter. In theory, a rule

of allomorphy could change m tot, something we do not expect from a

rule of the phonology' (p.112).

Rule (32) does not qualify in its current form as a allomorphy rule.

The feature [+PLURAL] does not mention specific morphemes. They could

be listed (+7m, +ot, +ay) but then the generalization would be missed

that they are all the plural morphemes. Also, the environment for the

plural is /C C which is also not defined morphologically. But it

might be claimed that (32) is an allomorphy rule since it only applies

to segolates which are supposedly specially designated. But the usual

way the segolates were specially marked is by the fact that they have

the form /CVCC/, which is a phonological condition. In order for (32)

to qualify as a rule of allomorphy, we would need another rule which

says that morphemes of the shape /CVCC/ are [+RULE 32]. But if we must

resort to rule features for these allomorphy rules, then any lexical

entry could be marked [+RULE 32] regardless of whether it is a segolate

or not. As a matter of fact, since allomorphy rules apply to 122

'designated, morphemes' in the environemnt of other 'designated mor­ phemes', it can be a totally arbitrary matter which morphemes are desig­ nated to undergo or to condition various allomorphy rules, which allows for quite a wide range of rules, rather than such a restricted one as

Aronoff claims.

In our system, some of the constraints on allomorphy rules are natural consequences of the theory. For one, since the only rules which have naturalness constraints on them are the natural processes, and since the natural processes apply outside of the lexicon and our counter­ parts to allomorphy rules will obviously apply within it, we would not expect the constraints to be relevant. Secondly, since the lexical rep­ resentations must not contain allophones, this means that only the nat­ ural processes can introduce segments which are not part of the under­ lying inventory of the language, and therefore allomorphy rules cannot.

With regard to a rule like (32), our rule (22) (repeated here) will be used instead.

NOUN STEM NOUN STEvI SINGULAR <-*■ PLURAL /CVCC/ /CVCaC/

This rule represents a regularity in the language, just as (32) is claimed to do. Since allomorphy rules can be simply garden variety

M-rules, they are no more restricted in form or in the strength of the regularity than any other M-rule is. Aronoff claims that 'unconstrained rules of allomorphy are the most powerful means of expressing phonologi­ cal alternations available. They are capable of including all types of behavior, exceptional and regular, and do not differentiate between the various types' (p.99). Of course, we have just mentioned that our rules 123 are restricted (just as all the other M-rules are) in ways similar to

Aronoff's rules with regard to phonological capabilities.

Cohsider one of Aronoff's allomorphy rules: +ive (3*0 (= Aronoff's 5**+l) d +ion +abe

This rule is a rule of allomorphy and not a rule of phonology because

it does not apply to all roots which end in -nd; it does apply to -fend,

-hend, -tend, -pand and -scend, but it does not apply to -mend or -pena

(cf. commendable, not *conmensable). Since the rule only applies to

specific morphemes in the environment of specific morphemes, it is an

allomorphy rule and therefore is ordered before the phonological rules.

For us, the rule will look like (35).

(35) d -♦ s/n

This rule will only be used when it can help relate a word to another

one it is related to. Thus, for the word extensive this rule will apply

(upside-down), because then extendive is recognizable as extend + ive.

On the other hand, the rule will not apply in commendable because it is

simply not necessary since the word is already parsable as commend +

able. Nor will it apply in other words which contain -ns- like pencil

because undoing the rule (giving pendil) will not help relate pencil to

any other word.

How, is there a difference between stating the rule as (3*0 with

a specific set of arbitrarily marked morphemes and stating it as (35)

which is only used in the derivation of certain morphemes? What is the

generalization here? Is it the fact that only in these specifiable cases

does this substitution take place? Or is it the fact that only in the 124 cases where the surface form is not transparent would we apply the rule?

This last fact is true not only of (35), hut of all rules in upside-down phonology.

Presumably, Aronoff's rule also makes the claim that if a new word is invented which ends in -tend, -scend, etc., it will change the d to s before -ion, etc., whereas this will not happen for a new word in -mend.

The fact that this rule states specific morphemes, however, leaves open the possibility that when a new word in -tend becomes -tension, it is based on an analogy with words that already exist in -tend; namely spe­ cific other words are thought of as a model for the creation of a new form rather than the rule that the examples form. (cf. Nobel 1975 for a discussion of this). This use of analogy will be greatly extended and refined in chapter 6.

Thus, Aronoff1s allomorphy rules do not offer us any theoretical advantage. In our system, statements of allomorphy are given like other

M-rules or other phonological rules and the rules are referred to only when they are helpful for parsing or when analogically applicable in creating new forms.

4.8.1.3 As mentioned in section 4.7.3, at least some (and possibly all) analyses which are claimed to require truncation rules can be

equaled without any such sort of apparatus and without any loss of generality. Therefore, truncation rules as a separate class of rules,

as described in Aronoff 1976:section 5.2, are of doubtful usefulness.

U.S.1.4 Me have thus seen that three types of readjustment rules —

spelling rules, truncation rules and allomorphy rules — have no special 125 status in our system. This is not surprising since if morphological rules and most phonological rules are defined to operate inside the lexi­ con, these readjustment rules which are usually ordered between the. two other types of rules cannot be located anywhere else.

Chomslty and Halle 1968 discuss other types of readjustment rules, which reduce syntactic structure and deal with phonological phrases.

These rules will be dealt with in more detail in the next chapter.

1*.8.2 There are several other results of the discussion in this chapter. In addition to their importance for the discussion of BH, they are of interest for the theory we have adopted, and for the discussion of lexical features as well,

U . S . 2 . 1 The discussion of exceptional forms in U . 3 . U . 7 illustrates that such behavior is less troublesome for our system with its general principles: (a) upside-down rules are applied only if they help to relate a form to another form, and (b) the lexical representation of a

form is only as abstract as it needs to be for deriving the related sur­

face forms.

In the case of the 2fsg suffix, Prince set up the suffix as -f7,

even though it only appears that way when object suffixes are also pre­

sent. But since we saw that it is a questionable idea to relate the

forms with and without the suffix via a late rule (based on the irregu­

larity of the relationship in general)^ it is easier if the other phono­

logical rules ( in this case Bpenthesis and word-final degemination)

do not apply. We can do this because principle (a) implies that the '

rules do not apply in every place they could, not even in all the places

they applied in SGP (cf. the discussion in section 3.2). Thus, we can 126 avoid using a late rule which' refers to the specific morpheme involved.

The relationship between the suffixed and the unsuffixed forms is ex­ pressed at a much deeper level.

In the case of the exceptional segolates, Prince suggests some ad hoc solutions. In the case of kaspeyhem (for kas£eyhem), the word

/kasp/ must he marked [-PLURAL BREAKING (32)]. In the case of birkat-

(for birkaij-) and herdaij- a special rule must he posited to modify the

stem in the construct state for the two nouns.- A suppletive form could

not he entered in the lexicon for the construct state, since, as we

saw in if.7» Prince claims that construct forms would not be listed and

irregularities should be described by minor rules. But by simply letting

rules not apply where they need not, these forms can be accounted for

with no minor rules or exception features.

In the case of bigdT (for bicjdT), Prince suggests that the -T

personal suffix is attached (somehow — he doesn’t say) with a word

boundary instead of a morpheme boundary. This allows Epenthesis to

apply on an inner cycle, inserting a s which is later deleted, after

the d has been spirantized. But there is no other justification

whatever for allowing the personal suffixes to be attached with word

boundaries. This is simply a trick to get the forms to come out right.

It turns out that, since the _d never alternates, by our principle (b),

we can allow the fricative to be present in the lexical representation

(see 3.I*.5) and thus eliminate the need for special boundary games.

So, some extremely dubious analyses can be avoided by our adherence

to principles (a) and (b) above, which are general and do not have to be

modified for specific word forms, or even for specific languages. 127

U.S. 2.2 In section U . 7 . 1 we presented Prince's argument for a minor rule in phonology. In general, there can be no distinction between reg­ ular rules and minor rules in our system, because the application of a rule to a form does not depend on the form's being marked [+Rj, but rather on our principle (a) above. Since the distinction between minor rules and' regular rules is based on whether the lexical item is marked

[+R] idiosyncratically or automatically, this distinction cannot be main­ tained for us.

What makes Prince's rule interesting, however, is that it applies in the construct state, which depends on syntactic information involv~ . ing more than one word. Since each word has only one form in the con­ struct, regardless of what the other word is, in this case, this form can be listed in the lexicon with a marking [CONSTRUCT] and the phono­ logical rules will see to it that the form is mostly redundant. The presence of this form in the lexicon and of forms in general which exist only in certain syntactically defined environments means that rules of concord are ' "feature-checking" rather than "feature-changing" '

(Bresnan 1971a). See also section 5 . 3 . U on this topic.

There could be other instances where the lexical form of the word would have to be the result of rules that operate over a domain larger than the single word (the 'pausal' forms). This topic will be discussed in section 5.2.2.3.

It.8.2.3 Some results which are more specific to the workings of our theory are the following: a) Items which are not words (and which therefore do not have lexical

entries) will not necessarily have a meaning associated with them. In 120 the case of affixes or, in BH, patterns, which are associated with

M-rules, the meaning is associated with a form only to the extent that there are any S-rules which are closely correlated with the M-rule in­ volved. In the case of roots or stems, which are only intermediate stages in the relating of words to one another, the concept of meaning is less well-defined. It is better to ask what parts of the meaning of whole words are attributable to the root or stem.

In the case of a stem, which is often the word minus the inflect­ ional endings, the contribution towards the meaning of the entire word is often constant, in fact so constant, that it might feel intuitively correct to claim that the stem 'has a meaning' of.-its own. But this need not be the case. In many cases, there could be an inflectionally unmarked paradigm item (such as the 3msg perfect in BH) which people will take as a stem, and where no such unmarked item exists, some stan­ dard form like the nominative singular or infinitive will be the form which is asked about for the meaning. For a root, which is even more abstract, the contribution towards the meaning of a word is less con­ stant, so roots in BK are less clearly associated with strictly de­ fined meanings.

The fact that roots and stems can often not have clearly defined meanings is evidence that they do not have lexical entries associated with them, since any item which does have a lexical entry (i.e., any word) has to have a meaning and does. b) We have seen the interaction of rules and natural processes inside the lexicon. Any natural process which changes one phoneme into another,

like the German final-devoicing process or the BH rule of Spirantization, in addition to operating right-side up in the phonology, can operate upside-down in the lexicon when its operation is not transparent be­ cause of the operation of another rule, or when the form in question does not alternate regularly with any other forms. On the other hand, natural processes which produce allophones as their output (e.g., Vowel

Reduction in BK) cannot apply within the lexicon because allophones can­ not appear in lexical representations. c) Ue have seen (section k.2.3) that there must sometimes be a way to prevent morphological information from being redundant when it is not semantically redundant (recall the example of million being incorrectly parsed as mill + ion). This was handled by requiring a semantic connect­ ion in all cases where a S-rule correlated to the relevant M-rule

exists. Gome M-rules have no associated S-rules, hence they can operate without reference to the semantic relationship of the forms it relates morphologically.

H.8.2.U Some of the more interesting points made about BH are the

following:

a) Verbs in conjugations other than Qal were related directly to their

roots when no Qal exists or where there is no regular semantic relation­

ship with Qal. Where there is a regular semantic correspondence, the

verb is related to its root via the Qal forrqi.

b) Several of the rules Prince discusses were evaluated in terms of

whether they are natural processes or not. Spirantization was claimed

to be a natural process, as were some some substitutions involving extra

short vowels for a. Vowel reduction was divided up, with the vowel 130 destressing being a rule and the reduction of the destressed vowels being a process. Vowel lengthening substitutions are not processes, nor is final degemination or the two Epenthesis.rules, c) The Hitpa"el metathesis and assimilation were not declared definitively one way or the other, but in any event, the substitution is based on a phonological avoidance of + + sibilant clusters, rather than being defined asvjust iii a particular conjugation class, at least in BH, although not so for'Modern Hebrew.

Because of forms like rnalkey-and words with the 2pl suffixes

-kem and -_ken, which require fricatives in their lexical representations, natural phonology says that the fricatives are not merely allophones, but are phonemes.

The traditional status of the fricatives is as alternants of the corresponding stops (cf. Gesenius 1910:33, 'Six consonants ... have a twofold pronunciation ...'). This was possibly true at an earlier stage of Hebrew, but the situation had changed by the time of BH. The fricatives became phonemes as soon as there were any forms in the lex­ icon which used them. Presumably, the change was recent in BII, as evi­ denced by the relatively small number of forms which contain phonemic fricatives. In Modem Hebrew, fricatives occur much more freely and there is no question about their phonemic status. 131

FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER k

1 _ These would actually be Pi’el, Pu’al and Hitpa’el, since gutturals, including , cannot remain doubled in BH. I will ignore this fact, however, in representing the names of the patterns, as a convenience to the reader.

Modern Hebrew uses the perfect forms as a past tense, the imperfect forms as a future tense and the active participle forms as a present tense.

■^Phonological rules account for the vowel changes in he^eblr.

^Perhaps the requirement above should be modified to state that a

S-rule must have a certain minimum correlation to the M-ruie involved before it is considered ’applicable* (and thus must be used). So,

M-rules which have only S-rules with which they are barely correlated, need not require the use of any S-rules. The prefix-stern M-rules are examples of this, since it is possible that the same stem or prefix might have the same meaning approximately in more than one word. But none has a constant meaning in all words in which it occurs, therefore none of the related S-rules will have a close enough correlation to be required.

^Recall that a 'stem' in our system is only an intermediate form for relating forms in the same paradigm used for counting redundant inform­ ation in the lexicon. Many of the abstract analyses I will discuss will involve representations deeper than the lexical level, but there is no systematic import to any level more abstract than that of lexical representation. As the rules are undone within the lexicon, forms will become more abstract only until they can be related to another form by a M-rule. This will mean that the depth of the unraveling will vary from individual item to individual item. For convenience, however,

I will refer to the stem of a noun or verb, which is very often the depth to which forms must be taken in order to relate them to others.

It is by no means necessarily true, however, that every form must be related back to its stem.

^Silva 1973 contains a discussion of the relevant issues here. She cites, among others, Ultan 1971> who, based on data from several lang­ uages, proposes a universal that 'clusters with the order dental (or alveolar) stop plus sibilant (i.e., spirant) may metathesize but those with the inverse order do not' (p.l5)> and Bailey 1970, who suggests that clusters with nonapicals followed by apicals are unmarked phono- logically and, since languages move from marked to unmarked situations, metatheses which place the apical last can be explained 'on the basis of universal linguistic facts'(p.3^9)• The BH case would fall under this account.

^The description of metathesis in section 1.3.2, which differs from ours here, was based on Barkai 1973, which is a description of Modern

Hebrew. In the modern language, the constraint against t + sibilant

is not without exceptions. Therefore the metathesis has been morphol-

ogized and must be specifically restricted to the Kitpa"el conjugation.

See section 6.3 for an idea of how rules with conjugation class features will operate in our system. CHAPTER 5

OTHER PARTS OF THE GRAMMAR

5.0 Introduction

In this chapter, I will examine the organization of the grammar in general. In doing so, I will examine two types of rules which are of a somewhat different nature from the ones discussed in chapters 3 and H.

The first are rules which have been claimed to operate cyclically. The second are rules of external sandhi.

The survey of the relevant phenomena will be, by no means, exhaust­ ive of the literature, but I intend that the examples will be representa­ tive of the types of rules involved.

5.1 The Phonological Cycle

The Phonological Cycle was first formulated in Chomsky, Halle and

Lukoff 1956. The basic principle is similar to the operation of syntac­ tic transformation (as. proposed by Chomsky 1965), namely that rules apply in a block first to smaller units, then to larger and larger units until the largest domain of the rules is reached. There are two major differ­ ences between the operations in syntax and phonology: l) Not all of the phonological rules apply on each cycle. Some are restricted to the word- level cycle, which is not the highest level. In syntax, rules that are restricted in their cyclic application are limited to apply only to the

133 last cycle (or only after the last cycle). 2) The domains of the cycle in syntax in our theory are noun phrases and sentences (N and V; perhaps also S, cf. Jackendoff 1977, for discussion), whereas in phonology, it is claimed that there can he cyclic levels smaller than even a word, cf. below. Furthermore, the largest cycle is claimed in Chomsky and Halle

1968:60 to be the ’phonological phrase', which does not necessarily in­ clude an entire sentence.

I have previously mentioned how the cycle would work in our system.

Let us turn to that now. First, I will discuss rules which operate in domains larger than the words.

5.1.1 We can classify putative cyclical rules according to whether they deal with prosodic phenomena(stress, pitch) or with segmental mat­ ters. The latter type are far more controversial and there have been hardly any of this type proposed which have not provoked counterpropo­ sals which claim that an analysis is possible without them. I will start with the less controversial rules of the other type, in particular, stress rules.

5.1.1.1 The most celebrated example of a cyclic rule that operates on larger-than word cycles is the Nuclear Stress Rule (NSR) of Chomsky and

Halle 1968:17

(l) V -♦ [1 STRESS] / X r V 1 Y ____ Z 1 STRESS Q

V and Q is a category other than noun, ad- L STRESS jective, verb (i.e., Q is a major category — noun phrase, etc.).

The NSR obviously depends on syntactic configurations larger than a word. It cannot operate upside-down in the lexicon like other 135 phonological rules can. Stress assignments for individual words are made within the lexicon (i.e., before lexical insertion) and they are not sen­ sitive to where in the sentence the word is being inserted. But the NSR is critically dependent on the syntactic structure of the sentence and therefore it cannot affect the stress of words in the lexicon (i.e., be­ fore they are inserted into phrase markers).

In fact,the NSR is dependent not only on syntactic structure, but >

specifically.on derived syntactic structure. It is argued in Bresnan

1971a, 1972 that the NSR is ordered after all the rules on each syntac­ tic cycle. Bresnan 1972:327 claims that this is part of a much larger

generalization, the generalized ordering hypothesis (GOH):

(2) Prosodic rules (rules of intonation and contraction) apply after

al 1 the syntactic transformations in each transformational do­

main.

Selkirk 197^:577 notices that a consequence of the GOH is that the

rules involved need never refer to the domain of their application (the

Q in the NSR), since the domain is whatever domain the rule happens to be

applying upon at that stage in the derivation. But this implies that the

prosodic rules involved apply only over domains which constitute cycles

in syntax (e.g., if it is determined that Adjective Phrase is not a cy­

clic domain in syntax, then the NSR does not apply over Adjective

Phrases). This seems to be true for the sentences that Bresnan deals

with, but there are sentences involving other prosodic rules besides (or

in addition to) the NSR. For instance, Bresnan 1972:328 mentions the

need for an optional rule which would precede the NSR on each cycle.

This rule could apply to (3) 136

(3) A proposal was made, putting the main stress on proposal and removing the sentence from the application of the NSR since the structural description of the rule would no longer be met. Bresnan does not formulate this other rule, but she claims that it conforms to the GOH since the stress pattern is pre­ served under syntactic transformation (cf. (U)).

(U) Mary liked the proposal that was made.

There is some evidence that the GOH may not be maintained in its strongest form. For example, Maling 1971 claims that certain verb move­ ment transformations in old English must follow the stress assignment rules on each cycle. Also some contractions must be ordered before cer­ tain transformations. For example, Selkirk 1972:96 claims that English

NOT-contraction, which cliticizes nob to a preceding modal or auxiliary verb, must precede the Subject-Aux Inversion transformation. Neverthe­ less, I think it is still reasonable to believe that some weaker version of the GOH holds, where prosodic rules apply along with the cyclic syn­ tactic rules, rather than at surface structure.

5.1.1.2 The stress rules in the preceding section cannot possibly operate on domains which consist of one word or less, since they refer to the stress words received relative to other words in their phrases.

Similarly, rules of contraction often depend crucially on the relative stress of the contracted word and its neighboring words.

When it comes to segmental issues, however, there are no cases, to my knowledge, of rules which operate purely on larger-than-word cycles.

The only cases which are attested are rules which operate within words 137 as well as between them. These cases will be dealt with below in ■ section 5.2.2.

5.1.2 Rules which are claimed to apply cyclically up to the word level in our system can apply within the lexicon. Therefore, they will apply upside-down. Again we can distinguish prosodic rules (mainly stress rules) from rules that deal with segmental qualities.

5.1.2.1 The best known examples of cyclic prosody rules are those of

English word stress. The rules which are elaborated in Chomsky and Halle

1968:ch.3, have been revised since then (cf. Halle 1973b), but since the exact formulation of the rules makes little difference to the basic oper­

ation .of the system of stress rules, I will give a derivation using the earlier versions.

The point to be remembered when talking about the stress rules in upside-down phonology is that the rules are there merely to relate words

to other words. Thus, when we undo rules, we can stop when we reach an­

other word. With this guideline, it turns out that the stress rules of

English (or any other language) never have to apply cyclically at all!

For any complicated word which would require ri cycles in SGP, it never

requires more than one pass through the phonological rules in our system

to relate the word either to a word which would require n-1 cycles in

SGP (which ends the derivation), or to a stem (which also ends the deri­

vation).

a) Consider how Chomsky and Halle 1968:127 arrive at the stress for demon­

strative (5a) (segmental rules excluded). The numbers in parentheses are

their rule numbers. 138

(5a) tA[vdemoWstrAt]v + iv]

1 MAIN STRESS (l02eii) 2 ALTERNATING STRESS (75) 2 1 3 MAIN STRESS (l02ai) - 1 -______AUXILIARY REDUCTION (ll8b,c)

For demonstrative the derivation is (5b)

(5b) [ydemoNs+rAt]v

1 MAIN STRESS (l02eii) 1 2 ALTERNATING STRESS (75) 1 3 NUCLEAR STRESS (63) 10.3 01 00 In our system, the lexical entries for demonstrate and demonstrative will have their stress patterns in them. For demonstrative. by undoing 10 2 0 Auxiliary Reduction and Main Stress, we get demonstrative„ which is seen 10 2 10 2 to be demonstrat + ive, where demonstrate is the abstract form of 1 0 3 demonstrate after Nuclear Stress is undone.

Our derivation can stop then after only two steps, rather than the

four which Chomsky and Halle use. More importantly, of those four steps,

Main Stress applies twice, whereas we never need to undo any rule more

than once. In a more complicated case, the same rule may have to be un­

done in parallel for each of the two words we are comparing, but never

twice for the same word.

Consider another example. In SGP the derivation for component,

componential and componentiality would be (6), (7)» (8)

(6) [H koN=p0n+eNt]K

1 MAIN STRESS (l02aii) 139

(7) [A [1J koN=pOn+eNt]K + i + *1 ]A

MAIN STRESS (l02aii)

2 1 MAIN STRESS (l02ai) 3 1 WEAKENING (108) 2 3 1 AUXILIARY REDUCTION (lOTb) 2 - 1 VOWEL REDUCTION (llU) ______3 - 1 ______NUCLEAR STRESS (63)

(8) [n [a [ji k3N=pOn+eNt]N + i + al ]A + i + + i ]w

1 MAIN STRESS (l02aii)

MAIN STRESS (l02ai)

3 2 1 MAIN STRESS (l02ai) 1* 3 1 WEAKENING (108) 2 It 3 1 AUXILIARY REDUCTION (107b) 2 - 3 1 VOWEL REDUCTION (llU) ______3 - h______1______NUCLEAR STRESS (63)

In our system the lexical entries will, of - course, have the stress 3 0 It 01 0 0 marked. For componentiality. when Nuclear Stress, Vowel Reduction,

Auxiliary Reduction, Weakening and Main Stress are undone, we will have 021 00 00 021 00 021 00 componentiality which is componential + ity where componential is the 3 0 1 00 form componential takes after Nuclear Stress, Vowel Reduction, Auxiliary

Reduction and Weakening have been undone. At this point then, the deri­ vation can stop. Notice that four rules have been undone in each of the two words, but no rule has to be undone twice for any one word. In SGP,

Main Stress applies three times in the derivation of componentiality.

In a similar manner, componential will be related to component by un­ doing five rules, but this will only include one undoing of Main Stress, as compared with two applications of the rule in (7)»

For complex words that are based on a stem, like photography, the same type of thing applies. Photography will only be related back as far as photograph. Photograph in SGP is as follows (9): 11*0

(9) [ foto [grasf]s]N (S = STEM)

1 MAIN STRESS (l02ei)

1 2 MAIN STRESS (l02ci) 1 3 NUCLEAR STRESS (63)

In our system the only difference here is that photograph is related (by undoing Nuclear Stress and Main Stress) not to another word, but to a stem, graph,which, assuming it occurs elsewhere in the lexicon, will be an abstract stage in the relating of words which contain it (like photo­ graph, monograph, etc.). The relevant M-rule will be one that parses nouns as prefixes plus stems. But again, no more than one pass through the rules is needed.

One other possibility (brought to my attention by Michael Geis)

needs to be considered. Suppose, for example, that the word componen­

tial is lost from the language. Then would we not need two cycles to re­

late componentiality to component? Cases like this are rare; the only

examples I have been able to find are ones like fat - *fatten (inchoative)

- fatten (causative) where one of the affixes added is a zero, thus not

requiring an additional cycle. But it is certainly possible that other

examples with non-zero affixes could occur. In those cases our theory

would predict loss of compositionality of the meaning and therefore the

two words might not be related — in fact, it is also possible that the

pronunciation of the more complex word would change. Section 5*1*3 has

a more explicit example of a similar type. In any event, since the two

words now have a different (or perhaps no) relationship, there will not

need to be two cycles in the phonology even in this case. lUl b) For another example, consider Spanish. Harris 1969:125-6 is trying to explain why the stem vowel of adiestramos 'we make skillful' is diph­ thongized even though it is not stressed, since normally diphthongiza-

tion requires stress. He posits a cycle for an interior adjective destro

'skillful' as follows (10):

, (10) [ya A [dEs+r]A a + (E = potentially diphthongizable e)

E STRESS (U:2Ua) (FOR ADJECTIVES)

g STRESS (U:2Ub) (FOR VERBS) ye DIPHTHONGIZATION (3:781) ye DESTRESSING

By stressing the stem vowel on an earlier cycle, it can still diphthong­ ize in the verb because thedestressing rule does not apply until last.

In our system, adiestramos would be related to its stem adiestra-

by one of the inflectional M-rules, after Destressing and Stress (for

verbs) are undone. Notice that Diphthongization need not be undone since

all forms of the verb have the diphthong. Diphthongization need only be

undone when relating the verb stem adiestra- (which is stressed on the

stem vowels) to the adjective destro. When Diphthongization is undone,

then the verb will be adestra- which is seen as a + destr + a_where

destr- is the adjective stem and the a- and - e l are a verbalizing prefix

and a verb stem vowel respectively.

The point is that where the cycle is used in cases like this, there

still is no reason to make more than one pass through the rules, even the.

ones that were considered cyclic in SGP.

5.1.2.2 Analyses in SGP for word-internal cyclical rules other than

for prosodic features are much more controversial. Since most of the Ik2 best-documented cases of cyclic rules deal with prosodic matters, other types of rules are let into the cycle only with great suspicion. It would obviously be theoretically advantageous to be able to restrict the types of rules which can be cyclic.

Even in the absence of a clear theoretical edict, people have tried to recast most of the cyclic segmental rule analyses in non-cyclic terms.

So for instance, Schane's 1968:ch.l argument that the French trunca­ tion rule is cyclic is countered by Selkirk 1972, who defines the rule in terms of word boundaries. Kuroda's 1967:sec.2.6 analysis of

Yawelmani Vowel Epenthesis is revised by Kisseberth 1970. Kaye and

Piggott's 1973 Ojibwa T-Palatalization rule is claimed to be non- cyclic by Truitner and Dunnigan 1975* White 1973:ch.U gives arguments against Kisseberth's 1972 cyclic analysis of Vowel Copy, Vowel Dele­ tion and other rules in Klamath. A non-cyclic analysis of two segmental rules in Russian which Lightner 1972 has suggested are cyclic is pro­ vided by Thomas 197*+ •

Kot all analyses of word-internal cyclic segmental rules have been disputed, but I will demonstrate below that at least some of these prob­ lems will not be relevant in our system, because, as in the case of the

stress rules, one pass through the rules is all that is ever needed.^-

a) Consider the Klamath case. If Kisseberth is not correct about the

cyclicity of the rules, then the following is merely unnecessary. But

even assuming his argument that the rules are cyclic, it will be seen

that the rules need only apply once for us.

The relevant forms are daqca 'scratches someone', sadaqca

(reflexive) and sasdaqca (distributive-reflexive). The SGP derivations Ifc3 would be as follows (11-13):

(11) [daqc^+a] daqca no rules apply

(12) [sV* + [daqc +a]] (V* is an indeterminate vowel) • daqc +a no rules apply sa + daqc +a VOWEL COPY sa + dqc +a VOWEL DELETION sa + daqc +a a-INSERTION

(13) [sV* [sV* [daqc +a]]] no rules apply daqc +a VOWEL COPY sa + daqc +a VOWEL DELETION sa + dqc +a a-INSERTION sa +sa + daqc +a VOWEL COPY sa +s + daqc +a VOWEL DELETION

In our system, the form sasdaqca will have Vowel Deletion and Vowel Copy undone, at which.point it will be recognizable as sV* + sadaqca and the the derivation will stop. There is no need for the rules to reapply.

Kisseberth also uses the cycle to describe a case where the rule of Glottal Lengthening must precede Vowel Copy even though in other cases it follows it. Thus ’a:I a:Ya1(distributive) show1 is derived as follows in (lU):

(lU) [’V* + 9aI a:Y +a] ‘•’alazY +a no rules apply ’a + 9ala:Y +a VOWEL COPY ’a + 9la:Y +a VOWEL DELETION ’a: + Ia:Y +a GLOTTAL LENGTHENING

But compare the form slesle:ca '(distributive) go to see' with sle:ca

'goes to see'. The length on the vowel is from Glottal Lengthening

(since a glottal appears in other forms, e.g., sle’a 'sees') but the lengthening must take place before Vowel Deletion in order to prevent it from dropping. But as we saw above, Glottal Lengthening must follow

Vowel Deletion. Therefore a cyclic analysis is needed as in (15) J iM

(15) [sIV* + [sle9 +c +a] sIe: +c +a GLOTTAL LENGTHENING sle + sle: +c +a VOWEL COPY (VOWEL DELETION not applicable)

Again# in our system, there is no need to have rules apply in the wrong order. The word slesle:ca will be related to sle:ca merely by undoing

Vowel Copy, whereupon the form is sIV* + sle:ca. Glottal Lengthening will only be undone in the relating of sle:ca back to its stem sle9- or to other forms of the word which uses the stem. Hence, the rules always apply in the same order and no ordering paradox exists, (cf. Leben and

Robinson 1977» who suggest that linear ordering is desirable for upside- down phonology as far- as it can be maintained. Ordering paradoxes are theoretically possible, but this example is not a paradox.) b) Not all such examples are as easily reanalyzed. Kaye 1971 argues that in order to account for the correct distribution of nasalization on certain morphemes in Desano, the rule of nasalization must apply cyclic­ ally. While some of the examples he gives will require only one applica­ tion of nasalization, I am too unsure of the principles of word-formation in Desano to be able to tell how our system could handle all the data

Kaye presents. Desano is a somewhat agglutinative language, with noun classifiers, evidentials, and many other special morphemes whose presence in a word may or may not be obligatory. A reanalysis in terms of our system may be possible, but not before we know how the words are put to­ gether. (Kaye lists no reference grammar of Desano, if there even is one.) Significantly, Kaye does not label the brackets around what he

claims are constituents. His word trees have many unlabelled nodes, and the only test for constituency is by means of substitutability. Kaye admits that his evidence for the syntactic structures is 'by no means compelling' (p.50), but also claims that there is no counterevidence.

There may very well be no counterevidence to his claim that the words are bracketed as he says, but this still leaves open the question of what the labels on the brackets are below the word level. Until we can know the details of the situation, we cannot be sure whether Desano is an exception to our claim about the phonological cycle.

5.1.3 We have seen that if we use upside-down phonology, there are very few word-1evel-or-smaller rules that must apply cyclically. Most derivations need only one pass through the rules to relate the word to another word or stem. If the problematic cases like Desano can be taken care of, it is possible that the cycle is not needed at all in phonology, since the larger-than-word-eycle rules apply in the syntactic cycle ac­ cording to whatever version of the Generalized Ordering Hypothesis

(section 5«l»l) can be maintained.

The reason we can eliminate the cycle is that words will, in general, be related back to other words in regular ways (which correspond to

M-rules). In a large number of cases, the unraveled form of the word will be analyzed as (the possibly unraveled form of) another word plus an affix, which form can be described by the operation of an M-rule re­ lating two words. We break a word down one step at a time this way, since individual M-rules do not add more than one affix. We are not limited to the case where the thing related to is another word, since there are regular formations in languages of abstract stems plus affixes, where the stem by itself never appears as a word. In SGP, Brarae 197^ has attempted to put a limitation on how - words may Be bracketed internally (which is the corresponding notion to

how words may be related to other words in our system). His Natural

Bracketing Hypothesis (p.56) claims that for a substring of a word to

have brackets around it, the surface reflex of that substring must ap­

pear as an independent word somewhere. A constraint corresponding to

that in our system would be something to the effect that all M-rules must

relate words to other words. This would eliminate M-rules that relate

words to stems. An even stronger constraint, the Strong Natural Bracket­

ing Hypothesis (SNBH) (p.58) claims that not only must the substring be

capable of standing alone, but the meaning of the entire string must be a

compositional function of the substring and the rest of the string. This

would eliminate a bracketing like [[mill]ion]. This strong constraint

is the equivalent of our requirement in section U.2.3 that each M-rule

must be accompanied by an S-rule. Brarae admits that the SNBH may be too

strong; and similarly, we have had to occasionally allow M-rules to oper­

ate without worrying about the semantics.

Aronoff 1976:sec.2.2,^.1 claims that his system of word-based Word

Formation rules, always have a compositional function meaning associated

with them, has the SNBH as a natural consequence. Of course, the system

runs into trouble just where the SNBH does: in cases where the meanings

are not compositional functions and in cases where we want a substring

to be a stem. For instance, since stems cannot be substrings under the

SNBH, Brame is forced to allow forms like -crat and -dox to have lexical

stress, a serious innovation for SGP. (Of course, this is not an issue i U t in our system.)

In the cases where compositional meaning no longer exists, Aronoff claims that a word can lose its cyclic structure. Thus in the case of the words prohibition and Prohibition (the latter referring to the 1920's, and having no systematic relationship to prohibit), Aronoff and Brame claim that the differing pronunciations [prohibisan] and [proebissn] are attributable to the fact that the latter no longer has a cycle on prohi­ bit. This prevents the first i from being stressed, which means it can reduce and the h can be elided. Thus Aronoff can describe a case where a word strays from its compositional meaning and loses its cyclic struc­ ture, although he cannot say why the connection should be there.

In our system, recall that the rules are there only to relate a word to other words. If undoing a rule will not help in the attempt to relate

a word to another, then the rule is not used on that word. How, if a word deviates slightly in meaning from what it should be or if it adds

extra shades of meaning, then It will still be worthwhile to try to re­

late it to others via the undoing of phonolgical rules. However, if a word changes in meaning such that it is not possible to find a regular

semantic relationship with another word, then there is no reason to try

to relate it to any other and thus, undoing rules will be useless. Thus,

I would claim that [proobls^n] is not analyzed as [pro=hlbit +ion] as

Aronoff claims, but rather, since it is not related to prohibit at all,

we need not go any deeper than necessary. The -ion is possibly still

recognized as a noun suffix and pro- prefix might even be parsed as a

prefix, but there is no need for the stem to be -hibit-. So, Prohibition

will have as its underlying representation [pro + obit + ion] at the iuq most, and if we claim that the prefix and suffix are not separated out, the word could he considered monomorphemic. As a word with no allomor- phy, there is no need to reconstruct an xinderlying h which never surfaces

(cf. coalition. which also does not require an abstract h to get the se­

quence [-os] on the surface).

Notice that it is an automatic consequence of our theory that when

Prohibition is no longer semantically related to prohibit, it is no longer morphologically related to it. This is only natural, given the purpose

of the rules, as stated above.

5.2 External Sandhi

5.2.1 In our version of upside-down phonology, all phonological rules

(except the natural processes) exist within the lexicon. That is, in a

sense they are ordered before lexical insertion, which in turn precedes

the operation of the syntax (in a theory of syntax like that of Chomsky

1971* which is consistent with the lexicalist position we have taken).

However there are phonological rules which must be ordered after the syn­

tax. These are the rules of external sandhi, which apply between words

in the surface sentence. It cap be claimed that these rules are not de­

pendent on actual syntactic sonstituent structure but merely need the

surface string of words, which have been modified in certain ways (see

section 5.2.2.5 below). External sandhi rules can be sensitive to speci­

fic morphemes, as we shall also see.

These rules will force us to modify our theory, weakening it some­

what. It will also be seen that some of these changes will have func-:

tional concerns behind them. 5.2.2 Let us examine sandhi phenomena in several different- languages to see what kinds of phenomena are involved.

5.2.2.1 Sanskrit has an extensive set of rules of internal and exter­ nal sandhi. The internal sandhi rules operate 'where suffixes are joined to roots, or to other suffixes; also where an item occurs in absolute final, position'. (Emeneau and van Wooten 1968:2 — unless noted, all page references and rules in this section will refer to this work). The external sandhi rules operate 'at the juncture of words in phrases and between members of a compound ... words are put into sentences and stems into compounds starting from the forms they have in absolute final posi­ tion, i.e., after completion of the internal sandhi rules' (p.7-8). Thus the internal sandhi rules do not depend at all on the place of a word in a compound or a sentence and may all operate within the lexicon. The forms of words in the lexicon will be the forms they take in final posi­ tion.

It is not necessary to go into many of the specific rules of sandhi except as they reflect on larger points of interest. In this light, a few points need mentioning: a) There are certain morphological exceptions to the external sandhi rules: rule Ul (p.8) 'after the inflectional affixes of the dual ending in -7, —u, -e or after the nominative plural masculine pronoun ami or after an interjection consisting of one vowel (e.g., a), sandhi rules do not operate ... e.g., yajete ubhau 'the two of them sacrifice' '; rule 52

(p.9) 'the final -s of sus 'he, that one, nom. sg.' and esas 'this one, nom. sg.' disappears before any consonant ... e.g., sas gacchati

'he goes' -* .sa gacchati (in all other cases -as becomes -o before a . 150 voiced consonant by rule 53);

In cases like this there are often considerations which are not easily formalized. These involve avoidance of homonymy, minimization of allomorphy, preservation of functional distinctions and so on (cf. Kipar- sky 1972 and also see section 6.1). What may often happen is that

'functional conditions ... enter the linguistic system in a grammatical- ized form. At that point they begin to interact and conflict not only with each other, but with formal generality in the usual generative phono­ logical sense.' (Kiparsky 1972:22U) In this case, it means that our grammar must tolerate rule features to indicate exceptionality after all.

These can be part of a lexical entry (in the case of ami) or they can be predicted by M-rules which are associated with the words ending in the relevant dual suffixes. We can restrict the use of rule features to the external sandhi rules, which is a weaker position than we held before, but is still more restrictive than saying that any rule whatever may have exceptions. b) Some of the external sandhi rules have the same form as the internal sandhi rules, e.g.,'the succession of like simple vowels is replaced by one morphophoneme, the corresponding long vowel' (rules 7 (internal),

M (external), p.3, 8).

There are several possible descriptions of this fact: i) These rules operate cyclically, both inside and outside the word; ii) There are separate rules which have the same form only as a coincidence; iii) They are natural processes, which means they can apply both inside the lexicon and outside it in the phonology. This possibility is eliminated because 151 there are lexical exceptions — see a) above; iv) They are. merely rules of sandhi in general and apply only with the external sandhi rules. This is a possibility because, even though the sandhi rules are ordered, none of the internal sandhi rules are dependent on the application of the dupli­ cated ones, so that the duplicated ones could, in fact, merely apply after the syntax. Since external sandhi 'operates also after declensional stems

(other than -r- stems) before declensional suffixes beginning with bh and before su, and often before secondary derivative suffixes other than y'

(p.7), it would not be such an unusual claim that the duplicated rules

(which for the most part are contractions of vowel-plus-vowel sequences) apply only at the surface structure, but there they apply at morpheme boundaries as well as at word boundaries.

5.2.2.2 In Irish there is a complicated system of word-initial conson­ ant mutation, whereby consonants become lenited (p-*f, + -*h, b -* v, etc.) in certain environments and nasalized (or eclipsed) (p -* b, t -* d, b *♦ m, g -* r), etc.) in other environments. The conditions for these changes are largely morphological, referring to specific preceding morphemes. (His­ torically, these conditioning-words had a final vowel or nasal which no longer appears in Irish except through its mutation effects).

So, for instance, consonants are eclipsed a) in the genitive plural following the article; b) after the prepostition i_ 'in'; c) after the num­ erals'7-10; d) after the relative marker _a 'all that'; etc. Consonants are lenited a) after the article an 'the'; b) after the prepositions ar

'on', do 'to', de_ 'from', gan 'without' and several others; c) in the genitive following a feminine noun; d) after the numerals 1-5; e) when the noun forms the second element of a compound word; f ) after a noun in the 152 vocative singular; g) in the past, imperfect and conditional forms of the verb; etc. (Dillon and O'Croinin 196l)

These conditions are largely morphological, hut some of the cases apply only to words of a specific lexical category (e.g., case (f) is only for adjectives). Unless we want to set up abstract segments in the relevant morphemes, segments which would resemble those of earlier stages of Irish and which would never appear on the surface ( a dubious move at best), we must resort to rules of external sandhi which are triggered by rule features on the conditioning morphemes.

There are some even more interesting conditioning factors. For in­ stance, the preposition ar does not lenite the following word in phrases with a verbal noun indicating a state or condition; ar bogadh 'sleeping1

(lenited b is spelled bh). This is a semantic condition and might be considered as a functional consideration again. An alternative analysis would set up two ar's, one of which (the non-leniting one) appears only with the stative verbal nouns, relegating the semantic condition to the matter of selectional restrictions. This latter analysis would involve a much closer look at the semantic factors involved with the various usages of ar. However, setting up homonymous morphemes is generally a safer prospect than positing a final vowel on leniting words — a case of absolute neutralization, which must be looked at with a highly suspicious eye (cf. Kiparsky 1973).

Of course, a functional explanation is hard to formalize (see sec­ tion 6.1 for more on this), but there will not be any simple solution

for such an exotic phenomenon as a semantic factor influencing a phono­ logical substitution. The point is that these examples will require 153 stretching the theory, no matter which theory it is.

5.2.2.3 There are certain phonolgical changes which take place in a word at the end of a sentence in BH. A word in this position is said to be in its pausal form. It is useful to compare the changes introduced in pause with those introduced in the construct state.

First of all, let us indicate the similarities. Any word will have only one form that it takes in the construct and only one that it takes in pause. Compare this to the Sanskrit case where, depending on the follow­ ing word, any of several different sandhi rules could apply. For instance, the word tatra 'there* can take several forms, as in tatrai *ti 'there he goes' (Emeneau and van Nooten 1968:Rule U2), tatre 'hate 'there he covets'

(rule 1+3) and tatra 'sti 'there he is' (rule 1+U). Second, it could be argued, as Prince does (sec.1.12-1.13), that the two states are both phono- logically defined and that the two variant forms for each word should not be listed in the lexicon but derived by (often minor) rules.

Yet there are differences. I claimed in section U.7 that the con­ struct state is essentially a syntactic construction (consisting of two nouns in a genitive relationship) which happens also to be definable phono- logically (the two nouns are treated as one phonological word). The same cannot be said for the pause. It is certainly definable phonologically

(high stress), but we cannot get any more specific about its syntax than to say that the word is clause- or sentence-final. Any constituent struc­ ture within the sentence is irrelevant; only the fact that the word is in the sentence- (or clause-) final position is important. So there is a reason for handling the pause differently from the construct. 15U

flowever, it seems that one of the effects of the pause is to pre­ vent certain rules from applying. Words that show reduced vowels nor­ mally will show full vowels in pause. But they are not just any full

vowels. They are the full vowels that they have in SGP underlying repre- >■ _ £ _ ^ sentation. Thus ka+aba 'she wrote' becomes ka+aba in pause, but zaqna

'she was old' becomes zaqena in pause (cf. the stem vowels in ka+cib_ 'he <+ * wrote' and zaqen 'he was old'). Also yik+abu 'they will write' becomes a — / \ yiktobu (cf. yiktob_ 'he will write'). In the segolates we get the orig­

inal stem a lengthened instead of the e which is harmonizing to the epen­

thetic vowel. 9eres 'earth' in pause is ’ares, also hSsT 'half' (from * • • • • /hesy/) becomes hesT in pause. The appearance of the original vowel means

that the vowel cannot be inserted by a sandhi rule, because then it would

be a coincidence that the vowel that appears in pause is the same as the

underlying vowel. Prince therefore assumes that pausal forms are marked

[+P] and that this feature allows a to be lengthened by the Tonic Length­

ening rule (his Chapter H, rule (25)) when it normally is not. Also the

destressing part of vowel reduction does not operate on the stressed vowels

in pausal forms.

Having the pause (a surface structure effect) influence phonological

rules is permissable in SGP where the rules follow the syntax, but it will

not work for us. We can, however, set up a simple sandhi rule which ap­

plies to vowels in pause (l6)

(16) V -» [+LONG] / PAUSAL E.STRESS — I am assuming that the placement of pausal stress is done by a prosodic

rule which operates in the syntax, in line with the GOH (section 5.1.1). 155

The rule will simply lengthen the vowel; in Prince's system, the vowel would he lengthened by Tonic Lengthening, which applies to all vowels in

pause. The other effect of the pause is to prevent vowels from reducing.

Recall that vowels are not reduced to 9 in the lexicon because the vowel

reduction rule is a natural process and applies after the syntax. So at

the syntactic surface level, vowels which eventually become s are still

present with their underlying qualities but they have had their stress re­

duced by the destressing rule (which applies in the lexicon). The prosodic

rule mentioned above will negate the effects of the destressing rule and

rule (l6) will lengthen the vowel, correctly giving the long versions of

the underlying vowels in words like ’ares and hesT. * • » There are, in fact, other effects which the pause can have. Some

of them are regular, e.g., in Hitpa"el, the final e vowel becomes a. This

can be accomplished by another sandhi rule. Some, however, are not regu­

lar. Some segolates are.not affected by rule (l6), for instance. Some

pronouns and some prepositions have unusual forms (e.g., ’anol^T *1',

’atta 'you m.s.', lak 'to you m.s.', bak 'in you m.s.', which are regular- -* * ' s- ly ’anokT, ’at+a. leka, baka). Some verbs appear with forms that they A showed in earlier stages of Hebrew and Semitic (e.g., hasayu 'they sought

refuge' where the y of the root does not normally appear in such forms in

BH (cf. hasu, the normal form), and qareba 'she is near', where normally

the second vowel would be a, but the reflex of the i-vowel, which the verb

had historically, appears). These odd forms, however, are not different

from any of the other morphological exceptions to sandhi rules that we

have mentioned so far. The point to be made is that pausal forms are effected by sandhi rules, which are subject to morphological irregularities, and not by a special feature on phonological rules, which in our system will have al­ ready applied.

5.2.2.U A similar example of sandhi rules is mentioned by Kisseberth and Abasheikh 197^ for the language Chi-Mwi:ni. They discuss three rules of vowel lengthening. These rules have morphological conditions on their application, hence they apply inside the lexicon. On the other hand,

Kisseberth and Abasheikh's rules of vowel shortening, which they claim take preference over the lengthening rules, are sensitive to the location of the vowel in the phonological phrase. The Pre-antepenult Shortening rule shortens vowels which are more than three syllables from the end of the phrase. The Pre-length Shortening rule shortens vowels which are fol­ lowed later in the phrase by a long vowel. For an example of how these rules interact, consider the forms — so:ma 'read!1, soma:ni 'read! (pi.)' and somani chuwo ichi 'read this book! (pi.)' where the second vowel is first lengthened before the plural imperative suffix but shortened by

Pre-antepenult Shortening. As another example, consider the forms owci

'bathe!', +ako:wa (from /+a + ku + ow + a/) 'he will bathe1 and takowaryi

(from /+a + ku + ow + a + y i/) 'how will he bathe?'. The u + o combina­ tion becomes o: by a rule of vowel contraction, but when the -yi suffix lengthens the a vowel, then Pre-length Shortening shortens the o : .

Phrases are determined by the syntactic structure of the sentence.

Rather than have the vowel shortening rules apply in the syntax according

to the GOH, however, we can have certain phrasal readjustment rules apply

which will indicate the phrases of the sentence by means of the boundary 157 markers which are present at the surface structure. Thus, the sandhi rules, Pre-antepenult Shortening and Pre-length Shortening, will be stated

in phonological terms with boundary markers helping to determine what the

relevant domains are.

5.2.2.5 Selkirk 1972 gives a thorough examination of sandhi processes

in English and French. She arrives at some general conclusions for phono­

logical theory as well, particularly with regard to the placement of word

boundaries.

The basis for Selkirk’s specific sandhi rules is that the number of

word (#) boundaries between two items in a sentence determines how close

the connection is between the two items. The sandhi rules vary with re­

gard to the type of boundary they operate across.

For instance, one universal readjustment rule Selkirk gives is the

following:

(17) In a sequence W/]x //]z or W[y# [X//Z where I / S, delete

the "inner" word boundary.

This rule, which Selkirk claims is the very last rule of the syntax, is

implicit in Chomsky and Halle’s 1968 discussion of word boundaries and

will guarantee that no more than two word boundaries will ever appear in

sequence in a sentence. According to Chomsky and Halle 1968:366, a word

boundary is inserted at the beginning and the end of every major lexical

category or larger phrase. Thus, the phrase my little chickadee, which

might have the surface structure (1 8 ) in isolation,

(18) ... [pi?[my][«£/?[H//[^little?/]jit]=[«//[^ c h i c k a d e e # ]-//]=

and would have even more word boundaires when in a sentence, will be 158 reduced by rule (17) to become (19)•

(19) [§# [my][=//[j [A little ]A ]^]=Cf/[ N chickadee ]-#]=

According to Selkirk (p.l3)» 'this convention embodies the claim that the distinction ft vs. ft ft is adequate to the needs of the phrase phonology of any language'.

So, for instance, in our Chi-Mwi:ni examplein 5.2.2.ht items which do not belong to the same phonological phrases (e.g., the subject and the verb) will be separated by Hit, Items that are part of the same phrase

(e.g., the verb and the direct object) will be separated by only one ft marker, although in some cases, perhaps involving non-lexical categories, there might be no ft boundaries separating the two items.

Another factor which affects sandhi rules is the moving or deletion of certain words. Selkirk suggests that when a word is deleted by a trans­ formation, the ft markers remain. These markers will have various effects on the readjustment rules and the sandhi rules.

a) For English, there is a list (Chapter 1, section 3) of encliticization

ruTes (for not, have, would, is, etc.) which are rules of the syntax, or

at least can be ordered within the syntax in accord with some version of

Bresnan's GOH. Selkirk rejects the idea of English procliticization rules,

however, and a case which had been argued by Bresnan 1971b to be such a

rule (ordered within the syntax) is reanalyzed as a rule which operates on

surface structure, i.e., as a sandhi rule, which, as we have seen, may per­

fectly well have a syntactic environment. This rule reduces the stress of

monosyllabic non-lexical words (articles, modals, degree words, etc.)

which precede the heads of their phrases. 159

Another rule which Selkirk gives is the Clitic Stress Reduction Rule.

This rule, also a sandhi rule, follows the encliticization rules mentioned above and reduces the stress on the cliticized word.

These rules can be fitted into our present organization, but they depend on the operation of the readjustment rules which affect the word boundaries in various spots in the surface structure. Thus we can cliti- cize and reduce auxiliary is_ in many places (Dana's here [denaz]) but in some cases where a word has been removed, reduction is impossible (*Tell me where Dana's) because the boundaries from the missing word remain, blocking the reduction.

Many of the sandhi rules Selkirk mentions in her Chapter 2 (which are especially active in causal speech) are sensitive to the number of word boundaries. Compare inffbed [imbed] to loan''#Peter (a dollar-)

[lonpitar] (not *[ lornpitar]) where the rule of nasal assimilation can ig­ nore one // boundary, but not two.

It should be noted that many of the sandhi rules Selkirk discusses also apply within English words (cf. the nasal assimilation rule mentioned above), This might suggest a cyclic application of the rules, but in actual fact, this is due to the fact that many of these rules are natural processes, and therefore do not apply to the lexical forms until after the syntax. Natural processes apply more often in casual speech and we can make this fact somewhat more precise by saying, as Selkirk does

(p.177-8 ), that 'the faster the speech, the greater the possibility for

[natural processes] to "reach across" double word boundaries ... what's interesting is that the [natural processes] should nevertheless respect abstract entities like #'s and respect the number of //'s between words’. l6o b) Selkirk also discusses several sandhi rules in French. The environ­ ments to which the rules are sensitive are basically syntactic, but they are so via the general conventions on word boundaries mentioned above, along with a few French-specific rules which add and delete ft boundaries in certain syntactically defined contexts. These readjustment rules are based on surface structure.

The sandhi rules themselves fall into two types — those which Sel­ kirk claims must apply to surface structure and those which need not. Of those which must apply at the surface, several apply in environments which refer to the material on the other side of the word boundary. These ob­ viously must be external sandhi rules. There are four others, however, which must apply at the surface for other reasons, i.e., they must be or­ dered after certain other rules which are independently motivated to apply after lexical insertion. The environments for these rules are all de­ limited by the end of the word. Hence there is nothing formally differ­ entiating these rules from those which apply in the lexicon. Thus, we can­ not make a strict demarcation between lexical (pre-syntax) phonological rules and sandhi (post-syntax) rules, according to Selkirk. However, I claim that the problem can perhaps be solved if the four rules involved can be looked at differently.

In actual fact, there are rules which can be defined on a word basis

(or smaller) but which follow the syntax. These are the natural processes.

Thus if the four rules in question are natural processes, then we can main­ tain our distinction among rules as a three-way one (lexical rules, exter­ nal sandhi rules, natural processes) with no overlap between the first two-types. l6l

Of the four rules, I would claim that three of them are natural pro­ cesses. They are the following (20)-(22):

(20) o-SWITCH o -* o / it ____ (#X) if

(21) FINAL VOWEL SHORTENING V -» [-LONG] / //X ____ (ffX) if

(22) HARMONY e - e / ffX ____ C (L) C-3j0w| Xif

It is significant to note that Selkirk mentions no lexical exceptions to these three rules, although she gives exceptions for several of the other sandhi rules. Thus, there is reason to believe that these rules may in­ deed be natural processes. Harmony does not apply across a word boundary even in casual speech, but as mentioned above, natural processes can have varying degrees of sensitivity to word boundaries.

The fourth rule (Singular Person Deletion) deletes the personal end­ ings -s_, -t_ from the lsg and 3sg forms of the verb; in the present tense.

Such strictly morphological conditions cannot exist as a natural process.

Ideally we would like to claim that the rules applying at the surface must be external sandhi rules referring to material on both sides of the ff boun­ dary, or else natural processes. However, I have not been able to account for the French data handled by Selkirk's Singular Person Deletion rule in a way that conforms to this hypothesis. If there is no suitable reanaly­

sis possible, then our claim must be weakened or abandoned. Section 5-3.^

suggests a modification of our framework which will have interesting im­ plications in this case.

Selkirk (p.379-80) suggests that some of her sandhi rules might be

cyclic, but admits that this is probably not necessary. Needless to say,

in our system, we do not want any cyclic sandhi rules. 162

5.3 The Organization of the-Grammar

5.3.1 The system we have developed so far consists of the following parts:

(a) The lexicon: Lexical entries consist of words in their natural phonemic representation. This representation is never less abstract than the classic phonemic level and is more so only when regular morphophone- mic alternations force a representation to the classic morphophonemic level. The level of abstractness varies from item to item.

Phonological (non-natural) rules may be undone, in an extrinsically ordered, fashion if necessary. The only purpose for undoing a rule is to relate a word to another word on a more abstract level. A derivation con­ tinues only until the word is parsible by an M-rule as being related to another word, either directly or via intermediate stages.

(b) The syntax: Complete, fully inflected words are inserted into deep structures. Transformations apply. Certain prosodic phonological rules are applied along with the transformations, ordered in some princi­ pled way relative to them.

(c) Readjustment: Readjustment rules apply at or near the syntac­ tic surface structure, Selkirk (p.33*0 suggests that readjustment rules which rearrange boundaries may not make reference to the phonological na­ ture of the words in between those boundaries. They may refer to syntac­ tic configurations and perhaps other morphosyntactic charateristics. Eut one of Selkirk's rules for French contains the feature [+INFLECTED], where this feature refers to a noun, verb or adjective which contains a phono- logically non-null inflectional affix. Such a feature may well violate her restriction on readjustment rules just given since the rule must know 163 whether the inflectional affix in the word is phonologically null or non­ null. A list of the paradigm forms which undergo (or fail to undergo) the rule could he made, hut such a list would not express the generaliza­ tion involved. Selkirk suggests that there could he a functional explana­ tion in terms of 'resisting [the] tendency [to] deprive the inflectional morphemes of any phonetic realization' (p.232). As mentioned earlier, functional considerations are often very hard to formalize.

(d) Sandhi rules: We might want to claim that rules which must ap­ ply after the syntax (except those which fall under (e) helow) make essen­ tial use of a word boundary in their environment, in that they refer to material on hoth sides of the boundary. These rules are subject to ex­ tremely specific morphological conditions and lexical exceptions. Some sandhi rules are ordered rather late, even after slips of the tongue. Com­ pare in English the alternation of the indefinite article a/an before con­ sonants/vowels. The phrase a crab apple, if slipped to ab crapple, will change the article, [e krsb sepal] or [sen eeb krsepal] but never

*[aaeb kraspal]. Thus the correct form of a specific morpheme is picked very late in the actual processing of the utterance, after the error is made.

(e) Natural- Processes: These apply last, after everything else.

There are restrictions on the type of substitutions made. Processes must be phonetically motivated. They are not extrinsically ordered, but apply in a random linear order whenever their structural descriptions are met.

The discussions in this chapter have led us to some general conclu­

sions about rule cyclicity. These will be reviewed here. Other types of

restrictions on the rules will be made in the next chapter. l6i+

5.3.2 As to whether rules apply cyclically, we have seen in 5.1 that phonological rules need not apply more than once in any given derivation.

Likewise, natural processes do not cycle, although they may apply more than once in the derivation of a word.

The phonological rules in the syntax do cycle, hut as part of the

Generalized Ordering Hypothesis, which probably can be maintained in one form or another. The readjustment rules, being syntactic, could.in theory cycle also, but the examples we have seen so far suggest that they most likely apply to the syntactic surface structure of the sentence.

As mentioned in 5*2.2.1, if an internal sandhi rule and an external sandhi rule have the same form, it is possible to concoct a cyclic analy­

sis. Fnether this is ever necessary remains to be seen. Recall that the same rule applying in two places is evidence that the substitution is a natural process (cf. Kasai Assimilation both in phrases and inside of words

in English).

So, it seems possible to say that there is no cyclic application de­

fined over any domain of phonological rules. The syntactic cycle is bet­

ter motivated and the best examples of phonological cycles are the proso­

dic rules which operate along with the syntactic rules according to the

GOH.

5.3.3 Siegel 197^:ch.2 suggests that the lexicon can be organized so

that it can show in a natural way that English affixes which are attached

with a § boundary attach only to words and are stress-neutral. She claims

that the rules adding affixes with + boundaries apply first and then the

word-cyclic . stress rules apply, after which the affixes with if are

attached. 165

There are some things which need to be said about this scheme. One is that it is not necessarily the case that for all languages the suffixes that are attached only to words are stress-neutral. For instance, in BH, the 2pl inflectional snedings, -tem and -ten in the perfect attach only to the basic form of the verb, but the affixes are always stressed themselves

(cf. k3t5b_ 'he wrote' and ka+ab+£m 'you (m.pl.) wrote' from /katab + tem/ where vowel reduction follows stress placement). It goes similarly with the object suffixes in the verb-(cf. samar 'he guarded' and samar3n7

'he guarded me' from /samar + an!/ where the vowels are changed after stress is placed). So, Siegel's scheme holds only for English. Therefore it should not follow from more general characteristics of the lexicon.

To the extent that her scheme is correct for English, our system will act as if the lexicon were structured as she says it is. Since the

// affixes attach only to words, the derivation will go only back to the words, and if the affixes are stress-neutral, then the M-rules relating suffixed and unsuffixed forms will be usable before the stress rules are undone. So our system will act the way Siegel wants it to for English, but for other languages, the system will set up whatever overall scheme is

correct for that language. The lexicon should be such that for different

principles of word-structure, which vary from language to language, the

lexicon can give a unified treatment. This, our system can accomplish.

5.3.^ Chomsky and Lasnik 1977 > operating in a revised version of the

Extended Standard Theory of Chomsky 1971» mention briefly in a footnote

that 'there is little reason to suppose that lexical items are inserted in

base structures, in this theory'. They do not elaborate on this 166

'alternative theory in which ^lexical insertion takes place in surface structure and only abstract features are generated in the base ... in posi­ tions to be filled in by lexical items' (p.^32).

I will not go into the evidence for or against this idea, but I would like to briefly mention a few of the implications such a theory would have for the matters discussed here.

First of all, rules of agreement would be simplified again. Recall that in our theory whole paradigms had to be inserted into base structures, and agreement rules were essentially filters which guaranteed that only the correct item in the paradigm was used, in accordance with the relevant syntactic conditions. If lexical insertion does not take place until sur­ face structure (i.e., after the agreement rules have applied), then the rules need only be feature-assigning (or -changing) rules, just as they were in SGP, where the lexicon consisted of stems and affixes. Lexical insertion will merely pick the appropriate item from the entire paradigm which exists in the lexicon.

Second, all of the phonology follows the syntax (except possibly the cyclic prosodic rules — cf. section 5.1.1)* also similar to the way

it did in SGP. This means that such forms as the construct and the

pausal forms in BH can definitely be listed in the lexicon. Lexical inser­

tion will now have information from surface structure available to it, in­

cluding whether a word is in construct or in pause. Thus the similarity

of these conditions to other syntactic states like [+DATIVE? or

[+ACCUSATIVE] is much more obvious and therefore a treatment similar to

these cases is more well-motivated (recall the discussion in 5.2.2.3 and 167 and l*.7»l).

Finally, with the lexical phonological rules and the sandhi rules

"both applying after the syntax, we might claim that there is less reason to look for a formal distinction between the two types of rules, thus obvi­ ating the need to reanalyze Selkirk’s Singular- Person Deletion rule in

French (section 5.2.2.5» part b). When the lexical rules applied before the syntax, there was no way for them to know what kind of syntactic con­ figurations the words they applied to would be part of. Thus they could not possibly make use of syntactic information. But with this revision, the output of the syntax (and perhaps even the readjustment rules) is available and therefore we might claim that there is no reason why the lexical rules cannot make use of syntactic information (possibly coded by boundaries), thus leaving less reason to look for a formal difference between the lexical rules and sandhi rules.

It remains to be demonstrated that lexical information is not need­ ed in the syntax, particularly with regard to such things as lexical government of syntactic rules. Such a possibility is certainly worth ex­ ploration, however, because of the far-reaching implications such a system would have. 163

FOOTNOTE TO CHAPTER 5

^ Notice that our system claims that all cyclic analyses can be elim­ inated. This contrasts with the re-analyses given above, which all

Heal with individual cyclic analyses in specific languages. CHAPTER 6

USES OF THE FEATURES

6.0 Introduction

This chapter is a review of the feature types and an attempt to see how the uses of these types are limited in the system of phonol­ ogy we have developed, with the division of rule types as given in section 5.3. Also some more general issues related to the features will he considered.

6.1 Rule Features

Rule features have already "been discussed here in several places.

Because of the fact that phonological rules are not required to he un­ done in every case, hut only where they are helpful for parsing, it is not necessary to talk ahout sporadic exceptions to the rules of the lexicon.

Natural, processes do not have individual lexical exceptions,

other than two types. One of these will he discussed helow. The

second set of exceptions are those which would he categorized as

'foreign words' within a given language. These were discussed in

Chapter 3, footnote 2.

It is possible that, after we have reanalyzed many of the external

sandhi's operations as being the work of readjustment rules, most

169 170 external sandhi rules do not refer to rule features, either. Of course there would then he that many more idiosyncracies to the read­ justment rules, hut it is possible to reanalyze many of the sandhi phenomena as just involving references to boundary markers and phono­ logical characteristics.

There are, however, cases in French which violate the sandhi rules, e.g., the frozen idiomatic phrases de mieux en mieur. tout a fait and avant-hier. These are exceptions to the rules which delete word final consonants in certain situations. It might he possible to claim that these items exist in the lexicon as units. Or there might he a functional explanation involved (see below).

I doubt that there are individual lexical exceptions to the syntax-cycle prosodic rules. There certainly are exceptions to the rules, but in general these involve syntactic, semantic or pragmatic considerations. So, for example, Bresnan 1971a notes that the Nuclear

Stress Rule will not put stress on a pronoun or pronominal expression.

It is very likely that functional explanations will turn out to be the answer in many of these cases, because there are some data which seem to resist any other explanation. Zwicky 1972 mentions certain small words in English (e.g., and, an, in) which fail to re­ duce phonologically the way others of similar form do (am, is). This could perhaps be indicated by reference to the syntactic class of words that reduce (auxiliaries), but syntactic classes are supposedly not referred to by phonological processes either.

Other functional motivations are the frequency of an expression in conversation (Stampe 1973a:8 discusses the reduceability of I don’t know vs. that of the similar I dent noses) and the avoidance of homonymy, which might account, for instance, for the failure of the to lose its 5 (which would make it homonomous with a) even though other similar words (them, this, these, etc.) can lose the sound

(Zwicky 1972:612). But this latter force is not always operating,as shown by Zwicky who points out that them and him can be neutralized as [m] in casual speech (I saw him/them).

I have little to say about these types of explanations. In a complete theory of performance, these factors must be included, but they are largely unformalizable within most current theories of gram­ mar, although they are sometimes fortuitously ’grammatized' if they turn out to affect a class of forms which can be referred to conven­ iently by the mechanisms of the theory (e.g., the [+AUX] case men­ tioned above). It can be seen from the growing literature (see, for

instance, the papers in Grossman, San and Vance 1975) that functional considerations have effects in all parts of the grammar and that they

should perhaps be considered as capable of overriding any other rule or constraint and thus able to account for phenomena which are other­ wise described as unexplainable exceptions. But it is important to

develop specific functional explanations and not simply to use func­

tionalism as a convenient rug to sweep all the exceptions under.

Otherwise, beyond some exceptions to external sandhi rules and

possibly some exceptions to prosodic rules, there will be no vises of

rule features in the grammar. 172

6.2 X Features

We can divide this syntactic categories into three parts:

(l) stems, roots and affixes; (2) lexical categories - noun, verb, etc.; (3) larger units - noun phrases, verb phrase, etc. Notice that the differences between the groups are not in the actual X features

[+SUBJECT], [^OBJECT], etc., but in the number of bars involved. So, what has traditionally been called noun phrase is N in Jackendoff 1977» as compared to nouns, which are simply N.

6.2.1 Obviously, a rule that refers to units of larger size than individual words cannot exist among the phonological rules in the lexi­ con, since the structural description of the rule would never be met.

I have claimed, following Bresnan's Generalized Ordering Hypothesis

(section 5.1.1.1), that prosodic rules referring to phrase domains are ordered with the syntactic transformation in the cycle. Further­ more, if it can be shown that the domain of these rules are just those which correspond to syntactic domains, then the prosodic rules need

never mention the X features in the rule, since the domain will be

the relevant syntactic cycle.

Furthermore, if we follow Selkirk's suggestions regarding sandhi

rules and readjustment rules, then it is likely that sandhi rules

can always be expressed in terms of the individual words involved or

in terms of boundaries. We can separate the morpho-syntactic environ­

ments for sandhi (cf. the Irish examples in 5*2.2.2) from the phono­

logical ones (cf. the Sanskrit examples in 5*2.2.1) by the use of re­

adjustment rules, which are syntactic rules and which do not make use

of phonological information. 173

For example, we might claim that the environment for lenition and nasalizing in Irish is merely and then a readjustment rule would arrange the boundaries so that all the leniting and nasalizing cases would have this boundary (most of them would anyway, since the condi­ tioning morphemes are almost all non-lexical and therefore would not have word boundaries of their own around them). There would still have to be some sort of rule features indicating just which morphemes trigger lenition and nasalization (see section 6.1 on this) but there need be no reference to X features in the sandhi rules.

Finally, by their very nature, X features of any level cannot appear in natural processes.

6.2.2 As we have seen in the previous section, there are no X features of any order at all in the prosodic rules or in the natural processes, or in the sandhi rules, once we constrain the syntactic information in them to boundary markers (and individual morphemes triggers/exceptions). There remains the question of whether phono­ logical rules in the lexicon can refer to lexical categories.

6.2.2.1 Once we have eliminated the cycle in the lexicon (section

5.1), there will not be rules which refer to the domain of the whole word in terms of general X features (i.e., applying to all X, where

X = adjective, noun, verb, etc.). But it seems that there still must be rules which apply to one lexical category as opposed to another on the same X level. Thus, take Harris's (1969) stress rule referred to in 5.1.5.1:

f(C0 ( V C ^ D J V ) C ff] (a) (1) V -* [1 STRESS]/ ____ 1 f /(( [-PERFECT]) CQV) CQ ff]v (b) 171*

But if we have a lexical form in Spanish like toler&r 'to tolerate', we must again remember that the only reason to undo a rule is to re­ late a word to another word. In this case, other related words include tolerable 'tolerable', tolerante 'tolerant', tolerancia 'tolerance'.

Presumably the derivation for these words will not go back any more abstract than toler + AFFIX. Thus, any stress rule that can relate tolerar to toler + ar will be used. Thus, if (2Ub) happens to work, it will not matter whether it applies only to verbs as_ far as parsing is concerned. In fact, just as before, if a word has no other words related to it, no stress rule will apply at all. So it seems that we do not need many of the references to specific lexical categories.

Recall how we similarly eliminated the references to the morphemes

-ive, -ion, -able in a rule of English allomorphy in section U.8.1.2.

Now, we must be careful not to let rules apply indiscriminately, for if we do, then there will undoubtedly be many possible spurious parsings of words, where rules have been undone that relate surface forms to inappropriate abstract forms which are connected to genuinely unrelated words. This can be limited by our requirement of semantic relatedness of forms related by an M-rule (see section U.2.3)* Thus, to take an English example Leben and Robinson 1977:fn.l give, baronial could be incorrectly parsed as boron + ial if we do not re­ quire some sort of semantic relationship between X and X + ial. Thus, since the meaning of baronial does not have anything to do with boron, undoing a rule to give boron + ial will not be good. So, as long as we do not lose control of the semantics of the situation, we can allow whichever rule happens to work to apply and the rules need not refer 175 to X features.

6.2.2.2 But what about the generative use of the rules? We have been concentrating on the rules as they function in word-analysis, but we must allow for the rules to apply generatively in the creation of new items (where 'new' need merely refer to 'new to the speaker').

How do we know whether a new Spanish verb will undergo (la) or (lb) if the X features are not part of the rule?

This depends on how the actual creation and paradigm-building of a new word works. Let us follow the case of a hypothetical new

Spanish verb joyar 'to sparkle' (from the noun .joya 'jewel'). Suppose that we hear the word joyan and understand from the context (or by asking someone) that it means 'they sparkle'. We could actually use rule (la) or (lb) to derive the stress, so it does not matter which we use. We are now back to where we can parse the verb as joy a + n_, where -n_ is the 3pl ending. The joy a- can be analyzed as joy + _a- where the -a.- is recognizable as the theme vowel, as added to the present stem. So parsing the new verb form is a simple matter. But we want to be able to use all the forms of the verb. The M-rules, which must obviously refer to lexical categories, will allow us to form any of the words in the entire paradigm, for instance joyamos 'we sparkle'.

The question is, though, how do we know which stress rule to use for these new forms (la) or (lb) (where in this case only (lb) would give the correct result)?

At this point we might say that the choice is made based on an analogy with other verbs - whichever stress rule other verbs in -amos is parsed by, that rules will be used generatively, to derive joyamos. 176

This sounds fine, but on what basis do we decide which forms to make an analogy to? In this case, why make an analogy to verbs in -amos rather than -emos? Or why even verbs at all? Is not this, in effect, admitting that stress rule (lb) is for verbs?

We can broaden the basis for our analogy, however. First of all, we can say that all the applicable rules by which verbs in -amos are parsed are undergone by .loyamos. The allows us to avoid making special mention to the stress rule. Furthermore, we do not have to refer specifically to verbs in -amos. We can refer merely to any words that follow the same morphological derivation as the one in question. In our case, we are using the M-rule which relates stems for a given tense to forms in -mos. Any word which can fit this rule can serve as a model for the analogy - the speaker need not have a specific one in mind. The point is that the fact that the word which uses rule (lb) is a verb does not have to be stated on the rule itself. It is merely drawn from two facts: one, that the rule is used often for verbs and two, that new verbs will use the same rules that already existing verbs use. For the speaker's purpose, the second fact is far more im­ portant than the first one, which really has only the status of inter­ esting coincidence. We will see in following sections examples where this description will apply to other cases.

If this description is valid, however, then we can eliminate references to X features in the phonological rules of the lexicon.

6.2.3 From the remarks in the preceding section, it can be seen that root and stems need not be mentioned in rules either. For an example of this, let us consider the example given in Chapter 1 in 177

Dogrib (Howren 1968)

(2a) Spirant Lenition Rule (changes W to w and s to z among

other things)

[+FORTIS] -* [-FORTIS] FORTIS +CONSONANTAL -INTERRUPTED R'dbf we will also need this rule:

(2b) m -♦ w / PREFIX L__

Now consider the forms [nciwTz6] 'the two of us hunt* and [naW“ze]

'the two of us have hunted'. Each verb consists of a directional mo­ tion prefix, an aspect marker, a person marker, a 'classifier' and the stem. The classifier • is argued for in this case to allow Spirant lenition to apply to these forms and thus remain general. (There are many points at which I would question the entire analysis, but for the purpose of discussion I will accept Howren's forms).

The derivations run as follows (roughly)

(3) /na + 0 + mTd + I +'se/ /na + We + mid + I + ,se./ w w m ■* w Spirant z z 1 Lenition [na wl* ze] [na W T ze] other rules

Our lexicon will contain the surface forms and the rules will be miss­ ing the syntactic environment.. The derivation will run upside-down until the forms can be recognized as being composed of all the various morphemes. Each morpheme will have its own M-rule associated with it.

Rules (2a) and (2b) will be undone because they can help the surface forms be related to the underlying forms. For the purposes of parsing, it does not matter whether the m is prefix-initial or not. Presumably,

if it is true that surface w's in prefix-initial position (and only 178 those) are m's underlyingly, then the rule will "be undone in just those cases where it will reveal the underlying shape of some prefix.

Similarly, Spirant Lenition was undone from the z's hut not the w be­ cause only in the former case will it reveal the underlying nature of the form.

Now, if a new word is made up, say, with a stem Na 'to race' and an I classifier, the form for 'the two of us have raced' will be con- structable by the operations of the M-rules as /na + We + mTd + I + Wa/.

In order to know which rules apply where, the analogy is made to words which have the same morphological derivation, like 'the two of us have hunted'. The new word will simply run the same upside-down derivation

(to the extent that they correspond phonologically) right-side up to apply spirant lenition to the second W, but not the first, giving [nawtwa.].

So we can generate the correct forms without the specification of

[+ROOT] or [+PREFIX].

6.2.U It is worth repeating at this point that the X features are

clearly not needed for parsing the forms since whatever rule will help relate the form correctly (not forgetting the semantic correlation) to its more abstract representation will be the one that applies. If

it in fact turns out that the class of forms which can be parsed via

this rule is a syntactic class, this may be an interesting fact, but

it is only worthwhile for the grammar to state this fact if it makes

the derivation of a new form more predictable.

For us, the predictability of a new form is based on the fact

that it will follow a right-side up derivation which corresponds to 179 the upside-down derivation of other words which have the closest mor­ phological derivation. I will refer to this as Parallel Morphological

Derivation Analogy (PMDA). Thus the fact that only verbs (or only roots) are parsed by a rule plus the fact that new words follow the pattern of old words, will assure the rule that the new forms it will apply to will all be verbs (or will all be roots).

We have yet to see how this scheme will work for classes smaller than entire syntactic categories, like conjugation classes or classes

defined by diacritic features.

6.3 Conjugation Class Features

Based on the remarks in the previous section, it follows that con­

jugation class features can also be eliminated. This is due to the

fact that conjugation class features are always associated with par­

ticular sets of inflectional endings (with a set of M-rules). Thus, when we claim that new forms are based on PMDA, we can include con­

jugation classes in the notion of morphological derivation and hence

we can eliminate the features from rules.

Consider as an example the following rule from Harris 1969:rule

5:56b It 1 +______(U) + -» s / 1 CONJUGATION

This rule is part of a two step process (the other rule is t -» s/s___)

which changes + + t into s + s (and eventually s) in cases like

disent + ;to -* disenso ’dissension1,but there are also cases like

invent + to_ -* invento 'invention'. Harris claims the difference is

that the verbs involved are disentir (3rd conjugation — theme ji)

011(1 inventar (1st conjugation — theme a.). 180

For the purposes of parsing, disenso will need the two rules to he related hack to disent + to, and invento will not. The fact that all and only non-first-conjugation-based forms will use the rule is not im­ portant until we come to the predictive power that fact has for new forms.

Harris notes that all coinages are first conjugation. But for a person learning a new second or third conjugation verh, this rule also needs to make predictions ahout the form in /-to/. This is where our

PMDA comes in. If a person hears a form adjuntan 'they attack' for the first time, he can parse it as adjunta + n_ and then as adjunt + ei where a is the first conjugation theme vowel. To create the form in

/•to/ by PMDA, the derivation will follow only those steps that other first conjugation verbs follow, which will not include rule (U). Thus the form will he adjunto 'attacked'. Likewise, a new word like asentimos 'we assent', in producing a new form by PMDA, will use rule

(U) and thus give asenso 'assent (noun)'.

Also consider the case where a person hears a form like converto

'I convert'. In this case, the theme vowel is not indicated and it could he any of the three vowels (the 2nd conjugation theme vowel is e).

We thus predict that, if all the person knows is this form,PMDA could give us as a result either converto or converse (the correct form) as the noun 'convert'. This is possible because rule (U) actually refers to conjugation classes (although this is no reason to state the feature in the rule). In the example in section 6.2 there would be no ambiguity in the rule's operation, since we can always tell the lexical category of a word. Since some forms of a word do not indicate its conjugational

class membership, PMDA based on such a form will give multiple results 181 just when the derivation includes a rule which separates words by con­ jugation classes.

Thus conjugation class features can be eliminated from phonolog­ ical rules also.

6.1* Diacritic Features

There are several different purposes which have been served by diacritic features. They include: marking items as positive excep­ tions to rules, where the items undergo a rule they would not normally be expected to; marking items as conditioning (or not conditioning) a rule; dividing the lexicon into different parts with different rules which apply to the different parts; and triggering so-called minor rules, which apply to a minority of items in the lexicon. Each purpose de­ serves examination to see how the problem necessitates the use of dia­ critic features.

6.U.1 As far as minor rules are concerned, if a minor rule is an isolated rule not associated with other rules, which applies only to a minority of items, which are not associated with each other for any other reason, then this is just the same as a regular rule where the majority of lexical items are exceptions. The notion of minor rules was used so that the lexicon would not have to be filled with rule features on items which do not undergo it.

Since there is no need for every item to undergo every rule anyway, this will not be an issue (cf. also the discussion in 1*.7«2).

Many examples which seem to be of this type are not. Often the feature that seems to trigger application of a rule is either (l) allowing 182 a rule which applies in certain uses to apply to other cases which do not meet its structural description (this is discussed in 6.It.2); or (2) affecting more than one rule, in which case the feature divides the lexicon into specified parts, each part undergoing a specified set of rules (this is discussed in 6.U.U).

6.U.2 The system of rule features developed in Chomsky and Halle

1968:ch.8,sec.T can describe only the case where a rule fails to under­ go a rule it is supposed to. It is unable to describe the case where

an item exceptionally undergoes a rule it is not supposed to. To

handle a case like this, Chomsky and Halle use a diacritic feature.

One example is for the vowel shift rule. The rule is formulated

to apply to certain vowels, but Chomsky and Halle suggest that it

applies exceptionally also in the derivation of such words as sang

(from sing), satisfaction (from satisfy), retention (from retain).

So that these forms will undergo the rule, they are marked [+F] in

the lexicon and the rule is complicated so that one of the environ­

ments is [+F],

McCawley 197^ argues, however, that this is a spurious usage of

the vowel shift, since there are many more patterns of present tense

vowel-past tense vowel than the rule would account for. Personally,

since the list is finite and closed and has many patterns (McCawley

lists 16), I doubt if there is any generalization at all that needs to

be expressed. The forms could simply be listed as such in the lexi­

con. They would all be memorized forms and the rules which related

the various forms would be extremely marginal (although if we want to

claim that e.g., fly and flew were related, the rule must be there). 183

Postal 1968 mentions a rule of Mohawk (130—l) which turns s into dz except after h. He claims there are morphemes (e.g., [ohdz

'hand.') which do undergo the rule in spite of the presence of h. By

Chomsky and Halle's convention, this rule would apply in words that are [+Z], in addition to the environment Postal gives. Then, items like 'hand' would be [+Z],

It is worthwhile to wonder whether such a possibility cannot al­ ways be reanalyzed in another way. If these kinds of examples can be reanalyzed, then that it is one less use of diacritic features.

If such cases do exist, we have no way in our system to allow a rule to apply to a form which does not meet its structural description.

The only thing we could do would be to totally eliminate the environ­ ment from the rule and let it apply where it can as a context-free rule. But this runs into trouble when the rule is used generatively.

So far, we have claimed that a new word will be created based on PMDA,

and thus the lexical features in the environment of the rule can be

eliminated. But in this case, the class of items which undergoes the

rule is not defined morphologically but phonologically, since the en­

vironment (other than for the exceptional items, which form- a class

which is presumably not productive) was entirely phonological before

we eliminated it. But a PMDA is based on a word which has a similar

morphological derivation (which is definable by reference to M-rules).

. If we allow the analogy to be based on words which have only a similar

phonological environment, then we would be saying that the new word

in Mohawk will follow the derivation of other words in its class and

the relevant class is: words not having an h in a certain position. 181*

I would claim that this is not a class on which speakers would normally base an analogy (but see section 6.6.3). Thus, we must restrict the uses of PMDA to morphological classes and not phonological ones. Thus we cannot eliminate the phonological part of the environment of rules.

Thus, If Postal's example holds (or if there are others), then we must allow diacritic features into the lexicon.

6.1*.3 Diacritic features have also been used in the description

of environmentally exceptional morphemes, that is, morphemes which

block a rule's application to some other,morpheme. For example, in

Russian, a rule (Velar Shift) which changes k to c before front vowels,

fails to take place before three particular suffixes beginning with

front vowels. There have been three ways to handle this phenomenon

proposed in the literature. The first, by Chomsky and Hai.le (1968;

379-381), marks the exceptional suffixes with a diacritic feature

[+D] and then has a readjustment rule like (5) which introduces a

negative rule feature.

(5) k -* [-VELAR SHIFT]/

The second way, suggested by Coats 1970 is to use rule context

features, which say that a rule n may not apply if an item marked

[-CONTEXT RULE n] is in the environment of the rule. Thus, the Russian's

suffixes would be [-CONTEXT VELAR SHIFT] and would block the rule by

the general condition just stated. Kisseberth 1970 suggest the same

idea. This has the advantage that only morphemes in the environment

of the rule itself can block the application of the rule. A solution

of the type in (5 ) is not limited to that, since the environment of

(5 ) need not be the same as that of Velar Shift. 185

Iverson and Ringen 1976 demonstrate that there is another way to describe the situation, as in (6), which restates the Velar Shift rule

-CONS (6) k - • c / -RACK +D where items which allow Velar Shift are marked [+D] in the lexicon and those which do not are [-D], As they put it 'to be sure, Velar Shift no longer retains the appearance of a purely phonetically conditioned rule, but this is clearly a desirable consequence because the phenomenon is not purely phonetically conditioned1. It is unfortunate, however, that the majority of items which can follow a k must be marked as [+D], while only the few exceptional items are marked [-D], This is not so bad in a system where there is a rule feature for every rule and a general convention marks items plus for every rule unless specially marked as minus for it. But in our system where rule features do not exist, we would need the convention anyway for arbitrary features, which seems wasteful.

I lean towards the rule context features because they are a specifically limited type of feature and they are universally defined for every rule (as Coats, points out). The theoretical arguments that

Iverson and Ringen give for favoring their system are (l) that it al­ lows them to say that all readjustment rules which introduce rule fea­ tures must be context free (which means nothing in our system) and

(2) instead of the rule context feature, they use the diacritic fea­ ture 'which is independently established as a means of identifying mor­ phemes which exhibit morphological subregularities (cf. the account of

Velar Softening in English, Chomsky and Halle 1968:22^)!. As we are 186 seeing, however, much of the independent motivation is disappearing, leaving only lexical strata features (see the next section) and what­ ever features are needed for this particular issue. Since the rule context features are more restricted and universally defined, that is an advantage in terms of limiting the possible types of features.

However, Iverson and Ringen also present an empirical argument for their features based on words which take suffixes that are excep­ tions to vowel harmony in Turkish, for which their features give a more satisfying description than one with rule context features does.

The only other solution is an ad hoc one proposed by Lees 1961 where the stems of the words are underlyingly different, so that vowel har­ mony has no exceptions but the special words must undergo late rules to change back to the correct stem vowels.

There will have to be some lexical features to handle exceptional environments. If a reanalysis of the Turkish data is possible, then perhaps the restricted rule context features would be sufficient. If not, then ordinary diacritic features would be. Perhaps it is pos­ sible to encode the same limitation on these features, but I am not aware of how to do it.

Another case of interest is the Irish sandhi rules, lenition and nasalization. In section 5.2.2.2, I suggested that rule features would be needed, but they would more properly be rule context features.

Thus we could analyze lenitions either as being blocked by the

[-CONTEXT LENITION] on certain lexical items and paradigm forms (if

rule context features turn out to be justifiable) or else these items will be marked [+L] or [+N] and the miles will apply only when the preceding morpheme is properly marked.

This analysis has the advantage of putting the idiosyncratic in­ formation about the rules in the lexicon. Individual morphemes will be marked and certain paradigm items can be marked by the M-rules.

So instead of [VOCATIVE SINGULAR] - [+L] we can have

NOUN ‘noun SINGULAR SINGULAR NOMINATIVE VOCATIVE 2 CONJUGATION 2 CONJUGATION /X/ [+L] —J -/X/ 6.U.U The most common usage of diacritic features is for what

Saciuk 1970 calls 'the stratal division of the lexicon1. This is where the lexicon is divided up (by one or more diacritic features) into parts, with each part undergoing its own set of rules (not neces­ sarily without overlapping). Examples include Spanish 'vulgar' vs.

'erudite' (Foley 1965)* recoded as [+S] and [-S] by Harris 1969;

Russian [-SLAVIC], [+SLAVIC, -RUSSIAN], [+SLAVIC, +RUSSIAN] in Light- ner 1965; Japanese [+NATIVE], [+ SINOJAPANESE], [+0N0MAT0P0EIA],

[^FOREIGN] in McCawley 1968; and Mohawk [^NATIVE], [+FRENCH] in Postal

1968. Postal suggests (1968:13^) that [+NATIVE] may be universal.

These features appear in the lexical entries for the vocabulary of the language and also in the rules of the language, although some rules may refer to all items regardless of the class they are in.

It is important to note that the names of the features are mne­ monic devices only. [+NATIVE] words are not necessarily only words which are native to the language, but are words (of any origin) which

act like native words with respect to the phonological rules. The 188 names of the features are often a clue as to the origin of the words, but etymological facts are of no interest in a synchronic grammar. The classes are defined purely by the way they respond to the different rules. Thus, these features really have only an arbitrary basis.

It is because of this arbitrary basis, which reflects no associa­ tion with morphological derivation, that I do. not know whether PMDA should be extended to these features. In a certain sense, it seems correct to say that, e.g., if a new word undergoes (or fails to under­ go) a rule, which is a trait characteristic of a certain portion of the total lexicon, then that word will be predicted to react to the rules just as the other words in that portion do. Such classes of lexical items seem to have more psychological reality than classes held together by purely phonological characteristics (e.g., undergoes vowel shift), but less than the morphological classes mentioned earlier.

This characterization is extremely vague and, as far as I can tell, unformalizable beyond the limits of the PMDA, which depends on the notion of the M-rules associated with the relevant morphological cate­ gories to limit the basis on which analogies can be made.

I am forced to leave the matter open. I feel that there should possibly be an extension of PMDA to these lexical classes, but I have no idea on what formal basis this should be done. If this can be done, then these diacritic features will also be eliminated from the rules

and the lexicon. If these features are banned, then that weakens the

argument of Iverson and Ringen in 6.U.3 for their analysis based on

a supposedly independently motivated set of diacritic features. 189

6.U.5 Given the class of diacritic features, is it reasonable to expect that there are any real-world correlates to them, like the phonetic characteristics are to the phonological distinctive features?

It seems that there are not. The X features, the conjugation class features and the paradigm item features have their correlates in mor­ phology, with each feature in those categories (potentially, at least) corresponding to one or more M-rules in the grammar. In addition, there is a reasonable chance that the categories described by those features are universal (although no language refers to every category).

The fact that those features are associated with M-rules means that they are used at least by the word-building part of the grammar.

We might claim that their appearance in phonology is somewhat fortui­ tous. This is in part evidenced by the fact that it is the minority of phonological rules which refer to them. Thus, most phonological rules can be described as being dependent only on phonological struc­ tures and only occasionally are morphological features claimed to be necessary to express a real regularity in the phonology.

On the other hand, diacritic features can be invented solely for the purpose of expressing a generalization. An extreme version of this view might say (paralleling an argument that has been made against

curly brackets — attributed to G. Lakoff in McCawley 1970) that a

diacritic feature is used to express the fact that a generalization does

not exist.

So perhaps it is worthwhile to limit the use of diacritic fea­

tures, for in doing so, perhaps we can limit the range of what are

claimed to be generalizations in phonology. 190

One attempt to limit the use of diacritic features is found in

Kiparsky 1973:l8, where it is proposed 'that the theory of generative phonology be modified to exclude the diacritic use of phonological features and the phonological use of diacritic features'. These prac­ tices treat the two types of features as being of equal theoretical status, when in fact they are not, since the phonological features have a phonetic basis while the diacritic features do not.

The diacritic use of phonological features involves setting up among segments of a language, an underlying distinction which never appears on the surface (termed 'absolute neutralization' by Kiparsky).

The distinction, therefore, has no phonetic basis, but is merely used to distinguish classes of sounds which may act differently with respect to some rule(s).

For example, in Modern Hebrew there is no difference in pronun­ ciation (in most dialects) between the historically emphatic sounds q t s and their plain counterparts k t s. However there is a synchronic • • difference between q and k in that the remnant of the spirantization rule in Modern Hebrew affects what was historically k (giving x) but not what was historically q* A possible analysis would be to distin­ guish underlyingly the k which spirantizes from the k which does not, by means of a feature [+EMPHATIC] on the latter and [-EMPHATIC] on. the former. The spirantization rule would apply only to [-EMFHATIC] sounds and a late rule would eliminate the emphatic quality of the historical q. But since there are no emphatic sounds in Modern Hebrew, such a use of a phonological feature is without a phonetic basis, hence it is a diacritic use. 191

In such a case, according to Kiparsky, a rule feature should he used. So the lexical items with a historical q will he marked with the rule feature [-SPIRMTIZATIOH ].

One possible problem with Kiparsky's approach is that items do not undergo spirantization, segments do. It turns out that in Modern

Hebrew there are few, if any, words which contain two different kinds of k in them, but it seems possible that for some similar analysis in another language, there could be a case where there are segments within a word which differ with respect to whether they undergo a certain rule. Such an example would argue strongly against Kiparsky. One of the most important differences between lexical and phonological fea­ tures is that the latter are attributes of individual segments whereas the former are assigned to entire morphemes and would be inappropriate

for a morpheme in which different segments must have different values

for a feature.

The phonological use of diacritic features involves rules which

operate on diacritic features but take the form of phonological rules.

An example of such an analysis is Halle's (1971) treatment of stress in

Russian mentioned in section 1.5.2. Halle's rules include the follow­

ing: (l) H Assignment places a feature [+H] on some vowel in the word.

(Some words do not receive the feature at all). This rule is part of

the morphology and which vowel receives the feature is dependent, ac­

cording to Halle, on a conjugation class feature. (2) H Distribution

places the feature on all vowels to the left of the original [+H] vowel.

(3) Stress Assignment stresses the rightmost vowel marked [+H] or if

there is no.[+H] vowel,on the first vowel in the word. 192

Note that this feature is assigned not to whole morphemes, but to vowels, which might make us suspect that it is not a diacritic feature, but a phonological feature. Halle himself (p.U) identifies [+11] as the equivalent of the phonetic feature high pitch. Thus, it is not clear that Halle should even refer to [+H] as a diacritic feature, and his rules could deal with pitch assignment instead of the feature [-H],

Of course, before we can say that all analyses of this type do not involve diacritic features, we must be certain that the diacritic feature involved can be clearly associated with a phonetic value. But

if this can be done, then Kiparsky's limitation on the use of diacritic features can be maintained.

6.5 Inflection Features

Although there are many rules in the literature which are claimed to involve these features, a large number of them are describable, not

as phonological rules at all in our system, but as M-rules.

So, for instance, Harris 1969 gives the following rule in Spanish:

V -♦ 0 / + [+IRREGULAR] + rtf [+FUTURE]

This rule is meant to account for the future stems of twelve irregular

verbs which are missing the theme vowel (poder/podr-, saber/sabr-,

querer/querr-. etc.). In our system, however, this would be an M-rule

like (8)

VERB VERB INFINITIVE FUTURE STEM XV r Xr-

Of the rules which are left, it appears that we can again elimin­

ate references to the lexical features by means of PMDA. Consider 193 the rule of Kasem Velar Elision (Phelps 1975)

(9) /f+SYLLABICk -SYLLABIC) + [PLURAL] <[ "NASAL ]> 0 X L+HIGH J / -ANTERIOR -CORONAL "NASAL

1 2 3 h 1 2 3 h

This rule applies with plural morphemes of several forms:

sug + ni -* suni 'guinea hens', tasug + du -♦ tasudu 'granary covers',

kag + i -* (kog i)... -* kwe ' hacks',

' In our system the description will be of a familiar type. The

rule will make no mention of the plural but will apply where it gives

the parsable form (which is in those cases where the plural is there).

For a new form, the rule will apply in those cases which are morpho­

logically parallel (i.e. are plural) to the ones that already use it.

Thus, we get the proper predictions.

Recall that many cases of the Irish lenition were triggered by

particular paradigm items. If we do not choose to describe lenition

by environment features (see 6.U.3), then we will need inflection

features either on the lenition and nasalization rules themselves, or

on readjustment rules that create the correct boundary situations. I

personally favor the environment feature because then all the idiosyn­

cratic information is in the lexicon rather than in the rules. But

there is no real strong evidence one way or the other. And the com­

plicated conditions for lenition and nasalization must be stated some­

where in the grammar. 19U

6.6 Discussion

There are a few residual matters concerning the features and the limitations we have imposed on them in this chapter.

6.6.1 The concept of a redundancy rule was widely discussed long befdre the notions’ of M-rules or of phonological rules being used in­ versely. Redundancy rules were mentioned largely with regard to the policy of leaving blanks in the lexical representation for values of certain phonological distinctive features, where the values were pre­ dictable from other considerations. The redundancy rules were de­ signed to fill in the blanks before the phonological derivation started, so that the phonological rules proper would deal with fully-specified formatives.

But another use for the redundancy rules was to supply predictable values for rule features and diacritic features. While certain dia­ critic features would presumably not be changeable (e.g., [+NATIVE]), many of the more arbitrarily defined features could be assigned values, as could any of the rule features. The question of whether phonological riles themselves could affect the values of rule features was addres­

sed by Chomsky and Halle 1968: 375, who proposed that only pre- phonological riles could have that power.

Even so, the fact that we have eliminated rule features from the

lexicon means that we cannot have redundancy rules that predict excep-

tionability of items. I will discuss two examples here to see what the

scope of the problem is.

6.6.1.1 It was mentioned in section ^.3.5 that certain plural forms

of the segolate nouns in BH are different from those of other nouns. So 1

195 we have malaktm 'kings' and dobarlm 'words', hut malkeyh£m 'their kings' and dibreyhem 'their words'. Prince 1975 attributes the I in the first syllable of dibreyhem to a rule which changes a to i before two conson­ ants in the word-initial syllable. He claims that the segolates are systematic exceptions to this rule and that there can be a redundancy rule of the form /CVCC/ -* [- a-TO-i RULE] (where /CVCC/, you will re­ call, is the underlying form of the segolates). Since we have no feature |> a-TO-i RULE] in our system, it seems that we cannot des­ cribe this fact or predict that a new segolate will show its stem vowel in the 3pl suffixed form, rather than i.

It turns out that PMDA will extend to this case, however, because the class that the redundancy rule refers to is a morphological class and any new segolate will be traced back through its /CVCC/ form before a new form is created. Notice that if one hears a plural form, it is not always possible to tell if the word is a segolate or not, e.g., a hypothetical word dalakTm could have as its singular dalak or d^lek

(or even delek — a different subgroup of the segolates). So from dalakTm we cannot trace back unambiguously to the point where we know whether the form will parallel melek or dabar in its forms. So we predict that either dilkeyhem or dalkeyhem is possible.

So this problem is not insurmountable, because PMDA is within its range when dealing with the segolates in BH.

6.6.1.2 Others cases do not seem to work out as well. There are many cases where there are phonological conditions on the placement of rule features or diacritic features. Bevington 197^ posits a feature

[+U] which is referred to by an umlaut rule in Albanian. He mentions 196

(ch. 2, fn. 5) that while which verbs are [+U] is not always predic­ table, any verbs with stems ending in -h with a or o as the stem vowel are always [+U]. In such cases, instead of marking the vowel in the lexicon, the diacritic feature would be supplied by a redundancy rule.

If we want to claim that there is no [+U] but that the umlaut rule is just a rule that not many words undergo, we can certainly relate the umlauted forms to their underlying representations, but when it comes to the rules applying generatively, we cannot predict that a new -oh or -ah stem verb will undergo umlaut, because PMDA does not extend here to a phonological condition.

This is possibly a problem with the redundancy rule system as we

now have it. We can, for instance, express the fact that in BII all

nouns that refer to the M-rule which inserts a into the stem in the

plural have the form CVCC in the singular (rule (22) in chapter U), by

including the phonological form in the M-rule. We are unable, on the

other hand, to describe the fact that all verbs having a guttural as

the third root consonant will take a stem vowel of a in the imperfect.

We cannot include the phonology in the M-rule for imperfect in a be­

cause there are a few other verbs which also take an a-imperfect. In

order to describe the regularity of the formation, we would need two

rules for a-imperfects — a completely regular one which applies to

third-guttural verbs and a sporadic one which applies only to a few

other verbs.

This involves splitting the class of a-imperfects into two parts.

This is perhaps the correct description, however, since it is not clear

that the two classes of a-imperfects really should be considered as one, 197 since one is productive and one is not. Hence, if we hear a new verh in

BH with a third-guttural root, the relevant M-rule for the imperfect will he the one which predicts an a-imperfect for gutturals since that

M-rule is completely regular for gutturals. Any other new verh will he unlikely to use the a-imperfect M-rule for non-third gutturals because that rule is so rarely used (i.e., non-productive).

This analysis has a similar effect for phonological rules, like in the Albanian case. The corresponding analysis would have multiple umlaut rules, one (or perhaps two) for verbs with stems ending in -oh and -ah and one for other verbs. This analysis makes the correct pre­ dictions but it claims that umlaut is not a unitary process. If there were seven different phonologically predictable classes of [+U] verbs, then we might need up to seven separate umlaut rules, if we want to be

able to predict all the cases where new verbs will undergo umlaut.

Again, however, if as we mentioned above, the need for diacritic

features indicates the non-existence of a unitary process, then our

system makes the correct predictions, and does not miss any bona fide

generalizations. But, as is true in many places in linguistics, it is

hard to know in advance what the real generalizations are.

If it can be shown that, psychologically, the umlaut rule and

other rules which refer to diacritic features are unitary processes,

then our theory will have to be modified. Jackendoff 1975:666-7 sug­

gests in a footnote that perhaps the M-rules should be factored into

syntactic and phonological parts, just as the semantic part has been

factored out. This would necessitate correlation factors between the 198 syntactic and phonological parts to indicate which parts go together.

Thus (10a) would be closely correlated to (10b) in BH, as would (lla) be to (lib) and (lie), but (lla) and (lid) would not be closely cor­ related.

(10a) NOOK «-*■ "NOUN "| _SINGULAR| _PLURAL[

(10b) [/XVYX/] <-v [/XVYaZ/]

(lla) [VERB '“j VERB "j LperfectJ im perfect]

(lib) f/XaYa Z /]«_► [_ l+guttural] J Z ^ + g u t t u r a l /

(11c) f/XYo z T |_^Xal?-GUTTURAL]^] ** [_ [-GUTTURAL]

(lid) [/XaYa z /1 j/XYa Z 7 [_ L-GUTTURAL ]_[ T [-GUTTURAL]

I have not examined all the ramifications of this move, nor the

possibility of a similar idea being used for phonological rules like

umlaut, but this is one possible way to go towards equipping our

system with the ability to state the important generalizations which

exist in the lexical rules of various types.

6.6.2 In this chapter, we have made heavy use of PMDA, without

really considering what its inclusion in the theory means. As analogy,

the formation of one derivation based on the existence of another one,

it must be formally represented as a transderivational constraint. This

is a type of device previously existing in our grammar in the guise of

correlation factors between pairs of M-rules (cf. Pollack 1976b): to

capture, for example, the fact that a speaker of English knows that an

adjective X-able generally has a counterpart in unX-able, we need to have a close correlation between the rule that makes adjectives in

-able from verbs and the rule that makes adjectives in un- from other adjectives. The correlation can be said to mean: 'If derivation A exists, then derivation B exists', hence it is transderivational. In a sense we are giving up one thing (most lexical features) for another.

Ideally, we can put strict limits on the capabilities of the transderi­ vational machinery, with regard to the set of possible grammars it will allow the speaker to choose from. I have tried to do this, by limiting the analogy to forms with parallel morphological development.

By doing so, I cannot clearly eliminate the diacritic features like

[+NATIVE], There is generally going to be a tradeoff. If we eliminate the restriction on PMDA regarding similarity of morphological deriva­ tion, we can eliminate the diacritic features. In fact, ve can prac­ tically eliminate context-sensitive phonological rules if we want to allow PMDA based on phonological similarity (cf. the discussion in

6.U.2). The degree of latitude with which the analogy should be al­ lowed to operate must eventually be determined by psychological con­ siderations .

6.6.3 A few words are in order on the use of the term analogy here.

Historical linguistics refers to analogical changes, wherein a new form is created (or an existing pattern is extended) by analogy with a form

somewhere else in the language. V/hat I have discussed here is similar to this in that new forms as created on an analogy to existing forms.

The difference between the two types of analogy is that our PMDA refers

only to the regular, productive cases. Analogy is of interest in his­

torical linguistics only when it produces a form not predictable by 200 rule; in other words, when the hasis for the analogy is a form which is in one or more ways not parallel morphologically. This often is an ir­ regular form which becomes the basis for the new regular formation or it could be a form which is parallel phonologically.

Our system cannot describe these unusual cases, the analogical changes. Our theory of PMDA says nothing about how speakers make analogies based on irregular forms, or why they should do so. It merely predicts regular new forms based on the forms of the similar ex­ isting ones.

6.6.U If we can succeed in working out the many details, we may claim that the use of lexical features in phonology is minimal indeed.

Many rules which were previously formulated with such features will now be formulated without them. What does this mean? Have we returned to structuralism, where there is no mixing of levels?

What I would claim is this: The formal devices which linguists use to describe the data of a language can still be retained for the lin­ guists as a heuristic device. After all, the rules still are applying to various morphologically defined classes. The point is, though, that

for the purposes of stating the rules, the morphological conditions are

not necessary, since the rules will work as redundancy rules without

them because of our principle which says that the rules are only there

to help in parsing forms., The rules will also predict the correct new

forms without the use of morphological conditions via the help of PMDA,

which states that similar things are treated similarly.1

Whether PMDA should be extended to include analogy based on charac-,

teristics like the degree of nativeness of a word remains to be seen. 201

It also must be determined whether anything like PMDA corresponds to an actual psychological process in a performance model of language.

X 202

FOOTNOTE TO CHAPTER 6

This idea is hardly a new one. It is the somewhat traditional notion of how new words are formed. It is mentioned at least as far back as

Bloomfield 1933, who states, 'a regular analogy permits a speaker to utter speech forms which he has not heard.; we say that he utters them on the analogy of similar forms which he has heard.' (p. 275) BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Stephen 1971+. The Organization of Phonology, Hew York, Academic Press

Aronoff, Mark 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 1, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press

Aronson, Ruth 1969• "The Predictability of Vowel Patterns in the Hebrew Verb", Glossa 3:127-11+5

Bailey, Charles-James N. 1970. "Towards Specifying Constraints in Phono­ logical Metathesis", Linguistic Inquiry 1:31+7-9

Barkai, Malachi 1973. Problems with the Phonology of Israeli Hebrew, Unpublished University of Illinois dissertation

Barkai, Malachi 1971+. "On Duration and Spirantization in Biblical Hebrew", Linguistic Inquiry 5+ 1+56-1+59

Bevington, Gary Loyd 1971+• Albanian Phonology, Otto Harrassowitz Wiesbaden

Bloomfield, Leonard 1933. Language, Hew York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Bloomfield, Leonard 1956. Eastern O.jibwa, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Michigan Press

Brame, Michael 197^* "The Cycle in Phonology: Stress in Palestinian, Maltese and Spanish", Linguistic Inquiry 5s39-60

Bresnan, Joan 1971a. "Sentence Stress and Syntactic Transformations", Language 1+7:257-281

Bresnan, Joan 1971h. "Contraction and the Transformational Cycle in English", Unpublished

Bresnan, Joan 1972. "Stress and Syntax: A Reply", Language 1+8:326-31+2

Bresnan, Joan 1976. "On the Form and Functioning of Transformations", Linguistic Inquiry 7:3-1+0

203 20k

Campbell, Lyle 1971*. "Phonological Features: Problems and Proposals, Language 50'52-65

Cardona, George 1969. Studies in the Indian Grammarians I: The Method of Description Reflected in the Sivasutras, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Volume 59> part 1

Chomsky, Noam I96U, "Current Issues in Linguistic Theory", in Fodor and Katz 196^, p.50-118

Chomsky, Noam 1965* Aspects of _a Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press

Chomsky, Noam 1970. "Remarks on Hominalization", in Jacobs and Rosenbaum 1970, p.l8U-221

Chomsky, Noam 1971. "Deep Strur: v.voSurface Structure and Semantic Interpretation", in Steinbe"g ,rid Jakobovits 1971» p.183-216

Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Hew York, Harper and Row

Chomsky, Iloam, Morris Halle and Fred Lukoff 1956. "On Accent and Juncture in English", in For Roman Jakobson, p.65-80, The Hague, Mouton

Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik 1977* "Filters and Control", Linguistic Inquiry 3:l+25-50U

Coats, Herbert S. 1970. "Rule Environment Features in Phonology", Papers in Linguistics 2:110-ll+0 de Courtenay, Eaudouin 1895. "Versuch einer Theorie phcnetischer Alternationen", English translation in Stankiewicz 1972. p.lUI+-212

A Dillon, Myles and Donneba 0 Croinln 1961. Teach Yourself Irish, London The English University Press, Ltd.

Fant, Gunnar 1973. Speech Sounds and Features, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press

Fodor, Jerry and Jerrold Katz 196U. The Structure of Language: Readings in The Philosophy of Language, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice-llall

Foley, James 1965* Spanish Morphology, Unpublished MIT dissertation

Fromkin, Victoria 1973. Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence, The Hague, Mouton 205

Fudge, E. C. 1967. "The Nature of Phonological Primes",Journal of Linguistics 1-36

Fujimura, 0., ed., 1973. Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory, Tokyo, TEC Co.

Gesenius, Wm. 1910. Hebrew Grammar, edited by E. Kautzsch, translated by A.E. Crowley, London, Oxford University Press

Grossman, Robin, L. James San, Timothy Vance, eds. 1975. Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society

Halle, Morris 1959* The Sound Pattern of Russian, The Hague, Mouton

Halle, Morris 1971. "Remarks on Slavic Accentology", Linguistic Inquiry 2 :1-20

Halle, Morris 1973a. "Prologomena to a Theory of Word Formation", Linguistic Inquiry k:3-16

Halle, Morris 1973b. "Stress Rules in English: A New Version", Linguistic Inquiry U:U51-^6U

Harris, James 1969. Spanish Phonology, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press

Harris, Zellig 1951. Structural Linguistics, Chicago, University of Chicago Press

Howren, Robert 1968. "Stem Phonology and Affix Phonology in Dogrib (Northern Athapaskan)", CLS U:120-129

Iverson, Gregory and Catherine Ringen 1976. "On Constraining the Theory of Exceptions", delivered to winter LSA meeting

Jackendoff, Ray 1975. "Morphological and Semantic Regularities in the Lexicon", Language 51:639-71

Jackendoff, Ray 1977. X Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 2, Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press

Jacobs, Roderick and Peter Rosenbaum 1970. Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Boston, Ginn

Jakobson, Roman, Gunnar Fant and Morris Halle 1952. Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: The Distinctive Features and Their Correlates (2nd iedition 1963), Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press

Kaye, Jonathan 1971. "Nasal Harmony in Desano", Linguistic Inquiry 2:37-56 206

Kaye, Jonathan and G.L. Piggott 1973, "On the Cyclical nature of Ojibwa T-Palatalization", Linguistic Inquiry U;3^5-62

Kenstowicz, Michael and Charles Kisseberth, eds. 19T3. Issues in Phonological Theory, The Hague, Mouton

Kim 1975

Kiparsky, Paul 1972. "Explanations in Phonology", in Peters 1972, p.189-227

Kiparsky, Paul 1973. "Phonological Representations", in Fujimura 1973, p.1-136

Kisseberth, Charles 1970a. Review of Kuroda 19&7, Linguistic Inquiry 1:337-31*6

Kisseberth, Charles 1970b. "The Treatment of Exceptions", Papers in Linguistics 2:kH-53

Kisseberth, Charles 1972. "Cyclical Rules in Klamath Phonology", Linguistic Inquiry 3:3-3^

Kisseberth, Charles and Mohammad Imam Abasheikh 197^. "Vowel Length in Chi-Mwi:ni — A Case Study of the Role of Grammar in Phonology" in Papers from the Parasession on natural Phonology, p.193-209, Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society

Kuroda, S.-Y. 1967. Yawelmani Phonology, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press

Ladefoged, Peter 1971. Preliminaries to Linguistic Phonetics, Chicago, University of Chicago Press

Lakoff, George 1970. Irregularity in Syntax, Hew York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Lambdin, Thomas 1971. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, Hew York, Charles Scribner's Sons

Leben, William and Orrin Robinson 1977* "Upside-down Phonology", Language 53:1-20

Lees, Robert 19ol. The Phonology of Modern Standard Turkish, The Hague, Mouton

Lightner, Theodore 1965. Segmental Phonology of Modern Standard Russian, unpublished MIT Dissertation

Lightner, Theodore 1972. Problems in the Theory of Phonology, Edmonton, Linguistic Research 207

Linell, Per. 1976. "On the Structure of Morphological Operations", Linguistische Berichte kk: 1-29

Malinc, Joan 1971- "Sentence Stress in Old English", Linguistic Inquiry 2:379-399

Malone, Joseph 1971* "Systematic Metathesis in Mandaic", Language kj:

McCawley, James 1968. The Phonological Component of a Grammar of Japanese, The Hague, Mouton

McCawley, James 1970. Introduction to Lakoff 1970

McCawley, James 197^» Review of Chomsky and Halle 1968, International Journal of American Linguistics U0:50-88

Miller, Patricia D. 1972. "Vowel neutralization and Vowel Reduction", CLS G:U82-9

Nobel, Barry 1970. Inflectional Shortening in Baltic, Unpublished Ohio State University dissertation

Ohso, Mieko 1973. "A Phonological Study of Some English Loan Words in Japanese", Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics lU:l-26

Peters, Stanley 1972. Goals of Linguistic Theory, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall

Phelps, Elaine 1975- "Simplicity Criteria in Generative Phonology: Kasem Nominals", Linguistic Analysis 1:297-332

Pollack, Jay M. 1976a. "The Cost of Referring to Semantic Redundancy Rules in the Lexicon", delivered to summer LSA meeting, to appear in Michigan State University Working Papers in Language and Linguistics

Pollack, Jay M. 1976b. ’.'On the Alleged Difference between Word-Formation Rules and Lexical Redundancy Rules", delivered to winter LSA meeting

Pollack, Jay M. 1977. "Upside-down Phonology and Natural Processes", in The CLS Book of Squibs

Postal, Paul 1968. Aspects of Phonological Theory, New York, Harper and Row

Prince, M a n 1975. The Phonology and Morphology of Tiberian Hebrew, unpublished MIT dissertation 208

Saciuk, Bohdan 19&9* "The Stratal Division of the Lexicon", Papers in Linguistics 1:1+6^-532

Sampson, Geoffrey 1973. "Duration in Hebrew Consonants", Linguistic Inquiry U:101-L

Schane, Sanford 1968. French Phonology and Morphology. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press

Selkirk, Elisabeth 1972. The Phrase Phonology of English and French, unpublished MIT dissertation

Selkirk, Elisabeth 197^. "French Liaison and the X Notation", Linguis­ tic Inquiry 5:573-590

Semiloff-Zelasko, Holly 1973. "Syncope and Pseudo-Syncope", CLS 9:603-6lU

Silva, Claire 1973. "Metathesis of Obstruent Clusters", Ohio State University Forking Papers in Linguistics lU:77-8^

Stampe, David 1969. "The Acquisition of Phonetic Representation", CLS 5:1^ 3-1+51+

Stampe, David 1973a. A Dissertation on Natural Phonology, unpublished University of Chicago dissertation

Stampe, David 1973b. "On Chapter Nine", in Kenstowicz and Kisseberth, 1973, p.UU-52

l^ampe, David 197^. Handout to "Remarks on Natural Phonology", deli- X vered to CLS Parasession on Natural Phonology, Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society

Stankiewicz, Edward 1972. A Bauaouin de Courtenay Anthology, Blooming­ ton, Indiana University Press

Steinberg, Danny and Leon Jakobovits 1971. Semantics: An Interdisci­ plinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Thomas, Linda Kopp 197^. "On Limiting the Cycle in Phonology — Data From Russian", Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology, p.338-3^55 Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society

Trubetzkoy, N.S. 1968. Principles of Phonology, Berkeley, University of California Press, translation by Christiane Baltaxe of Grundzuge der Phonologie (1939)

Truitner, Kenneth and Timothy Dunnigan 1975. "Palatalization in Ojibwa", Linguistic Inquiry 6:301-16 209

Ultan, Russell 1971. "A Typological View of Metathesis", Stanford University working Papers on Lanf-;ua;;;e Uni^ersals 7

Vennerman, Theo 197^. "Words and Syllables in Uatural Generative Grammar", in Papers from the Parasession on Hatural Phonology p.3^6-37^, Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society

White, Robin 1973. "Klamath Phonology", unpublished University of Washington dissertation

Whitney, William Dwight 1889. Sanskrit Grammar, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1967. "Umlaut and Noun Plurals in German", Studia Grarmatica 6:35-^5

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1972. "On Casual Speech", CLS 8:607-15 LANGUAGE INDEX

Albanian 195-7 Arabic 8,33,79 Chi-Mwi:rii 156-7, 158 Danish 91 Desano 1UU-5 Dogrib 6-7, 177-0 English, Old 136 English, Modern I , 5-6, 7 , 8, 11, 12, 28-32, 38, 39, Uo, 1*2-3, M 1-5, L7-5U, 73-7,. 81-5, 97, 103, 120, 123-1, 129, 131-6, 137-10, 116-8, 157-9, 163, 161-5, 170-1, 17I, 182, 198-9 French lU2 , 157, 160-1 , 162, 167, 170 German 8, 26, 33, 10-1, 85, 97-8 Hebrew, Biblical 57-62, 61-73, 77-83, 85-123, 125-32, 153-5, 165, 166, 191-5, 196-8 Hebrew, Modern 9, 62-3, 132, 190-1 Icelandic 18 Irish 151-2, 172, 186-7, 193 Japanese 82, 187 Kabardian 102 Kasem 10, 193 Klamath 1I2-I Korean 89 Latin 7,18,66-7 Mohawk 183-H, 187 0j ibwa 103, ll2 Persian 101 PigLatin 39 Polish 21, 26, 27 Russian 33, 81-5, ll2 , 181-5, 187, 191-2 Sanskrit 18-9, 25, 90, ll9-51, 153, 172 Slavic II, 26 Southern Paiute 90 Spanish 7, 13-U, 33, 39, 90, -3&S, 173-6, 179*3^*187, 192 Tamil 91 Turkish 33,186 Yawelmani 82, 1I2 Yiddish, Lithuanian 95-6

210