Morphophonology 07/07/2017

Lecture 1: Morphologically conditioned phonology

(1) Morphologically conditioned phonology: • the phenomenon in which a particular phonological pattern is imposed on a proper subset of morphological constructions (affix, reduplication, compounding) and thus is not fully general in the word-internal phonological patterning of the language. • the inspiration for a number of influential theories of the phonology-morphology interface, including Lexical Morphology and Phonology, Stratal Optimality Theory, and Cophonology Theory.

(2) Today: survey • the types of morphological information that can condition phonological patterns • the types of phonological patterns that can be conditioned by morphology.

1. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES Mam Maya: a word may have at most one long vowel. Willard 2004, based on England 1983: ‘Dominant’ affixes cause long root vowels to shorten (3a); ‘Recessive’ suffixes preserve root vowel length (3b). Dominant vs. recessive status is lexical, not predictable.

(3) a. Dominant suffix: shortens long root vowel facilitative resultant liich’- → lich’-ich’iin ‘break/breakable’ locative juus- → jus-b'een ‘burn/burned place’ directional jaaw- → jaw-nax ‘go up/up’ participial nooj- → noj-na ‘fill/full’ b. Recessive suffix: preserves root vowel length intransitive verbalizer muq- → muq-oo ‘bury (n.)/bury (v.)’ b’iitz- → b’iitz-oo ‘song/sing’ [b’liitza] instrumental luk- → luk-b’il ‘pull up/instrument for pulling up’ remainder waa- → waa-b’an ‘eat/remains of food’

Malayalam (Southern Dravidian): consonant gemination applies at the internal juncture of subcompounds (noun-noun compounds with head-modifier semantics) (4b). Gemination does not apply to cocompounds (noun-noun compounds with coordinate semantics) (4c) (Mohanan 1995:49):

(4) a. meeša ‘table’ pet.t.i ‘box’ -kaḷ (plural suffix) b. [meeşa-ppet.t.i]S -kaḷ ‘boxes made out of tables’ c. [meeşa-pet.t.i]C -kaḷ ‘tables and boxes’

1 Morphophonology 07/07/2017

English: suffixes fall into two classes (e.g. Allen 1978, Siegel 1974, Chomsky & Halle 1968, Kiparsky 1982ab, Kiparsky 1985): those which shift stress (5a) and those which do not (5b):

(5) Base (a) Stress-shifting suffix (b) Non-stress-shifting suffix párent parént-al párent-ing président prèsidént-ial présidenc-y áctive àctív-ity áctiv-ist démonstràte demonstrative démonstràtor

2. PHONOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY TO LEXICAL CLASS.

2.1 PART OF SPEECH (Tokyo) Japanese pitch-accent (McCawley 1968, Haraguchi 1977, Poser 1984, Pierrehumbert & Beckman 1988, Tsujimura 1996, Smith 1999): The distribution of accent is different in nouns and verbs. The location of accent in lexically accented non-derived nouns is unpredictable and must be learned individually for each such noun ((6a), from Poser 1984:46). The location of accent in an accented verb follows strict rules, falling on the first mora of the syllable containing the penultimate mora of the verb ((6b), from Poser 1984:52):

(6) Accented Unaccented [Japanese] a. Nouns fu.ku.ro ‘bag’ hasira ‘pillar’ ta.ma.go ‘egg’ kusuri ‘medicine’ su.to.rai.ki ‘strike’ udoN ‘noodle dish’ b. Verbs ka.ke.ru ‘hang’ kakeru ‘be broken’ su.kuu ‘build a nest’ sukuu ‘rescue’ ue.ru ‘starve’ ueru ‘plant’

Polysyllabic words in Lenakel (Oceanic) have primary stress on the penultimate syllable; in verbs and adjectives, secondary stress falls on the first syllable and every other syllable thereafter, up to but not including the antepenultimate syllable (avoiding clash). In nouns, secondary stress is assigned to alternating syllables to the left of the primary penultimate stress. Data from Lynch 1978:18-20; see discussion in Smith 2011:

(7) a. Verbs (four or more syllables) [Lenakel] /r-ɨm-olkeikei/ [r̆.m̀ ↄl.gɛ́y.gɛy] ‘he liked it’ /n-ɨm-r-olkeikei/ [n.m̀ ɑ.r̆ↄl.gɛ́y.gɛy] ‘you (pl.) liked it’ /n-ɨm-m-r-olkeikei/ [n.m̀ ɑ.mɑ̀.r̆ↄl.gɛ́y.gɛy] ‘you (pl.) were liking it’ /t-n-k-m-r-olkeikei/ [t.ǹ ɑ.gɑ̀.mɑ.r̆ↄl.gɛ́y.gɛ́y] ‘you (pl.) will be liking it’ ~ [d.ǹ ɑ.gɑ̀.mɑ.r̆ↄl.gɛ́y.gɛ́y] b. Nouns (four or more syllables) /nɨmwakɨlakɨl/ [nɨ.mʷɒ̀.gə.lɑ́.gəl] ‘beach’ /tupwalukaluk/ [tu.bʷɒ̀.lu.gɑ́.lʊkʰ] ‘lungs’ ~ [du.bʷɒ̀.lu.gɑ́.lʊkʰ]

In Chuukese (Trukese; Micronesian), nouns must be minimally bimoraic, a condition which a monosyllabic noun can satisfy by possessing an initial (moraic) geminate (8a) or by undergoing

2 Morphophonology 07/07/2017 vowel lengthening (8b). (Coda consonants are not moraic in Chuukese.) By contrast, verbs are allowed to surface in monomoraic CVC form (8c). The data in (8a,b) exhibit vowel apocope (Smith 2011, citing Muller 1999:395 and Goodenough & Sugita 1980:xiv-xv):

(8) a. [kkej] ‘laugh’ (< /kkeji/) [Chuukese] [ʧar] ‘starfish’ (

Noun privilege: Smith’s (2011) survey finds overall that that nouns tend to exhibit more contrasts, while verbs are more prone to neutralization. This finding is clearly consistent with the Japanese example in (6), though it is not as clearly applicable to Lenakel or Chuukese.

2.2 IDEOPHONES • a phonosemantic class of words whose meanings typically include color, smell, sound, intensity, or (often vivid) descriptions of unusual appearance or activity. • can belong to various parts of speech, most often adjectives, adverbs or verbs. • of interest to the present discussion because in many languages they constitute a class of words with distinctive phonology, often departing from prosodic or segmental norms. • for useful surveys, see Hinton et al. 1994 and Voeltz and Kilian-Hatz 2001.

Hausa (Chadic): ca. 500 ideophones, which depart from the language’s phonological norms in two ways (Newman 1995, 2000:242 ff., 2001):

• Ideophones are pronounced with exaggerated intonation • Ideophones are usually consonant-final; the Hausa norm is to be vowel-final. • Ideophones can end in obstruent consonants, including plosives, impossible in the other sectors of Hausa vocabulary (Newman 1995:776, Newman 2000:244,250):

(9) fát fáríː fát ‘white IDEO = very white’ [Hausa] ʃár̃ kóːrèː ʃár̃ ‘green IDEO = very green’ ƙút àbóːkíː ƙút ‘friend IDEO = very close friend’ ták ɗájá ták ‘one IDEO = exactly one’ fár̃át táː táːʃì fár̃át ‘3SG.FEM get_up IDEO = she got up very fast’ túɓús yáː gàjí túɓús ‘3SG.MASC become_tired IDEO = he became very tired’ gàràrà súnàː jáːwòː gàràrà ‘3PL walk IDEO = they roamed aimlessly’

3 Morphophonology 07/07/2017

2.3 ETYMOLOGICAL CLASSES Japanese (Itô & Mester 1999:62): Sino-Japanese vocabulary distinguished by etymology and phonology No-DD bans voiced geminates; No-P bans singleton (onset) [p], and No-NT bans sequences consisting of a nasal consonant followed by a voiceless consonant:

(10) No-DD No-P No-NT Yamato Sino-Japanese violated Assimilated foreign violated violated Nonassimilated foreign violated violated violated

Itô and Mester (1999:70): the classification of lexical items into strata is not always technically etymologically accurate. For example, native (contracted) anta ‘you’ violates *NT.

2.4 ARBITRARY LEXICAL CLASSES: PATTERNED EXCEPTIONS Sacapultec (Mayan, Guatemala): some nouns undergo final-syllable vowel lengthening in combination with possessive prefixes (11a), while others do not (11b) (DuBois 1985):

(11) Plain Possessive a. ak ‘chicken’ w-:k ‘my chicken’ ʦ'eʔ ‘dog’ ni-ʦ'i:ʔ ‘my dog’ ab'ax ‘rock’ w-ub'a:x ‘my rock’ mulol ‘gourd’ ni-mulu:l ‘my gourd’ b. oʧ' ‘possum’ w-oʧ' ‘my possum’ am ‘spider’ w-m ‘my spider’ weʔ ‘head hair’ ni-weʔ ‘my head hair’

DuBois: (11a) vs. (11b) is lexically conditioned, modulo a weak semantic or pragmatic skewing; many of the (b) stems ‘do not often occur in possessed constructions’ (p. 396).

Tagalog: paŋ- + C-initial stem creates environment for Nasal Substitution (NCi → Ni) (Zuraw 2000:19 ff.). NS is lexically conditioned:

(12) Undergoer of NS Non-undergoer of NS a. bugbóg pa-mugbóg bigáj pam-bigáj ‘wallo’ ‘wooden club used to pound clothes ‘gift’ ‘gifts to be distributed’ during washing’ b. búlos pa-múlos buɁóɁ pam-buɁóɁ ‘harpoon’ ‘harpoon’ ‘whole’ ‘something used to produce a whole’

Zuraw: NS is statistically influenced by several factors (‘patterned exceptionality’): • stems beginning with voiced consonants undergo Nasal Substitution in a much higher proportion than do stems beginning with voiceless consonants (Zuraw 2000:29). • P(Labial-initial stems, NS) » P(Dental-initial stems, NS) » P(Velar-initial stems, NS)

4 Morphophonology 07/07/2017

Through overgeneralization and analogy, (arbitrarily) lexically conditioned patterns may become phonologically conditioned over time.

See also recent work by e.g., Becker & Gouskova (2016), Moore-Cantwell & Staubs (2014), Shih & Inkelas (2015), and others.

3. THE ROOT-AFFIX DISTINCTION (13) McCarthy & Prince 1995: roots are larger and more phonologically diverse than affixes • Sanskrit roots may contain consonant clusters but affixes never do • Arabic roots may contain pharyngeal consonants, but affixes cannot • English suffixes favor (unmarked) coronal consonants (e.g. Yip 1991). • roots are more resistant to undergoing alternations than affixes are.

3.1 ROOT FAITHFULNESS (14) Root-affix Faithfulness Metaconstraint (RAFM; McCarthy and Prince 1995): Root-FAITH >> Affix-FAITH

(15) Ekuguusi vowel harmony (Guusi, Bantoid; Cammenga 2002): mid vowels in affixes harmonize in [ATR] with mid stem vowels (o, e, ↄ, ɛ) a. o-mo-te ‘tree’ b. ↄ-rɛɛnt-ir-e ‘he has brought’ c. e-ñuↄm-ↄ ‘marriage’ d. tↄ-ɣɛɛnr-ɛ ‘let us go’

3.2 COUNTEREXAMPLES TO THE RAFM Casali 1997: survey of V-V hiatus in 87 languages revealed two strong preferences for deletion: • V1 deletes… • affix vowels delete… • → stem-initial vowels should never delete to resolve VV hiatus across prefix-stem boundary

But: Karuk (Bright 1972); see discussion in Kenstowicz & Kisseberth 1979, Koutsoudas 1980)

(16) gloss No (or C-final) prefix V-final prefix gloss ‘cook’ (33) imniš ní-mniš ‘I cook’ (33) ‘to be cooking’ (62) imníˑštih ʔú-mniš ‘he cooks’ (33) ‘they’re cooking’ (62) kun-ímniˑštih ʔú-mniˑštih ‘he’s cooking’ (62) ‘head’ (50) axvâˑh mú-xvâˑh ‘his head’ (50) ‘money’ (44) išpuka mú-spuka ‘his money’ (44)

5 Morphophonology 07/07/2017

Cupeño (Alderete 2001a): When an accented root and accented affix co-occur in a word with culminative accent, root accent is expected to prevail (absent a directionality preference):

(17) Accented root + accented affix(es): accent surfaces on root a. /pǝ́ + √míʔaw + lu/ pǝ-míʔaw-lu 3SG + COME + MOTION ‘He came’ b. /√ʔáyu + qá/ ʔáyu-qa WANT + PRES.SING ‘He wants’ Unaccented root + accented affix(es): accent surfaces on affix, not root c. /pǝ́ + √yax/ pǝ́-yax 3SG + SAY ‘He says’ d. /nǝʔǝn + √yax + qá/ nǝʔǝn ya-qáʔ 1SG + SAY + PRES.SING ‘I say’

But: in Yakima Sahaptin (Penutian; Hargus & Beavert 2006), accented affix wins over root (18c,d):

(18) Accented root + unaccented affix(es): affix surfaces on root a. ʔiʔatɬ’áwiʃa /ʔi + ʔatɬ’áwi + ʃa/ 2SG.NOM + beg + IMPRF b. ‘he’s begging him’ wánpanim /wánp + ani + m/ sing medicine song + BENEFACTIVE + CISLOCATIVE ‘sing for me’ Accented root + accented prefix(es): accent surfaces on prefix c. páʔatɬ’awiʃa /pá + ʔatɬ’áwi + ʃa/ INVERSE + beg + IMPRF ‘he’s begging him’ Accented root + accented suffix(es): accent surfaces on suffix d. wanpáwaas /wánp + áwaas/ sing medicine song + INSTRUMENTAL ‘sing medicine song’

Summary • There are clear cases in which roots are immune to alternations that affixes undergo; perhaps this is the majority pattern (but unclear) • There are certainly clear examples that go in the opposite direction. • Is the correct dichotomy root morphemes vs. affix morpheme, or is it bases of affixation vs. the affixes that attach to those bases? • Are the patterns obeying RAFM more general than the patterns violating it? Hard to know given current data

6 Morphophonology 07/07/2017

4. BEYOND ROOTS: MORPHOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTION-SPECIFIC PHONOLOGY The bulk of morphologically conditioned phonology resides in the association of phonological patterns with the individual morphological constructions which derive and inflect words.

4.1 AN EARLY OBSERVATION: ‘DERIVED-ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS’, OR NONDERIVED ENVIRONMENT BLOCKING (NDEB) (19) “Some phonological rules apply freely across morpheme boundaries, and morpheme internally where fed by some earlier phonological rule, but are blocked elsewhere, in what are referred to as ‘nonderived environments’. [Kiparsky 1993:277]

(20) Finnish Assibilation: t → s / _ i a. /vete/ → veti → vesi ‘water (nom.sg.)’ b. /vete-nä/ → vetenä ‘water (ess.sg.)’ (*vesenä) c. /halut-i/ → halusi ‘want-3P.SG.PRET’ /halut-a/ → haluta ‘want-INF’ d. /tilat + i/ → tilasi ‘order-3P.SG.PRET’ (*silasi) /tilat-a/ → tilata ‘order-INF’ (*silata) e. /æiti/ → æiti ‘mother’ (*æisi)

(21) Hausa palatalization (Newman 2000) a. ‘steal’ [saːt-aː] [Hausa] ‘steal (before noun object) [saːʧ-i] ‘steal (before pronoun object) [saːʧ-eː] b. ‘street’ [tiːtiː]

There are lots of palatalization examples like this! Polish…Korean….

(22) Recurrence of this general pattern → attempts to capture it in the form of a single principle.

But what principle? • What kinds of phonological patterns are affected? • What environments count as ‘derived’? • How general is the condition cross-linguistically, or for that matter within any given language?

(23) Morphologically derived environment effect: “a process that takes place only when its conditions are crucially met by virtue of material from two different morphemes.” (McCarthy 2003:21)

7 Morphophonology 07/07/2017

(24) Canonical case: trigger in stem, target in suffix (separated by morpheme boundary). But: • Canonical nonderived environment blocking is related to… • noncanonical cases of nonderived environment blocking, which are themselves part of… • a larger landscape of phonological patterns restricted to particular morphological constructions (morphologically conditioned phonology)

4.2 NONCANONICAL NDEB EFFECTS Tohono O’odham (Fitzgerald 2001)(Yu 2000) (25) a. Nonderived words kí: ‘house’ pí:ba ‘pipe’ ʔásugal ‘sugar’ pákoʔòla ‘Pascola dancer’ b. Suffixation ʔásugàl-t ‘to make sugar’ (odd par.; final stress) hím-ad ‘will be walking’ (even par.; no final stress) číkpan-dàm ‘worker’ (odd par.; final stress) músigò-dag ‘to be good at being a musician’ (even par.; no final stress) pímiàndo-màd ‘adding pepper’ (odd par.; final stress) c. Reduplication tó-toñ ‘ants’ (even par.; no final stress) pí-pibà ‘pipes’ (odd par.; final stress) mú-msigò ‘musicians’ (cf. músigo ‘musician’) sí-sminǰùɹ ‘cemeteries’ (cf. síminǰuɹ ‘cemetery’) pá-pkoʔòla ‘Pascola dancers’ (even par.; no final stress) d. Suffixation and reduplication híː-him-àd ‘will be walking, pl.’ (odd par.; final stress) hí-hidòḍ-a ‘the cooking, pl.’ (even par.; no final stress) há-haiwàñ-ga-kàm ‘ones having cattle’ (odd par.; final stress)

Differs from canonical cases: • Final stress placement in odd-parity forms is not attributable to a nearby morpheme boundary (e.g. in prefixed forms like pí-pibà)

8 Morphophonology 07/07/2017

Turkish minimality (Itô & Hankamer 1989, Inkelas & Orgun 1995) (26) a. do ‘note do’ ham ‘unripe’ be ‘letter b’ yen ‘alight (!)’ ye ‘eat (!)’ ok ‘arrow’ de ‘say (!)’

b. *do-m ‘note do-1SG.POSS’ cf. araba-m ‘car-1SG.POSS’ *be-n ‘letter b-2SG.POSS’ cf. elma-n ‘apple-2SG.POSS’ c. *de-n ‘say-PASS = be said (!)’ cf. anla-n ‘understand-PASS’ *ye-n ‘eat-PASS = be eaten (!)’ cf. çine-n ‘chew-PASS’

Differs from canonical cases: • There is not a clear phonological process involved • There is not a clear sense in which the environment for the imposition of the minimal size constraint is crucially provided by two morphemes.

4.3 NDEB CASES ARE NOT ALWAYS AS NEAT AS THEY APPEAR In Finnish, Anttila (2009), citing Karlsson 1983, notes that Assibilation applies before some /i/- initial suffixes and not before others:

(27) a. Suffixes triggering Assibilation [Finnish] Plural /-i/: /vuote-i-nA/ → vuosina ‘year-PL-ESS’ Past tense /-i/ /huuta-i-vAt-kO/ → huusivatko ‘shout-PAST-3P.PL-QUE’ Superlative /-impA/ /uute-impA- nA/ → uusimpana ‘new-SUP-ESS’ b. Suffixes not triggering Assibilation Instrument /-ime/ /lentä-ime-n/ → lentimen ‘fly-INST-GEN’ Conditional /-isi/ /tunte-isi/ → tuntisi ‘feel-COND’ c. Suffix that optionally triggers Assibilation N→Adj /-inen/ /vete+inen/ → vesinen ∼ vetinen ‘water-ADJ = watery’

(28) In Turkish, disyllabic minimality is not imposed by the aorist suffix -r: de-r ‘say-AOR’, etc.

4.4 REFLECTION What do we make of all this noncanonicity? Suggestion: understand ‘nonderived environment blocking’ as a special case of a more general phenomenon, namely that morphological constructions differ in whether or not they are associated with particular phonological patterns of alternation. • Some constructions trigger patterns; others do not. • Monomorphemic stems, by virtue of not entering into other constructions, are naturally exempt. • Let’s take a tour of morphologically conditioned phonological effects of this kind… • and then we’ll step back (next time) and try to make some sense of it all, in a theoretical context

9 Morphophonology 07/07/2017

4.5 SEGMENT DELETION Turkish: vowel hiatus at stem-suffix boundaries is usually repaired by glide epenthesis, as illustrated below by /-Iver/. But vowel hiatus created by suffixation of the /-Ijor/ is resolved by vowel deletion:

(29) C-final root V-final root jap ‘do’ gel ‘come’ anla ‘understand’ søjle ‘say’ Facilitative /-Iver/: epenthesis jap-ɯver gel-iver anla-jɯver søyle-jiver Progressive /-Ijor/: deletion jap-ıjor gel-ijor anl-ɯjor søyl-yjor

Nanti (Kampan; Michael 2008): VV hiatus at prefix-stem boundary is usually resolved by deletion of the prefix vowel (30a-b), but if the prefix is 1st person inclusive subject /a-/, the second vowel deletes (c-d):

(30) a. /no=am-e/ → name [Nanti] 1S=bring-IRREAL.I ‘I’m going to bring’ cf. /no=keNkitsa-k-i/ → nokeNkitsatake 1S=tell.story=PERF-REALIS.I ‘I told a story’ b. /pi=ogi-ratiNk-e=ro/ → pogaratiNkero 2S=CAUS-stand.up-IRREAL.I=3NMO [pogaɾatiŋkseɾo] (*piogiaratiNkero) ‘You will stand it up (e.g. a housepost) (polite imperative)’ cf. /pi=n-kem-e/ → pinkeme 2S=IRREAL-hear-IRREAL.I ‘you didn’t hear it c. /o=arateh-an-ak-i/ → aratehanake 3NMS=wade-ABL-PERF-REAL.I (*oratehanake) ‘She waded away’ d. /a=obiik-eNpa/ → abiikeNpa 1PL.INC.S=drink-IRREAL.A (*obiikeNpa) ‘let’s drink!’ e. /a=N-obiik-eNpa oburoki/ → abiikeNpa oburoki 1PL.INC.S=IRREAL-drink-IRREAL.A manioc.beer (*obiikeNpa oburoki) ‘Let’s drink manioc beer!’

4.6 GEMINATION Hausa: prefixing pluractional (31a) and intensive adjective (31b) CVC reduplication are associated with total assimilation (gemination); other prefixes are not (e.g., (31c)) (Newman 2000):

(31) a. ‘beat’ búgàː → búbbúgàː ‘be well repaired’ gʲàːrú → gʲàggʲàːrú ‘drink’ ʃáː → ʃáʃʃáː b. ‘brittle’ gáutsíː → gàggáutsáː ‘strong’ ƙárfíː → ƙàƙƙárfáː ‘salty, brackish’ zár̃tsíː → zàzzár̃tsáː c. ‘DIM-work’ ɗan-táɓà ‘PROHIBITIVE-2M.SG = don’t you!’ kár̃-kà

10 Morphophonology 07/07/2017

4.7 VOWEL LENGTHENING Turkish: place name-forming -iye lengthens /a/ in stem-final open syllable; other suffixes do not

(32) Orthography UR Nominative Accusative (/-I/) as place name in /-Ije/ Murad (name) /murad/ [murat] [muradɯ] [muraːdije] refah ‘comfort’ /refah/ [refah] [refahɯ] [refaːhije] Ümran (name) /ymran/ [ymran] [ymranɯ] [ymraːnije] 4.8 TRUNCATION TO A PROSODIC CONSTITUENT Swedish nicknames: truncate to maximal syllable + suffix (Weeda 1992:121):

(33) a. alkoholist → alk-is ‘alcoholic’ laboratori:um → labb-is ‘lab’ b. mats → matt-e (proper name) fabian → fabb-e (proper name)

Japanese illustrates another: truncate (or lengthen) to two moras, + /-ʧan/ (Poser 1984, 1990; Itô 1990)

(34) Girls nickname formation: a. akira → aki-tyan (C)VCV megumi → megu-tyan b. syuusuke → syuu-tyan (C)VV taizoo → tai-tyan ti → tii-tyan c. kinsuke → kin-tyan (C)VC d. midori → mii-tyan, mit-tyan, mido-tyan (C)VV ~ (C)VC ~ (C)VCV kiyoko → kii-tyan, kit-tyan, kiyo-tyan

Affix-triggered truncation is most often found in hypocoristics and vocatives, constructions where ambiguity is relatively unproblematic. But: Rarámuri (Uto-Aztecan) denominal suffix -tá truncates trisyllabic stems to two syllables (Caballero 2008:125-26, 310) (a-b). Not all suffixes do this (cf. c-e):

(35) a. sipu-tá-a čukú (< sipúča ‘skirt’) skirt-VBLZ-PROG bend ‘(She is) putting on a skirt’ b. komá-ti-ma (< komáre ‘comadre’) comadre-VBLZ-FUT:SG’ c. tiyópi-či church-LOC d. banisú-ki-ni-ma pull-APPL-DESID-FUT:SG ‘will want to pull for’ e. wikará-n-čane sing-DESID-EV ‘it sounds like they want to sing’

11 Morphophonology 07/07/2017

4.9 ABLAUT AND MUTATION Vowel ablaut or consonant mutation: morphologically indexed featural alternations that are too complex or opaquely conditioned to be treated as simple phonology (e.g. German Buch ‘book’ ~ Büch-er ‘books’, Koch ‘cook’ ~ Köch-e ‘cooks’).

(36) Hua (Papuan; Haiman 1972, 1998): certain suffixes trigger the fronting of stem-final /o, u/ to /e, i/. Other phonologically similar suffixes do not. Data from Haiman 1972 (pp. 36- 41)

Basic stem Suffixed stem gloss [Hua] ‘eat’ do- de-ra-’e ‘2 DL. have eaten’ de-na ‘when I eat (in the future)’ cf. do-ga ‘when (non-1st, non-sg) eat (future) cf. do-bai-na ‘when I eat (in the future)’ ‘do’ hu- hi-s-u (

4.10 DISSIMILATION AND ‘EXCHANGE’ RULES Morphologically conditioned ‘exchange rules’, ‘toggles’, dissimilation: one segment surfaces with a value opposite either to its own input value or to the the output value of another segment in the same word (Weigel 1993, Kurisu 2001, Baerman 2007, DeLacy 2012).

(37) Kↄnni Class 1 nouns pluralize by means of a tonally polar suffix (-a~ -e) (Cahill 2004):

gloss stem tone singular plural [Kↄnni] a. ‘fish’ H sí-ŋ sí-à ‘house’ H tígí-ŋ tíg-è ‘face mark’ H wí-ŋ wí-è b. ‘breast’ L bììsí-ŋ bììs-á ‘stone’ L tǎ-ŋ tàn-á

(38) Dholuo: plural -e suffix triggers voicing dissimilation in the stem (Tucker 1994, DeLacy 2012):

gloss singular plural [Dholuo] a. ‘open space’ alap ӕlӕb-e ‘hill’ gɔt gɔd-ɛ ‘chest’ agɔkɔ agɔg-ɛ b. ‘book’ kitӕbu kitep-e ‘twig’ kɛdɛ kɛt-ɛ ‘year’ hɪga hik-e

DeLacy 2012: it is hard to find convincing examples of morphophonological polarity. Most, including Dholuo, are ridden with lexical exceptions.

12 Morphophonology 07/07/2017

4.11 STRESS/PITCH-ACCENT (RE)ASSIGNMENT In Hausa, some morphological constructions replace stem tone with a tonal melody, composed of H and L tones, which associates to the syllables of the base in a predictable manner (Newman 1986, 2000):

(39) a. Suffixation with tone replacement (various plural classes) [Hausa] máːlàm → màːlàm-ái ‘teacher-PL’ -LH rìːgáː → ríːg-únàː ‘gown-PL’ -HL tàmbáyàː → támbáy-óːyíː ‘question-PL’ -H b. Suffixation without tone replacement (various) dáfàː → dáfàː-wá ‘cook-PPL’ -LH gàjéːréː → gàjéːr-ìyáː ‘short-FEM’ -LH hùːláː → hùːlâ-ř ‘hat-DEF’ -L

In Japanese, ‘recessive’ morphological constructions preserve lexical stem accent; ‘dominant’ erase it (e.g., Poser 1984). If a recessive accented affix combines with an accented stem, ‘Leftmost Wins’ (b, c):

(40) Recessive affixes [Japanese] a. Unaccented (p. 49) yóm- → yóN-da ‘read’ yob- → yoN-da ‘called’ b. Accented (p. 48) yóm- → yóN-dara ‘if he reads’ yob- → yoN-dára ‘if he calls’ c. Preaccenting (p. 54) áNdoo → áNdoo-si ‘Mr. Ando’ nisímura → nisímura-si ‘Mr. Nishimura’ matumoto → matumotó-si ‘Mr. Matsumoto’

(41) Dominant affixes a. Unaccented suffix (p. 72) kóobe → koobe-kko ‘an indigené of Kobe’ nágoya → nagoya-kko ‘an indigené of Nagoya’ nyuuyóoku → nyuuyooku-kko ‘an indigené of New York’ b. Accented suffix (p. 49) abura → abura-ppó-i ‘oil, fat/oily’ yásu → yasu-ppó-i ‘cheap/cheap, tawdry’ adá → ada-ppó-i ‘charming/coquettish’ c. Pre-accenting suffix (p. 55) nisímura → nisimurá-ke ‘the Nishimura family’ ono → onó-ke ‘the Ono family’ hára → hará-ke ‘the Hara family’ d. Post-accenting prefix (p. 57) futatu → map-pútatu ‘two/exactly half’ sáityuu → mas-sáityuu ‘amidst/in the very midst of’ syoozíki → mas-syóoziki ‘honesty/downright honest’

13 Morphophonology 07/07/2017

5. SUBSTANCE OF MORPHOLOGICALLY CONDITIONED PHONOLOGY What kind of phonology can be morphologically conditioned? • Any kind of phonological pattern, other than the most low-level allophonic alternations • Morphological conditioning is norm for unnatural phonology (Spencer 1998). • Smith (2001, 2011): part-of-speech-sensitive phonology tends to be prosodic in nature. (see similar observations re phonologically optimizing suppletive allomorphy (Paster 2009) and conditions on infix placement (Yu 2007))

6. CAN MORPHOLOGICALLY CONDITIONED PHONOLOGY REDUCE TO AUTOSEGMENTAL AFFIXATION? Goal of many autosegmental analyses in the 1970’s and 1980’s: account for apparent morphological conditioning by complicating phonological representations

(42) Turkish: certain roots, suffixes are exceptions to palatal and rounding harmony

Clements & Sezer 1982: ‘we examine various types of exceptions to the principles of vowel and consonant harmony … and show that these follow from the existence of "opaque" vowels and consonants in phonological representations.’ [p. 221]

a. Norm: palatal and labial harmony in suffixes and epenthetic vowels i. al-dɯ ‘take-PAST’ gel-di ‘come-PAST’ ii. altɯ-da ‘six-LOC’ dørt-te ‘four-LOC’ iii. film-i ‘film-ACC’ filim ‘film’ iv. kojn-u ‘bosom-ACC’ kojun ‘bosom’ b. Exceptionally disharmonic suffixes i. al-ɯjor ‘take-PROG’ (progressive suffix with invariant [o]) gel-ijor ‘come-PROG’ ii. altɯ-gen ‘six-GON’ (polygon former) dørt-gen ‘four-GON’ c. Roots which trigger exceptional front harmony on suffixes infilaːk-i ‘explosion-ACC’ *infilaːk-ɯ harb-i ‘war-ACC’ *harb-ɯ saat-i ‘watch/hour-ACC’ *saat-ɯ d. Disharmonic epenthetic vowels (cf. aiv) vakit vakt-i ‘time(-3poss)’ kavim kavm-i ‘tribe(-3poss)’

14 220 George N. Clements and Engin Sezer

(7) nom. singular: nom. plural: a. -R -R -R I Ip In Ip IE r

-B -B

b. +R +R -R Disharmony in Turkish 239 I II Morphophonology(48) show that opaque consonants do not undergo the ConsonantsEn Har- In sEn IEr 07/07/2017 [- mony rule (44), and are thus "nonundergoers". In this section we turn to a evidence confirming our prediction that nonharmonic consonants +Bare also +B blockers and spreaders. (43) C&S’sConsider solution:first the velars. harmony We have accomplished seen examplesHere, ofby disharmonically featurein accordance-filling with association (4), nonhigh conventions, vowels are represented per as opaque palatalGoldsmith Ikl in initial 1976 and. medialExceptional position insegments the word, onarebut the noprelinked examplesroundness ofto tier. the Otherwise,features thatsuffixes they have surface no P-segments in their thiswith; con;onant harmonic word-finally. segments Indeed, are this lexically is a genuine unspecified.representation. gap in the surface s Each root, on the other hand, has a P-segment in its re- distribu tion of this form in the dialects we have examinedpresentation which remains for each autosegmental tier. Since root vowels have not been • toAssociate Disharmonybe accounted free in for. Turkish (unspecified) P-features (“P”defined = [round], as opaque,6245 [back there]) withare no free underlying P-bearing associations between root ;- segmentsThere is a infurther a 1- toidiosyncracy-1, left-to regarding-right fashion roots withvowels opaque and palatalroot P-segments. Association Conventions (Sa) and (Sb) ld (73) 'gunpowder' barut barutu baruttan 115:1.220 We Georgefind a smallN. Clements number and of Turkish Engin Sezer words whose applyfinal syllablesin succession have to create the following output forms: .r, • Associate'strange' remaining garip free P-bearinggaribi unitgaripten with leftmost available P-feature back vowels and which govern front vowel harmony, and whose final 'ambitious' haris harisi haristen II to consonant is [k] word-finally, ornom. before plural: a consonant-initial suffix, and (7) 'outfit'nom. singular:k414k k4lt4 k4ltktan(8) a. -R -R -R Ie ·before a vowel-initial suffix. A partial list includes the following: I ." I a. -R -R -R I " er 'lifebuoy' simit simidi simitten I ,, I I I I :s. (57) nom. sg. acc. sg. Ip In Ip I Er I I I " Ip In Ip IE r I 20I , .- " at Permissable syllable-final clusters in Turkish are of the following types:I I 'explosion' infilak infilaki I I I" " 1t 'perception' idr;k idrfkf -B -B (74) a. sonorant + obstruent:-B tUrk 'Turk',... gene 'young' 'alliance'-B ittifak ittifiiki b. voiceless fricative + oral stop: eift 'double', ask 'love' ts 'participation' istirak istiraki → b. +R +R -R c. k + s: raks 'dance',.. boks 'boxing' I b. +R +R -R ," , , , 'fasting' imsak imsaki , I 3. " I 'expropriation' istimlak,. I istimlaki sEn In sEn I Er re Under the deletion analysis there is no way to.. capture.. the relationship I ,- I' sEn In sEn IEr I , " ,- " " 'real estate' emlak· emlaki,. ,. I I '" a- between the forms of (73) and the generalizations expressed in (74) II'short" I I' " 'exhaustion' hel;k· helaki t ... +B +B 228 George N. Clements and Enginof Sezerpostulating +B some sort of.. transderivational+B constraint.. on the deletion rule that'addiction' would prohibitinhimak its operation justinhimaki in case ... it would give rise to a (20) opaque segments: [+syllabic,cluster +root]'consumption' that, if syllable istihlak·final,,. would ip -bein, well-formed. istihlakiip-ler,.. sonNotice Such-un, athat sonsolution no-lar rule is has applied in deriving the surface forms of (8) from Here, in accordance with (4), nonhigh vowels ..are represented as opaque clearly unacceptable. the underlying forms of (7). The rules defining Turkish vowel harmony, on the roundness tier. Otherwise, suffixes have no P-segments in their This ensures underlying representationsMosta,b )Inof likeVow sum,these the el traditionalfollowingwords disharmony are (cf. ultimatelyapproaches (12) ): in of placeroots Arabic us232 andinorigin, a Georgedilemma. suffixes: andas N. statedoriginally ClementsThe prelinkingepenthesisin ended (3)and Enginand (4),Sezer of are [back], structure-building [round] valuesrules rather than feature- inrepresentation. nonemphatic svelars. Each Inroot, most on examples, the other the hand, penultimate has a P-segment vowel is frontin its re- (21) -R +R +R -R +Ranalysis forces-R us to introduce independent diacritic changingfeatures to rules. describe andpresentationforms the final that vowel arefor eachexceptional is long autosegmental back bothla/. in tier.regard(32) Since to -Repenthesisroot vowels+R and have to notsuffix been ly/\/ III The special properties of opaque vowels become apparent if we consider 1- LeIstEkEz ErkInEsdefined harmony,Now it as willIzmErIt andopaque,6 easily fails tobe there explainseen arethat why no if forms weunderlying permit that are opaqueassociations Iexceptional palatalI withbetween velars regard to root (p. 228) gEl thelyEr derivation 1m of(p. the 232) genitive plural of these two forms. The underlying 1- )-I V I 1\occurvowels to onefreely andareI in also rootI underlying \exceptions P-segments. representations with regardAssociation to -theand other.Conventions in particular,The deletion (Sa) to analysis andoccur (Sb) finallyis unable in the to underlying relate a phonologically-motivated representations of the stems classI inofforms (57)exceptionsI are- theas follows:tofront de- -B +B +B -B +Bapply in succession-B +B -B to create the following output-B forms:+B g'lobster' 'funny vowelfish'letion quality to'sea-bream' independently-needed of the suffixes will beconstraints instantly onaccounted syllable for.structure. Thus, assuming Under an autosegmental analysis, two solutions are potentially available :) the final a.consonant of idrak to be-R opaque, -RAssociation we have theConvention following (5b) repre- is applicable. Notice that the condition of This treatment is consistent withc,d)(8) the analysisRoots-R of which opaque vowelstrigger givenI exceptional front harmony on epenthetic vowel, suffixes: sentationsin the face of ofthe. "data nominative such as this. and Oneaccusative I solution precedencesingulars, is to postulate respectively: (6), incorporated root-final float- into the statement of (5b), uniquely deter- I " , earlier. Recall that opaque vowels were characterizedI , as "nonundergoers,"I ing P-segmentsprelinkI in [the-back] case of to the appropriate forms inImines (70); the the rootpattern other consonant of is associationto treat the shown below: "blockers," and "spreaders". Root vowels are nonundergoers;Ip In thus a rootIp I Er (58)second consonant-B +BI I-B of each root of (70)I as-B" opaque. +B -B Both solutions assume I I , .- " (p. 239) vowel does not harmonize with the preceding I vowel.I Root vowels are (33) -R +R the epenthesisI I I rule. Thus, the alternativeI" " analyses can be represented as blockers; thus a suffix vowel cannot harmonize1/ with a nonfinal root \ l /\I ''''''' / \ follows: -B -B vowel, except coincidentally. Root vowels areIdrEk spreaders; thus a final root IdrEkgEl I lyEr 1m = ,- '" / vowel determines the harmonic category of the immediately following \ / \/ (75) b.a. +R+B-B +R b -R+B -B (p. 245) By Association Convention (5b), theI P-segment associated-B +B with the final harmonic suffix vowel. The last two points are illustrated," , , in (22) for the, , I genitive singular of orkinos 'tunnyconsonant fish':246 George of theI N. accusative "Clements andsingular Engin becomes SezerI1/ associated with the suffix sEnvEkt In sEn I ErvEktMore generally, we find that (6) is always correct for Turkish: opaque ,- I I' I , " ,- " segments, whether vowels or (as we shall see) consonants, always govern IS I I (22) +R -R +R (76) +B-BII'" +B -BI I' " the harmonic+B-B category of a harmonic vowel(p. 246) to their right. We might call s. If all else Iwere +B / '\equal, the evaluationI +B metric would select (75a) over (75b) I I /\ as the simpler of the two representations.A (6)As theit happens, Principle/1\ however, of Inertia, all accordingelse to which an articulatory state de- ErkInEs In [ vEkt tEn vEkIt tEn vEklttEn is not equal. A consideration of the ablativetermined forms byshows a particular us that only feature the configuration is maintained until a new I I \/' Notice that(by (5b))no rule has applied(by in(78)) deriving specification the surface(by (5b))(or setforms of specifications)of (8) from is encountered. This principle need second solution, positing an opaque consonant in C2 position, accounts , I +B -B +B the underlying forms of (7). The rules notdefining be stated Turkish as a vowelcondition harmony, on rule application. As noted earlier, this for the surface form: : • InasThe thestated first above insolution, (3) example, and positing (4), area ffloatingloating structure-building P-segment, andprinciple, prespecified fails: rulestogether rather with autosegmental than the feature-left-to-right mappingfeatures convention make it(Sa), ex- It can be deduced from (3), (4),unnecessarychanging and (20) rules. together to indexwith the the universal harmony plains rule the to common particular phonological roots biasor suffixes.toward spreading from the left. Well-formedness Conditions that harmonic suffix vowels following a root 1 (77)The special+B properties-B of opaque+B vowels-B As becomea convention+B apparent-B (rather (wrong if we than consider a language-particular rule condition), it I Can this approach\ work for all cases of morphologically conditioned phonology? will harmonize with the last• root vowel, a claim which, is correct for Tur- expresses the "unmarked"output) case of spreading which can only be overruled the derivation/ of\ the genitive I plural Iof these two forms.I The underlying kish. consonant gemination: affixby a language-particulara C? statement taking precedence over it.l2 formso arevEkt as follows: tEn vEklt tEn vEklt ·tEn We now introduce the following constraint on vowel cooccurrence The constraint ruling out disharmonic sequences with /ll, 0, i:/ in roots I o (byvowel (Sa)) lengthening:(by (78)) affix (infix)(by a V? (5 b), (44)) . !' within single morphemes: holds of polysyllabic suffixes as well. A small number of such suffixes I ablaut, mutation: add a floating feature? i, Theo Epenthesis rule involved in the above derivationscontain two is opaquethe following: vowels. The suffix /-istan/, illustrated in (31c), is one, (23) The vowels Iii, 0, +1 do not occuro truncation:disharmonically add in VC a oprosodic V se- and unit the others(bimoraic are: syllable)? quences, except that Ii, iii may occur in either order. (78)o Voweldissimilation, Epenthesis exchange: ?(34) -ane denominal, adjective-forming -vari denominal, adverb-forming This statement admits roots of the typeo ICuCaC+I stress while deletion: excluding ? roots of (/J I I C_C' (C' = an extrasyllabic-leyin consonant)denominal, adverb-forming the type ICuC+Cal and ICaC+Cu/, since only the latter involve harmony o tone replacement: ? -iyet denominal, noun-forming violations involving Iii, 0, +1 in disyllabic subsequences. This formulation (78) inserts an epenthetic high vowel, unassociated with any features on seems intuitively correct, although we ohave segmentnot found examples deletion: of dishar- ? (see ZimmermanIn these suffixes 2013the disharmonic) vowels are drawn exclusively from the the autosegmental tiers involved in harmony, between two consonants monic roots of the first type. This statement also provides for the subre- set Ii, e, a/. More generally, opaque vowels in suffixes are always one of if the second can form neither a syllable onset nor a syllable coda by the gularities involving Ii, iii (see (14) ). The first part of (23) may be restated the following: Ii, e, a, 0, u/; the vowels Iii, 0, i:/ do not occur as opaque syllable structure rules of Turkish.21 The inserted vowel then undergoes formally as an if-then condition holding of single morphemes: segments outside roots. We thus have the following condition holding of 'I the normal operation of the Association Conventionssuffixes in underlying (5).22 representation: Given this analysis, then, we see that a further 15class of monosyllabic noun roots of the structure CVCC must be recognized, where the second (35) /ll, 0, i:/ are prohibited in suffixes. II C is opaque. But it will be recalled that this is not in fact a new structural type of Turkish root, since such roots have already been motivated: see (63), and in particular (66), where we find a unique set of occurrences 1\ of palatal IrJ. Thus, roots of the type (7 5b) come cost-free in our analysis, and indeed fill in an otherwise unexplained gap in the distribution of opaque segments. We have so far examined cases of disharmonic epenthetic "vowels inserted into root-final clusters. There is another source of epenthetic vowels in Turkish consisting of root-initial clusters, as the representative forms in (79) illustrate. It will be noted that each word (consisting of un- inflected roots) shows two or more variants. The first variant, containing the cluster, generally reflects a careful or learned pronunciation. The second and subsequent forms represent normal or colloquial pronuncia- tions. In the latter forms, which are the more usual, we observe a short epenthetic vowel between the two members of the cluster. Under contras- tive emphasis, these short vowels may receive the full value of normal (short) vowels.23 Morphophonology 07/07/2017

Next lecture: theories of morphologically conditioned phonology. • How many types of morphologically conditioned phonological patterns can there be in a language? • How diverse can the patterns be? • If two affixes in the same word are associated with distinct phonological patterns, which prevails?

Some references

Alderete, John. 2001. Dominance effects as transderivational anti-faithfulness. Phonology 18(2). 201–253. Allen, Margaret. 1978. Morphological investigations. University of Connecticut. Baerman, Matthew. 2007. Morphological reversals. Journal of Linguistics 43(1). 33–61. Becker, Michael & Maria Gouskova. 2016. Source-oriented generalizations as grammar inference in Russian vowel deletion. Linguistic Inquiry. 391–425. Bright, William. 1972. The Karok language. (University of California Publications in Linguistics 13). Berkeley: University of California Press. Caballero, Gabriela. 2008. Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) Phonology and Morphology. University of California, Berkeley Ph.D. dissertation. Cahill, Michael. 2004. Tone polarity in Konni: an Optimality Theoretic account. Ohio State University working papers in linguistics 51. 19–58. Cammenga, Jelle. 2002. Phonology and morphology of Ekeguusii. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Casali, Roderic. 1997. Vowel elision in hiatus contexts: which vowel goes? Language 73. 493– 533. Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. Clements, G. N & Engin Sezer. 1982. Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish. In Harry van der Hulst & Norval Smith (eds.), The structure of phonological representations, part II, 213–255. Dordrecht: Foris. DeLacy, Paul. 2012. Morpho-phonological polarity. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence, 121–159. (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 41). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DuBois, John W. 1985. Incipient semanticization of possessive ablaut in Mayan. International Journal of American Linguistics 51(4). 396–398. Fitzgerald, Colleen M. 2001. The Morpheme-to-Stress principle in Tohono O’odham. Linguistics 39(5). 941–972. Goldsmith, John. 1976. Autosegmental Phonology. Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD dissertation. Goodenough, Ward H. & Hiroshi Sugita. 1980. Trukese-English Dictionary. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Haiman, John. 1972. Ablaut in the Hua verb. Oceanic Linguistics 11(1). 32–46. Haiman, John. 1998. Repetition and identity. Lingua 100. 57–70. Haraguchi, Shosuke. 1977. The tone pattern of Japanese. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Hargus, Sharon & Virginia Beavert. 2006. High-ranking Affix Faithfulness in Yakima Sahaptin. Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 177–185. Cascadilla Press.

16 Morphophonology 07/07/2017

Inkelas, Sharon & Cemil Orhan Orgun. 1995. Level ordering and economy in the lexical phonology of Turkish. Language 71(4). 763–793. Itô, Junko. 1990. Prosodic minimality in Japanese. In Michael Ziolkowski, Manuela Noske & Karen Deaton (eds.), Papers from the twenty-sixth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Volume 2: the parasession on the syllable in phonetics and phonology., 213–239. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. Itô, Junko & Jorge Hankamer. 1989. Notes on monosyllabism in Turkish. In Junko Itô & Jeff Runner (eds.), Phonology at Santa Cruz 1, 61—69. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz Syntax Research Center. Itô, Junko & Armin Mester. 1999. The structure of the phonological lexicon. In N Tsujimura (ed.), The handbook of Japanese linguistics, 62–100. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kenstowicz, Michael & Charles Kisseberth. 1979. Generative phonology: description and theory. San Diego: Academic Press. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982a. Lexical morphology and phonology. In I. -S. Yang (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982b. Word-formation and the lexicon. In Frances Ingemann (ed.), 1982 Mid- America linguistics conference papers, 3–32. Lawrence, Kan: University of Kansas. Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 85–138. Kiparsky, Paul. 1993. Blocking in non-derived environments. In Sharon Hargus & Ellen Kaisse (eds.), Phonetics and Phonology 4: Studies in Lexical Phonology, 277–313. San Diego: Academic Press. Koutsoudas, Andreas. 1980. The question of rule ordering: some common fallacies. Journal of Linguistics 16(1). 19–35. Lynch, John. 1978. A grammar of Lenakel. (Pacific Linguistics B55). Canberra: Australian National University. McCarthy, John. 2003. Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29. 1–51. McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Jill Beckman, Laura Dickey & Suzanne Urbanczyk (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, 249–384. Amherst, MA: GLSA. McCawley, J. D. 1968. The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton. Michael, Lev. 2008. Nanti evidential practice: Language, knowledge, and social action in an Amazonian society. University of Texas, Austin. Moore-Cantwell, Claire & Robert Staubs. 2014. Modeling morphological subgeneralizations. In John Kingston, Claire Moore-Cantwell, Joe Pater & Robert Staubs (eds.), Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Meeting on Phonology. http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/amphonology/article/view/42. Muller, Jennifer. 1999. A unified mora account of Chuukese. In Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason Haugen & Peter Norquest (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 393–405. Malden, MA: Cascadilla Press. Newman, Paul. 1986. Tone and affixation in Hausa. Studies in African Linguistics 17(4). 249– 267. Newman, Paul. 1995. Hausa tonology: complexities in an “easy” tone language. In John Goldsmith (ed.), Handbook of Phonological Theory, 762–781. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

17 Morphophonology 07/07/2017

Newman, Paul. 2000. The Hausa language: an encyclopedic reference grammar. New Haven: Yale University Press. Paster, Mary. 2009. Explaining phonological conditions on affixation: Evidence from suppletive allomorphy and affix ordering. Word Structure 2(1). 18–47. Pierrehumbert, Janet & Mary Beckman. 1988. Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Poser, William J. 1984. The phonetics and phonology of tone and intonation in Japanese. MIT PhD dissertation. Poser, William J. 1990. Evidence for foot structure in Japanese. Language 66. 78–105. Shih, Stephanie & Sharon Inkelas. 2015. Morphologically conditioned tonotactics in multilevel Maximum Entropy grammar. University of British Columbia. Siegel, Dorothy. 1974. Topics in English morphology. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Smith, Jennifer. 1999. Noun faithfulness and accent in Fukuoka Japanese. In Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason Haugen & Peter Norquest (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL XVIII, 519–531. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Smith, Jennifer. 2011. Category-specific effects. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Beth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), Companion to Phonology, 2439–2463. Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell. Spencer, Andrew. 1998. Morphophonological operations. In Andrew Spencer & Arnold Zwicky (eds.), Handbook of Morphology, 123–143. Oxford: Blackwell. Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1996. An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics. 1st ed. Blackwell. Tucker, A. N. 1994. A grammar of Kenya Luo (Dholuo). Köln: Rüdiger Köpper Verlag. Weeda, Donald Stanton. 1992. Word truncation in prosodic morphology. University of Texas, Austin. Weigel, William. 1993. Morphosyntactic toggles. Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 467–478. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. Willard, Rainbow. 2004. Dominance effects in a dialect of Mam Maya. UC Berkeley, ms. Yip, Moira. 1991. Coronals, coronal clusters and the coda condition. In C. Paradis & J. -F. Prunet (eds.), Phonetics and Phonology 2: the special status of coronals. Academic Press. Yu, Alan C. -L. 2000. Stress Assignment in Tohono O’odham. Phonology 17(1). 117–135. Yu, Alan C. -L. 2007. A natural history of infixation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zimmerman, Eva. 2013. Non-concatenative allomorphy is generalized prosodic affixation: the case of Upriver Halkomelem. Lingua 134. 1–26. Zuraw, Kie Ross. 2000. Exceptions and regularities in phonology. University of California, Los Angeles.

18