Deconstructing subcategorization: Conditions on insertion versus position Laura Kalin and Nicholas Rolle (Princeton University) — Draft July 2020
1 Introduction The notion of subcategorization has been utilized for decades to account for certain idiosyncratic behaviors of lexical items. We hone in on one particular use of the term subcategorization, as relates to properties of individual exponents (morphs); see e.g. Lieber 1980; Kiparsky 1982; Selkirk 1982;
Inkelas 1990; Orgun 1996; Paster 2005, 2006, 2009; Yu 2007; Bye and Svenonius 2012; McPherson
2019; inter alia. As Paster (2009, 21) puts it, the basic idea is that “affixation is a process that matches an affix with missing elements”, which must be present in the affix’s local environment, as specified in the affix’s “subcategorization frame”. Proposals have extended to utilize subcategoriza- tion for exponents of roots in addition to affixes, and to include virtually all linguistic categories as possible elements in a subcategorization frame, most relevant here being morphological features
(e.g., [+past], [+latinate], stem vs. root) and phonological features, both segmental (e.g., C, V, [+labial]) and prosodic (e.g., phonological phrases and phonological words).
Across these proposals, subcategorization has been used to subsume (at least) two types of restrictions on exponents. The first type—which we refer to as conditions on insertion (here- after COINs)—constrain when/whether an exponent is allowed to be inserted. The second type— conditions on position (hereafter COPs)—regulate where an exponent is positioned, in particular, when it does not appear in its otherwise expected place.1 Our goal in this squib is to argue that— even restricted to the fine level of granularity of regulating individual exponents—subcategorization must be formally separated into two distinct mechanisms; COINs and COPs cannot be collapsed.
We show that (i) COINs and COPs differ typologically with respect to the sorts of elements in their frames, (ii) an exponent may have both a COIN as well as a distinct COP, and (iii) COINs hold at a derivationally earlier point than COPs. Our findings have implications for the architecture of the grammar, at both the morphology-syntax and morphology-phonology interfaces.
This squib is organized as follows. We first review the relevant ways subcategorization is employed in the literature (§2), and show that this raises the question of how the grammar knows when to treat a subcategorization frame as a COIN or a COP (§3). From there we argue for the bifurcation of subcategorization (§4) and discuss the implications of these findings (§5).
1We have adapted this whether/where framing from Paster (2009, 19-20).
1 2 Background In the literature, subcategorization has a dual function. On the one hand, subcategorization is used to constrain the insertion of an exponent (our condition on insertion/COIN). On the other hand, it is also used to regulate an exponent’s (idiosyncratic) position (our condition on position/COP). A COIN places an environmental pre-condition on an exponent. Consider, for example, the 3rd person possessive prefix in Tzeltal (Mayan), which has two phonologically-conditioned suppletive al- lomorphs: s- before C-initial stems (e.g., s-mul, ‘his sin’) but y- before V-initial stems (e.g., y-ahwal,
‘his ruler’), as stated in (1). Throughout, we adopt a simple and intuitive notation for subcatego- rization frames—[feature] exponent : condition—followed by a description in prose.2
(1) Segmental COINs in Tzeltal (Paster 2006, 59, citing Slocum 1948, 80)
a. 3.poss y- : V(« “y must be before a vowel”)
b. 3.poss s- : C(« “s must be before a consonant”)
COINs are commonly used to account for suppletive allomorphy, as above, as well as for morphologi- cal compatibility and morphological gaps (see, e.g., Lieber 1980; Jensen 1990; Booij and Lieber 1993;
Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994; Booij 1998; Bobaljik 2000; Paster 2006, 2009; Bye 2008; Hannahs
2013; Harley 2014; McPherson 2014, 2019; inter alia).
In contrast, COPs determine the position of an exponent with respect to some anchor. For example, in Chamorro (Austronesian), the verbalizer appears before the first V in the stem, as an infix (e.g., trăumąisti ‘become sad’). This too is expressed via subcategorization in the literature:
(2) Segmental COP in Chamorro (Yu 2007, 89, citing Topping 1973, 185)
verbalizer -um- : V(« “um must be before a vowel”)
Importantly, the conditions on y- in Tzeltal, (1), and -um- in Chamorro, (2), are identical, both subcategorizing for a following vowel. However, as a COIN, the frame [ V ] requires that the exponent y- be inserted only before a vowel (in its default linear position/insertion site, see fn. 3); otherwise it is not inserted. As a COP, the frame [ V ] still requires the exponent -um- to be before a vowel, but the exponent may displace from its default insertion site to satisfy this condition; the insertion of the exponent is not constrained, only its surface position.
2We do not intend for these to be taken as the ultimate representations of subcategorization frames, which is an issue outside of the scope of this squib.
2 COPs have notably been employed to model unexpected constituency disruption—e.g., infixation, second positionhood, and ‘special clitics’ (Zwicky, 1977)—but also can be used to model idiosyncratic prosodic domains and phonological rule blocking (see, e.g., Spring, 1992; Downing, 1998b,a; Chung,
2003; Yu, 2003, 2007; Zec, 2005; Bickel et al., 2007; Caballero, 2010; Hyde and Paramore, 2016; Zec and Filipovi´cĐurąevi´c,2017; Bennett et al., 2018; Rolle and Hyman, 2019; Rolle and O’Hagan,
2019; Tyler, 2019; inter alia). Numerous other phenomena involving quirks of affix ordering may be able to be grouped here as well, such as types of ‘local dislocation’ in Distributed Morphology
(Embick and Noyer, 2001), ‘morphotactics’ (Arregi and Nevins, 2012), ‘templates’ (e.g., the Bantu carp template; Hyman (2003)), and bigrams (Ryan, 2010, 2019).3
3 The puzzle The two distinct uses of exponent-related subcategorization raises an obvious question: given a particular subcategorization frame for a particular exponent, how does the grammar know whether this frame can be satisfied by displacing the exponent (as in Chamorro) or not (as in Tzeltal)? In other words, where in the grammar is it encoded whether the subcategorization frame expresses a
COIN or a COP? Most of the literature cited above employs subcategorization for either a COIN or a COP, and so there is little discussion of this ambiguity, nor an explicit solution to the puzzle.
One answer is offered by Yu 2007, 229 (also referencing Carstairs-McCarthy 1998), who proposes that “languages may respond to the failure to satisfy a phonological subcategorization requirement in different ways”. One of these ways is infixation (the topic of Yu’s 2007 work), where displacement is used as a strategy to satisfy the frame. However, “when morpheme interruption is prohibited”
(ibid:229) and infixation therefore unavailable, the exponent must instead satisfy its frame in its default position at the beginning or end of the stem it combines with. If, in this position, the frame is not satisfied, then the exponent is blocked from appearing—thus, there will be a morphological gap, which may or may not be filled by another exponent with a complementary distribution.
A simple factorial typology (within OT) can more precisely illustrate this point (as alluded to in
Yu 2007, 229). Consider three toy constraints (which stand in for larger families of constraints):
(3) a. Subcat = a subcategorization frame must be satisfied
3As should be clear from this discussion, we are not referring to the basic linearization of morphemes here, but rather displacement from an otherwise expected linear position. In this squib we will not be concerned with how basic linearization happens, and assume that it must be established independently from both COINs and COPs (such as being calculated in some algorithmic way based off of the morpho(syntactic) structure à la Kayne 1994).
3 b. Linear = constituents must be uninterrupted (i.e., no infixation/displacement)
c. Parse = there must be an available parse (i.e., no ineffability/gap)
Now consider an exponent α that subcategorizes for adjacency to an element γ (subcategorization frame [ γ ]), and imagine a linearized input /α-β-γ/, where β and γ are some type of morpho- logical or phonological element (e.g., segments, exponents, features) that form a constituent to the exclusion of α. By re-ranking the constraints in (3), we can derive different outputs, (4).
(4) Simple factorial typology (/input/ Ñ zoutputz)[to be argued against]
a. If Subcat,Parse " Linear
then /α-β-γ/ Ñ zβ<α>γz displacement (frame = COP)
b. If Subcat,Linear " Parse
then /α-β-γ/ Ñ d (the null parse) gap (frame = COIN)
c. If Linear,Parse " Subcat
then /α-β-γ/ Ñ zαβγz no change (frame ignored)
In such an approach, a single subcategorization frame would behave as a COIN or a COP depending on other properties of the grammar in question, namely, the constraint ranking. According to this approach, then, COPs and COINs are two sides of the same theoretical coin. (Note that in a system like (4c), there would be no synchronic reason to posit a subcategorization frame at all.)
Despite the elegance of such a proposal, we explicitly reject it in the next section.
4 Proposal: Deconstructing subcategorization In this section, we argue subcategorization at the exponent level must be formally split into two dis- tinct mechanisms, COINs and COPs. In other words, these two types of idiosyncratic subcategorized structure cannot be encoded in the same type of condition. (5) summarizes our proposal:
(5) Subcategorization bifurcation: An exponent may have a Condition on its Insertion
and/or a Condition on its Position, which are formally independent of one another, oper-
ate over an (overlapping but distinct) set of primitives, and are not interchangeable.
In §4.1-3, we present our arguments in support of subcategorization bifurcation, summarized in (6).
4 (6) Arguments for subcategorization bifurcation
a. Argument 1: COINs and COPs display distinct typological profiles; only COINs can
refer to specific phonological segments/features and to idiosyncratic classes of roots
b. Argument 2: A single exponent may have a COIN and a distinct COP
c. Argument 3: COINs and COPs apply at distinct derivational points; COINs are satis-
fied at a derivationally earlier point than COPs (i.e., they do not apply simultaneously)
Note that while we recognize several precedents in the literature for differentiating between types of subcategorization—e.g., “passive” vs. “active subcategorization” (Inkelas 1990), “anchoring” vs.
“selection” (Bye 2008), “linear distribution” vs. “allomorphic selection” (Yu 2017)—the differentiation
(and conclusions) that we make are not captured by earlier proposals.
4.1 Argument 1: Condition substance
We saw in (1)-(2) that COINs and COPs can refer to at least some of the same types of elements in their frames, namely, both can refer to the property of being a vowel. However, the overlap is not complete—COINs and COPs have different typological profiles as to the substance of their frames, both with respect to phonology and morphosyntax. We do not attempt to exhaustively differentiate the frames of COINs and COPs, but rather, we hone in on two major differences: (i) COINs can refer to specific segments and fine-grained phonological features, whereas COPs cannot, and (ii)
COINs can refer to an idiosyncratic class of roots, whereas COPs cannot.
We’ll start by examining the phonological frames of COPs more closely. Recall that one core outcome of a COP is infixation. Yu (2003) establishes two common crosslinguistic classes of “pivots”
(building on Ultan 1975; Moravcsik 1977, 1978; inter alia.), shown in Table 1.
Edge pivots Prominence pivots First consonant (Last consonant) Stressed foot First vowel Last vowel Stressed syllable (First syllable) Last syllable Stressed vowel
Table 1: Pivots for infixal subcategorization (Yu, 2007, 67) (parentheses = uncommon)
Five phonological and prosodic elements are relevant: C, V, syllable, foot, and stress. Noticeably absent are numerous additional logically possible pivots, notably pivots that involve specific segments
5 or fine-grained phonological features, like [p], [+nasal], or [´sonorant] (Yu, 2007, 218ff.). Moving from infixation to clitics (e.g., second position clitics or other ‘special’ types), COPs can also refer to prosodic categories like phonological word (Zec 2005; Bennett et al. 2018; Tyler 2019) or phonological phrase (Rolle and Hyman 2019), e.g., the well-known example of the Latin conjunction -que which appears after the first phonological word of its complement (Marantz 1988). But, like infixes, clitics also do not have pivots defined by segment type or phonological features.
COINs seem to be able to subcategorize for all the same phonological elements as the COPs above, but in addition, COINs can refer to specific segments and phonological features. It is easy to find such examples of phonologically-conditioned allomorphy. Consider the causative suffix in Turkish
(Paster 2006, 55, who cites Lewis 1967; Haig 2004): this suffix has two suppletive allomorphs, -t and -DIr. The exponent -DIr is the elsewhere allomorph, while -t appears following polysyllabic stems that end in a vowel, /r/, or /l/, as seen in, e.g., bekle-t ‘wait-CAUS’ (‘cause to wait’) and ye-dir ‘eat-CAUS’ (‘feed’). For many more examples of melody, phonological features, and prosodic elements determining allomorphy, see Paster 2005, 2006, 2009.4
The asymmetries between COINs and COPs extend beyond phonology, and we will briefly men- tion one such case. COINs commonly subcategorize for particular (lists of) roots, e.g., participle marking in English, which is idiosyncratically -(e)n for an arbitrary list of roots (beat, give, take, etc.), but -(e)d elsewhere. We know of no COPs that subcategorize for an idiosyncratic list of roots.5
4.2 Argument 2: One exponent, two conditions
A single exponent may concurrently have a COIN and a COP which refer to distinct conditions. Con- sider the intransitive marker in Puyuma (Austronesian; Teng 2008, 26-27), which has two suppletive allomorphs: em when the stem is obstruent-initial (a COIN), as stated in (7), and me elsewhere.
(7) COIN, intrans em : obs (« “em must be inserted before an obstruent”)
In addition, me is a prefix, and em is an infix that linearizes after the first consonant (a COP), as stated in (8) and exemplified in (9).
4This assumes that cases of feature-conditioned allomorphy should truly be analyzed as suppletive. For an alter- native involving single underlying representations with floating ‘rescue segments’, see Scheer (2016). 5A potential counter-example is Dakota agreement marking (Boas and Deloria 1941), where subject markers as a class infix or prefix depending on the root they combine with, i.e., this alternation is lexically conditioned. We do not speculate here how and if this could be formalized with subcategorization frames.
6 (8) COP, intrans em :C (« “em must be positioned after a consonant”)
(9) a. sanan ‘to stray (intransitive form)’ (Teng, 2008, 27)
b. me-languy ‘to swim (intransitive form)’
The exponent -em- has both a COIN and a COP, and the two are distinct, one depending on the obstruenthood of the stem-initial segment, and the other depending on its consonanthood.6
Table 2 below clarifies our point here: an exponent may have a COIN, a COP, or neither.
Condition on Position? No Yes English 3sg s Chamorro verbalizer um Condition on No coin:- coin:- Insertion? cop:- cop:[ V] Tzeltal 3.poss y Puyuma intransitive em Yes coin:[ V] coin:[ obs ] cop:- cop:[C ]
Table 2: Independence and co-occurrence of Conditions
It is in fact not rare for an exponent to have both a COIN and COP, though often their substance is ontologically distinct. For example, in Biak (Austronesian), 3rd sg. inflection has a suppletive infixal exponent appearing only with a lexically-conditioned set of verbs (van den Heuvel, 2006, 157-8).
4.3 Argument 3: COINs before COPs
In this section, we show that COINs and COPs are satisfied at different derivational points. We start with Nancowry, an Austroasiatic language of the Nicobar islands, India (Paster 2006, 154-156,167-
168, citing Radhakrishnan 1981, 54-55,60-63), which features several cases of allomorphy that are sensitive to syllable count. Of interest here is the instrumental marker, which is exponed as an when it combines with monomorphemic stems (a COIN), but in otherwise. Additionally, both exponents have COPs: they are infixes. We repeat the dataset as summarized by Paster (2006, 167).
(10) a. káp ‘to bite’ Ñ k
6From these data alone, it is not possible to tell whether the frame for em’s COIN is (i) [ obs ], satisfied at some derivational point when the morpheme precedes the the stem and is not yet infixed, or (ii) [ obs ], satisfied in the infixed position. One could also try to create a combined COIN/COP whereby -em- has the subcategorization frame [ #obs V ]. While that might be a tempting analysis, we’ll see that not all COINs and COPs are amenable to being collapsed in this way, and in addition, COINs and COPs must in general not be collapsed because of timing considerations (§4.3) and other differential properties between them (§5).
7 tián ‘to file’ Ñ t
léP ‘to catch’ Ñ l
rW ´ k ‘to arrive’ Ñ r
b. kaPáp ‘to close’ Ñ k
tikóP ‘to prick’ Ñ t
sahuáN ‘cool’ Ñ s
ha-kiãk ‘to inflate’ Ñ h-
Note that the two exponents interact differently with the stem—when -an- is infixed, (10a), the first vowel of the stem is retained, whereas with -in-, (10b), the first vowel of the stem is lost. We propose that this difference in behavior is due to the two infixes having distinct COPs: the COP for -an- places it after the initial consonant; the COP for the elsewhere exponent -in- places it after the initial vowel, thereby creating vowel hiatus which is resolved by deleting the stem vowel. Like in Puyuma, here we are dealing with COINs and COPs that refer to different elements—the COINs reference syllable count and the COPs reference segment type; they cannot be collapsed.
The Nancowry data provide a classic ordering argument involving opacity, showing that COINs are satisfied at a derivationally earlier point than COPs are. The loss of the first vowel of the stem in (10b) means that, on the surface, -an- and -in- have an identical distribution: they are both in bisyllabic words, appearing after the first consonant and before main stress.7 Their identical surface distribution means that the choice of -an- vs. -in- (regulated by COINs) must be made at a derivational point that is both (i) before displacement (because the exponents have distinct COPs) and (ii) while the underlying form of the stem is visible (because othewise there is no basis on which to make the -an-/-in- choice). Displacement (infixation) of the exponents thus crucially happens after exponent choice—the COIN of -an- must be satisfied before its COP.
While Nancowry instrumental marking illustrates that there is one case in one language where a COIN precedes a COP, it is worth considering whether this is true more broadly. There are three logically-possible interactions between COINs and COPs when both are associated with the same exponent: the COIN could be satisfied (i) before the COP, (ii) after the COP, or (iii) concurrently with the COP. Under a COIN-before-COP ordering, as in the Nancowry case above, exponent choice
7The fact that all output forms in (10) are bisyllabic is incidental, and does not indicate that a maximality constraint is at play here. Other infixes in Nancowry readily combine with bisyllabic stems to create trisyllabic forms, e.g., the infix -am- agentive, which appears after the first consonant, as in /kalóP/ ‘to steal’ Ñ /k
8 can only reference the underlying (non-displaced) environment. Under simultaneous satisfaction, the opposite prediction is made: the COIN and COP must both find their required environment in the displaced position of the exponent, predicting that exponent choice can only reference the surface environment. Finally, under a COP-before-COIN ordering, again exponent choice should only reference the displaced environment; in addition, the COP would necessarily be a property of the morpheme rather than individual allomorphs which expone it, and so we would expect no positional differences between allomorphs.
Kalin (2019) undertakes a crosslinguistic study of the interaction between infixation and expo- nent choice, and argues that only a universal COIN-before-COP ordering makes the right predic- tions. In particular, her results reveal that infixes never supplete based on their surface (infixed) environment—it is never the case that a COIN is (unambiguously) satisfied simultaneously with or after a COP. She further shows that another prediction of the COIN-before-COP model is borne out: exponent choice can be non-locally conditioned by the exponent’s underlying position. For example, in Hunzib (Northeast Caucasian, Dagestan; van den Berg 1995), the verbal plural marker has two suppletive exponents, -baa (a suffix) and -α- (an infix). The choice between the exponents is condi- tioned by the final segment of the stem: -baa is chosen when the stem ends in long aa, while -α- is chosen otherwise. The infixal exponent, however, appears before the final consonant of the stem, in a position that is potentially (for vowel-final stems) no longer local to the allomorph-conditioning final segment. This state of affairs is again only possible if COINs precede COPs—insertion (exponent choice) precedes displacement.
We add here another comparable example. In Sierra Miwok, an indigenous language of California
(Freeland, 1951; Bye and Svenonius, 2010), there are four (sets of) stem shapes, distributed based on inflectional context. The so-called First Stem appears in the “finite tenses”, and may be realized as a number of distinct shapes. Bye and Svenonius (2010, 55) observe of the First Stem that “the distribution of quantity and weight is in fact uniquely determined by whether the stem ends in a consonant or a vowel.” They propose that the First Stem is formed by suffixing little v to the verb root, and that v has two suppletive allomorphs (regulated by COINs): if the root ends in a vowel, v is exponed as a floating consonantal mora (µc), but if the root ends in a consonant, the exponent of v is a floating vocalic mora (µv). The µv exponent does not have a COP, and so phonologically docks in the closest eligible place, which is on the final vowel (e.g., tuyaN + µv ‘jump’ Ñ tuyaaN). In contrast, the µc exponent is an infix, with a COP that requires it to appear before the final syllable
9 (e.g., hame ‘bury’ + µc Ñ hamme); notably, in its surface (infixed) location, the exponent is non- local to the exponent-conditioning segment. This makes Sierra Miwok a sort of inverse-Nancowry: the exponent µc has a COIN which references a segment type, and a COP which references syllable structure. Like in Nancowry and Hunzib, the COIN is satisfied before the COP.
5 Discussion In this squib, we have proposed that subcategorization by exponents must be deconstructed into two distinct conditions/mechanisms. The first condition applies early, presumably at or soon after the spell-out of syntax, and governs suppletive exponent choice (our COINs). The second condition applies at a later point, and governs manipulations of exponent position (our COPs). Both types of conditions are idiosyncratic to particular exponents. We have provided three arguments for our proposal based on (i) the content of the frames/conditions, (ii) a single exponent having multiple conditions, and (iii) opacity effects between the conditions. The sort of simple factorial typology entertained in §3 (based on Yu 2007)—where subcategorization frames act as either COINs or COPs depending on constraint ranking—cannot be right. COINs and COPs are not in competition.
Regardless of their absolute timing, it must be that COINs hold at a derivationally earlier point than COPs.8 Our proposal thus requires an intermediate representation after syntax but before phonetic implementation. Therefore, a strictly parallel P"M model (McCarthy and Prince, 1993a,b), whereby all morphological and phonological constraints are evaluated at once, is insufficient. Our proposal also supports models which deny a role of surface optimization in dictating allomorph choice (in line with, e.g. Paster 2006; Bye 2008; inter alia). Equally, it counters those which allow it (Mester 1994; Kager 1996; Mascaró 1996; Mascaró 1996; Mascaró 2007; Tranel 1998; Bonet 2004;
Wolf 2008, 2015; Bennett 2017; Yu 2017; inter alia), and would counter even those hybrid models which hold that some instances of allomorphy are due to subcategorization at spell-out while other allomorphy (in particular, optimizing allomorphy) is adjudicated in the phonology (Lapointe 2001;
Bermúdez-Otero 2016; Brinkerhoff 2019; de Belder 2020, inter alia).
If we are right that COINs and COPs are distinct mechanisms satisfied at distinct derivational points, then they should be fully independent of each other—COINs shouldn’t be in the business of manipulating the order of exponents (or caring about such manipulations, which come derivationally
8It is an orthogonal matter whether at each derivational stage operations apply serially—e.g. as in rule-based mainstream DM (Embick 2010; inter alia)—or apply in parallel —e.g. in constraint-based versions of realizational morphology such as OT-DM (Trommer 2001; Rolle 2020).
10 later), and COPs shouldn’t be in the business of constraining exponent insertion (assuming that there is no look-ahead). Addressing first the idea that COINs apply at a point where there is a positionally inert/static representation, we propose what we call the no self-licensing principle:
(11) No self-licensing principle
An exponent cannot facilitate its own insertion by altering the context (e.g., by displacing,
by reordering elements, by copying elements, by adding or deleting elements, etc.).
This constitutes a core architectural principle of grammar, and of more generality than theory- specific operation orderings which also result in something similar (e.g., Vocabulary Insertion pre- cedes Local Dislocation; Embick and Noyer 2001, 562).
Addressing next the idea that COPs apply too “late” to constrain insertion, we predict that COPs should never result in ineffability/absolute ungrammaticality (Rice and Blaho 2009, Inkelas 2014,
289), which can be characterized as an unexpected morphological gap (no output), even though there is no apparent reason for such a gap based on the component parts (its input). Inkelas (2014,
219) exemplifies ineffability with a well-known case in English: the comparative suffix -er has (in our terms) a COIN that requires it to combine with monosyllabic bases (or disyllabic if the second syllable is light enough), (12a);9 larger bases require periphrasis with more, (12b).
(12) a. green + -er Ñ greener
merry + -er Ñ merrier
b. orange + -er Û *oranger (but Xmore orange)
sublime + -er Û *sublimer (but Xmore sublime)
Inkelas characterizes ineffability as exponence which lacks an elsewhere case: if the subcategorization frame (COIN) of -er is not satisfied, the word “simply cannot be formed, resulting in a paradigm gap”. Of those cases of ineffability which can be attributed to an unsatisfied subcategorization frame, all appear to us to be COINs.10
We are aware of only one prima facie case of a COP leading to ineffability. In Tagalog, the infamous actor focus -um- infix appears after the first consonant of the root, (13)-(14).
9Other factors such as lexical frequency also constrain the insertion of -er (Graziano-King 1999; Bobaljik 2012, 164; Adams 2017; Enzinna 2017). 10Another source of ineffability is argued to be from indeterminacy of what the correct form should be, rather than ill-formedness per se (Inkelas 2014, 299, citing Albright 2009).
11 (13) COP, actor focus um :C (« “um must be positioned after a consonant”)
(14) a. sulat Ñ s
b. bukas Ñ b
However, if the root begins with /m/ (and for the most part /w/ as well), no output form is acceptable, resulting in a morphological gap (Schachter and Otanes, 1972; English, 1986; Orgun and
Sprouse, 1999; Klein, 2005; Zuraw and Lu, 2009), e.g., (15).
(15) mahal Û *m
This pattern is phonologically natural, as the proximity of the bilabials constitutes an OCP violation, but crucially, this apparent ban is specific to -um- and cannot be derived from the general phonology of Tagalog (cf. the derived word ma-mulat ‘have one’s eyes opened’; Zuraw and Lu 2009, 200).
At first glance, the Tagalog facts appear to involve ineffability resulting from a COP: -um- cannot combine with a stem if it will end up following an /m/. However, we propose to capture these facts with a COIN for -um- instead (in addition to its post-consonantal COP): -um- must not be inserted when there is a stem-initial /m/, or, put another way, -um- must be inserted with non-/m/-initial stems.11 This analysis of the Tagalog gap as due to a COIN (or at the very least, not to a COP) is consistent with the fact that the *m-m ban is specific just to this exponent. Further, it is notable that Zuraw and Lu’s (2009) survey of repairs for multiple labial sequences across 19 Austronesian languages finds that a resulting morphological gap (i.e., ineffability) appears only in Tagalog, unlike more common cross-family processes of prefixation, fusion, dissimilation, or using a zero morph.12
We therefore conclude that Tagalog -um- does not present a true counterexample. Note also that because “the pivots referenced in infixation belong to the set of elements that all words in the relevant language contain” (Inkelas 2014, 169, drawing on Yu 2007), examples where a COP is simply unable to be satisfied are (potentially) nonexistent.
It is natural, under our proposal, that COINs and COPs should differ in their fundamental properties. We leave for future work the task of identifying and explaining additional differences between the two mechanisms.
11 Zuraw and Lu (2009, 200) account for this with a constraint “*[stem SonLab V0 Lab”, which forbids a stem from beginning with a sonorant labial if the next consonant is also labial. Regardless, using subcategorization here would not be unreasonable, and the constraint above requires several additional qualifications on its use. 12The only other case of a morphological gap described is for Thao (Blust, 1998a,b). However, Zuraw and Lu (2009, 215) note contradictions and ambiguities in Blust’s description, thus leaving the issue unresolved.
12 References
Adams, Matthew E. 2017. Prosodic well-formedness and comparative grammaticality: Morphology
and periphrasis in the english comparative. In The morphosyntax-phonology connection: Locality
and directionality at the interface, ed. Vera Gribanova and Stephanie S. Shih, 197–222. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Albright, Adam. 2009. Lexical and morphological conditioning of paradigm gaps. In Modeling
ungrammaticality in optimality theory, ed. Curt Rice and Sylvia Blaho, 117–164. London: Equinox.
Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of
spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. de Belder, Marijke. 2020. A split approach to the selection of allomorphs: Vowel length alternating
allomorphy in Dutch. Glossa URL https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005034.
Bennett, Ryan. 2017. Output optimization in the irish plural system. Journal of Linguistics 53:229–
277.
Bennett, Ryan, Boris Harizanov, and Robert Henderson. 2018. Prosodic smothering in Macedonian
and Kaqchikel. Linguistic Inquiry 49:195–246. van den Berg, Helma. 1995. A grammar of hunzib (with texts and lexicon). Munich and Newcastle:
Lincom Europa.
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2016. We do not need structuralist morphemes, but we do need con-
stituent structure. In Morphological metatheory, ed. Daniel Siddiqi and Heidi Harley, 387–430.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bickel, Balthasar, Goma Banjade, Martin Gaenszle, Elena Lieven, Netra Prasad Paudyal,
Ichchha Purna Rai, Manoj Rai, Novel Kishore Rai, and Sabine Stoll. 2007. Free prefix order-
ing in Chintang. Language 43–73.
Blust, Robert. 1998a. A note on the thao patient focus perfective. Oceanic Linguistics 37:346–353.
Blust, Robert. 1998b. Some problems in thao phonology. In Selected papers from the second inter-
national symposium on language in taiwan (isolit-ii), ed. Shuanfan Huang, 1–20. Taipei: Crane.
13 Boas, Franz, and Ella Deloria. 1941. Dakota Grammar, volume 23:2 of National Academy of Science
Memoirs. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Science.
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. In University of maryland
working papers in linguistics, ed. Kleanthes K. Grohmann and Caro Struijke, volume 10, 35–71.
College Park: University of Maryland, Dept. of Linguistics.
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bonet, Eulàlia. 2004. Morph insertion and allomorphy in Optimality Theory. International Journal
of English Studies 4:73–104.
Booij, Geert. 1998. Phonological output constraints in morphology. In Phonology and morphology of
the Germanic languages, ed. Wolfgang Kehrein and Richard Wiese, 143–163. T¨ubingen:Niemeyer.
Booij, Geert, and Rochelle Lieber. 1993. On the Simultaneity of Morphological and Prosodic Struc-
ture. Studies in lexical phonology, S. Hargus and E.M. Kaisse, Editors, 23 - 44 (1993) 23–44.
Brinkerhoff, Mykel Loren. 2019. On Subcategorization and PRIORITY: Evidence from Welsh Allo-
morphy. Master’s thesis, UNC Chapel Hill.
Bye, Patrik. 2008. Allomorphy — selection, not optimization. In Freedom of Analysis?, ed. Sylvia
Blaho, Patrik Bye, and Martin Kr¨amer,63–92. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. URL
https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/178827.
Bye, Patrik, and Peter Svenonius. 2010. Exponence, phonology, and non-concatenative morphology.
unpublished manuscript .
Bye, Patrik, and Peter Svenonius. 2012. Nonconcatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. In The
morphology and phonology of exponence: The state of the art, ed. Jochen Trommer, 427–495.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Caballero, Gabriela. 2010. Scope, phonology and morphology in an agglutinating language:
Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) variable suffix ordering. Morphology 20:165–204. URL
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-010-9147-4.
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1998. Phonological constraints on morphological rules. In The hand-
book of morphology, ed. Andrew Spencer and Arnold Zwicky, 144–148. Oxford: Blackwell.
14 Chung, Sandra. 2003. The syntax and prosody of weak pronouns in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry
34:547–599.
Downing, Laura J. 1998a. On the Prosodic Misalignment of Onsetless Syllables. Natural Language
& Linguistic Theory 16:1–52. URL https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005968714712.
Downing, Laura J. 1998b. Prosodic misalignment and reduplication. In Yearbook of Morphology
1997 , ed. Geert Booij and Jaap Van Marle, Yearbook of Morphology, 83–120. Dordrecht: Springer
Netherlands. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4998-34.
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 555–
595.
English, Leo. 1986. Tagalog-english dictionary. Manila: Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer.
Enzinna, Naomi. 2017. How speakers select synthetic and analytic forms of english comparatives:
An experimental study. In Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 2 , 46: 1–15.
Freeland, Lucy Shepard. 1951. Language of the Sierra Miwok. 6-9. Waverly Press.
Graziano-King, Janine. 1999. Acquisition of comparative forms in english. Doctoral Dissertation,
CUNY, New York.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2004. Constraints on morpheme repetition in Turkish? In Current research in Turk-
ish linguistics, ed. Kamile I9mer and G¨urkan Dogan, 3–12. Gazimagusa: Eastern Mediterranean
University Press.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In
The view from building 20 , ed. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, Mas-
sachusetts: MIT Press.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In MITWPL
21: Papers on phonology and morphology, ed. Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and Tony Bures,
275–288. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
15 Hannahs, S.J. 2013. Celtic initial mutation: pattern extraction and subcategorisation. Word Struc-
ture 6:1–20. URL https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/word.2013.0033.
Harley, Heidi. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40:225–276. van den Heuvel, Wilco. 2006. Biak, description of an Austronesian language of Papua. Doctoral
Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Hyde, Brett, and Jonathan Paramore. 2016. Phonological Subcategorization, Infixation, and
Relation-Specific Alignment. Proceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology 3. URL
http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/amphonology/article/view/3675.
Hyman, Larry M. 2003. Suffix ordering in bantu: A morphocentric approach. In Yearbook of
morphology 2002 , 245–281. Springer.
Inkelas, Sharon. 1990. Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. New York/London: Garland.
Inkelas, Sharon. 2014. The interplay of morphology and phonology, volume 8. Oxford University
Press.
Jensen, John T. 1990. Morphology: Word structure in generative grammar, volume 70. John
Benjamins Publishing.
Kager, René. 1996. On affix allomorphy and syllable counting. In Interfaces in phonology, ed. Ursula
Kleinhenz, 155–171. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Kalin, Laura. 2019. When allomorphy meets infixation: Cyclicity and separation. Talk presented at
the 12th Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics: Suppletion, allomorphy, and syncretism.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In The structure of phonological
representations, ed. Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith, volume 1, 131–175. Dordrecht: Foris.
Klein, Thomas B. 2005. Infixation and segmental constraint effects: UM and IN in Tagalog,
Chamorro, and Toba Batak. Lingua 115:959–995.
Lapointe, Steven G. 2001. Stem selection and OT. In Yearbook of Morphology 1999 , ed. Geert Booij
and Jaap Van Marle, 263–297. Dordrecht: Springer.
16 Lewis, Geoffrey. 1967. Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the organization of the lexicon. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Marantz, Alec. 1988. Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure.
In Theoretical morphology, ed. Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan, 253–270. San Diego:
Academic Press.
Mascaró, Joan. 1996. External allomorphy as emergence of the unmarked. In Current trends in
phonology: Models and methods, ed. Jacques Durand and Bernard Laks, 473–483. Salford, Manch-
ester: University of Salford, European Studies Research Institute.
Mascaró, Joan. 2007. External allomorphy and lexical representation. Linguistic Inquiry 38:715–735.
Mascaró, Joan. 1996. External allomorphy and contractions in Romance. Probus 8:181–206.
McCarthy, John J, and Alan Prince. 1993a. Generalized alignment. In Yearbook of morphology 1993 ,
79–153. Springer.
McCarthy, John J, and Alan Prince. 1993b. Prosodic morphology: Constraint interaction and
satisfaction .
McPherson, Laura. 2014. Replacive grammatical tone in the Dogon languages. Doctoral Dissertation,
UCLA.
McPherson, Laura. 2019. Seenku argument-head tone sandhi: Allomorph selection
in a cyclic grammar. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:22. URL
http://www.glossa-journal.org//articles/10.5334/gjgl.798/.
Mester, Armin R. 1994. The quantitative trochee in Latin. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
12:1–61.
Moravcsik, Edith. 1977. Indiana university linguistics club.
Moravcsik, Edith. 1978. Agreement. In Universals of human language IV: Syntax, ed. Joseph
Greenberg. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
17 Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1996. Sign-based morphology and phonology with special attention to Opti-
mality Theory. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Orgun, Orhan, and Ronald Sprouse. 1999. From mparse to control: deriving ungrammaticality.
Phonology 16:191–224.
Paster, Mary. 2005. Subcategorization vs. output optimization in syllable-counting allomorphy. In
Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. John Alderete, Chung-
Hye Han, and Alexei Kochetov, 326–333. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Paster, Mary. 2006. Phonological conditions on affixation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley.
Paster, Mary. 2009. Explaining phonological conditions on affixation: Evidence from suppletive
allomorphy and affix ordering. Word Structure 2:18–47.
Radhakrishnan, Ramaswami. 1981. The Nancowry Word: Phonology, Affixal Morphology and Roots
of a Nicobarese Language. Current Inquiry Into Language and Linguistics 37.. ERIC.
Rice, Curt, and Sylvia Blaho, ed. 2009. Modeling ungrammaticality in optimality theory. London:
Equinox.
Rolle, Nicholas. 2020. In support of an OT-DM model: Evidence from clitic distribution in Degema
serial verb constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 38:201–259.
Rolle, Nicholas, and Zachary O’Hagan. 2019. Different Kinds of Second-Position Clitics in Caquinte.
In Proceedings for the 23rd Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of the Languages of the
Americas (WSCLA 23), 93–107. Ottawa: UBCWPL.
Rolle, Nicholas Revett, and Larry M. Hyman. 2019. Phrase-level Prosodic Smothering in Makonde.
In Proceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology, volume 7.
Ryan, Kevin M. 2010. Variable affix order: grammar and learning. Language 86:758–791.
Ryan, Kevin M. 2019. Bole suffix doubling as morphotactic extension. Schuhschrift: Papers in
honor of Russell Schuh, ed. Margit Bowler, Philip T. Duncan, Travis Major, and Harold Torrence
139–160.
18 Schachter, Paul, and Fe Otanes. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Scheer, Tobias. 2016. Melody-free syntax and phonologically conditioned allomorphy. Morphology
26:341–378.
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1982. The syntax of words. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs Cambridge, Mass .
Slocum, Marianna C. 1948. Tzeltal (Mayan) Noun and Verb Morphology. In-
ternational Journal of American Linguistics; New York 14:77–86. URL
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1290441454?pq-origsite=summon.
Spring, Cari. 1992. The Velar Glide in Axininca Campa. Phonology 9:329–352. URL
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4420059.
Teng, Stacy Fang-Ching. 2008. A reference grammar of Puyuma, an Austronesian language of
Taiwan. Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics.
Topping, Donald M. 1973. Chamorro reference grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Tranel, Bernard. 1998. Suppletion and OT: On the issue of the syntax/phonology interaction. In
Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, volume 16, 415–429.
Trommer, Jochen. 2001. Distributed optimality. Doctoral Dissertation, Universit¨atPotsdam.
Tyler, Matthew. 2019. Simplifying Match Word: Evidence from English functional categories.
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:15.1–32.
Ultan, Russell. 1975. Infixes and their origin. Linguistic Workshop 3:156–205.
Wolf, Matthew. 2008. Optimal interleaving: Serial phonology-morphology interaction in a constraint-
based model. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Wolf, Matthew. 2015. Lexical insertion occurs in the phonological component. Understanding
Allomorphy: Perspectives from Optimality Theory. London: Equinox Publishing.[ROA-912] .
Yu, Alan. 2003. The morphology and phonology of infixation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley.
Yu, Alan. 2007. A natural history of infixation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19 Yu, Alan C.L. 2017. Global optimization in Allomorph Selection: two case studies. In The
Morphosyntax-Phonology Connection: Locality and Directionality at the Interface, 3–27. Oxford:
OUP.
Zec, Draga. 2005. Prosodic differences among function words. Phonology 22:77–112.
Zec, Draga, and DuˇsicaFilipovi´cĐurąevi´c.2017. The role of prosody in clitic placement. In The
Morphosyntax-Phonology Connection: Locality and Directionality at the Interface, 171–196.
Zuraw, Kie Ross, and Yu-an Lu. 2009. Diverse repairs for multiple labial consonants. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 197–224.
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. On clitics. IU Linguistics Club.
20