Lecture 2: Theoretical Approaches to Morphologically Conditioned Phonology

Morphophonology 07/11/2017

Lecture 2: Theoretical approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology

1. QUESTIONS ARISING FROM LAST LECTURE: How many types of morphologically conditioned phonological patterns can there be in a language? How different can morphologically conditioned patterns in the same language be from one another? What happens when the same word contains two affixes which trigger conflicting morphophonological patterns? Which pattern prevails?

2. TODAY: A SURVEY OF MODERN THEORIES DESIGNED TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS (1) What these theories have in common: the indexation of phonological constraints or subgrammars to morphological stems or stem types

• Stratal Ordering (Lexical Morphology and Phonology; Kiparsky 1982ab, 1984, 1985; Halle & Mohanan 1985; Mohanan 1982, 1986), converted in the age of Optimality Theory to Stratal OT (Kiparsky 2000, 2003, 2008; Bermúdez-Otero 2011) o Key claims of Stratal theory: a universal small, fixed, number of morphologically conditioned phonological patterns (strata), each typically associated with an affix ordering ‘zone’ and often in a relationship of decreasing phonological ‘oomph’; no connection to process morphology • Cophonology Theory (e.g., Orgun 1996, Inkelas, Orgun & Zoll 1997, Anttila 2002, Inkelas & Zoll 2007) (bears similarities to Indexed Constraint theory (e.g., Benua 1997ab; Alderete 1999, 2001; Itô & Mester 1999)) o Key claims of Cophonology Theory: potentially as many distinct morphologically conditioned phonological patterns as there are morphological constructions in a language; no built-in connection to affix ordering; same technology accomplishes process morphology

Cophonology theory is basically Stratal OT, stripped of the assumption that there’s an upper bound on the number of strata and stripped of the assumption that strata are extrinsically ordered.

3. COPHONOLOGY THEORY • Associates each individual morphological construction with its own phonological grammar • Is designed to capture language-specific detail, within a broader framework that allows cross-linguistic comparison • Like LMP and Stratal OT, is inherently cyclic (interleaving follows from architecture)

1 Morphophonology 07/11/2017

4. STRATAL ORDERING • Every morphological construction is assigned to one of a small number of distinct and strictly ordered levels/strata • Each level/stratum is associated with its own phonological subgrammar • There is some small fixed number of these, between 2-4 (maybe 5) in original LMP; 2-2 (root, stem, word) in Stratal OT • Case studies in Stratal OT in particular often focus on opacity, which is problematic for standard OT, and has been argued to follow from stratal ordering • Challenges arise from languages with more than the allowed # of strata, and/or languages in which strata and affix order don’t correlate

(2) “The key principles of Stratal Phonology are cyclicity and stratification” [B-O6]

4.1 THE ORIGINAL CASE STUDY IN STRATIFICATION: ENGLISH (e.g., Kiparsky (1982a)) (3) Level 1 Class 1 (“+-boundary) derivation, inflection Level 2 Compounding , Class 2 (“#-boundary”) derivation Level 3 Class 2 (“#-boundary”) inflection [Kiparsky 1982b moves this to Level 2]

(4) Derivational affixes Class 1: -al, -ity, -ic, -ive, -ion, -ate, -ous, in-, con-, pre-, en-, de-, re-... [Latinate] Class 2: -ness, -hood, -less, -ful, reun-, non-, under-,... [Germanic]

(5) Semantic generalizations: Class 1: often irregular, less productive Class 2: regular, more productive

(e.g. curiosity vs. curiousness; *blandity, blandness, drill, driller, etc.)

(6) Ordering generalizations root+I+I root+I#II root+II#II *root#II+I act+iv+ate act+ion-less hope-less-ness *hope-less+ity I+I+root II#I+root II#II#root *I+II#root in+con+ceivable non#con+formity non#re#fillable *ir#re+fillable

2 Morphophonology 07/11/2017

(7) Phonological generalizations isolation class 1 suffix class 2 suffix i. STRESS (stress-changing) (stress-neutral) párent parént+al párent#hood orígin orígin-al, origin-ál-ity próperty próperty#less(#ness) ii. TRISYLLABIC LAXING opáque [ej] opác-ity [æ] opáque#ness [ej] divíne [aj] divín-ity [ɪ] divíne#er [aj] tóne [ow] tón-ic [a] tóne#bearing [ow] iiii. PALATALIZATION/SPIRANTIZATION (I) classic [k] classic-ism [s] lick-ing [k] classic-ist [s] clique-ish [k] cyclic [k] cylic-ity [s] pleas-er [z] please [z] pleas-ure [ʒ] pleas-ing [z] iv. NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION ir-resolute un-wrap il-legal un-lawful im-mobile u{n,m}-moved (ditto) i{n,ŋ}-congruous u{n,ŋ}-clasp co{n,ɱ}-fused u{n,m}-fortunate v. CLUSTER PRESERVATION VS. SIMPLIFICATION iamb [m] iamb+ic [mb] iamb#s [m] long [ŋ] long+est [ŋg] long#ing [ŋ] prolong [ŋ] prolong+ation [ŋg] prolong#ed [ŋ] sign [n] sign+al [gn] sign#er [n] malign [n] malign+ant [gn] malign#ing [n] hymn [m] hymn+al [mn] hymn#s [m] damn [m] damn-ation [mn] damn#er

(8) Neat, huh?

(9) Problem: exceptions (Aronoff & Sridhar 1983, Halle & Mohanan 1985) a. -able: • /n/-deletion (Str. 2): damn-able • truncates -ate (Str. 1): navigate, navigable; extricate, extricable b. -ize: • /n/-deletion: solemn-ize • Velar softening (Str. 1): Satanicize • Vowel deletion (Str. 1): summar-ize (cf. curry, *curr-ing) • /g/ deletion (Str. 2): monophthong-ize c. -ist • /n/-deletion (Str. 2): column-ist • Velar softening (Str. 1): classic-ist

Gussenhoven 1986: maybe these suffixes should all be Level 1. Stress shift is possible but not necessary in Level 1.

Ø But: if within a level there can be morphologically conditioned phonology, what is the point of saying it’s a phonologically uniform level? Ø We’ll come back to this question when we visit process morphology on Friday.

3 Morphophonology 07/11/2017

4.2 CYCLICITY AND INTERLEAVING (10) Terms I personally prefer to keep distinct (e.g. Chapter 7 of Inkelas 2014): Ø Cyclicity: the same phonological pattern is (re-)applied on each of several steps of word- formation (relevant for stratum-internal recursion of phonology) Ø Interleaving: phonological patterns are applied at each step of word formation, but the the phonological mappings associated with the invidual morphological constructions in question are not identical (relevant to cross-stratal application of phonology)

Cyclicity illustrated (Turkish)

(11) Turkish: epenthesis (driven by syllabification considerations) applies each time a suffix is added, i.e. cyclically, not once to the whole word

a. i. /ʧaj-m-E/ ʧajɯma *ʧajma çayıma ‘tea-1SG.POSS-DAT’ ii. /el-n-I/ elini *elni elini ‘hand-2SG.POSS-ACC’ iii. /konuʃ-r-m/ konuʃurum *konuʃrum konuşurum ‘converse-AOR-1SG’ b. i. /ʧaj-dE/ ʧajda çayda ‘village-LOC’ ii. /konuʃ-tI/ konuʃtu konuştu ‘converse-PAST’

Cyclic Noncyclic Input to Cycle 1 /ʧaj/ /ʧaj-m-E/

Syllabification, Epenthesis, Vowel Harmony [ʧaj]σ [ʧaj]σ[ma]σ

Input to Cycle 2 [ʧaj]σ + /m/

Syllabification, Epenthesis, Vowel Harmony [ʧa]σ[jɯm]σ

Input to Cycle 3 [ʧa]σ[jɯm]σ + /Ε/

Syllabification, Epenthesis, Vowel Harmony [ʧa]σ[jɯ]σ[ma]σ Output ʧajɯma ʧajma çayıma çayma ü M

4 Morphophonology 07/11/2017

Interleaving illustrated (Turkish)

(12) Stress-neutral suffixes: a word consisting of a root and only these suffixes receives (default) final stress. Word-stratum: default final stress assignment Pre-stressing suffixes: place stress on the preceding stem-final syllable. Overrides default final stress. Stem-stratum: stress stem-final syllable

(13) Words with only neutral suffixes:

a. arabá ‘car’ b. araba-lár ‘car-PL’ c. araba-lar-á ‘car-PL-DAT’

(14) Words with only pre-stressing suffixes: a. arabá ‘car’ b. arabá-mı ‘car-INTERR’ c. arabá-yla ‘car-COM = with a car, by car’)

(15) Word with both kinds of suffixes: gel-me-di ‘come- NEG-PAST = didn’t come’

Input to Stem Stratum /gel-me/ Stem-final stress assignment [gélme]S

Input to Word Stratum [gélme]S + /dI/ (Default) final stress assignment [gélmedi] Output ü

Often cyclicity and interleaving are conflated, used interchangeably, and often that’s fine for the point being made. Still, it’s important to understand the difference.

? Stratal theory is both cyclic (in that any given stratum could be specified as cyclic) and has interleaving (interaction across strata).

(16) “Stratal Phonology, however, adds two other important claims. First, cyclic domain structure is sparse: relatively few morphosyntactic constituents trigger phonological cycles. Secondly, there are different P-functions for cyclic nodes of different rank.” [B- O]

5 Page 7 of 45

Morphophonology 07/11/2017 © (2) Nword (17) Illustration from Bermudez-Otero paper: Page 7 of 45

Nstem SGaffix Student

1. I am wondering if Nstem SGaffix Stratal Phonology N © A stem affix has abandoned traditional concepts Astem Naffix © of Vstem Naffix morph/morpheme. © Nstem Aaffix However, in (2), a. affix √ Vaffix first two parts of © the stem seem to Vstem Naffix bear no meaning b. a- commod -ateSL -ionSL -lessWL -nessWLthemselves. s -∅WL o why a. affix √ Vaffix should we split it into two parts? c. PWL( PSL( PSL( a-, commod-, -ate), -ion), -less, -ness, -∅2.) How does the b. a- commod -ate -ion -less -ness -∅ SL SL WL WL WL author decide the stem [for d. P 1 st cycle accómmodàte P SLP P ∅ accommodate] is c. WL( SL( SLnd( a-, commod-, -ate), -ion), -less, -ness, - ) 2 cycle accòmmodátion "commod" instead of "acommod”? P Pst 3rd cycle accòmmodátionlessness d. SL 1 WL cycle accómmodàte 3. Is “-ion” SL or WL? nd 2 cycle accòmmodátion P The 3 rdorder cycle of P -functionaccòmmodátionlessness application is thus intrinsically determined by morphosyntactic WL Student constituency: Questions: 4. theI am curious about how it is determined, in the case of multiple WL or SL affixes, computation of the phonological form of the parts precedes and feeds the which / how many affixes trigger a phonological cycle computationThe order of ofP-function the phonological application formis thus of intrinsically the. If two successive WL affixes result in only the whole. determined Stratal Phonology by morphosyntactic derives a great deal of second triggering the cycle. How does this get determined (which, or both, affixes make the constituency:its empirical the computation content from of the this phonological simple notion. form of the Notably, parts precedes like all and cyclic feeds frameworks, the stratal determination) and how does it relate to lookcomputation of the phonological form of the whole.-ahead in phono Stratal Phonologylogy? derives a great deal of theories predict that morphosyntactically induced opacity is subject to Cyclic Containment: its empirical content from this simple notion. Notably, like all cyclic frameworks, stratal (18) theories predict that morphosyntactically induced opacity is subject to Cyclic Containment: (3) Cyclic Containment

In cases of morphosyntactically induced phonological opacity, a linguistic (3) Cyclic Containment In casesexpression of morphosyntactically inherits its opaque induced phonological phonological opacity, properties a linguistic from a constituent defining an immediate cyclic subdomain. expression inherits its opaque phonological properties from a constituent defining an immediate cyclic subdomain. ( 19) àdbracadábra The stress profileis ofthe the stress English pattern word expected accòmmodátionlessness for a 5-syllable, word for example, is doubly opaque:Theaccòmmodátion stress first, profile the word of the exhibits hasEnglish a stress prefenestralword pattern accòmmodátionlessness influencedprimary stress by, the(i.e. for inner example,primary cycle isstress doublyon accómmodàteoutside the final opaque:trisyllabic first, the window);word exhibits secondly, prefenestral pretonic primary secondary stress (i.e. st ressprimary fails stress to falloutside on thethe final initial syllable (cf. The ability of cyclicity to make inroads into the opacity problem, if not solve it outright, is trisyllabic• window); secondly, pretonic secondary stress fails to fall on the initial syllable (cf. monomorphemicoften cited as an items argument like àbracadábra in favor of). cyclic As shown models; in (2), see this e.g. is Kiparsky because accòmmodátionlessness2000 monomorphemic items like àbracadábra). As shown in (2), this is because accòmmodátionlessness • inheritsLarry Hymanthe metrical will presentcontour many of the more noun examples stem accòmmodátion- of cyclicity in, Weekwhich 4! defines an immediate inherits the metrical contour of the noun stem accòmmodátion-, which defines an immediate cyclic subdomain: accòmmodátion- is a cyclic constituent, and there is no other cyclic node cyclic subdomain: accòmmodátion- is a cyclic constituent, and there is no other cyclic node between accòmmodátion- and accòmmodátionlessness. In turn, accòmmodátion- inherits the foot- between accòmmodátion- and accòmmodátionlessness. In turn, accòmmodátion- inherits the foot-

6 Faithfulness to non-contrastive phonetic properties in Lakhota Adam Albright, MIT ([email protected])

It is well known that members of inflection paradigms may show unexpected phonological similarity, creating exceptions to general phonological processes (Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1977; Kiparsky 1978). Approaches based on Output-Output Faithfulness (Kenstowicz 1997; Steriade 2000;Faithfulness McCarthy 2005) to non derive-contrastive this similarity phonetic using properties special faithfulnessin Lakhota constraints that hold only among paradigmaticallyAdam Albright, related surfaceMIT ([email protected]) forms. Stratal approaches, on the other hand (Bermúdez-Otero 2011), account for this similarity using input-output faithfulness to intermediate It stepsis well in knownthe derivation. that members Under of the inflection latter approach, paradigms what may dis showtinguishes unexpected paradi phonologicalgmatically re - latedsimilarity, forms creating from other exceptions strings isto that general faithfulness phonological constraints processes may be(Kenstowicz promoted partwayand Kisseberth through the1977; derivation, Kiparsky effectively 1978). Approaches “turning off” based the on process. Output -InOutput this paper,Faithfulness I present (Kenstowicz new data 1997;from a paradigmSteriade 2000; uniformity McCarthy effect 2005) in Lakhota derive this (Siouan; similarity Dakotan using sub special-branch) faithfulness that cannot constraints be analyzed that usinghold only faithfulness among paradigmatically to intermediate forms. related The surface reasons forms. are Stratalsimple: approaches, (1) the necessary on the intermediateother hand form(Bermúdez does not-Oter seemo 2011), to exist, account and for(2) thiseven similarity if it did, usinglater stagesinput- outputin the derivationfaithfulness would to interm requiree- faithfulnesdiate steps sin to the be derivation.too low to Underhave any the lastinglatter approach, effect on whatthe output distinguishes. Furthermore, paradig paradigmmatically reun-i- forlatedmity forms targets from a other property strings that is that is never faithfulness contrastive constraints in any may language, be promoted raising partway the question through of whetherthe derivation, any IO effectively-Faith constraint “turning should off” everthe process.be able toIn preserve this paper, it. II apresentrgue instead new datathat thefrom facts a followparadigm naturally uniformity from effectan account in Lakhota that incorporates (Siouan; Dakotan OO-Faithfulness sub-branch) for that phonetic cannot properties. be analyzed usingIn faithfulnessall Dakotan to dialects, intermediate stops forms.and affricates The reasons contrast are simple: for aspiration (1) the necessaryand ejection: intermediate ka ‘there’ vs.form k ʰdoesa ‘to notmean’ seem vs. to k’a exist, ‘to and dig’. (2) The even phonetic if it did, quality later stages of aspiration in the derivation varies considerably would require be- tweenfaithfulnes and swithin to be dialects,too low to and have it is any realized lasting sometimes effect on thewith output velar. fricationFurthermore, (kˣa) paradigmand some timesuni- withformity glottal targets frication a property (kʰa) (Ullrich that is never2008, contrastivep. 6). In the in Lakhota any language, dialect, raibothsing are the em questionployed, with of thewhether distribution any IO -determinedFaith constraint primarily should by ever the be following able to preserve vowel. Ullrichit. I argue (2008, instead pp. that697 the–8) factsstates thatfollow “[t]he naturally two types from ofan aspirated account that stops incorporates occur in complementary OO-Faithfulness distribution for phonetic and properties. never contrast in meaning.”In all Dakotan Nevertheless, dialects, becausestops and the affricates difference contrast in frication for aspiration noise is andcontra ejection:stive for ka fricatives ‘there’ (/x/vs. kvs.ʰa /‘toh/), mean’ he transcribes vs. k’a ‘tothem dig’. differently. The phonetic Inspection quality of of dictionary aspiration entries varies involving considerably aspirated be- stopstween reveal and within the distribution dialects, and in it (1), is realized favoring sometimes velar frication with velarbefore frication non-high (kˣ a)vowels, and som especiallyetimes whenwith glottal back. (Thefrication vowel (kʰ a)transcribed (Ullrich 2008, as [ũ ]p. is 6). actually In the realizedLakhota part dialect,way bothbetween are e[mũ]ployed, and [õ].) with the distribution determined primarily by the following vowel. Ullrich (2008, pp. 697–8) states (1)that Velar “[t]he vs. two glottal types aspiration of aspirated in Lakhotastops occur in complementary distribution and never contrast Morphophonologyin meaning.”pʰi Nevertheless,pʰĩ pʰu because the differencetʰi tʰĩ in fricationtʰu noise is contrakʰi stivekʰĩ for kfricativesʰu 07/11 /2017 (/x/ vs. /h/),p ˣhee transcribes pˣo thempˣũ differently. tʰe/t Inspectionˣe oftˣo dictionarytˣũ entrieskʰ einvolving kaspiratedˣo kˣũ stops reveal the distribution pˣa pinˣ ã(1), favoring velar fricationtˣa beforetˣã non -high vowels, especiallykˣa kˣã 4.3 whenB -back.O: THERE (The vowelIS ONE transcribed COUNTEREXAMPLE as [ũ] is actually TO CYCLIC realized CONTAINMEN partway beTtween IN A LBRIGHT[ũ] and [õ].) 2015 This distribution is productively enforced, and can be illustrated by placing the same mor- (20)pheme(1) Velar in vs.different glottal followingaspiration contexts.in Lakhota Lakhota generally bans codas, but it is possible to vary the followingpʰi contextpʰĩ p ʰ byu placing morphemestʰi t inʰĩ certaintʰu syntactic contexts,kʰi k ʰĩ where kʰu the final vowels of pcertainˣe morphemespˣo pˣũ are deleted,tʰe/t asˣe in (2). Whentˣo tthisˣũ happens, kʰ ethe qualitykˣ oof aspirkˣũ a- tion is determined by the quality of the following vowel, respecting the distribution in (1). pˣa pˣã tˣa tˣã kˣa kˣã (21)(2) ReadjustmentThis distribution of aspirationis productively quality enforced, depending and on can the b efollowing illustrate dvowel by placing the same morpheme/makha/ in different ‘earth’ following + /a- máni/contexts. ‘APPL Lakhota-walk’ generallymakxámani bans ‘travelcodas, onbut foot’ it is possible to vary the following context + by /it placingʃú/ ‘take’ morphemes in ma certainkhít ʃu syntactic ‘take up contexts,land, settle’ where the final vowels of certain morphemes+ /eglak areĩjã/ deleted, as in (2).ma Whenkheɡlak thisĩjã happens,‘across the the earth quality (adv.)’ of aspir a- tion is determined by the quality of the following vowel, respecting the distribution in (1). /napha/ ‘flee’ + /ijája/ ‘leave’ [naphíjaja] ‘leave a place fleeing’ (22)(3)Certain(2) ParadigmReadjustment stem- uniformityfinal of vowels aspiration under also qualityablautshow paradigmatic depending on [a the]∼ [efollowing]∼[ĩ] alternations, vowel in a process known as ablaut:/makha/ [sapa] ‘earth’ ∼ [sape] + ‘hit’/a∼- máni/[sap ĩ] ‘‘black’.APPL‘try-walk’ toThe do’ distribution makx‘tellámani the in truth’‘travel (1) leads on foot’ us to expect that aspirated stops3sg+ havePROG velar aspiration+ a/itpʃˣú/a- hã‘take’ before iju [a],tˣa dorsal-hã ma beforewitkhítʃaʃ uk[ĩ ˣ],‘takea -andhã up variable land, settle’ realization before [e] (depending 3sg on+NEG place of+ articulation). a/eglakpˣe-ʃniĩjã/ However,ijutˣe-ʃni aspiration makhwiteʃɡalak kisˣ eĩalwjã-ʃni ‘acrossays velar the before earth (adv.)’ablaut vowels: /napha/3sg+ ‘flee’EMPH + a/ijája/pˣe-xt ‘leave’ʃa iju tˣe-xtʃa [naphwitíjaja]ʃakˣe ‘leave-xtʃa a place fleeing’ 3sg+FUT apˣĩ-kte ijutˣĩ-kte witʃakˣĩ-kte Certain stem-final vowels also show paradigmatic [a]∼[e]∼[ĩ] alternations, in a process known Theas ablaut: preservation [sapa] of∼ [sape]velar frication ∼ [sapĩ] is‘black’. problematic The distribution for a stratal in account. (1) leads First, us to it expectis not clear that aspwhati- (23)intermediaterated “ OOstops-Faith have stage demandsvelar of thaspiratione der thativ ationinflected before would [a], forms dorsalbe responsible be before faithful [ĩ ],for toand conditioninga privilegedvariable realization velar[inflected] aspir beafore tionbase [e] in form. forms(dependingConverging like [ap onˣ eplace-ʃ ni]evidence ofor articulation).[apˣ ĩfrom-kte], severalsince However, these distinct forms aspiration cases do not ofis alwcontainoverays- and velarthe underapplicationback before vowel ablaut that vowels: would indicate ordinarilythat the condition base of it. Lakhota One possibility verb paradigms is that these is aforms form really that enddo contains in the [ap ablautˣa] at vowel some stage[a], which of theshould derivation; condition another velar possibility aspiration. is that This they quality simply is thencontain carried [apˣ], over and tovelar other aspir inflectedation is the defaultforms by realization BASE-IDENT(frication) when non-prevocalic.” Although there is no direct support for either claim, let us assume for the sake of argument that the context is indeed present to derive inter- Theremediate are other [apˣ]. examplesThen, an IO of- IthisDENT kind constraint in the literature;for aspiration see quality e.g., Ster mustiade be promo2008 ted in order to preserve this quality. However, the forms in (2) show that this is unworkable: even if IO-

IDENT(asp) is ranked highly at some point in the derivation, it must be demoted again at the 4.4 phrasalBUT level, BACK so TO that STRATAL the quality ORDERING of aspiration THEORY can :once HOW again MANY between STRATA determined? by the following vowel context. However, this later evaluation would obliterate intermediate [apˣ], and (24)thus fails“Stratal to predict Phonology, paradigm however, uniformity. adds two other important claims. First, cyclic domain Astructure second argumentis sparse: against relatively the fewstratal morphosyntactic approach comes constituentsfrom the fact trigger that the phonological putative IO- IDENTcycles. constraint Secondly, must preserve there are the different dorsal or P glottal-functions quality for of cyclic aspiration. nodes As of far different as I have rank.” been able to establish, this phonetic distinction has not been documented to be contrastive in any (25)language, Stratal which OT offers raises Stem, the question Word, whyPhrase its effects are only seen in cases of paradigm uniformity, and never basic contrasts. But thereBoth are of many these languagesproblems are for circumvented which analysts in an have approach posited in morewhich lexical OO-Faith strata demands than justthat two (Stem,inflected Word). forms be faithful to a privileged base form. Converging evidence from several distinct cases of over- and underapplication indicate that the base of Lakhota verb paradigms is a 4.4.1form M thatALAYALAM ends in the ablaut vowel [a], which should condition velar aspiration. This quality is then carried over to other inflected forms by BASE-IDENT(frication), as in (4). Additionally, I (26)argue Mohanan’s that by distinguishing factory metaphor different (1986:47): dimensions of faithfulness (IO vs OO), we gain some insight into why aspiration quality can be preserved paradigmatically, but not as a lexical contrast.“ ThereFollowing is a Flemmingconveyor (2008)belt that and runs Steriade from ( 2008the entry), I argue gate that to the theseexit gatedimensions passing are through driveneach by ofopposing these rooms. forces: Thislexical means contrasts that shouldevery wordbe perceptually that leaves maximally the factory distinct, came while in through allomorphsthe entry should gate beand minimally passed th distroughinct. every This principleone of these may rooms.”preclude constraints such as IO- IDENT(frication quality) from CON altogether, or at least make it very unlikely that they will be satisfied. OO-IDENT,UR on →the [ otherlevel hand,1 ] → may[ level freely 2 ] → targets [ level such 3 ] →properties, [ level 4 since] they contrib- ute to detailed similarity that helps to make allomorphs readily identifiable. This distinction is unavailable in an approach that eschews different dimensions of Faithfulness. (4) Misapplication of aspiration quality /apʰa-he/ Base-Ident(fric) *C7 ˣ/[+hi,…] *Cʰ a. apʰahe *! ☞ b. apˣahe

/apʰĩ-kte/ Base-Ident(fric) *Cˣ/[+hi,…] *Cʰ a. apʰĩkte *! * ☞ b. apˣĩkte *

Morphophonology 07/11/2017

The lexicon UR

Morphology Phonology

Level 1 Level 1

Level 2 Level 2

......

(27) Mohanan (1982) proposes the following level ordering schema for Malayalam:

Stratum 1: Derivation Stratum 2: Subcompounding (head modifier semantics) Stratum 3: Cocompounding (coordination semantics) Stratum 4: Inflection

(28) Stratum n- Vowel Nasal Stem-final Gemination Tone and deletion sandhi deletion vowel stress lengthening 1 ✓ ✓ 2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 3 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 4

(29) Gemination: affects obstruents in Dravidian stems at internal Subcompound (stratum 2) juncture

a. meeşa + peṭṭi -kaḷ → meeşa+ppeṭṭi-kaḷə S ‘table’ ‘box’ -PL ‘table boxes = boxes made out of tables’ b. meeşa + peṭṭi -kaḷ → meeşa+peṭṭi-kaḷə C ‘tables and boxes’ c. kaaṭ + mar̄am → kaaṭṭǝ+mar̄am S [1982:37] ‘forest’ ‘tree’ ‘forest tree’ d. aaṭ + maaṭ -kaḷ → aaṭǝ+maaṭǝ-kaḷǝ C [1982:37] ‘goat’ ‘cow’ -PL ‘cattle’

(30) Stress assignment (stratum 3): stress a syllable with a long vowel, and the final syllable, and the initial syllable unless followed by another stressed syllable. The leftmost stressed syllable is most prominent.

(31) Tone assignment (stratum 3): insert a LH melody. L links to syllable with main stress; H links to span containing final syllable and leftmost nonitial stressed syllable

8 Morphophonology 07/11/2017

(32) Tone and stress a. ṯii + waṇṭi + aappiis Subcompound fire cart office ‘fire station’

[ṯíiwaṇṭiyàappìisə] | | L H

b. yákṣan + kínnaran̄ + gáṉḏharwwan Cocompound Yakshas Kinnaras Gandharwas ‘Yakshas, Kinnaras and Gandharwas’

Interim summary: Four (4) ordered lexical strata

4.4.2 TURKISH (33) Turkish: >2 several lexically assigned stress patterns alone o Final stress: default o Stem-final stress: certain suffixes (overrides default) o ‘Sezer’ stress: imposed on place names

(34) Basque (Hualde 1988), Sekani (Hargus 1988), Kashaya (Buckley 1994)… up to 4-5 strata have been motivated.

Interim summary: More than two ordered lexical strata

9 Morphophonology 07/11/2017

4.5 STRATAL THEORY WEAKEND: LOOP OR NONORDERING EFFECTS

4.5.1 THE LOOP: MALAYALAM

Stratal ordering predicts S inside C. Not predicted: C inside S. But: both occur

(35) kaamuki ‘lady love’ bhaaryā ‘wife’ sahooḏarī ‘sister’

(36) Subcompound inside cocompound

[[ káamukii ] [[ bháaryàā ][ sahòoḏarī ]]] -maarə ‘lady love and wife’s sister’ L H L H

(37) Cocompound inside subcompound

[[[ káamukii ][ bháaryàa]]̄ [ sahóoḏarī ] -maarə ‘sisters of lady love and wife’ L H L H L H

(38) a. meeşa ‘table’ peṭṭi ‘box’ kasaala ‘chair’ b. meeşakasaalaappeṭṭikaḷǝ ‘boxes made from tables and chairs’ lit. [[ta-ch]C-bx]S-PL c. meeşapeṭṭikkasaalaa kaḷǝ ‘chairs made from tables and boxes’ lit. [[ta-bx]C-ch]S-PL

(39) Mohanan: Loop

Stratum 1 → Stratum 2 ↔ Stratum 3 → Stratum 4

Loops have also been posited in Basque (Hualde 1988), Sekani (Hargus 1988) and Turkish (Inkelas & Orgun 1998).

10 Morphophonology 07/11/2017

4.5.2 TURKISH: LEVEL NONORDERING (INKELAS & ORGUN 1998)

(40) a. Neutral suffixes inside place name: Sezer pattern imposed on outer stem [Kandil-li] (pace name) cf. kandil-li ‘oil lamp-ASSOC’ kanˈdilli kandilˈli [Ayran-cı] (place name) cf. ayran-cı ‘yogurt drink-AGT’ ajˈranʤɯ ajranˈʤɯ [Kuzgun-cuk] (place name) cf. kuzgun-cuk ‘raven-DIM’ kuzˈgunʤuk kuzgunˈʤuk b. Neutral suffixes outside Sezer stem: Sezer pattern prevails on inner stem [Menteşe]-cik ‘Menteşe-DIM cf. menteşe-cik ‘hinge-DIM’ ˈmenteʃeʤik menteʃeˈʤik [Kandil-li]-ye ‘Kandilli-DAT’ cf. kandil-li-ye ‘oil lamp-ASSOC-DAT’ kanˈdillije kandilliˈje c. Prestressing suffixes inside place name: Prestressing pattern prevails (on inner stem) [çam-lı-^ca] cf. çam-lı-ca ʧamˈlɯʤa ʧamˈlɯʤa (place name) ‘pine-ASSOC-MIT’ d. Prestressing suffixes outside Sezer stem: Sezer pattern prevails (on inner stem) [Ankara]-^mı cf. araba-^mı ˈankaramɯ araˈbamɯ ‘Ankara-INTERR’ ‘car-INTERR’ [Ankara]-lı-laş-^mı-dı cf. yaban-cɯ-laş-^mı-dı ˈankaralɯlaʃmɯdɯ jabanʤɯˈlaʃmɯdɯ ‘Ankara-ASSOC-VBL-NEG-PAST’ ‘foreign-AGT-ASSOC-VBL-NEG-PAST’

11 Morphophonology 07/11/2017

4.5.3 MOSES-COLUMBIAN SALISH (NXA'AMXCIN)

Czaykowska-Higgins (1993): level ordering theory would require at least ten levels to account for morphologically conditioned stress patterns in Moses-Columbian Salish (Nxa'amxcin).

(41) Suffixes in Nxa'amxcin are either dominant (stress-deleting) or recessive (stress-preserving), in terms of their effect on base stress. o Root + recessive suffixes = root stress: / kʷuɫn-n-t-sa-xʷ-taʔ/ → kʷúɫncxʷtaʔ CYCLICITY‘lend -CTRAND- TRSTRESS-1SG O-IN2 SGMOSES-COLUMBIAS-IMP = lend it toSALISH me!’ [208]269 o Root + dominant suffixes = stress on rightmost dominant: of the in/transitiv(izer) /kas- p̓iq-cincategory -cut-mix are/ either→ kas dominantp̓ iqcncútǝ orxʷ recessive. (73) lists suffixes of this category accordingto the order in which they occur ‘UNR-cook-FOOD-REFL-IMPF = he’s going to cook’ [209] relative to each other and indicateswhether they are dominantor recess- There is no way to predict this phonological difference from the morphological properties • ive. Suffixes of this category can cooccur (see Czaykowska-Higgins of suffixes.(1990b) for details). • Dominant and recessive suffixes are freely interspersed among each other in Nxa'amxcin words. (73) The chartOrder below of Inltrans illustrates Suffixes in/transitiv(izer) suffixes:

-xix- -min- -nun- -m- -tul- -t- -cut -xax -xit- -stu- -waxw -n- D R D R D R D

Withinthis category, there are no semantic/syntacticcriteria by which one • Eithercan posit predict a loop whether or have a particulara lot of levelssuffix with will identicalbe dominant phonology. or recessive. Thus, for instance, while -stu 'causative' and -tul 'redirective'are both Conclusion:grammatical-function-changing a nexus between morphologicalmorphemes, zone andone phonological is recessiveand subpattern the other cannot be taken for granted. isIf dominant. we apply If the one term brings ‘level’together to phonological the distributional subpattern,and cyclic levels properties are not always ordered. of the in/transitiv(izer)swith the propertiesof suffixesof the other categories, it turns out that it is necessaryto postulate at least ten distinctstrata for Cm. These strata are given in I Strata aren’t limited to 2…. they aren’t ordered….it’s(74). have starting specified to for look each like stratum Cophonology Theory. whether it is cyclic or noncyclic. But what about the generalizations? (74) Stratum1: PrimaryAffixes, Lexical Suffixes Cyclic

4.6 AFFIX-SPECIFICStratum MORPHOLOGIC 2: =mixALLY (LS), CONDITIONED =min (LS), PHO=tn, NOLOGYNoncyclic =xn, =lqst, =lqs 4.6.1 THE ORIGINAL CASE STUDY: ENGLISH (42) Level 1 ClassStratum 1 (“+3: -boundary) -xix, -xax derivation, inflection Cyclic Level 2 Compounding , Class 2 (“#-boundary”) derivation Level 3 ClassStratum 2 (“#4: -boundary”) -min, -xit inflection [Note: Kiparsky Noncyclic1982b puts this on Level 2]

(43) Derivational suffixesStratum 5: -nun Cyclic Class 1: -al, -ity, -ic, -ive, -ion, -ate, -ous, -ism, -ist-... [Latinate] Stratum 6: -m, -stu, -1, -n Noncyclic Class 2: -ness, -hood, -less, -ful, -ish, -ing, -ize, -er… [Germanic] Stratum7: -tul Cyclic

Stratum8: -t, obj., subj. Noncyclic Stratum9: -cut, -waxw Cyclic

Stratum10: -mix Noncyclic The need to postulate ten strata for Cm12 undermines the predictivevalue Morphophonology 07/11/2017

(44) Semantic generalizations: Class 1: often irregular, less productive Class 2: regular, more productive

(e.g. curios-ity vs. curious#ness; *bland-ity vs. bland#ness, drill vs. drill#er, etc.)

(45) Ordering generalizations: I closer to root than II root+I+I root+I#II root+II#II *root#II+I act+iv+ate act+ion-less hope-less-ness *hope-less+ity

(46) Phonological generalizations (sample) isolation class 1 suffix class 2 suffix i. STRESS (I) (stress-changing) (stress-neutral) párent parént+al párent#hood ínfinite infínit+ude ínfinite#ness orígin orígin-al, origin-ál-ity próperty próperty#less(#ness) ii. TRISYLLABIC LAXING (I) opáque [ej] opác-ity [æ] opáque#ness [ej] divíne [aj] divín-ity [ɪ] divíne#er [aj] tóne [ow] tón-ic [a] tóne#bearing [ow] iiii. PALATALIZATION/SPIRANTIZATION (I) classic [k] classic-ism [s] lick-ing [k] classic-ist [s] clique-ish [k] cyclic [k] cylic-ity [s] pleas-er [z] please [z] pleas-ure [ʒ] pleas-ing [z]

(47) Problem: exceptions (see e.g., Aronoff & Sridhar 1983, Halle & Mohanan 1985) a. -ist • Velar softening (Str. 1): clássi[s]-ist • No Stress shift (Str. 2): hóspital, hóspital-ist (cf. hospitál-ity) b. -al • Stress shift (Str. 1): párent, parént-al • No Trisyllabic laxing (Str. 2): t[oː]n-al, vs. t[a]n-ic etc.

• Maybe -ist should be Level 1, but an exception to Stress shift (Gussenhoven 1986)? • Mark -al as extrametrical, therefore evades Trisyllabic Laxing (Hayes 1981)?

But: if within a level there can be morphologically conditioned phonology, what is the point of saying it’s a phonologically uniform level?

Stress Shift Trisyllabic Laxing Spir/Pal -ity: yes yes yes -ic: yes yes no -al: yes no ⎯ -ist: no no yes -ing: no no no

Five suffixes, five levels? Looks like Cophonology Theory.

13 Morphophonology 07/11/2017

4.7 BACK TO MALAYALAM Mohanan and Mohanan (1984:588): Palatalization (of velars after a front vowel) is morphologically conditioned beyond what 4 levels can capture. It applies to the causative and verbalizing suffixes (which M&M locate in Stratum 2) but not at the internal compound juncture at Stratum 2; it applies to the dative suffix but not to the plural suffix (both stratum 4). It does not apply in Stratum 3 or postlexically.

(48) Stratum Palatalization applies Stratum Palatalization does not apply 2 mara-k’k’- 2 kuṭṭi-kaḷi ‘child-game’ ‘cat-CAUS’ 2 wira-k’k’- ‘tremble-VBLZER’ 4 kuṭṭi-k’k’ǝ 4 kuṭṭi-kaḷ ‘child-PLURAL’ ‘daughter-DATIVE’

4.8 INTERIM SUMMARY • Stratal OT: 2 (“stem” and “word”) • Studies of highly affixing languages in the LMP framework: up to 5 (Malayalam, Turkish, Sekani, Kashaya, Basque …) • Cophonology theory and Indexed Constraint theory: bounded only by the number of morphological constructions in the language. In theory, each morphological construction could be associated with a distinct constraint ranking.

2, 3, 4 very large number this is a big difference! isn’t this an empirical issue? why hasn’t this been resolved??

• Stratal OT is focused on high-level generalizations and on cross-linguistic tendencies, not on language-specific details. • Once those are taken into account, Cophonology Theory is a more practical model. • But do we lose all generalization?

5. HOW DIFFERENT CAN MORPHOLOGICALLY CONDITIONED PATTERNS IN THE SAME LANGUAGE BE FROM ONE ANOTHER? (49) Proposed means of constraining language-internal phonological variation • Strong Domain hypothesis (LMP; Kiparsky 1984) These o Rules all apply in Stratum 1, turn off at some later level three are • Stratum Domain hypothesis (LMP; Halle & Mohanan 1985) meaning- o Each rule turns on at some stratum, turns off at some later stratum less if • Stratal OT (Kiparsky 2003) levels are o “I assume that the constraint system of level n+1 may differ in not fully ranking from constraint system of level n by promotion of one or ordered more constraints to undominated status”

14 Morphophonology 07/11/2017

• Grammar Dependence (Alderete 1999, 2001a): formulated within Indexed Constraint theory. Strata differ only in the ranking of Faithfulness. Markedness constraint ranking, representing the default for the language, is invariant. See Inkelas & Zoll 2007. • Grammar Lattice (Anttila 1997, 2002): any and all variation is possible; the ‘genius’ of a language is expressed via a master partial constraint ranking that all cophonologies must respect.

5.1 GRAMMAR LATTICE Grammar Lattice: cophonologies of a language arranged in a hierarchy (lattice) (Anttila 1997, 2002, 2009)

(50) Example (19) from Lecture 1: [Turkish] C-final root V-final root ‘do’ ‘come’ ‘understand’ ‘say’ jap gel anla søjle Facilitative /-Iver/: epenthesis jap-ɯver gel-iver anla-jɯver søyle-jiver Progressive /-Ijor/: deletion jap-ıjor gel-ijor anl-ɯjor søyl-yjor

(51) Analyzed with a grammar lattice:

Master Ranking *VV » {MAX-V, DEP-C}

Cophonology A (-Iver) Cophonology B (-Ijor) *VV » DEP-C » MAX-V *VV » MAX-V » DEP-C

6. YES, BUT • Are there any limits on variation? • What do we know about the actual range of variation in languages, anyway? • Could Cophonology theory describe a crazy language that has, say, Mandarin tone in nouns and Carib stress on verbs?

15 Morphophonology 07/11/2017

1. Language-internally there is more variation between, say, ideophones and non- ideophones than there is between, say, verbs and nouns. • In Yir-Yoront (Cape York Peninsula, Australia) ideophones allow certain onsets not otherwise permitted in the language, yet ban certain codas which are otherwise possible (Alpher 1994: 162). • Any grammar that can describe the kinds of asymmetries holding between ideophones and non-ideophones in Yir-Yoront is clearly capable of describing comparable, or even more extreme, asymmetries between categories like noun and adjective, or passive vs. active verb, etc. • Thus any formal principle that tolerates the kind of language-internal variation that exists between ideophones and non-ideophones will over- generate variation potential in other sectors of grammar. • In this way, then, any broad-based constraints on grammatical variation are already doomed to miss a large part of the picture.

2. Language-internal variation and cross-linguistic variation are logically and materially related: language splits evolve from dialect splits, and dialect splits result from language- internal variation. • Anttila (1997, 2002) has explicitly related subgrammatical variation, for which he posits cophonologies, to the kind of free variation giving rise to dialect splits, based on solid diachronic and synchronic data from Finnish (see also Anttila & Cho 1998on Korean). • The fact that the degree of difference between two languages is typically greater than the degree of difference found among patterns within a language is surely related to the fact that distantly related languages differ from one another more than closely related languages do.

3. Under the right historical circumstances, languages can achieve amazing internal diversity. • In Michif, a so-called ‘‘mixed language’’ in which the nominal systems is largely based on French and the verbal system largely based in Cree (see e.g., Bakker 1997). Michif has distinct co-existing phonological systems, one French-influenced and one Cree- influenced. It was the unique history of the language that gave rise to these unusually different cophonologies. • In English, where the phonological differences between ‘‘level 1’’ and ‘‘level 2’’ in English are largely due to differences between English and French, most ‘‘level 1’’ morphophonemic alternations are due entirely to allomorphy in words borrowed from French (see e.g. Bermudez-Otero & McMahon 2006)

16 Morphophonology 07/11/2017

7. SUMMARY: THE KEY DIFFERENCES Cophonology theory is basically Stratal OT, stripped of the assumption that there’s an upper bound on the number of strata and stripped of the assumption that strata are extrinsically ordered.

Stratal Cophonology OT Theory Level ordering (each yes no morphological ‘zone’ of the word associated with a unique phonological subpattern) Fixed, small # of levels yes no Differences between subpatterns yes no strictly constrained Can handle idiosyncratic no yes morphologically conditioned phonology Can handle process morphology no yes Cyclic or Parallel Cyclic (±Interleaving) (interleaving)

17 Morphophonology 07/11/2017

References

Alderete, John. 1999. Morphologically governed accent in Optimality Theory. University of Massachussets, Amherst, Ph.D. dissertation. Alderete, John. 2001. Dominance effects as transderivational anti-faithfulness. Phonology 18(2). 201–253. Anttila, Arto. 2002. Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20(1). 1– 42. Anttila, Arto & Young-mee Yu Cho. 1998. Variation and change in Optimality Theory. Lingua 104(1–2). 31–36. Benua, Laura. 1997a. Affix classes are defined by faithfulness. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 5. Benua, Laura. 1997b. Transderivational Identity: Phonological Relations Between Words. Amherst: University of Massachusetts PhD dissertation. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2011. Cyclicity. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, vol. 4, 2019–2048. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Bermudez-Otero, Ricardo & April McMahon. 2006. English phonology and morphology. In Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Buckley, Eugene L. 1994. Theoretical aspects of Kashaya phonology and morphology. (Dissertation in Linguistics Series). Stanford: CSLI Publications. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1986. English plosive allophones and ambisyllabicity. Gramma 10(2). 119–141. Halle, Morris & K. P Mohanan. 1985. Segmental phonology of modern English. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 57–116. Hargus, Sharon. 1988. The lexical phonology of Sekani. (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics Series). New York: Garland Publishing Co. Hayes, Bruce. 1981. A metrical theory of stress rules. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Hualde, José. 1988. A lexical phonology of Basque. Inkelas, Sharon & Cemil Orhan Orgun. 1998. Level (non)ordering in recursive morphology: evidence from Turkish. In Steven Lapointe, Diane Brentari & Patrick Farrell (eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Inkelas, Sharon, Cemil Orhan Orgun & Cheryl Zoll. 1997. Implications of lexical exceptions for the nature of grammar. In Iggy Roca (ed.), Constraints and Derivations in Phonology, 393–418. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Inkelas, Sharon & Cheryl Zoll. 2007. Is Grammar Dependence Real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics 45. 133–171. 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. 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. 1984. On the lexical phonology of Icelandic. In Claes-Christian Elert, Iréne Johansson & Eva Strangert (eds.), Nordic prosody II: papers from a symposium, 135–164. Ume\aa: University of Ume\aa. Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 85–138. Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351–367. Kiparsky, Paul. 2003. Finnish noun inflection. In Diane Nelson & Satu Manninen (eds.), Generative approaches to Finnic and Saami linguistics, 109–161. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. Fenno-Swedish Quantity: Contrast in Stratal OT. In Bert Vaux & Andrew Nevins (eds.), Rules, constraints and phonological phenomena, 185–220. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mohanan, K. P. 1982. Lexical phonology. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ph.D. dissertation. Mohanan, K. P. 1986. Lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Mohanan, K. P. & Tara Mohanan. 1984. Lexical phonology of the consonant system in Malayalam. Linguistic Inquiry 15(4). 575–602. Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1996. Sign-based morphology and phonology: with special attention to Optimality Theory. University of California, Berkeley. Steriade, Donca. 2008. A pseudo-cyclic effect in Romanian morphophonology. In Asaf Bachrach & Andrew Nevins (eds.), Inflectional identity, 313–360. Oxford: Oxford University Press.