Inflectional Paradigms Have a Base: Evidence from S-Dissimilation in Southern German Dialects

Morphology (2007) 17:151–178 DOI 10.1007/s11525-007-9112-z ORIGINAL PAPER Inflectional paradigms have a base: evidence from s-Dissimilation in Southern German dialects T. A. Hall Æ John H. G. Scott Received: 7 March 2007/Accepted: 4 June 2007/Published online: 15 September 2007 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 Abstract In many varieties of Southern German the contrast between /s/ and /∫/ is neutralized to [∫] before /p t/ anywhere within a word (e.g. Post [po∫t] ÔmailÕ), but neutralization does not occur before inflectional suffixes (e.e. ku¨ss-t [kyst] ‘kiss (3 SG)’). It will be argued that the underapplication of neutralization before inflectional suffixes is an example of a Paradigm Uniformity effect: Neutralization is blocked from applying to the final /s/ of a stem so that it will retain a constant shape in a paradigm. Underapplication in examples like [kyst] follows from a requirement that the stem in a derived word be identical to the unaffixed base. By contrast, the German data will be shown to be problematic for the Optimal Paradigms model (McCarthy 2005), since this approach does not allow for a base in inflectional paradigms. Keywords Paradigm uniformity Æ Base identity Æ Optimality Theory Æ German Æ Swabian Æ Realize Morpheme Æ Homophony T. A. Hall (&) Æ John H. G. Scott Department of Germanic Studies, Indiana University, Ballantine Hall 644, 1020 Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405-7103, USA e-mail: [email protected] J. H. G. Scott [email protected] 123 152 T. A. Hall, John H. G. Scott 1 Introduction In many southern German dialects (e.g. Swabian) the contrast between /s/ and /∫/ is neutralized to [∫] before /p t/ anywhere within a word. Representative examples illustrating the process we refer to as s-Dissimilation are presented in (1a). s-Dissimilation is systematically blocked before (inflectional) suffixes, as in (1b). These data have been collected from a Swabian speaker from Donau- eschingen: (1) Examples illustrating s-Dissimilation (in a) and its blockage (in b): a a. stark [∫t c k] ‘strong’ Post [po∫t] ‘mail’ b. ku¨ ss-t [kyst] ‘kiss (3 SG)’ In the terminology of rule-based phonology s-Dissimilation underapplies in (1b). This means that the structural description of the rule is met but that the process nevertheless fails to go into effect. We argue that the underapplication of s-Dissimilation in (1b) derives an explanation based on the notion of Paradigm Uniformity (e.g. Raffelsiefen 1995; Kenstowicz 1996; Benua 1997; Steriade 2000; Raffelsiefen 2004 and the contributions in Downing et al. 2005). One of the central ideas of Paradigm Uniformity is that a phonological process (e.g. s-Dissimilation) can be blocked from applying or favored in applying to increase the identity of morphologically related words. In Optimality Theory (OT; Prince and Smolensky 2004; Kager 1999) Para- digm Uniformity is commonly captured by positing specific Output-Output (O-O) constraints, which by definition demand identity to morphologically related words. Although O-O constraints are frequently employed in the literature there is little agreement on how they should be evaluated. In derivational morphology there appears to be agreement that O-O constraints compare affixed forms with an unaffixed base (e.g. Raffelsiefen 1996, 2004; McCarthy 2005), but there is disagreement in the literature concerning whether or not this approach also holds for inflection. Some linguists have argued that inflectional paradigms have a base to which the remaining forms in the paradigms must be faithful (e.g. Kenstowicz 1996; Albright 2004), while others hold that inflectional paradigms do not require reference to a base (e.g. the Optimal Paradigms (OP) model of McCarthy 2005). Thus, in the latter approach McCarthy for- malizes O-O constraints (called OP constraints in his model) in such a way that each member of an inflectional paradigm must match every other member but without a base. The OP model makes a very clear prediction concerning the type of PU effects which should be possible in natural language. If a canonical, phonological pattern requires the general ranking in (2a), then McCarthy shows that the regular phonology can spread to the rest of the paradigm (i.e. the regular rule overapplies), by means of a high-ranking OP constraint, as in (2b). 123 Inflectional paradigms have a base 153 (2) Paradigm Uniformity effects in the OP model: a. Canonical pattern: Markedness » I-O Faithfulness b. Paradigm Uniformity effects (overapplication): OP Faithfulness » Markedness » I-O Faithfulness McCarthy (2005, p. 197) stresses that the ranking in (2b) always results in the overapplication paradigm being selected over the underapplication paradigm and that underapplication in inflectional paradigms is a situation that can only be possible if there is some high ranking (markedness) constraint which penalizes the overapplication paradigm fatally. We argue below that the data in (1) are problematic for McCarthy’s prediction. In particular, we show that for German it is not clear what the high ranking constraint would be which would allow the underapplication paradigm to be selected as optimal. We propose instead that the data in (1) follow if the O-O constraint is faithful to a base, contrary to the approach taken in McCarthy (2005). A second problem dealt with below is the realization of the second person singular in verbs whose stem ends in a sibilant fricative. In the southern German dialects we discuss, the stem-final segment deletes, e.g. gru¨ssen ‘greet, 2 SG’[griE-∫] (from /griEs-∫/), in violation of the base-identity requirement. Our analysis therefore needs to answer two questions: First, why are base-identity effects sacrificed for segmental deletion? And second, why is the final segment of the stem deleted and not the sibilant of the suffix? We argue that faithful outputs like *[griEs∫] which would satisfy base-identity do not occur because German avoids a sequence of two sibilants and that the deletion of the suffix does not occur (*[griEs-]) because there is a strict requirement that every morpheme receive some phonological expo- nence (Kurisu 2001). Varieties of southern German in which the second person singular ending is [∫t] (and not [∫]) prohibit the deletion of the [∫] in the suffix because the output would be homophonous to another member of the same paradigm (Crosswhite 1999; Kenstowicz 2005). The present article is structured as follows. In Sect. 2 we present the data from Swabian German — representative of the southern German dialects referred to above — which motivate s-Dissimilation and then give an analysis thereof. In Sect. 3 we introduce the data illustrating the underapplication of s-Dissimilation. Our analysis of s-Dissimilation in (1) as a process requiring a constraint ensuring base- identity is presented in Sect. 4. In Sect. 5 we discuss the OP model of McCarthy (2005) and show that it makes the incorrect predictions concerning the German data. In Sect. 6 we discuss the case of the second person singular in verbal paradigms. Sect. 7 presents our conclusions and points to directions for further research. 2 s-Dissimilation: the canonical pattern The two coronal fricatives /s/ and /∫/ are uncontroversially phonemes with similar distribution in both Standard German and Swabian German (SwG), as 123 154 T. A. Hall, John H. G. Scott illustrated in (3) below. We see here that these two fricatives contrast word- initially before a vowel (in a), word-finally after a vowel (in b) and intervo- calically (in c).1 (3) Contrast between [s] and [∫] in Standard German and SwG: Standard SwG a. Saal [zaːl] [saːl] ‘hall’ [Frey 1975: 14] Schale [∫aːlE][∫aːl] ‘bowl’ [Frey 1975: 14] b. Bus [bʊs] [bus] ‘bus’ [Frey 1975: 34] Rausch [Rau∫] [rEu∫] ‘intoxication’ [Frey 1975: 11] c. Massen [masEn] [masE] ‘masses’ [Frey 1975: 14] Maschen [ma∫En] [ma∫E] ‘meshes’ [Frey 1975: 14] It should be noted that the opposition between /s/ and /z/ in Standard German is neutralized to [s] everywhere in SwG. The postalveolar fricatives /∫ Z/ have been neutralized in the same manner to [∫]. The contrast between /s/ and /∫/ is neutralized to [∫] before /p t/ in both varieties of German (see 4a–b). In Standard German this neutralization occurs word-initially but in SwG it occurs throughout the word. In (4c) we can observe that no neutralization takes place before /k/ in either dialect.2 (4) Contrast between [s] and [∫] is neutralized to [∫] before [tp]: Standard SwG a. Speck [∫pek] [∫pek] ‘bacon’ Speise [∫paizE][∫pais] ‘food’ Knospe [knOspE] [kno∫pE] ‘bud’ Haspel [haspEl] [ha∫pEl] ‘hasp’ Wespe [vespE] [ve∫p] ‘wasp’ [Frey 1975, p. 56] b. stark [∫taRk] [∫Oak] ‘strong’ Staat [∫taːt] [∫taːt] ‘country’ a Fenster [fenst ]a [fen∫t ] ‘window’ Post [pOst] [po∫t] ‘mail’ 1 Our primary source of data for SwG is Frey (1975), who describes the variety of that dialect spoken in Stuttgart. The relevant facts are consistent with those in other varieties of SwG and other southern German dialects to be discussed below. The examples below not from Frey (1975) or another published source were provided by Vera [Hagen] Hausherr from Donaueschingen. 2 With the exception of nonintegrated loan words like Spha¨re [sfeːRE] ‘sphere’ and Sphinx [sfɪnks] ⌢ ‘sphinx’, /s/ cannot precede fricatives. The only /s/ plus affricate sequences involves [sts], e.g. Szene ⌢ [stseːnE] ‘scene’. Jutz (1931, p. 199) writes that neutralization takes place before /k/ in some varieties of southern German. One example (not given by Jutz) is the Swiss dialect described by Wipf (1910), in which the facts seem to be the same as in SwG with the exception that /s/ also shifts to [∫] before /k/ (p. 87). As noted by Wipf, these examples are loan words, since all original /sk/ clusters in native German words shifted this sequence to [∫]; e.g.

Load more