Phonological Conditions on Affixation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Phonological Conditions on Affixation by Mary Elizabeth Paster B.A. (Ohio State University) 2000 M.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 2002 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Committee in charge: Professor Sharon Inkelas, Co-Chair Professor Andrew Garrett, Co-Chair Professor Kristin Hanson Spring 2006 Phonological Conditions on Affixation © 2006 by Mary Elizabeth Paster Abstract Phonological Conditions on Affixation by Mary Elizabeth Paster Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Professor Sharon Inkelas and Professor Andrew Garrett, Co-Chairs This dissertation presents results of a cross-linguistic survey of phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy (PCSA). One hundred thirty-seven examples are discussed, representing 67 languages. Three major generalizations emerge from the survey. First, PCSA occurs at the same edge of the stem as the trigger: PCSA in prefixes is triggered at the left edge of the stem, while PCSA in suffixes is triggered at the right edge. Second, PCSA is sensitive to underlying rather than surface forms. This is demonstrated in several examples where phonological processes render opaque the conditions determining allomorph distribution. Finally, despite its characterization in recent literature, PCSA is not always optimizing. In numerous examples, words are no more phonologically well-formed than they would be if there were no allomorphy, or if the distribution of allomorphs were reversed. The generalizations arising in this survey distinguish between competing frameworks for modeling phonological conditions on affixation. The first is the ‘P >> M’ approach, where PCSA is modeled by ranking Phonological constraints over Morphological constraints in Optimality Theory. This model predicts that PCSA should 1 be phonologically optimizing and that allomorphy may be sensitive to phonological conditions anywhere in the word. In the alternative approach, advocated here, PCSA is modeled by incorporating phonological elements of stems into the subcategorization frames of affixes. Subcategorization frames specify the type of stem to which affixes will attach, including syntactic, morphological, and (crucially) phonological features of stems. The distribution of suppletive allomorphs results from different requirements imposed by each allomorph on stems. This approach predicts that allomorphy should be sensitive to input rather than surface phonological elements and that PCSA should be sensitive only to elements at the edge of the stem where the affix attaches. These predictions are upheld in the survey. In the introduction and conclusion, I situate these findings in the broader context of the literature on the phonology-morphology interface. I also consider predictions of the models discussed above for other types of phonological effects in morphology, showing that research in those areas converges with the results presented here. 2 Phonological Conditions on Affixation Table of contents Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 1.1 Phonological conditions on affixation ............................................................... 3 1.1.1 The P >> M model ....................................................................................... 6 1.1.1.1 Description of the model ....................................................................... 7 1.1.1.2 Predictions for phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy ...... 8 1.1.2 The subcategorization model ....................................................................... 11 1.1.2.1 Description of the model ....................................................................... 11 1.1.2.2 Predictions for phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy ...... 12 1.2 Phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy .......................................... 16 1.2.1 Previous discussions .................................................................................... 17 1.2.2 Survey methodology .................................................................................... 22 Chapter 2. Segmentally conditioned suppletive allomorphy ................................ 25 2.1 Survey results ..................................................................................................... 25 2.1.1 Allomorphy vs. morphophonology .............................................................. 27 2.1.2 Examples ...................................................................................................... 31 2.1.2.1 Assimilation/harmony ............................................................................ 31 2.1.2.2 Dissimilation/disharmony ...................................................................... 39 2.1.2.3 Syllable structure optimization .............................................................. 53 2.1.2.4 Syllable contact constraint satisfaction .................................................. 72 2.1.2.5 Non-optimization ................................................................................... 76 2.1.2.6 Opaque conditioning .............................................................................. 98 2.1.3 Summary ...................................................................................................... 103 2.2 Analysis ............................................................................................................. 104 2.3 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 109 Chapter 3. Tone/stress conditioned suppletive allomorphy .................................. 111 3.1 Survey results ..................................................................................................... 111 3.1.1 Examples ...................................................................................................... 113 3.1.1.1 Stress effects .......................................................................................... 113 3.1.1.2 Stem allomorphy .................................................................................... 119 3.1.1.3 Tone effects ........................................................................................... 126 3.1.1.4 Non-optimization ................................................................................... 131 3.1.2 Summary ...................................................................................................... 135 3.2 Analysis ............................................................................................................. 136 3.3 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 139 Chapter 4. Prosodically conditioned suppletive allomorphy ................................ 140 4.1 Survey results ..................................................................................................... 140 4.1.1 Examples ...................................................................................................... 142 4.1.1.1 Foot parsing ........................................................................................... 144 4.1.1.2 Minimality ............................................................................................. 159 i 4.1.1.3 Non-optimization ................................................................................... 165 4.1.2 Summary ...................................................................................................... 172 4.2 Historical development of prosodically conditioned suppletive allomorphy: The case of Pama-Nyungan ergative suffix allomorphy ................................... 174 4.2.1 Examples ...................................................................................................... 176 4.2.2 Previous discussions .................................................................................... 196 4.2.3 A history of PN ergative allomorphy ........................................................... 201 4.3 Analysis of prosodically conditioned suppletive allomorphy ........................... 205 4.3.1 The Output Optimization approach ............................................................. 205 4.3.2 Survey results revisited ................................................................................ 207 4.3.3 Examples of non-optimizing syllable-counting allomorphy (SCA) ............ 208 4.3.4 Examples of SCA possibly resulting from TETU ....................................... 211 4.3.5 The Subcategorization approach .................................................................. 212 4.3.6 Using Subcategorization to model SCA....................................................... 214 4.3.7 Estonian revisited ......................................................................................... 214 4.3.8 Summary of analysis .................................................................................... 216 4.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 217 Chapter 5. Predictions of the P >> M model .......................................................... 219 5.1 Empty morphs .................................................................................................... 221 5.2 Phonologically induced morphological