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, re- un-, 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 Page 7 of 45 (17) Illustration from Bermudez-Otero paper: Nstem SGaffix Student © Questions: (2) Nword Astem Naffix 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 -ateSL -ionSL -lessWL -nessWL -∅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 rd of "acommod”? P Pst 3 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.