SIZE RESTRICTIONS IN PROSODIC MORPHOLOGY Katherine Heidel Ketner Selwyn College This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge April 2006 ABSTRACT This dissertation proposes a theory of conditions on prosodic constituents and how they relate to morphological categories. A significant effect of such conditions is that they can impose minimal and maximal size limits on roots and words. A good deal of research has established that there are minimality restrictions on words (McCarthy & Prince 1986, Hayes 1995); this dissertation shows how minimal restrictions on roots and maximal size restrictions on both roots and words can be characterized through Prosodic Morphology. Prosodically-based minimal and maximal size restrictions on a morphological category (MCat) are achieved indirectly through independently motivated concepts such as the Prosodic Hierarchy (Selkirk 1984) and Generalized Alignment (McCarthy and Prince 1993). A prosodically-based root size restriction follows from restrictions on prosodic categories. A language may require all prosodic words to be at least one binary foot through Headedness and Foot Binarity (McCarthy and Prince’s (1986) “Minimal Word”), or to be at most one binary foot (plus optional unfooted syllables) through a ban on non-head feet (de Lacy 2003). A size restriction is then transferred to a root morpheme through outputs in which the PCat and the MCat are linked, a process dubbed Concurrence here. One example is a bare root, which is coextensive with a prosodic word: any size restriction on the PrWd is directly translated to the root morpheme in this environment. Equally important to the indirect approach advocated in this dissertation is Output Faithfulness, which can spread size restrictions derived through Concurrence to all outputs in the language (Benua 1997). The introduction presents an overview of the proposals. Chapter 2 illustrates how they are integrated into the overall phonology of a language by examining the complex case of Czech maximal root size. Subsequent chapters explicate different aspects of the theory. Chapter 3 identifies the mechanisms behind minimal and maximal size restrictions, their predicted typologies and the strategies available for obtaining these sizes. The ways in which a root may acquire a prosodically-based size restriction are discussed in Chapter 4, which describes environments of Concurrence and explores the role played by Output Faithfulness. Chapter 5 discusses broader implications of the theory, such as a refinement of constraints on constituent alignment. Chapter 6 presents conclusions. To my family DECLARATION This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text. No part of this thesis has already or is currently being submitted for any other qualification than the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge. This dissertation contains approximately 65,000 words. Katherine H. Ketner April 2006 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My utmost gratitude goes to my supervisor, Paul de Lacy. Due to the atypical circumstances surrounding my PhD study, I came to rely on him more than usual, and fortunately for me, he delivered. Paul has provided a spectrum of support over the years, from stimulating theoretical discussions to niggling editorial details, as well as being an all-around nice guy. Of course, much of this research would not have been possible without native speaker informants. To this end, I thank Christian Gürtler, Hennes Doltze, Stephan Steinmüller and Klaus-Peter Kopper for their German judgments, and Pavlína Minns, Mirka Davis and Ondřej Peš for their contributions to the analysis of Czech. Other data is based chiefly on previously published material, but I value the additional understanding of Shipibo provided by Beto Elias-Ulloa, of Korean by Seunghun Lee, and of Māori by Paul de Lacy. I am also grateful to Inga Volmer for her assistance reading Russian language resources. Of course, all subsequent mistakes are my own. My academic development and the proposals in this dissertation were shaped by many colleagues. The participation of audiences at the 11th and 12th Manchester Phonology Meetings (2003 and 2004), the 1st and 2nd CamLing conferences (2003 and 2004), the British Association for Slavonic and East European Studies’ Conference 2005 and the UCL Phonology Reading Group proved invaluable. I especially appreciate the tutelage provided by Bruce Morén when my interests turned more to Feature Geometry. The editorial teams of the CamLing proceedings and the Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics also deserve recognition. I am grateful to the Linguistics Department and MML Faculty at Cambridge for their support. Ian Roberts and Francis Nolan were gracious enough to represent and counsel me after Paul’s move to Rutgers, and my adviser, Rachel Smith, is always iii a reliable and no-nonsense source in navigating the University and the Department. In particular, I would like to thank Ariel Knapman and Siobhán Carew for all of their help and patience. The Linguistics Department, Selwyn College and Rutgers University all provided valuable academic and financial support. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their love and understanding, although I don’t see most of you nearly as often as I’d like. My parents’ love and wisdom helped me achieve my goals and continue to inspire me. Extra special thanks go to my husband, who provided immeasurable support and almost always knows the right thing to say. iv CONTENTS ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................. I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................II CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... IV CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1 2 PROSODIC WORD SIZE RESTRICTIONS ...................................................5 2.1 Minimal word size.........................................................................................6 2.2 Maximal word size........................................................................................8 3 TYPOLOGY OF SIZE RESTRICTIONS.......................................................11 3.1 Typology of minimal size............................................................................12 3.2 Typology of maximal size ...........................................................................14 3.3 Typology of responses.................................................................................16 3.4 Extraprosodicity and size restrictions........................................................19 3.5 Summary.....................................................................................................20 4 ROOT SIZE RESTRICTIONS........................................................................20 4.1 Concurrence................................................................................................22 4.2 Output Faithfulness....................................................................................24 5 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS ................................................................29 6 OPTIMALITY THEORY................................................................................32 7 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................34 v CHAPTER 2 A COMPLEX CASE: MAXIMAL ROOT SIZE IN CZECH 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................36 2 PRELIMINARY INFORMATION ON CZECH............................................41 2.1 About Czech................................................................................................41 2.2 Czech maximal root size data.....................................................................47 3 MAXIMAL ROOT SIZE IN CZECH .............................................................50 3.1 Bare roots....................................................................................................54 3.2 Near-bare roots...........................................................................................57 3.2.1 Root size in near-bare roots I: Monosyllabic inflectional suffixes...........59 3.2.2 Root size in near-bare roots II: Disyllabic inflectional suffixes...............61 4 OUTPUT FAITHFULNESS AND COMPLEX WORDS...............................70 4.0 Introduction ................................................................................................70 4.1 Output Faithfulness within an inflectional paradigm ...............................75 4.1.1 Output Faithfulness in paradigms with a null inflection..........................76 4.1.2 Output Faithfulness in paradigms without a null inflection.....................80 4.2 Output Faithfulness in complex words ......................................................84 5 CLASSES AND SIZE RESTRICTIONS.........................................................90 6 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................91 CHAPTER 3 MINIMAL AND MAXIMAL SIZE RESTRICTIONS 1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................933