Morphophonology 07/14/2017 Lecture 3: Process morphology 1. COPHONOLOGIES 103 • Cophonology: the association of a phonological mapping1997; Itˆoand (set of Mester, rules, 1999; constraint Kiparsky, ranking, 2000; Anttila, 2002; Inkelas and Zoll, 2005, 2007; etc.) with a particular morphological ‘operation’ Kiparsky, 2008). Here I use the particular implementation of subgrammars found in Cophonol- construction in Construction Morphology: Booijogy Theory 2010 (Orgun, (also 1996;Gurevich Inkelas et2006 al., 1997;, Anttila, 2002; Inkelas and Zoll, 2005, 2007). o Ibeginbydescribingmyassumptionsaboutthemorphologicalcomponentofthegrammar, Orgun 1996, Riehemann 2001, etc.) then talk about the output of morphology which I assume is the input to the phonological o affix in item-based morphology component. Like DM, the model of the morphology/phonology interface presented here assumes that o realizational rule, e.g. in Paradigm Function syntacticmorphology structure is the input to the morphological component. The syntactic structure of o phase in Distributed Morphology (Sande 2017aregulartransitiveverbinGu´ebie,isgivenin(176),wheretheverbhashead-movedthrough) o etc. v to T, the inflectional position. T is the position of auxiliaries, when they surface, and of inflected verbs when there is no auxiliary present. Nothing can ever intervene between the subject and the inflectional position. Aspectual features such as ipfv, pfv are introduced in Semantics = Si U Sj Compounding T, and neither is associated with a vocabulary item to be inserted. A hierarchical structure construction with Phonology = ɸx(P1,P2) of theCophonologies type in (176) is assumed by phase to be both (Sande the output of syntax and the input to morphology. coordinate semantics (176) The input2017:103) to morphology Semantics = Si Semantics = Sj Phonology = P1 Phonology = P2 CPphase Semantics = Si + PL Suffixation C TP Phonology = ɸ (P1,/z/) construction (English x phase plural /z/) DP T’ phase Semantics = Si Subj T vP Phonology = P1 Phonology = /z/ Alternative treatment Semantics = Si + PL VerbAsp DP v’ Phonology = ɸx(P1,/z/) of English plural /z/ Subj VP v phase Verb Semantics = Si DP V Phonology = P1 Obj pverb Following DM, I assume that morphological operations apply to the hierarchical syntactic • Morphologically conditioned phonology: the situationstructure in which in (176). the For cophonology more on the catalog of of a operations that apply during the morphological given morphological construction is other than the Identitycomponent, function see Embick or and differs Noyer (2001,from 2007). the Here I discuss only those morphological op- erations relevant in accounting for Gu´ebie morphophonology, including vocabulary insertion cophonology of another construction in the same languageand linearization. • Question for today: how, and whether, to distinguish theIassumethatthesyntacticstructurein(176)isspelledout,orsenttothemorphological above from process component, in small chunks. There are at least three current proposals in the Distributed morphology… Morphology literature for how often syntactic structure is spelled out, and which syntactic • …and the relevance of the answer to this question to theories of the phonology- morphology interface (e.g. strata vs. cophonologies) 1 Morphophonology 07/14/2017 2. PROCESS MORPHOLOGY: DEFINITION AND ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES Process morphology: morphology manifested as a phonological process other than morph concatenation (1) Tohono O’odham: perfective verbs derived from imperfectives by deleting a final segment. Examples come from Yu 2000, and Anderson 1992, citing Zepeda 1983, 1984: gloss Imperfective Perfective [Tohono O’odham] ‘hoe object’ síkon síko ‘rub against object’ híwa híw ‘bark’ hiːnk hiːn (2) Keley-i (Malayo-Polynesian), nonperfect aspect marked by consonant , providing a coda to the leftmost light syllable (Samek-Lodovici 1992, citing original sources) (a) (b) (c) (d) [Keley-i] Base: pili duyag Ɂagtu duntuk Subject focus: um-pilli um-duyyag man-Ɂagtu um-duntuk Object focus: pilli duyyag Ɂagtu duntuk Access. focus: Ɂi-ppili Ɂi-dduyag Ɂi-ɁɁagtu Ɂi-dduntuk (3) English: stress shift marks the conversion from verbs to nouns in English (e.g. Kiparsky 1982bc): condúct → cónduct abstráct → ábstract recórd → récord 3. PHONOLOGICAL SUBSTANCE OF PROCESS MORPHOLOGY Leading questions: • Is the substance of process morphology the same as or different from the substance of morphologically conditioned phonology? • Can process morphology be reduced to abstract phonological affixation? • Can process morphology be reduced to morphologically conditioned phonology? 3.1 SUBTRACTION (compare to deletion, section 5.1, lecture 1) (4) Final vowel subtraction marks nominative case in Lardil (4) (Blevins 1997, citing sources): gloss UR Nominative cf. NonFuture Accusative (/-n/) [Lardil] a. ‘dugong’ /kentapal/ kentapal kentapal-in ‘storey’ /ngaluk/ ngalu ngaluk-in b. ‘rainbow’ /mayarra/ mayarr mayarra-n ‘sea’ /mela/ mela mela-n 2 Morphophonology 07/14/2017 (5) In Hausa, a final long vowel is shortened in derived adverbs (Newman 2000:39-40): ‘ground’ ƙásáː ƙásá ‘on the ground, below’ [Hausa] ‘forehead’ gòːʃíː gòːʃí ‘on the forehead’ ‘wing’ fíffíkèː fíffíkè ‘on the wing’ ‘hands’ hánnàːjéː hánnàːjé ‘in/on the hands’ ‘fingers’ jáːtsúː jáːtsú ‘on the fingers’ (6) Initial vowel deletion marks imperative formation in Nanti (Kampan; Michael 2008:243, 245): 468 Jochen Trommera. and/oog Eva- ZimmermanneNpa =ro/ → genparo nodes, there is no principledconsume guarantee -IRREAL that.A a given=3NM languageO will fully integrate a floating affix‘Eat mora it!’ into prosodic structure. Whereas Quechua attaches 1st person morasb. /ahirik to both -e the syllabic=ro/ and the segmental structure→ hirikero of the base, resulting in the configuration in (7a) and straightforward hold -IRREAL.I =3NMO phonetic interpretation of the mora, the phonologies of other languages might beless cooperative, ‘Take and it!’ either fail to ensure association to the syllabic level (7b) (ac.configuration /ag -e involving=ro/ what we call a DRIFTING m→), gero the segmental level (7c)take (a HANGING -IRREALm) or. bothI =3 (7d)NM (aO STRAY m) (we use the symbol ‘V’ to denote a segmental‘Take it!’ root node). d. /am -ak -e paryanti/ → make paryanti (7) Expected typology of m-integration bring -PERF -IRREAL.I plantain a. Fully integrated m b. Drifting m c. Hanging m d. Stray m ‘bring plantains!’ s s s s (7) The irrealis suffix /-eNpa/ ~ /-e/ is required in Nanti imperatives but is not a dedicated m marker of mthe imperative mconstruction; itm is also found in negative declaratives: •••• /teNkaNki o= irag -e/ → teNkaNki irage NEG.FOC 3NMS= cry -IRREAL.I On standard assumptions with respect to the phonetic interpretation of ‘She didn’t cry at all’ autosegmental representations, the affix mora is not phonetically inter- preted in (7b–d). However, our central claim is that only stray moras are phonologically(8) trulyVC inert, deletes whereas in Alabama unilaterally (Muskogean; associated (driftingHardy and & Montler 1988), to encode argument hanging) moras canpluralization have indirect e offrects repetitive on phonological action, representations:in verbs. Stems are shown with classifier they may trigger vowelsuffixes shortening, -ka, - asli shown(Broadwell in (8a) for1993 a hanging): mora, or segmentalsubtraction, as shown in (8b) for a drifting mora. In both cases, the obligatory upward orgloss downward associationsingular of the affipluralx mora triggers dissociation in the prosody of the base, due to independently motivated ‘lie down’ bal-ka balaa-ka phonological constraints such as a ban on quadrimoraic syllables, which in turn leads to non-realisation ‘hit’ of underlyingbat-li phonologicalbatat material,-li as in (8a). Since drifting and‘join hanging together’ affix ibacas moras are-li not pronounced,ibacasaa-li this results in subtraction. ‘cut’ kol-li kolof-li (→ koloffi) (8) Subtractive QMM by m-axation a. Shortening• Subtractives morphology iss strong argument for process morphology, in the sense that they cannot be analyzed by means of the addition of a morpheme (ch. 4, Anderson 1992). • Trommerm m m &- Zimmermanm ⁄ m(2010)m m - suggestm that subtraction could be the phonological response to the addition of an abstract empty mora, citing Tohono O’odham as an example.r i w r i w b. Subtraction s s m m m -m ⁄ m m m -m m a k ma k 3 Morphophonology 07/14/2017 • Most theoretical treatments capture subtraction directly, either through deletion rules (e.g.Martin 1988, Anderson 1992), prosodic circumscription rules (e.g. Lombardi and McCarthy 1991) or anti-faithfulness constraints (e.g. Horwood 2001, Kurisu 2001). 3.2 GEMINATION (compare to gemination, section 5.2, lecture 1) (9) In Woleaian, denotatives are formed by geminating the stem-initial consonant (Kennedy 2003). fili → ffili ‘choose it/to choose’ βuga → bbuga ‘boil it/to boil’ tabee-y → ttabe ‘follow it/to follow’ (10) Alabama: consonant gemination and high tonal accent mark imperfective aspect (Hardy & Montler 1988): stem Imperfective gloss ilakallo ilákkallo ‘strong’ / ‘(getting) stronger’ hayooki háyyooki ‘deep’ / ‘(getting) deeper’ kasatka kássatka ‘cold’ / ‘ cool’ litihka líttihka ‘dirty’ / ‘a little dirty’ hopaaki hóppaaki ‘far’ / ‘not as far’ lamatki lámmatki ‘straight’ / ‘pretty straight’ conotli cónnotli ‘bend over’ / ‘be bent, stooped’ wataali wáttaali ‘put around neck’ / ‘wear around neck’ (11) Gemination as affixation? • Mora: (Hardy & Montler) • Abstract morpheme, realized minimally (Kennedy) • C slot ? Even on an affixation-style