Lexical Phonology

1
Lexical Phonology

• 1998

2
Kiparsky early 1980s

• Developing work by Dorothy Siegel, Steven
  Strauss, Mark Aronoff, David Pesetsky.

3
A theory of many things...

• A theory of the relationship between phonotactics
  and what once was called automatic
  morphophonology.
• (But automatic morphophonology grew into all of
  what phonology was.)
• A theory of levels or layers in morphology.
• A constraint on neutralizations rules'
  application in nonderived environments
• A theory of underspecification (markedness).

4
(No Transcript)
5

• Lexical phonology is extremely derivational
  things happen, some things happen before other
  things happen, and if something happens before X
  appears on the scene, then too bad for X. If Y
  isn't "in the lexicon", then a lexical rule can't
  "see" it (whatever that means).

6

• The most remarkable claim of lexical phonology is
  that the generalizations describing markedness
  principles of a language are the same as the
  rules governing the changes of sounds under
  conditions of word-formation.

7
Lexical/postlexical components

• This is the most important distinction, one going
  back a long way, but dropped for a while in
  generative phonology.
• Lexical rules have exceptions, do not create
  novel segments or sequences morphophonemic
  rules.
• Postcyclic flapping word-final devoicing in
  German, Dutch, Russian Cyclic trisyllabic
  laxing.

8
Lexical/post-lexical split

• Lexicon
• Structure-preserving (output is possible UR)
• Not necessarily phonetically natural
• never applies across words
• Apply only in derived environments
• Trisyllabic shortening

• No lexical exceptions
• not necessarily structure-preserving
• may apply across words
• May not refer to internal morphological
  information
• Flap formation

Ordered Lexical Postlexical
9
Derived environmentsthe case from Finnish

• halut-a to want
• halus-i wanted
• Non-derived environments
• tila room
• aiti mother

10
Finnish (2) interaction with ei/__

• joki river joke-na essive sg.
• äiti mother äiti-nä essive sg
• vesi water vete-nä essive sg
• käsi hand käte-nä essive sg
• Watch difference between äiti and vete.

11
Trisyllabic shortening (aka Trisyllabic Laxing)

• divine divinity
• serene serenity
• profane profanity
• vile vilify
• clear clarity
• rite ritual
• grade gradual
• tyrant tyranny tyranize tyrannous
• penal penalize
• fable fabulous
• exceptions.

12
Trisyllabic shortening

• nightingale, stevedore, ivory, Amory, bravery,
  mightily, pirating, obesity.
• So 3SS has lexical exceptions, it doesnt look
  over word-boundaries, and it seems to be a
  markedness statement for nonderived forms it
  creates a segment type that exists underlyingly.

13

• Certain suffixes trigger the shortening ity,
  ify, ual, ??ize (no), ??ous
• Group 1 stress affecting
• -ic, -al, -ity, -ion, -y (nominalizing), -al,
  -ate, -ous, -ive, -ation
• Group 2 stress neutral
• -hood, -ful, -ly, -ize, -ness, -less, -y (adj.)
• fictionalize
• Both?
• -able (Aronoff)
• -ism (Goldsmith philosophy 1, language-style 2?)

14
Basis for stratal distinction

• Group 1 easily attaches to non-word roots (e.g.,
  paternal), while Group 2 almost always attaches
  to existing words.
• Group 1, when it attaches to words, is
  stress-changing. Group 2 is stress-neutral,
  always
• Group 1 make the resultant word look as much as
  possible like a (simple) word.

15
Combinations of Class 1,2

• Class 1 Class 1 histor-ic-al,
  illumina-at-tion, indetermin-at-y
• Class 1 Class 2 frantern-al-ly,
  transform-ate-ion-less
• Class 2 Class 2 weight-less-ness
• ?? Class 2 Class 1 weight-less-ity,
  fatal-ism-al

16
Derivational suffixes in English

• able fixable, doable, understandable
• ant claimant, defendant
• (at)ion realization, assertion, protection
• er teacher, worker
• ing the shooting, the dancing
• ing the sleeping giant, a blazing fire
• ive assertive, impressive, restrictive
• ment adjournment, treatment, amazement
• ful faithful, hopeful, dreadful
• (i)al presidential, national

17

• (i)an Arabian, Einsteinian, Minnesotan
• ic cubic, optimistic, moronic, telephonic
• ize hospitalize, crystalize
• ize modernize, nationalize
• less penniless, brainless
• ous poisonous, lecherous
• ate activate, captivate
• en deaden, blacken, harden
• ity stupidity, priority
• ly quietly, slowly, carefully
• ness happiness, sadness

18
Strauss, Goldsmith ist-ic
19
(No Transcript)
20
Word-final stress in base

• cartoonist cartoonistic
• escapist escapistic
• falangist falangistic
• alarmist alarmistic
• defeatist defeatistic
• adventist adventistic
• conformist conformistic
• extremist extremistic
• reservist reservistic
• careerist careeristic

21

• Strauss notes
• -ic may not attach to an Xist base if
• a. the final syllable of X is not primary
  stressed and
• b. X is a lexical item.

22
Stress clash in English

• OK morpheme internally
• Revlon, nylong, Ticonderoga, Rangoon, Illini
• Contrast alarmistic and admonish
• admonish is like alarmist in stress, but
  admonition sounds fine, while alarmistic does
  not.

23

• abnormal - abnormality
• 2 1 3 2 2 1 3 3

24
Suffixes that care about stress

• -ize
• distinguish catholicize or notarize from
  Bermudaize.
• Standardize and cannibalize suggest Stratum 2.
• Winterize, summerize, autumnize (cf. autumnal),
  but fallize, springize.

25

• alphabetize
• radicalize
• departmentalize
• cartoonize
• journalize
• magazinize
• bookize
• publicize
• legalize
• Bostonize
• New Yorkize

26

• Perhaps what is not possible is
• stress Stratum II stress
• that would suggest
• alarm stratum II ist stratum I ic

27
English stress, a bit

• Assuming the final syllable does not have a long
  vowel, then we can approximate English stress
  with the Latin main stress rule stress on the
  penult if heavy, on the antepenult otherwise.
• In fact, Group 1 causes a lot of changes, and
  Group 2 doesnt, but we dont have an explanation
  of that within lexical phonology

28
Problems, so far

• In tough cases, we have to say that a suffix
  falls into both classes, which reduces the
  strength of the claim a lot. Typical cases are
  -able, -ism, -ize.
• Discussion of -ment in AMP.
• If -ize is Stratum 2 (always) then organization
  is a problem, since it violates the Level
  Ordering Hypothesis (Mark Aronoffs observation).
  Perhaps likewise is ability, and istic.

29
GJs example of morphologically sensitive rule
(p. 120)
What is the alternative hypothesis?
30
Kenstowicz' Polish example

• o u / __ cons, -nasal, voiced.
• 1. lexical exceptions skrop "scratch"imper.
  from /skrob/
• 2. Morphological conditioning more frequent in
  feminine and neuter nouns than in masculines

31

• fem doz-a pagod-a mod-a
• with genitive plural dus, pagut, mut
• contrast with masc. mop, snop
• "Polish speakers are aware of the sound
  substitution effected by the raising rule...the
  voicing change is essentially below the level of
  consciousness." Careful!!
• Does not introduce any new phones
• "Raising of o to u before a voiced nonnasal
  consonant is an arbitrary and phonetically
  unmotivated sound substitution. " Careful!!

32
(No Transcript)