Li6 Phonology and Morphology

1
Li6 Phonology and Morphology

• Lexical phonology

2
Todays topics

• Two types of rules
• Some are cyclic, some arent
• Some have exceptions/refer to morphology, some
  dont
• Some are structure-preserving, some arent
• LPM theory that attempts to account for all of
  these patterns by interleaving morphology and
  phonology.
• Some key data
• singer vs younger
• damn vs damnation
• mice catcher vs rats catcher
• atómic vs. átomy
• innate vs unnatural
• militaristic vs capitalistic

3
M-P interactions I

• We have already seen several cases where
  morphological rules make reference to
  phonological information
• Comparative and superlative formation
• Ass-affixation
• Indefinite article allomorphy
• Definite article allomorphy?
• Is there a larger system governing these
  interactions?
• Can phonological processes refer to morphological
  structure?
• Can any morphological process refer to any
  phonological structure, or are there limits?

4
M-P interactions II

• In order to address these questions, lets look
  at a number of striking properties of M-P
  interactions in English
• Phonological influence of affixes on stems
• Morpheme order

5
P effects in affixation

• Affixes fall into two categories wrt their
  phonological effects on the stem to which theyre
  added
• Those which influence the phonology of the stem
  (Level I affixes)
• -ic, -al, -ate, -ion, -ity sub-, de-, in-
• Typically Latinate
• Those which do not (Level II affixes)
• -less, -ness, -y, -ing, -ly, -ful, -some re-,
  un-, non-
• Typically Germanic

6
Levels of affixation

• We have already seen that affixes appear in a
  certain order
• inflectionderivationrootderivationinflection
  
• nation-al-s, not nation-s-al
• Note also that Level II affixes occur outside
  Level I affixes
• linguist-ic(k)-y, refus-al-less
• Does this follow from some principle of grammar,
  or is it chance?
• Probably not chanceall languages seem to act
  this way

7
LPM

• To account for these patterns, Paul Kiparsky
  developed a model of Lexical Phonology and
  Morphology (LPM), in which morphology and
  phonology are interleaved
• Some morphology applies (level I affixation),
  then lexical phonological rules get a chance to
  apply to these structures.
• After this some more morphology applies (level II
  affixation), then the phonological rules get
  another chance to apply.
• After all of these levels of affixation
  phonology have been completed (there may be more
  than two), the post-lexical phonology applies
• Applies to whole words and phrases
• Automatic
• Regular

8
LPM model of English
lexicon
Underlying Representation Level 1 derivation,
irregular inflection stress, shortening Level 2
secondary derivation and compounding cpd
stress Level 3 regular inflection laxing
Syntax post-lexical phonological rules
Kiparskys current (2000) levels Stem, Word,
Phrase
9
Properties of lexical and post-lexical rules
Lexical rules Post-lexical rules
Apply only within words. Apply within words or across word boundaries.
Typically have exceptions. Do not have exceptions.
Subject to Derived Envt Const. Can apply within roots.
Morphologically conditioned. Not conditioned.
Structure-preserving. (k?s) Not necessarily structure-preserving. (?)
Apply first. Apply later.
Conscious. Subconscious.
Dont normally transfer in SLA. Typically transfer in SLA. (Rubach 1984)
cf Aspiration
cf Velar Softening
10
Post-nasal drop I

• singer younger (vs. young)
• URs /sIng/, /j?ng/
• comparative -er Level 1
• agent -er Level 2
• is post-nasal drop lexical or postlexical?
• Lexical (has exceptions)
• Which lexical level, though?...

11
Post-nasal drop II

• UR /j?ng/ /sIng/
• Level 1 cpv. -er j?ng-r?
• nasal place assim. j?Ng-r? sINg
• post-nasal drop sIN
• Level 2 agent -er sIN-r?
• SR j?Ngr? sINr?

12
The cycle

• SPE on condensation vs compensation
• They say some dialects disallow cond?nsation
  but allow comp?nsation
• The Withgott effect
• capitalistic vs militaristic
• Parallel to syntax
• Guy, cyclic application of variable rules

13
The Derived Environment Constraint/ Non-Derived
Environment Blocking

• Finnish e-raising and sibilation
• e-raising e ? i / _
• sibilation t ? s / _ i (cyclic)
• Polish vowel raising vs final devoicing
• grup grave vs grobi graves
• snop snob (snup)
• pagoda pagut

UR Nom Essive gloss
/koti/ koti kotina home
/vete/ vesi vetenä water
14
Other interesting results

• Latinate vs Germanic
• r-insertion
• Trisyllabic laxing
• Nasal place assimilation
• Stress shift
• n-deletion
• Irregular plurals in compounds

15
Latinate vs Germanic

• Recall that Latinate affixation is normally Level
  I, whereas Germanic affixation is Level II.
• Now consider un-natur-al vs in-nate.
• Are un- and in- Latinate, or Germanic?
• How do these words behave wrt the English rule of
  degemination?
• Is degemination lexical or postlexical?

16
Latinate vs Germanic

• UR /nate/ /natur/
• Level 1 in-, -al in-nate natur-al degemination
  inate
• Level 2 un- un-natur-al
• SR inate unatural

17
r-insertion

• algebraic (algebraric) vs Homeric
• drawring, pizzarish, data-r-y, Brendar and Eddie)
• Rule ? insert r / ?aA???? _ V
• Assume that r-insertion is post-lexical
• Reasonable, since it has no exceptions for many
  speakers (pizza-y?)

18
r-insertion

• UR /algebra/ /pizza/
• Level 1 -ic, stress, length algebráic pízza
• Level 2 -ish, -y, -ing, pízza-y
• unstressed V reduction pízz?-y
• Post-lex r-insertion pízz?r-y
• SR algebráic pízz?ry

NB transfer in L2 French, Spanish (Wells 1982)
jétais déjàr ici, vivar España
19
Trisyllabic Laxing

• vile vilify profane profanity
• V ? V / _ CV1CV2
• where V1 is unstressed
• might mightily brave bravery

20
Nasal place assimilation

• impotent, illegal
• unpopular, unlawful
• umpopular, ullawful
• Which level is each affix?
• Which level is the assimilation rule?

21
Stress shift

• pyramidal, homonymous, atomic
• partisanship, atomy
• Which level is each affix?
• Which level is the stress rule?

22
n-deletion

• condemn condemnation condemning
• Which level is each affix?
• Which level is the rule of n-deletion?

23
Compounds
lexicon
Underlying Representation Level 1 derivation,
irregular inflection stress, shortening Level 2
secondary derivation and compounding cpd
stress Level 3 regular inflection laxing
Syntax post-lexical phonological rules
mice
mice catch-er, rat catch-er
cant insert -s inside cpd rat catch-er
24
Conclusions

• A large number of surprising properties of
  phonology, morphology, and their interactions can
  be accounted for by postulating a model of the
  grammar in which affixation and phonology apply
  outward from the root of a word.

25
References

• Borowsky, Toni. 1991. Topics in the Lexical
  Phonology of English. New York Garland.
• Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and
  phonology. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, I.
  Yang, ed., 3-91. Seoul Hanshin.
• Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of
  lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 285-138.
• Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The
  Linguistic Review 17351-367.
• Rubach, Jerzy. 1984. Rule typology and
  phonological interference. In Theoretical issues
  in contrastive phonology, Stig Elliason, ed.,
  37-50. Heidelberg, Julius Groos Verlag.
• Wells, John. 1982. Accents of English. Cambridge
  Cambridge University Press.