Li6 Phonology and Morphology

1. Li6 Phonology and Morphology Lexical phonology

2. Today’s topics • Two types of rules • Some are cyclic, some aren’t • Some have exceptions/refer to morphology, some don’t • Some are structure-preserving, some aren’t • 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, let’s 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 they’re 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: • [inflection[derivation[root]derivation]inflection] • 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 chance—all 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 Kiparsky’s current (2000) levels: Stem, Word, Phrase

9. Properties of lexical and post-lexical rules 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. -erj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[ə]nsation but allow comp[ə]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 [grobı] ‘graves’ • snop ‘snob’ (*snup) • pagoda : pagut

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 1in-, -al in-nate natur-al degemination inate — Level 2un- — un-natur-al SR i[n]ate [u[n:]atural]

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, lengthalgebrá:ic pízza Level 2-ish, -y, -ing, — pízza-y unstressed V reduction — pízzə-y Post-lex r-insertion— pízzə[r]-y SR algebrá:ic pízzəry • NB transfer in L2 French, Spanish (Wells 1982): j’étais déjà[r] ici, viva[r] 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 can’t 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 2:85-138. Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17:351-367. 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.