li8 structure of english lexical phonology and morphology
Post on 19-Dec-2015
238 views
TRANSCRIPT
Li8 Structure of EnglishLi8 Structure of English
Lexical phonology and morphology
Today’s topicsToday’s topics
Phonology-morphology interactions LPM: a model for said interactions with
many interesting results Some key data:
singer vs younger damn vs damnation mice catcher vs *rats catcher atómic vs. átomy innate vs unnatural
M-P interactions IM-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?
M-P interactions IIM-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
P effects in affixationP 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
Levels of affixationLevels 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
LPMLPM
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
LPM LPM model of Englishmodel of English
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
lexicon
Properties of lexical and Properties of lexical and post-lexical rulespost-lexical rules
Lexical rules …Lexical rules … Post-lexical rules …Post-lexical rules …
Apply only within words. Apply within words or across word boundaries.
Typically have exceptions. Do not have exceptions.
Morphologically conditioned. Not conditioned.
Structure-preserving. Not necessarily structure-preserving.
Apply first. Apply later.
Conscious Subconscious
Don’t normally transfer in SLA. Typically transfer in SLA.
Post-nasal drop IPost-nasal drop I
singer : younger (vs. young) URs: //, // comparative -er: Level 1 agent -er: Level 2 is post-nasal drop lexical or postlexical?
Lexical (has exceptions) Which lexical level, though?...
UR // //
Level 1 cpv. -er - —
nasal place assim. - post-nasal drop —
Level 2 agent -er — -
SR [] []
Post-nasal drop IIPost-nasal drop II
Other interesting resultsOther interesting results
Latinate vs Germanic r-insertion Trisyllabic laxing Nasal place assimilation Stress shift n-deletion Irregular plurals in compounds
Latinate vs GermanicLatinate 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?
Latinate vs GermanicLatinate vs Germanic
UR /nate/ /natur/
Level 1 in-, -al in-nate natur-aldegemination inate —
Level 2 un- — un-natur-al
SR i[n]ate [u[n:]atural]
r-insertionr-insertion
algebraic (*algebraric) vs Homeric drawring, pizzarish, data-r-y, Brendar and
Eddie) Rule insert r / {} _ V Assume that r-insertion is post-lexical
Reasonable, since it has no exceptions for many speakers (pizza-y?)
r-insertionr-insertion
UR /algebra/ /pizza/
Level 1 -ic, stress, length algebrá:ic pízza
Level 2 -ish, -y, -ing, — pízza-yunstressed V reduction — pízzə-y
Post-lex r-insertion — pízzə[r]-y
SR algebrá:ic pízzəry
Trisyllabic LaxingTrisyllabic Laxing
vile : vilify; profane : profanity V: V / _ CV1CV2
where V1 is unstressed
might : mightily; brave : bravery
Nasal place assimilationNasal place assimilation
impotent, illegal unpopular, unlawful
*umpopular, *ullawful Which level is each affix? Which level is the assimilation rule?
Stress shiftStress shift
pyramidal, homonymous, atomic partisanship, atomy Which level is each affix? Which level is the stress rule?
n-deletionn-deletion
condemn : condemnation : condemning Which level is each affix? Which level is the rule of n-deletion?
CompoundsCompounds
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
lexicon
mice
mice catch-er, rat catch-er
can’t insert -s inside cpd rat catch-er
ConclusionsConclusions
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.