Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-qdpjg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-22T16:41:04.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indexation to stems and words

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2018

Peter Jurgec  and
Bronwyn M. Bjorkman
Peter Jurgec*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Bronwyn M. Bjorkman*
Affiliation:
Queen's University
*
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected].
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents an extension of indexed constraints, such that they can apply not only to individual morphemes, but also to potentially complex constituents such as the stem. This modification allows us to capture a class of long-distance morphologically derived environment effects (MDEEs) that have been previously unexplained. MDEEs typically involve an exceptional phonological pattern that is lost under affixation. Formally, MDEEs are predicted if complex constituents such as stems are treated as lexically exceptional only when every morpheme contained within them is independently exceptional. This approach further predicts asymmetries between bare roots and affixed words, between roots and affixes, and between inflected and derived words. All other things being equal, the first of each pair is more likely to be exceptional in more contexts.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , November 2018 , pp. 577 - 615
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank John McCarthy, Bruce Morén-Duolljá, Marc van Oostendorp, Joe Pater, Curt Rice and Matthew Wolf for comments on earlier versions of this paper. We have benefited as well from comments and suggestions from Michael Becker, Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, Daniel Currie Hall, Bruce Hayes, Joan Mascaró and Will Oxford. This paper was partly supported by the Connaught Young Researcher Award to Peter Jurgec.

References

REFERENCES

Anttila, Arto (2002). Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. NLLT 20. 1–42.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto (2009). Derived environment effects in colloquial Helsinki Finnish. In Hanson, Kristin & Inkelas, Sharon (eds.) The nature of the word: studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 433–459.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan (2006). Strength and weakness at the interface: positional neutralization in phonetics and phonology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Becker, Michael, Ketrez, Nihan & Nevins, Andrew (2011). The surfeit of the stimulus: analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish laryngeal alternations. Lg 87. 84–125.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. (1997). Positional faithfulness, positional neutralisation and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14. 1–46.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. (1998). Positional faithfulness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available as ROA-234 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (to appear). Stratal Optimality Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, Bronwyn M. & Dunbar, Ewan (2016). Finite-state phonology predicts a typological gap in cyclic stress assignment. LI 47. 351–363.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard (1917). Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis. Part 1: Texts and translation. Urbana: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi (1994). Principles of English stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi (2000). Cycles, non-derived-environment blocking, and correspondence. In Dekkers, Joost, van der Leeuw, Frank & van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.) Optimality Theory: phonology, syntax, and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 47–87.Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel (2009). The nanosyntax of case. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Chen, Wenxuan (2017). Place, onsets, and codas: a corpus study. Paper presented at the Slovenian Phonology Workshop, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel & McGarrity, Laura (2004). On the nature of alternations in phonological acquisition. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 10. 23–41.Google Scholar
Embick, David (2010). Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert & Féry, Caroline (2002a). Ineffability in grammar. In Fanselow & Féry (2002b). 265–307.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert & Féry, Caroline (eds.) (2002b). Resolving conflicts in grammar: Optimality Theory in syntax, morphology, and phonology. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Flack, Kathryn (2007). Templatic morphology and indexed markedness constraints. LI 38. 749–758.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria (2007). The reduplicative template in Tonkawa. Phonology 24. 367–396.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria (2012). Unexceptional segments. NLLT 30. 79–133.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria & Linzen, Tal (2015). Morphological conditioning of phonological regularization. The Linguistic Review 32. 427–473.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael (1988). On deriving the Well-Formedness Condition. LI 19. 319–325.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1982). Extrametricality and English stress. LI 13. 227–276.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. LI 39. 379–440.Google Scholar
Hewitt, Mark S. (1994). Deconstructing foot binarity in Koniag Alutiiq. Ms, University of British Columbia. Available as ROA-12 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Orgun, Cemil Orhan (1995). Level ordering and economy in the lexical phonology of Turkish. Lg 71. 763–793.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, Orgun, Cemil Orhan & Zoll, Cheryl (1997). The implications of lexical exceptions for the nature of grammar. In Roca, Iggy (ed.) Derivations and constraints in phonology. Oxford: Clarendon. 393–418.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Zoll, Cheryl (2007). Is grammar dependence real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics 45. 133–171.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin (1995). The core-periphery structure of the lexicon and constraints on reranking. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 181–209.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin (2001). Covert generalizations in Optimality Theory: the role of stratal faithfulness constraints. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology 7. 273–299.Google Scholar
Jurgec, Peter (2007). Novejše besedje s stališča fonologije: primer slovenščine. DSc dissertation, University of Ljubljana.Google Scholar
Jurgec, Peter (2010). Disjunctive lexical stratification. LI 41. 149–161.Google Scholar
Jurgec, Peter (2011). Feature spreading 2.0: a unified theory of assimilation. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø. Available at http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001281.Google Scholar
Jurgec, Peter (2014). Morphology affects loanword phonology. NELS 43:1. 191–202.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1989). A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1973). Phonological representations. In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.) Three dimensions of linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC. 3–135.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1979). Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. LI 10. 421–441.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2000). Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351–365.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi & Fikkert, Paula (1999). Trisyllabic shortening in English: past and present. English Language and Linguistics 3. 229–267.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003). What does comparative markedness explain, what should it explain, and how? Theoretical Linguistics 29. 141–155.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993). Prosodic Morphology I. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan (1976). Catalan phonology and the phonological cycle. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed 1978, Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan (2003). Comparative markedness and derived environments. Theoretical Linguistics 29. 113–122.Google Scholar
Myers, Scott (1987). Vowel shortening in English. NLLT 5. 485–518.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van (1995). Vowel quality and syllable projection. PhD dissertation, Catholic University of Brabant.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van (2002). The phonological and morphological status of the Prosodic Word Adjunct. In Fanselow & Féry (2002b). 209–235.Google Scholar
Orgun, Cemil Orhan & Sprouse, Ronald L. (1999). From MParse to Control: deriving ungrammaticality. Phonology 16. 191–224.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2000). Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17. 237–274.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2007). The locus of exceptionality: morpheme-specific phonology as constraint indexation. In Bateman, Leah, O'Keefe, Michael, Reilly, Ehren & Werle, Adam (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory III. Amherst: GLSA. 259–296.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2009). Morpheme-specific phonology: constraint indexation and inconsistency resolution. In Parker, Steve (ed.) Phonological argumentation: essays on evidence and motivation. London: Equinox. 123–154.Google Scholar
Pensalfini, Rob (2002). Vowel harmony in Jingulu. Lingua 112. 561–586.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (1990). Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. CLS 26:2. 355–398.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Raffelsiefen, Renate (2004). Absolute ill-formedness and other morphophonological effects. Phonology 21. 91–142.Google Scholar
Revithiadou, Anthi (1999). Headmost accent wins: head dominance and ideal prosodic form in lexical accent systems. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Simonović, Marko (2015). Lexicon immigration service: prolegomena to a theory of loanword integration. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. (2001). Lexical category and phonological contrast. In Kirchner, Robert, Pater, Joe & Wikely, Wolf (eds.) PETL 6: Workshop on the Lexicon in Phonetics and Phonology. Edmonton: University of Alberta. 61–72.Google Scholar
Srebot-Rejec, Tatjana (1975). Začetni in končni soglasniški sklopi v slovenskem knjižnem jeziku. Slavistična Revija 23. 289–320.Google Scholar
Toporišič, Jože (2000). Slovenska slovnica. Maribor: Obzorja.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin (2006). Learning phonology with substantive bias: an experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30. 945–982.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew (2008). Optimal interleaving: serial phonology–morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. (2000). Stress assignment in Tohono O'odham. Phonology 17. 117–135.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl (1998). Parsing below the segment in a constraint-based framework. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Zonneveld, Wim (1982). The descriptive power of the Dutch theme-vowel. Spektator 11. 342–365.Google Scholar
Zuraw, Kie (2006). Using the web as a phonological corpus: a case study from Tagalog. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Web as Corpus. 59–66. Available (August 2018) at http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W06-1709.Google Scholar