Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T16:10:36.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Validity of Morpheme Structure Constraints

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Carole Paradis  and
Jean-François Prunet
Carole Paradis
Affiliation:
Université Laval
Jean-François Prunet
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Montréal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Morpheme structure constraints (MSCs or, equivalently, morphemic constraints), i.e., constraints on underived items, pose a logical problem to any theory claiming that the first input list to the lexicon, i.e., the dictionary (DICT), may contain material which is considered ill-formed by the MSCs of the language. This problem is related to Scobbie’s (1991:1) “interaction problem”, i.e., the need to make explicit the way in which constraints, rules and representations interact. In the case of MSCs, the interaction problem can be stated as follows: how can ill-formed material be present in the DICT if the DICT contains constraints, i.e., MSCs, against ill-formed material? The Theory of Constraints and Repair Strategies (TCRS) proposed by Paradis (1988a, 1988b, 1990, 1993, this volume), along with Optimality Theory (e.g., Itô and Mester, this volume, and McCarthy, this volume) but in contrast with Declarative Phonology (e.g., Scobbie, this volume), claims explicitly that the DICT can contain material which is identified as ill-formed by post-morphemic constraints (see Paradis and Prunet 1989a:331; Bagemihl 1991:641; Paradis and El Fenne 1991, 1992, 1993; and Ulrich 1991 for other instances of underlying ill-formedness). To solve this interaction problem, Paradis (1993, this volume) suggests that phonological constraints are active in the lexicon (the component where words are morphologically derived) and the post-lexical level alone, not in the DICT. Structures of the DICT may be identified as ill-formed only when going through the lexicon. The theory of phonology which emerges from this position clearly contradicts the commonly-held view that DICT entries are constrained by MSCs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 38 , special_issue 2: Special Issue: Constraint-Based Theories in Multilinear Phonology , June 1993 , pp. 235 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1993

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.)

References

Avery, Peter and Rice, Keren 1989. Segment Structure and Coronal Underspecification. Phonology. 6: 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagemihl, Bruce 1991. Syllable Structure in Bella Coola. Linguistic Inquiry. 22:589–646.Google Scholar
Bohas, Georges 1990. A Diachronic Effect of the OCP. Linguistic Inquiry. 21:298–301.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle 1986. Testing Phonology in the Field. Pp. 163–173 in Experimental Phonology. Ohala, John and Jaeger, Jeri, eds. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cantineau, Jean 1946. Esquisse d’une phonologie de l’arabe classique. Bulletin de la société linguistique de Paris. 43:93–140.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Clayton, Mary L. 1976. The Redundancy of Underlying Morpheme Structure Conditions. Language. 52:295–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. 1988. Toward a Substantive Theory of Feature Specification. Pp. 79–93 in Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 18. Blevins, James and Carter, Juli, eds. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Cohen, Marcel 1936. Etudes d’éthiopien méridional. Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart 1991. Coronals and the Phonotactics of Non-Adjacent Consonants in English. Pp. 49–60 in The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence. Paradis, Carole and Prunet, Jean-François, eds. Phonetics and Phonology Series 2. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ehret, Christopher 1989. The Origin of Third Consonants in Semitic Roots: An Internal Reconstruction (Applied to Arabic). Journal of Afroasiatic Languages. 2:107–202.Google Scholar
Elmedlaoui, Mohamed 1992a. Aspects des représentations phonologiques dans certaines langues chamito-sémitiques. Doctorat d’état, Université Mohamed V, Rabat.Google Scholar
Elmedlaoui, Mohamed 1992b. Géométrie des traits et restrictions de cooccurrence en chamito-sémitique. Paper read at Journées d’études chamito-sémitiques, Institut catholique de Paris, Paris.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John 1979. Autosegmental Phonology. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John 1990. Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph 1950. The Patterning of Root Morphemes in Semitic. Word. 6:162–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth 1973. Deep-Surface Canonical Disparities in Relation to Analysis and Change: An Australian Example. Pp. 401–458 in Current Trends in Linguistics 11. Sebeok, Thomas A., ed. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris 1959. The Sound Pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Harms, Robert 1968. Introduction to Phonological Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan 1975. The Archi-Segment in Natural Generative Phonology. Language. 51:536–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan 1976. An Introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell H. 1955. The Language of the Kathlamet Chinook. PhD thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Mester, Ralf Armin 1986. The Phonology of Voicing in Japanese: Theoretical Consequences for Morphological Accessibility. Linguistic Inquiry. 17:49–73.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, and Lowenstamm, Jean 1985. A Non-Linear Treatment of Grassman’s Law. Pp. 220–233 in Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 15. Berman, Stephen, Choe, Jae-Woong and McDonough, Joyce, eds. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael 1993. Phonology in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell. [In press.]Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul 1982. Lexical Morphology and Phonology. Pp. 3–91 in Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Yang, I.-S., ed. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
LaCharité, Darlene 1993. The Internal Structure of Affricates. PhD thesis, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Lightner, Theodore 1972. Against Morpheme Structure Rules and Other Things. Pp. 53–60 in Issues in Phonological Theory. Kenstowicz, Michael J. and Kisseberth, Charles W., eds. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean, and Prunet, Jean-François 1986. Le tigrinya et le principe du contour obligatoire. Revue québécoise de linguistique. 16:181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John 1981. A Prosodic Theory of Nonconcatenative Morphology. Linguistic Inquiry. 12:373–418.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John 1988. Feature Geometry and Dependency. Phonetica. 43:84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John 1993. Guttural Phonology. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology III. Keating, Patricia and Hayes, Bruce, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [In press.]Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Taub, Alison 1992. Review of Paradis, Carole and Prunet, Jean-François, eds., The Special Status of Coronals, Internal and External Evidence. Phonetics and Phonology Series 2. Phonology. 9:363–370.Google Scholar
Mester, Ralph Armin 1986. Studies in Tier Structure. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Mester, Ralph Armin, and Itô, Junko 1989. Feature Predictability and Underspecification: Palatal Prosody in Japanese Mimetics. Language. 65:258–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odden, David 1988. Anti Antigemination and the OCP. Linguistic Inquiry. 19:451–475.Google Scholar
Ohala, John and Ohala, Manjari 1986. Testing the Psychological Manifestations of MSCs. Pp. 239–252 in Experimental Phonology. Ohala, John and Jaeger, Jeri, eds. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole 1988a. On Constraints and Repair Strategies. The Linguistic Review. 6:71–97.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole 1988b. Towards a Theory of Constraint Violations. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics. 5:1–43.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole 1990. Focus in Gere Configurational Constraints. Pp. 53–63 in Current Approaches to African Linguistics. Hutchison, John and Manfredi, Victor, eds. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole 1993. Le dictionnaire comme source de malformations phonologiques. Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Linguists. Crochetière, André, Boulanger, Jean-Claude et Ouellon, Conrad, eds. Quebec: Presses de l’Université Laval. [In press.]Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and El Fenne, Fatim 1991. Les consonnes latentes en français: le rôle des contraintes et le statut des coronales. Pp. 257–271 in Actes de l’Association canadienne de linguistique 1. Wilson, Tom, ed. Toronto: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and El Fenne, Fatim 1992. L’alternance C/Ø des verbes français: une analyse par contraintes et stratégies de réparation. Revue québécoise de linguistique. 21:107–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and El Fenne, Fatim 1993. French Verbal Inflection Revisited: Constraints, Repairs and Floating Consonants. In New Trends in French Phonology and Phonetics. Durand, Jacques, Hintze, Marie-Anne and Battye, Adrian, eds. Lingua. [To appear.]Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Nikiema, Emmanuel 1993. Historique de la notion de “contrainte” en phonologie générative. Langues et linguistique. 19:43–70.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Prunet, Jean-François 1989a. Markedness and Coronal Structure. Pp. 330–344 in Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 19. Carter, Juli and Déchaine, Rose-Marie, eds. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Prunet, Jean-François 1989b. On Coronal Transparency. Phonology. 6:317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Prunet, Jean-François 1990. On Explaining Some OCP Violations. Linguistic Inquiry. 20:456–466.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Prunet, Jean-François, eds. 1991. The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence. Phonetics and Phonology Series 2. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Prunet, Jean-François, eds. 1992. The Velar vs Coronal Placelessness Controversy. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics. 6:192–229.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet 1993. Dissimilarity in the Arabic Verbal Roots. In Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. 23. [In press.]Google Scholar
Postal, Paul 1968. Aspects of Phonological Theory. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Ms.Google Scholar
Prunet, Jean-François 1993. La nasalité en éthiopien méridional: un cas de génération spontanée? In Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Linguists. [In press.]Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy 1991. Suboral Places of Articulation. Ms.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence, and Tamori, Ikuhiro 1992a. Japanese Palatalization in Relation to Theories of Restricted Underspecification. Gengo Kenkyu. 101:107–145.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence, and Tamori, Ikuhiro 1992b. Palatalization in Japanese Mimetics: Response to Mester and Itô. Language. 68:139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scobbie, James 1991. Toward Declarative Phonology. Pp. 1–27 in Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science. Bird, Steven, ed. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi 1973. The Role of Surface Phonetic Constraints in Generative Phonology. Language. 49:87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerstein, Alan 1974. On Phonotactically Motivated Rules. Journal of Linguistics. 10:71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, Richard 1967. Redundancy Rules in Phonology. Language. 43:393–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph 1991. Radical Underspecification in Language Production. Phonology. 8:73–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph and Stoel-Gammon, Carol 1991. The Underspecification of Coronals: Evidence from Language Acquisition and Performance Errors. Pp. 181–200 in The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence. Paradis, Carole and Prunet, Jean-François, eds. Phonetics and Phonology Series 2. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca 1987. Redundant Values. Pp. 339–362 in Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 23. Bosch, Anna, Need, Barbara and Schiller, Eric, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Ulrich, Charles 1991. Underlying OCP Violations in Lama. Pp. 287–297 in Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics IV. Hunt, Katharine, Perry, Thomas and Samiian, Vida, eds. Fresno: California State University.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira 1988. The Obligatory Contour Principle and Phonological Rules: A Loss of Identity. Linguistic Inquiry. 19:65–101.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira 1989a. Cantonese Morpheme Structure and Linear Ordering. Pp. 445–456 in Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 8. Fee, E. Jane and Hunt, Katherine, eds. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira 1989b. Feature Geometry and Co-occurrence Restrictions. Phonology. 6:349–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, Karl E. 1969. Psychological Correlates of some Turkish Morpheme Structure Conditions. Language. 45:309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar