Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:28:42.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Realization Optimality Theory approach to blocking and extended morphological exponence1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2011

ZHENG XU  and
MARK ARONOFF
ZHENG XU*
Affiliation:
National University of Singapore
MARK ARONOFF*
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University
*
Authors' address: (Xu) Department of Chinese Studies,National University of Singapore, Singapore 117570[email protected]
Authors' address: (Aronoff) Department of Linguistics,Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Blocking in inflection occurs when a morphological exponent prevents the application of another exponent expressing the same feature value, thus barring the occurrence of multiple exponents of a single morphosyntactic feature value. In instances of extended exponence, more than one exponent in the same word realizes the same feature value. We provide a unified account of blocking and extended exponence that combines a realizational approach to inflection with Optimality Theory (Realization Optimality Theory), encoding morphological realization rules as ranked violable constraints. The markedness constraint *Feature Split bars the realization of any morphosyntactic feature value by more than one exponent. If *Feature Split ranks lower than two or more realization constraints expressing the same feature value, then we observe extended exponence. Otherwise, we find blocking of lower-ranked exponents. We show that Realization Optimality Theory is superior to various alternative approaches to blocking and extended morphological exponence.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 673 - 707
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

[1]

Research in this paper was partially supported by a National University of Singapore faculty start-up grant (R-102-000-044-133). Earlier versions of this paper were presented at Stony Brook University, the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, and the Yale Linguistics Colloquium. We thank James P. Blevins, Geert Booij, Greville G. Corbett, Alice C. Harris, Robert D. Hoberman, Rochelle Lieber, Mary Paster, and two anonymous JL referees for their comments. All errors are our own.

We use the following abbreviations for feature values in this paper: 1, 2, 3: first, second, and third person; CM: class marker; f(em): feminine; GEN: gender; ind: indicative; int: interrogative; m(asc): masculine; neg: negation; NUM: number; part: participant; PER: person; perf: perfective; pl: plural; pret: preterite; sg: singular; Subj/subj: subject.

References

REFERENCES

Abdel-Massih, Ernest T. 1971. A reference grammar of Tamazight. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Near Eastern and North African Studies, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1986. Disjunctive ordering in inflectional morphology. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4, 1–31.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2001. On some issues in morphological exponence. In Booij, Geert & Marle, Jaap van (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2000. 1–18. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2005. Morphological universals and diachrony. In Booij, & van Marle, (eds.), 1–17.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Xu, Zheng. 2010. A Realization Optimality-Theoretic approach to affix order. Morphology 20.2, 381–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentolila, Fernand. 1981. Grammaire fonctionnelle d'un parler berbère. Paris: Société d'Etudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42.3, 531–573.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Cutillas, Juan Antonio (eds.). 2004. Advances in Optimality Theory: Special issue of International Journal of English Studies 4.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia. 2004. Morph insertion and allomorphy in Optimality Theory. In Boersma, & Cutillas, (eds.), 74–104.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2002. Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14, 301–327.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2005. Compounding and derivation: Evidence for Construction Morphology. In Dressler, Wolfgang U., Rainer, Franz, Kastovsky, Dieter & Pfeiffer, Oskar (eds.), Morphology and its demarcations, 109–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2007. Construction morphology and the lexicon. In Montermini, Fabio, Boyé, Gilles & Hatbout, Nabil (eds.), 5th Décembrettes: Morphology in Toulouse, 34–44. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2008. Construction morphology and compounding. In Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 201–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2009. Constructions and lexical units: An analysis of Dutch numerals. Linguistische Berichte 19, 1–14.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.). 2005. Yearbook of morphology 2004. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen & Xu, Zheng. 2004. Differential difficulty in the acquisition of second language phonology. In Boersma, & Cutillas, (eds.), 135–163.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Caballero, Gabriela. To appear. Multiple exponence of derivational morphology in Rarámuri (Tarahumara). Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS) 33.Google Scholar
Clahsen, Harald. 1999. Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 991–1013.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 2003. Agreement in the Skou language: A historical account. Oceanic Linguistics 42, 479–498.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Marantz, Alec. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 1–53.Google Scholar
Girard, Abbé Gabriel. 1718. La justesse de la langue françoise ou les différentes significations des mots qui passent pour synonimes. Paris: Laurent D'Houry.Google Scholar
Gomez-Imbert, Elsa & Kenstowicz, Michael. 2000. Barasana tone and accent. International Journal of American Linguistics 66, 419–463.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 373–422.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2001. Optimal clitic positions and the lexicon in Romance clitic systems. In Legendre, Géraldine, Grimshaw, Jane & Vikner, Sten (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic syntax, 205–240. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2009. Exuberant exponence in Batsbi. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27, 267–303.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, Petra & Hoop, Helen de. 2001. Optimality Theoretic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 24, 1–32.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 2003. Suffix ordering in Bantu: A morphocentric approach. In Booij, Geert & Marle, Jaap van (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2002, 245–281. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. To appear. The morphology–phonology connection. Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS) 34.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1996. On affix allomorphy and syllable counting. In Kleinheiz, Ursula (ed.), Interfaces in phonology, 155–171. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kibrik, A. E. 1977. Opyt strukturnogo opisanija arčinskogo jazyka, vol. II: Taksonomičeskaja grammatika [Structural grammar of Archi language, vol 2: Taxonomic grammar] (Publikacii otdelenija strukturnoj i prikladnoj lingvistiki 12). Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 170–210. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2005. Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. In Booij, & van Marle, (eds.), 113–135.Google Scholar
Kurisu, Kazutaka. 2000. Double morphemic exponence as morphological opacity. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 36, 163–177.Google Scholar
MacBride, Alexander Ian. 2004. A constraint-based approach to morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan. 2007. External allomorphy and lexical representation. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 715–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 1972. Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 1991. Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1999. Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16, 331–399.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2005. Optimal paradigms. In Downing, Laura J., Hall, T. A. & Raffelsiefen, Renate (eds.), Paradigms in phonological theory, 170–210. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. To appear. Pausal phonology and morpheme realization. In Borowsky, Tony, Kawahara, Shigeto, Shinya, Takahito & Sugahara, Mariko (eds.), Prosody matters: Essays in honor of Lisa Selkirk. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan. 1993a. Generalized alignment. In Booij, Geert & Marle, Jaap van (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1993, 79–153. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan. 1993b. Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2007. Extended exponence by enrichment: Argument encoding in German, Archi, and Timucua. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 13.1, 253–266.Google Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1997. Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. New York & London: Garland.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary. 2005. Pulaar verbal extensions and phonologically driven affix order. In Booij, Geert & Marle, Jaap van (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2005, 155–199. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary. 2006. Phonological conditions on affixation. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary. 2009. Explaining phonological conditions on affixation: Evidence from suppletive allomorphy and affix ordering. Word structure 2.1, 18–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paster, Mary. To appear. Phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy: Cross-linguistic results and theoretical consequences. In Tranel, Bernard (ed.), Understanding allomorphy: Perspectives from OT (Advances in Optimality Theory). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Peterson, David A. 1994. Multiple exponence and morphosyntactic redundancy. In Duncan, Erin, Farkas, Donka & Spaelti, Philip (eds.), The Twelfth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 12), 83–100.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [Revision of 1993 technical report, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science. Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-537.]Google Scholar
Pycha, Anne. 2008. Partial blocking. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 41, 415–430.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme order and semantic scope: Word formation in the Athapaskan verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Kevin. 1995. Morphemes and candidates in Optimality Theory. Ms., University of Manitoba. [Rutgers Optimality Archive 44-0195]Google Scholar
Russell, Kevin. 1997. Optimality Theory and morphology. In Archangeli, Diane & Terence Langendoen, D. (eds.), Optimality Theory: An overview, 102–133. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sampson, John. 1926. The dialect of the Gypsies of Wales. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [1968 reprint]Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1993. On rules of referral. Language 69, 449–479.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Uslar, Petr Karlovič. 1896. Ètnografija Kavkaza (Jazykoznanie VI: Kjurinskij jazyk) [Ethnography of the Caucasus (Linguistics VI: The Küre language)]. Tiflis.Google Scholar
van Driem, George. 1987. A grammar of Limbu. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
van Driem, George. 1990. An exploration of proto-Kiranti verbal morphology. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 22, 27–48.Google Scholar
van Driem, George. 1997. A new analysis of the Limbu verb. In Bradley, David (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas (Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics 14), 157–173. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew. 2008. Optimal interleaving: Serial phonology–morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1989. Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Xu, Zheng. 2007. Inflectional morphology in Optimality Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Xu, Zheng & Aronoff, Mark. To appear. A Realization Optimality-Theoretic approach to full and partial identity of forms. In Goldbach, Maria, Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier, Maiden, Martin & Smith, John Charles (eds.), Morphological autonomy: Perspectives from Romance inflectional morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. 1998. Identity avoidance in phonology and morphology. In Lapointe, Steven G., Brentari, Diane K. & Farrell, Patrick M. (eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, 216–246. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. 2003. The morphology and phonology of infixation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. 2007. A natural history of infixation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. How to describe inflection. In Niepokuj, Mary, Clay, Mary van, Nikiforidou, Vassiliki & Feder, Deborah (eds.), Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS) 11, 372–386.Google Scholar