Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:57:48.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphologically conditioned phonology with two triggers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2020

Hannah Sande Open the ORCID record for Hannah Sande [Opens in a new window]
Hannah Sande*
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
*
*E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Morphologically conditioned phonology, where a particular phonological alternation or requirement holds only for a subset of lexical items or in a subset of morphological contexts, is well documented. This paper expands on the literature by examining phonological alternations where two independent triggering morphemes must both be present for a phonological alternation to apply. Several cases of doubly morphologically conditioned phonological alternations, from a diverse set of languages, are described. The existence of morphologically conditioned phonology with two triggers informs our models of the interface between morphology and phonology, in that phonological operations must be able to reference the presence of more than one morpheme simultaneously. A range of possible analyses are considered, including those set in Stratal OT, Indexed Constraint Theory, Cophonology Theory and Cophonologies by Phase Theory. A Cophonologies by Phase account is found to be optimal, where multiple morpheme-specific phonological requirements accumulate and co-trigger alternations within a single spell-out domain.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , August 2020 , pp. 453 - 493
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Thanks to Peter Jenks and Sharon Inkelas, who have been key collaborators in developing the formalism of Cophonologies by Phase. Thanks also to the Guébie community, as well as undergraduate students Brittany Blankinship, Andrea Eberle, Corrina Fuller, Steven Ho, Phoebe Killick, Shane Quinn, Katherine Russell, Ivy Wang and Emma Woolf for helping to maintain the online Guébie database. Thanks to Larry Hyman, Darya Kavitskaya and Yuni Kim, as well as audiences at UC Berkeley, NELS 2016, LSA 2017, AMP 2018, UC Santa Cruz, Georgetown University, CUNY, the University of Delaware, Princeton University, the Goethe University Frankfurt, the University of Chicago and the University of Maryland, for comments on various aspects of this work. The abbreviations used throughout this paper are in accordance with the Leipzig glossing rules (Comrie et al. 2015).

References

Acquaviva, Paolo (2009). Roots and lexicality in Distributed Morphology. York Papers in Linguistics (Series 2) 10. 1–21. https://www.york.ac.uk/language/ypl/ypl2/10.html.Google Scholar
Adler, Jeffrey & Zymet, Jesse (2020). Irreducible parallelism in phonology: evidence for lookahead from Mohawk, Maragoli, Sino-Japanese, and Lithuanian. NLLT. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-020-09478-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albright, Adam (2002). A restricted model of UR discovery: evidence from Lakhota. Ms, University of California at Santa Cruz. Available (July 2020) at http://web.mit.edu/albright/www/papers/Albright-Lakhota.pdf.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto (2002). Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. NLLT 20. 1–42.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana & Pulleyblank, Douglas (2012). Emergent phonology: evidence from English. In Lee, Ik-Hwan, Kang, Young-Se, Kim, Kyoung-Ae, Kim, Kee-Ho, Kim, Il-Kon, Rhee, Seong-Ha, Kim, Jin-Hyung, Kim, Hyo-Young, Lee, Ki-Jeong, Kang, Hye-Kyung & Ahn, Sung-Ho (eds.) Issues in English linguistics. Seoul: Hankookmunhwasa. 1–26.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana & Pulleyblank, Douglas (2015). Tonal allomorphy in Kinande. In Hsiao, Yuchau E. & Wee, Lian-Hee (eds.) Capturing phonological shades within and across languages. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 76–100.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana & Pulleyblank, Douglas (2016). Emergent morphology. In Siddiqi, Daniel & Harley, Heidi (eds.) Morphological metatheory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 237–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, Bertille (2019). Syntax–prosody interactions in Xitsonga and Irish: a reanalysis in Cophonologies by Phase. Ms, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Bennett, Ryan (2016). Mayan phonology. Language and Linguistics Compass 10. 469–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (1999). Constraint interaction in language change: quantity in English and Germanic. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester & University of Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2012). The architecture of grammar and the division of labor in exponence. In Trommer, Jochen (ed.) The morphology and phonology of exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 8–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.) Ken Hale: a life in language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, Adriana (ed.) Structures and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 104–131.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2008). On phases. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.) Foundational issues in linguistic theory: essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 133–166.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clem, Emily C. (2019). Agreement, case, and switch-reference in Amahuaca. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Haspelmath, Martin & Bickel, Balthasar (2015). The Leipzig glossing rules. https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica (2017). Little-v0 agreement and templatic morphology in Ch'ol. Syntax 20. 101–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. (2015). Morphosyntactic complexity: a typology of lexical splits. Lg 91. 145–193.Google Scholar
DuBois, John W. (1981). The Sacapultec language. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
DuBois, John W. (1985). Incipient semanticization of possessive ablaut in Mayan. IJAL 51. 396–398.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Halle, Morris (2005). On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Geerts, Twan, van Ginneken, Ivo & Jacobs, Haike (eds.) Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf (2007). Distributed Morphology and the syntax–morphology interface. In Ramchand, Gillian & Reiss, Charles (eds.) The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 289–324.Google Scholar
Ferrari, Franca (2005). A syntactic analysis of the nominal systems of Italian and Luganda: how nouns can be formed in the syntax. PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Fukazawa, Haruka (1998). Multiple input–output faithfulness relations in Japanese. Ms, University of Maryland, College Park. Available as ROA-260 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. (1990). Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford & Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. (1993). Harmonic phonology. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.) The last phonological rule: reflections on constraints and derivations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 21–60.Google Scholar
Goldwater, Sharon & Johnson, Mark (2003). Learning OT constraint rankings using a Maximum Entropy model. In Spenader, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders & Dahl, Östen (eds.) Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory. Stockholm: Stockholm University. 111–120.Google Scholar
Graczyk, Randolph (2007). A grammar of Crow. Lincoln: University of Nebraska 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 honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 111–176.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec (1994). Some key features of Distributed Morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21. 275–288.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Wilson, Colin & George, Ben (2009). Maxent grammar tool. Software package. Available (July 2020) at http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/MaxentGrammarTool/.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey (2015). Dogon noncompositional constructional tonosyntax. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 36. 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, Orhan Orgun, C. & 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. Reprinted 2004 in John J. McCarthy (ed.) Optimality Theory in phonology. Oxford: Blackwell. 542–551.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Zoll, Cheryl (2005). Reduplication: doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin (1995). Japanese phonology. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.) The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 817–838.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin (1999). Realignment. In Kager, René, van der Hulst, Harry & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) The prosody–morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 188–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenks, Peter (2018). The composition of the Moro verb. Paper presented at the Princeton Symposium on Syntactic Theory, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Jenks, Peter & Rose, Sharon (2015). Mobile object markers in Moro: the role of tone. Lg 91. 269–307.Google Scholar
Jones, A. Wesley (1992). The Hidatsa ‘approximative’: morphology, phonology, semantic – and an approximate look at ablaut. Anthropological Linguistics 34. 324–337.Google Scholar
Kastner, Itamar (2019). Templatic morphology as an emergent property: roots and functional heads in Hebrew. NLLT 37. 571–619.Google Scholar
Kim, Ji-yung (2002). A feature-analysis of ablaut. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 42. 165–194.Google Scholar
Kim, Yuni (2016). Tonal overwriting and inflectional exponence in Amuzgo. In Panacar, Enrique L. & Léonard, Jean Léo (eds.) Tone and inflection: new facts and new perspectives. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 199–224.Google Scholar
Kim, Yuni (2019). A morphophonological parameter hierarchy for Amuzgo glottalization classes. Amerindia 41. 247–278.Google Scholar
Kim, Yuni & Sande, Hannah (2019). The division of labor between representations and cophonologies in doubly conditioned processes in Amuzgo. Paper presented at the 50th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, MIT.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In van der Hulst, Harry & S. H. Smith, Norval (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part I. Dordrecht: Foris. 131–175.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1984). On the lexical phonology of Icelandic. In Elert, Claes-Christian, Johansson, Iréne & Strangert, Eva (eds.) Nordic Prosody III. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 135–164.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2000). Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2008). Fenno-Swedish quantity: contrast in Stratal OT. In Vaux, Bert & Nevins, Andrew (eds.) Rules, constraints, and phonological phenomena. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 185–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Ruth (2015). The morphosyntax of gender. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropp Dakubu, M. E. (1996). Explaining Ga plurals. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 17. 153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Miyata, Yoshiro & Smolensky, Paul (1990). Can connectionism contribute to syntax? Harmonic Grammar, with an application. CLS 26:1. 237–252.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. Paul, Simons, Gary F. & Fennig, Charles D. (eds.) (2014). Ethnologue: languages of the world. 17th edn. Dallas: SIL International. Available at http://www.ethnologue.com.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle (1987). An integrated theory of autosegmental processes. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Lightner, Theodore M. (1972). Some remarks on exceptions and on coexistent systems in phonology. In Worth, Dean S. (ed.) The Slavic word. The Hague & Paris: Mouton. 426–436.Google Scholar
Lindsey, Kate Lynn (2019). Ghosts and gradience in phonology. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean (2008). On little n, √, and types of nouns. In Hartmann, Jutta, Hegedüs, Veronika & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.) Sounds of silence: empty elements in syntax and phonology. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 105–144.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 79–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, Laura E. (2014). Replacive grammatical tone in the Dogon languages. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
McPherson, Laura E. (2019). Seenku argument-head tone sandhi: allomorph selection in a cyclic grammar. Glossa 4(1):22. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, Laura E. & Heath, Jeffrey (2016). Phrasal grammatical tone in the Dogon languages. NLLT 34. 593–639.Google Scholar
Mahanta, Shakuntala (2012). Locality in exceptions and derived environments in vowel harmony. NLLT 30. 1109–1146.Google Scholar
Marvin, Tatjana (2002). Topics in the stress and syntax of words. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Orgun, C. Orhan (1996). Sign-based morphology and phonology with special attention to Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.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
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
Rankin, Robert L. (1995). On Quapaw (and Siouan) ablaut. Paper presented at the Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Rolle, Nicholas (2018). Grammatical tone: typology, theory, and functional load. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Rosen, Eric (2016). Predicting the unpredictable: capturing the apparent semi-regularity of rendaku voicing in Japanese through Harmonic Grammar. BLS 42. 235–249.Google Scholar
Sande, Hannah (2017). Distributing morphologically conditioned phonology: three case studies from Guébie. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Sande, Hannah (2018). Cross-word morphologically conditioned scalar tone shift in Guébie. Morphology 28. 253–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sande, Hannah (2019a). A unified account of conditioned phonological alternations: evidence from Guébie. Lg 95. 456–497.Google Scholar
Sande, Hannah (2019b). Phonologically determined nominal concord as post-syntactic: evidence from Guébie. JL 55. 831–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sande, Hannah & Jenks, Peter (2018). Cophonologies by phase. NELS 48:3. 39–52.Google Scholar
Sande, Hannah, Jenks, Peter & Inkelas, Sharon (2020). Cophonologies by ph(r)ase. NLLT. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-020-09467-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddiqi, Daniel (2009). Syntax within the word: economy, allomorphy, and argument selection in Distributed Morphology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. (2011). Category-specific effects. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.) The Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. 2439–2463.Google Scholar
Smith Stark, Thomas & García, Fermín Tapia (1984). Los tonos del amuzgo de San Pedro Amuzgos. Anales de Antropología 21. 199–220.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul & Goldrick, Matthew (2016). Gradient symbolic representations in grammar: the case of French liaison. Ms, Johns Hopkins University & Northwestern University. Available as ROA-1286 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul & Legendre, Géraldine (eds.) (2006). The harmonic mind: from neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spahr, Christopher (2012). Floating contrastive features in Estonian: underspecification and ‘palatalization’. Paper presented at the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto Phonology Workshop, Toronto. Handout available (July 2020) at http://individual.utoronto.ca/spahr.Google Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara & Wunderlich, Dieter (1999). Second stems in Hungarian nouns. The Linguistic Review 16. 253–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trommer, Jochen (2011). Phonological aspects of Western Nilotic mutation morphology. Habilitationsschrift, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen (2016). Structural cumulativity in German umlaut. Paper presented at the 24th Manchester Phonology Meeting. Slides available (July 2020) https://home.uni-leipzig.de/jtrommer.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan (1999). Multiple spell-out. In Epstein, Samuel David & Hornstein, Norbert (eds.) Working minimalism. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 251–282.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Eva (2017). Morphological length and prosodically defective morphemes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuraw, Kie (2000). Patterned exceptions in phonology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Zuraw, Kie (2010). A model of lexical variation and the grammar with application to Tagalog nasal substitution. NLLT 28. 417–472.Google Scholar