No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Morphosyntax–phonology mismatches in Muskogee
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 September 2021
Abstract
The mismatching of morphosyntactic and phonological domains inside words provides a testing ground for models of the morphosyntax–phonology interface. This paper describes a pattern of morphosyntax–phonology mismatches in Muskogee. Muskogee verbs are spelled out at two phases, vP and CP, resulting in two phonological domains, which this paper models as ω-recursion. The vP phase and ωmin are mismatched: either vP-phase material is parsed outside ωmin – an undermatch – or CP-phase material is parsed inside ωmin – an overmatch. The mismatch pattern requires a parallel model of morphosyntax–phonology mapping to distinguish mismatches using gradient Align constraints, rather than categorial Match constraints. Additionally, a phase-based model must allow earlier cycles to be altered in later cycles, ruling out strict phase inalterability in phonology, while a Stratal OT analysis must send a word's first phase through the stem-level phonology, regardless of its ultimate phasal structure.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
Footnotes
I would like to acknowledge Jack Martin for his superb grammar of Muskogee and his answers to my many questions about Muskogee, and Kimberly Johnson for discussion of her own fieldwork on Muskogee. I would also like to thank Joyce McDonough, for focusing my generalisations on prosodic structure in Muskogee, Karen Jesney, for poring over both earlier stages of this work and a recent draft, and Hossep Dolatian, for commenting on a previous draft. I further appreciate the input on earlier versions of this work from the Departments of Linguistics at the University of Rochester and the University of Southern California, and the audiences at AMP 2016, the 2017 LSA Annual Meeting and MoMOT 2018. I thank an associate editor and three anonymous reviewers for Phonology. Lastly and most importantly, thank you to all the Muskogee speakers who have generously provided all the data in this paper via Jack Martin's grammar. Any errors in the work are solely my own.
References
Bennett, Ryan (2019). Recursive prosodic words in Kaqchikel (Mayan). Glossa 3(1):67. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.550.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2018). Stratal Phonology. In Hannahs, S. J. & Bosch, Anna R. K. (eds.) The Routledge handbook of phonological theory. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 100–134.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi (1986). Italian syntax: a government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Downing, Laura (2016). Phasal syntax = cyclic phonology? Syntax 19. 156–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.) Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 89–155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.) Ken Hale: a life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1–52.Google Scholar
Crippen, James A. (2019). The syntax in Tlingit verbs. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2002). The formal expression of markedness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Dolatian, Hossep (2020). Computational locality of cyclic phonology in Armenian. PhD dissertation, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J. (2006). Canonical forms in prosodic morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elfner, Emily (2012). Syntax–prosody interactions in Irish. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily (2015). Recursion in prosodic phrasing: evidence from Connemara Irish. NLLT 33. 1169–1208.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily (2016). Stress–epenthesis interactions in Harmonic Serialism. In McCarthy, John J. & Pater, Joe (eds.) Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism. London: Equinox. 261–300.Google Scholar
Fenger, Paula (2020). Words within words: the internal syntax of verbs. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz (1999). Lexical strata in English: morphological causes, phonological effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guekguezian, Peter Ara (2017). Prosodic recursion and syntactic cyclicity inside the word. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Guekguezian, Peter Ara (2020). Aspectual phase heads in Muskogee verbs. NLLT. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-020-09495-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, Mary R. (1977). Tonal accent in Creek. In Hyman, Larry M. (ed.) Studies in stress and accent. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California. 195–208.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (1978). Metrical structures in phonology. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hardy, Donald E. (1988). The semantics of Creek morphosyntax. PhD dissertation, Rice University.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.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
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2007). Prosodic adjunction in Japanese compounds. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 55. 97–111.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2009). The extended prosodic word. In Grijzenhout, Janet & Kabak, Barış (eds.) Phonological domains: universals and deviations. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 135–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2013). Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124. 20–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Kimberly (2019a). Phase sensitive morphology and dependent case: optional nominative-accusative in Creek (Mvskoke). Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available (May 2021) at https://www.kimberlyjohnson-linguist.com/research.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kimberly (2019b). Evidence acquisition time as belief-state change: a view from Mvskoke (Creek). In Julian J. Schlöder, Dean McHugh & Floris Roelofsen (eds.) Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium. 191–200. https://archive.illc.uva.nl/AC/AC2019/.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2000). Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.) Phrase structure and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003). OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20. 75–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2008). The gradual path to cluster simplification. Phonology 25. 271–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 79–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Jack B. (2010). How to tell a Creek story in five past tenses. IJAL 76. 43–70.Google Scholar
Martin, Jack B. (2011). A grammar of Creek (Muskogee). Lincoln & London: University of Nebraska Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Jack B. & Johnson, Keith (2002). An acoustic study of ‘tonal accent’ in Creek. IJAL 68. 28–50.Google Scholar
Marvin, Tatjana (2002). Topics in the stress and syntax of words. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Mester, Armin & Padgett, Jaye (1994). Directional syllabification in Generalized Alignment. In Merchant, Jason, Padgett, Jaye & Walker, Rachel (eds.) Phonology at Santa Cruz 3. Santa Cruz: Linguistics Research Center. 79–85.Google Scholar
Miller, Taylor L. (2018). The phonology–syntax interface and polysynthesis: a study of Kiowa and Saulteaux Ojibwe. PhD dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Morén, Bruce (1999). Distinctiveness, coercion and sonority: a unified theory of weight. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Myrberg, Sara (2013). Sisterhood and prosodic branching. Phonology 30. 73–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nathan, Michele (1977). Grammatical description of the Florida Seminole dialect of Creek. PhD dissertation, Tulane University.Google Scholar
Newell, Heather (2008). Aspects of the morphology and phonology of phases. PhD dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Newell, Heather (2017). Nested phase interpretations and the PIC. In Newell, Heather, Noonan, Máire, Piggott, Glyne & Travis, Lisa (eds.) The structure of words at the interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 20–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padgett, Jaye (1995). Partial class behavior and nasal place assimilation. In Suzuki, Keiichiro & Elzinga, Dirk (eds.) Proceedings of the 1995 Southwestern Workshop on Optimality Theory (SWOT). Tucson: Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona. 145–183.Google Scholar
Pietraszko, Joanna (2017). Inflectional dependencies: a study of complex verbal expressions in Ndebele. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne & Newell, Heather (2016). Syllabification, stress and derivation by phase in Ojibwa. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 20:2. 39–64.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. LI 20. 365–424.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Samuels, Bridget (2010). Phonological derivation by phase: evidence from Basque. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 16:1. 166–175.Google Scholar
Samuels, Bridget (2011). Phonological architecture: a biolinguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheer, Tobias (2012). Direct interface and one-channel translation: a non-diacritic theory of the morphosyntax–phonology interface. Boston & Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1995). The prosodic structure of function words. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 439–469.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2009). On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: the syntactic grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyu 136. 35–73.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2011). The syntax–phonology interface. In Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory. 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 435–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šurkalović, Dragana (2015). The No-Reference Hypothesis: a modular approach to the syntax–phonology interface. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Syed, Saurov & Simpson, Andrew (2017). On the DP/NP status of nominal projections in Bangla: consequences for the theory of phases. Glossa 2(1):68. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Lisa (2000). Event structure in syntax. In Tenny, Carol & Pustejovsky, James (eds.) Events as grammatical objects: the converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax. Stanford: CSLI. 145–185.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (1995). Phonological phrases: their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Tyler, Matthew (2020). Argument structure and argument-marking in Choctaw. PhD dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
Windsor, Joseph W. (2017). Predicting prosodic structure by morphosyntactic category: a case study of Blackfoot. Glossa 2(1):10. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar