Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T19:43:00.947Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prosodic circumscription in Choctaw morphology*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Linda Lombardi  and
John McCarthy
Linda Lombardi
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
John McCarthy
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The theory of PROSODIC CIRCUMSCRIPTION (McCarthy & Prince 1990a) is a general approach to the problem of limiting the domain of rules to less than a morphological constituent. For example, in the Arabic singular/ plural pairs ndub/anaadib ‘locust’ and sulṭaan/salaaṭiin ‘sultan’, vowel length in the final syllable remains unaltered despite significant changes in the shape of the rest of the word. Prosodic circumscription theory partitions the singular base into affected (aun, sul) and unaffected (dib, ṭaan) portions, with only the affected portion mapped onto a light–heavy (or iambic) template.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , May 1991 , pp. 37 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

REFERENCES

Anderson, Stephen (1987). Morphological theory. In Newmeyer, Fritz (ed.) Linguistics: the Cambridge survey. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 146–191.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana (1987). Keley-i consonant assimilation. Coyote Papers 6. Tucson: Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Besnier, Niko (1987). An autosegmental approach to metathesis in Rotuman. Lingua 73. 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booker, Karen M. (1980). Comparative Muskogean: aspects of Proto-Muskogean verb morphology. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary (1940). Ablaut and its function in Muskogee. Lg 16. 141–150.Google Scholar
Haas, Wim de (1988). A formal theory of vowel coalescence. PhD dissertation, University of Nijmegen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth (1965). Some preliminary observations on Papago morphophonemics. IJAL 31. 295–305.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Jean-Roger, Vergnaud (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hardy, Heather & Montler, Timothy (1988). Imperfective gemination in Alabama. IJAL 54. 399–415.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1986). Inalterability in CV phonology. Lg 62. 321–352.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1987). A revised parametric metrical theory. NELS 17. 274–289.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. LI 20. 253–306.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey (1987). Ablaut and ambiguity: phonology of a Moroccan Arabic dialect. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Hewitt, Mark & Prince, Alan (1989). OCP, locality, and linking: the N. Karanga verb. WCCFL 8. 176–191.Google Scholar
Hoberman, Robert (1988). Local and long-distance spreading in Semitic morphology. NLLT 6. 541–549.Google Scholar
Hohulin, Lou & Kenstowicz, Michael (1979). Keley-i phonology and morphophonemics. South-East Asian Linguistic Studies 4. 241–254.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon (1989). Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon (1989). Prosodic constituency in the lexi. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko (1986). Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko (1989). A prosodic theory of epenthesis. NLLT 7. 217–260.Google Scholar
Kimball, Geoffrey (1985). A descriptive grammar of Koasati. PhD dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1984). On the lexical phonology of Icelandic. In Elert, C. C., Johansson, I. & Strangert, E. (eds.) Nordic prosody III. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 135–164.Google Scholar
Levin, Juliette (1985). A metrical theory of syllabicity. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John (1984). Prosodic structure in morphology. In Aronoff, Mark & Oehrle, Richard (eds.) Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 299–317.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan (1986). Prosodic morphology. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Brandeis University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan (1988). Quantitative transfer in reduplicative and templatic morphology. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.) Linguistics in the morning calm 2. Seoul: Hanshin. 3–35.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan (1990a). Foot and word in prosodic morphology: the Arabic broken plurals. NLLT 8. 209–283.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan (1990b). Prosodic morphology and templatic morphology. In Eid, Mushira & McCarthy, John (eds.) New perspectives on Arabic linguistics II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–54.Google Scholar
Martin, Jack (1988). Subtractive morphology as dissociation. WCCFL 7. 229–240.Google Scholar
Martin, Jack (1989). Infixation and extrametricality in prosodic morphology: three rules from Creek. Ms, University of North Texas.Google Scholar
Mester, Armin (1990). Patterns of truncation. LI 21. 478–485.Google Scholar
Munro, Pamela & Ulrich, Charles (1984). Structure preservation and Western Muskogean rhythmic lengthening. WCCFL 3. 191–202.Google Scholar
Mutaka, Ngessimo & Hyman, Larry (1990). Syllables and morpheme integrity in Kinande reduplication. Phonology 7. 73–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Scott (1987). Tone and the structure of words in Shona. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Nicklas, Thurston (1974). The elements of Choctaw. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Nicklas, Thurston (1975). Choctaw morphophonemics. In Crawford, James M. (ed.) Studies in Southeastern Indian languages. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Piggott, G. L. (1987). On the autonomy of the feature [nasal]. CLS 23:2. 223–238.Google Scholar
Poser, William (1988). Features of phonological constituents are features of heads. Ms, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Poser, William (1990). Evidence for foot structure in Japanese. Lg 66. 78–105.Google Scholar
Pranka, Paula (1983). Syntax and word formation. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (1983). Relating to the grid. LI 14. 19–100.Google Scholar
Schein, Barry & Steriade, Donca (1986). On geminates. LI 17. 691–744.Google Scholar
Shetler, J. (1976). Notes on Balangao grammar. Huntington Beach, Calif.: Summer Institute of Linguistics. SteriadeDonca (1982).Google Scholar
Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Spring, Cari (1989). Reduplication without affixes; the prosodic word base in Axininca Campa. Ms, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Tateishi, Koichi (1989). Theoretical implications of the Japanese musician's language. WCCFL 8. 384–398.Google Scholar
Trigo, L. (1988). On the phonological derivation and behavior of nasal glides. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ulrich, Charles (1986). Choctaw morphophonology. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Ulrich, Charles (1987). Choctaw verb grades and the nature of syllabification. CLS 23:2. 374–387.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Karina (1986). Syllable structure and Lardil phonology. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira (1988). Template morphology and the direction of association. NLLT 6. 551–577.Google Scholar