1 / 32

Lexical Phonology

Lexical Phonology. 1998. Kiparsky: early 1980s. Developing work by Dorothy Siegel, Steven Strauss, Mark Aronoff, David Pesetsky. A theory of many things. A theory of the relationship between phonotactics and what once was called automatic morphophonology.

elden
Download Presentation

Lexical Phonology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lexical Phonology 1998

  2. Kiparsky: early 1980s • Developing work by Dorothy Siegel, Steven Strauss, Mark Aronoff, David Pesetsky.

  3. A theory of many things... A theory of the relationship between phonotactics and what once was called automatic morphophonology. (But automatic morphophonology grew into all of what phonology was.) A theory of levels or layers in morphology. A constraint on neutralizations rules' application in nonderived environments A theory of underspecification (markedness).

  4. Lexical phonology is extremely derivational: things happen, some things happen before other things happen, and if something happens before X appears on the scene, then too bad for X. If Y isn't "in the lexicon", then a lexical rule can't "see" it (whatever that means).

  5. The most remarkable claim of lexical phonology is that the generalizations describing markedness principles of a language are the same as the rules governing the changes of sounds under conditions of word-formation.

  6. Lexical/postlexical components • This is the most important distinction, one going back a long way, but dropped for a while in generative phonology. • Lexical rules have exceptions, do not create novel segments or sequences = morphophonemic rules. • Postcyclic: flapping; word-final devoicing in German, Dutch, Russian; Cyclic = trisyllabic laxing.

  7. Lexicon Structure-preserving (output is possible UR) Not necessarily phonetically natural never applies across words Apply only in derived environments Trisyllabic shortening No lexical exceptions not necessarily structure-preserving may apply across words May not refer to internal morphological information Flap formation Lexical/post-lexical split Ordered: Lexical >> Postlexical

  8. Derived environments…the case from Finnish halut-a to want halus-i wanted Non-derived environments: tila room aiti mother

  9. Finnish (2): interaction with e®i/__ # joki river joke-na essive sg. äiti mother äiti-nä essive sg vesi water vete-nä essive sg käsi hand käte-nä essive sg • Watch difference between äiti and vete.

  10. Trisyllabic shortening (aka Trisyllabic Laxing) divine divinity serene serenity profane profanity vile vilify clear clarity rite ritual grade gradual tyrant tyranny tyranize tyrannous penal penalize fable fabulous exceptions….

  11. Trisyllabic shortening • nightingale, stevedore, ivory, Amory, bravery, mightily, pirating, obesity. • So: 3SS has lexical exceptions, it doesn’t look over word-boundaries, and it seems to be a “markedness” statement for nonderived forms; it creates a segment type that exists underlyingly.

  12. Certain suffixes trigger the shortening: ity, ify, ual, ??ize (no), ??ous Group 1: stress affecting: -ic, -al, -ity, -ion, -y (nominalizing), -al, -ate, -ous, -ive, -ation Group 2 stress neutral -hood, -ful, -ly, -ize, -ness, -less, -y (adj.) fictionalize Both? -able (Aronoff) -ism (Goldsmith: philosophy 1, language-style 2?)

  13. Basis for stratal distinction: • Group 1 easily attaches to non-word roots (e.g., paternal), while Group 2 almost always attaches to existing words. • Group 1, when it attaches to words, is stress-changing. Group 2 is stress-neutral, always… • Group 1 make the resultant word look as much as possible like a (simple) word.

  14. Combinations of Class 1,2 • Class 1 + Class 1: histor-ic-al, illumina-at-tion, indetermin-at-y; • Class 1 + Class 2: frantern-al-ly, transform-ate-ion-less; • Class 2 + Class 2: weight-less-ness • ?? Class 2 + Class 1: *weight-less-ity, fatal-ism-al

  15. Derivational suffixes in English able fixable, doable, understandable… ant claimant, defendant (at)ion realization, assertion, protection er teacher, worker ing the shooting, the dancing ing the sleeping giant, a blazing fire ive assertive, impressive, restrictive ment adjournment, treatment, amazement ful faithful, hopeful, dreadful (i)al presidential, national

  16. (i)an Arabian, Einsteinian, Minnesotan ic cubic, optimistic, moronic, telephonic ize hospitalize, crystalize ize modernize, nationalize less penniless, brainless ous poisonous, lecherous ate activate, captivate en deaden, blacken, harden ity stupidity, priority ly quietly, slowly, carefully ness happiness, sadness

  17. Strauss, Goldsmith ist-ic

  18. Word-final stress in base • cartoonist *cartoonistic • escapist *escapistic • falangist *falangistic • alarmist *alarmistic • defeatist *defeatistic • adventist *adventistic • conformist *conformistic • extremist *extremistic • reservist *reservistic • careerist *careeristic

  19. Strauss notes: -ic may not attach to an X+ist base if: a. the final syllable of X is not primary stressed; and b. X is a lexical item.

  20. Stress clash in English • OK morpheme internally: • Revlon, nylong, Ticonderoga, Rangoon, Illini • Contrast alarmistic and admonish: • admonish is like alarmist in stress, but admonition sounds fine, while alarmistic does not.

  21. abnormal -> abnormality • 2 1 3 2 2 1 3 3

  22. Suffixes that care about stress: • -ize: • distinguish catholicize or notarize from Bermudaize. • Standardize and cannibalize suggest Stratum 2. • Winterize, summerize, autumnize (cf. autumnal), but *fallize, *springize.

  23. alphabetize radicalize departmentalize *cartoonize journalize *magazinize *bookize publicize legalize Bostonize *New Yorkize

  24. Perhaps what is not possible is: [+stress] ]Stratum II [+stress] that would suggest: [ [ alarm ]stratum II ist ]stratum I ic

  25. English stress, a bit • Assuming the final syllable does not have a long vowel, then we can approximate English stress with the Latin main stress rule: stress on the penult if heavy, on the antepenult otherwise. • In fact, Group 1 causes a lot of changes, and Group 2 doesn’t, but we don’t have an explanation of that within lexical phonology

  26. Problems, so far: • In tough cases, we have to say that a suffix falls into both classes, which reduces the strength of the claim a lot. Typical cases are -able, -ism, -ize. • Discussion of -ment in AMP. • If -ize is Stratum 2 (always) then organization is a problem, since it violates the Level Ordering Hypothesis (Mark Aronoff’s observation). Perhaps likewise is ability, and istic.

  27. GJ’s example of morphologically sensitive rule (p. 120) What is the alternative hypothesis?

  28. Kenstowicz' Polish example o >> u / __ +cons, -nasal, +voiced. 1. lexical exceptions: skrop "scratch"imper. from /skrob/ 2. Morphological conditioning: more frequent in feminine and neuter nouns than in masculines:

  29. fem doz-a pagod-a mod-a • with genitive plural: dus, pagut, mut; • contrast with masc. mop, snop • "Polish speakers are aware of the sound substitution effected by the raising rule...the voicing change is essentially below the level of consciousness." Careful!! • Does not introduce any new phones • "Raising of o to u before a voiced nonnasal consonant is an arbitrary and phonetically unmotivated sound substitution. " Careful!!

More Related