Morphology

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 165–204 | Cite as

Scope, phonology and morphology in an agglutinating language: Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) variable suffix ordering

Open Access
Original Paper

Abstract

What is the nature of the interaction between scope, phonological conditions and morphologically specified precedence relations in determining affix combinatorics in morphologically complex languages? In depth studies of affix ordering patterns in typologically diverse languages reveal intricate interactions among multiple factors. Mixed scope/template systems, for instance, have been characterized as either involving scope taking precedence over templates [Athabaskan (Rice 2000)], or templates overriding scope [Chichewa (Hyman 2002, 2003) and Pulaar (Paster 2005)]. This paper makes an empirical contribution by documenting a novel type of affix order system of a previously unstudied language, Choguita Rarámuri, a Uto-Aztecan language spoken in Mexico, which features free affix permutation, and which cannot be characterized as either ‘template-emergent’ or ‘scope-emergent’. In this agglutinating language, scope and morphological constraints are freely ranked, with phonological subcategorization overriding all other constraints. This paper also documents how semantically non-compositional suffix sequences may arise through priming effects and morphophonologically conditioned multiple exponence.

Keywords

Scope Phonology Variable affix order Subcategorization Uto-Aztecan Tarahumara 

References

  1. Alsina A. (1999) Where’s the mirror principle?. The Linguistic Review 16(1): 1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anttila, A. (1995). Deriving variation from grammar: A study of Finnish genitives. Ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
  3. Baker M. (1985) The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–416Google Scholar
  4. Beck, D. (2007). Variable ordering of affixes in Upper Necaxa Totonac. In Workshop on structure and constituency of the languages of the americas 12. Vancouver: UBC Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  5. Bickel B., Banjade G., Gaenszle M., Lieven E., Paudyal N., Purna Rai I. et al (2007) Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language 83: 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Booij G. (2002) Prosodic restrictions on affixation in Dutch. In: Booij G., van Marle J. (eds) Yearbook of morphology 2001. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 183–202Google Scholar
  7. Bybee J. (1985) Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. Caballero, G. (2008). Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) phonology and morphology. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  9. Caballero, G. (to appear a). Multiple exponence of derivational morphology in Rarámuri (Tarahumara). Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 33.Google Scholar
  10. Caballero, G. (to appear b). Multiple exponence and the phonology-morphology interface. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society, 39.Google Scholar
  11. Condoravdi, C., & Kiparsky, P. (1998). Optimal order and scope. Paper presented at Lexicon in Focus, Heinrich-Heine. Universität Dusseldorf.Google Scholar
  12. Greenberg J. (1963) Some universals of grammar with particulare reference to the order of meaningful elements. In: Greenberg J. (eds) Universals of language. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Good, J. (2003). Strong linearity: Three case studies towards a theory of morphosyntactic templatic constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  14. Good, J. (2006). Constraining morphosyntactic templates: A case study of Bantu verbal suffixes. Paper presented at the 2006 Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting. Albuquerque, NM.Google Scholar
  15. Guy G. (1997) Competence, performance, and the generative grammar of variation. In: Hinskens F., Van Hout R., Wetzels W.L. (eds) Variation, change, and phonological theory. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 125–143Google Scholar
  16. Hargus S., Tuttle S.G. (1997) Augmentation as affixation in Athabaskan languages. Phonology 14: 177–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hyman L. (1993) Conceptual issues in the comparative study of the Bantu verb stem. In: Mufwene S.S., Moshi L. (eds) Topics in African linguistics. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 3–34Google Scholar
  18. Hyman, L., (2003). Suffix ordering in Bantu: A morphocentric approach. In Yearbook of morphology 2002 (pp. 245–281). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Hyman L., Mchombo S. (1992) Morphotactic constraints in the Chichewa verb stem. Berkeley Linguistic Society 18: 350–364Google Scholar
  20. Inkelas S. (1990) Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. Garland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Inkelas S. (1993) Nimboran position class morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 559–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Inkelas S., Zoll C. (2005) Reduplication: Doubling in morphology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Itô J., Mester A. (1997) Correspondence and compositionality: The Gagyo variation in Japanese phonology. In: Roca I. (eds) Derivations and constraints in phonology. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 419–462Google Scholar
  24. Kager R. (1999) Optimality theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Kiparsky P. (1982) Explanation in phonology. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  26. Kiparsky, P. (1993). Variable rules. In Handout distributed at the Rutgers Optimality Workshop (ROW1).Google Scholar
  27. Lieber, R. (1980). On the organization of the lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  28. Luutonen J. (1997) The variation of morpheme order in Mari declension. Helsinki, Suomalais-Ugrilainen SeuraGoogle Scholar
  29. Manova, S. (2010). Suffix combinations in Bulgarian: Parsability and hierarchy-based ordering. Morphology, 20. doi:10.1007/s11525-010-9148-3.
  30. Matthews P. (1974) Morphology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1993a). Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  32. McCarthy J., Prince A. (1993) Generalized Alignment. In: Booij G., van Marle J. (eds) Yearbook of morphology 1993. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 79–153Google Scholar
  33. McFarland, T. (2006). Variable affix ordering in Totonaco de Filomeno Mata. Ms., University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  34. Muysken P. (1988) Affix order and interpretation: Quechua. In: Evaraert M., Evers A., Huybregts R., Trommelen M. (eds) Morphology and modularity. Foris, Dordrecht, pp 259–279Google Scholar
  35. Paster M. (2005) Pulaar verbal extensions and phonologically driven affix order. In: Booij G., van Marle J. (eds) Yearbook of morphology 2005. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 155–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paster, M. (2006a). Phonological conditions on affixation. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  37. Paster M. (2006b). A survey of phonological affix order with special attention to Pulaar. In: Baterman L., Ussery C. (eds) Proceedings of the 35th Annual meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Plag I., Baayen R.H. (2009) Suffix ordering and morphological processing. Language 85: 106–149Google Scholar
  39. Plank F. (1999) Split morphology: How agglutination and flexion mix. In Linguistic Typology 3.3: 279–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Prince, A., Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar (unpublished manuscript), Rutgers University and the University of Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
  41. Reynolds, W. (1994). Variation and phonological theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  42. Rice K. (2000) Morpheme order and semantic scope. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Selkirk E. (1982) The syntax of words. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Simpson J., Withgott M. (1986) Pronominal clitic clusters and templates. In: Borer H. (eds) Syntax and semantics 19: The syntax of pronominal clitics. Academic, New York, pp 149–174Google Scholar
  45. Stump G. (1992) Position classes and morphological theory. In: Booij G., van Marle J. (eds) Yearbook of Morphology 1992. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 129–180Google Scholar
  46. Stump G. (2006) Template morphology. In: Brown K. (eds) Encyclopedia of language and linguistics Vol. 12. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 559–563Google Scholar
  47. Yu, A. (2003). The morphology and phonology of infixation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  48. Yu A. (2007) A natural history of infixation. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zirkel, L. (2010). Prefix combinations in English: Structural and processing factors. Morphology, 20. doi:10.1007/s11525-010-9151-8.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations