Morphology

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 381–411

A Realization Optimality-Theoretic approach to affix order

Original Paper
  • 272 Downloads

Abstract

The interplay of the main factors affecting affix order in inflection (semantic scope, phonology, and morphological templates) can be accounted for in an inferential-realizational Optimality-Theoretic model of morphology, which we present here. Within this model, phonological form is spelled out by means of individual-language-particular realization constraints that associate abstract morphosyntactic feature values with phonological forms and that are ordered among more general constraints governing factors like scope and feature splitting. The data used to exemplify the application of our theory to affix order are drawn from Haspelmath’s (A grammar of Lezgian, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1993) grammar of Lezgian, a language of the Northeast Caucasian family spoken largely in Dagestan (Russia) and Azerbaijan.

Keywords

Affix order Semantic scope Lezgian Inflection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aissen J. (1999) Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 673–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aissen, J. (2003a). Differential coding, partial blocking, and Bidirectional OT. In P. Nowak & C. Yoquelet (Eds.), Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistic Society (Vol. 29, pp. 1–16).Google Scholar
  3. Aissen J. (2003) Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson S.R. (1992) A-morphous morphology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson S.R. (2004) Morphological universals and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004: 1–17Google Scholar
  6. Aronoff M. (1976) Word formation in generative grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Aronoff M. (1994) Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Baerman M. (2004) Directionality and (un)natural classes in syncretism. Language 80: 807–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baker M. (1985) The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–415Google Scholar
  10. Benua L. (1995) Identity effects in morphological truncation. In: Beckman J.N., Dickey L.W., Urbanczyk S. (eds) Papers in Optimality Theory (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18). Amherst, UMass, GLSA, pp 77–136Google Scholar
  11. Blevins J.P. (2006) Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42: 531–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bonet, E. (2004). Morph insertion and allomorphy in Optimality Theory. In P. Boersma & J. A. Cutillas (Eds.), Advances in Optimality Theory, special issue of International Journal of English Studies, 4, 74–104.Google Scholar
  13. Booij G. (2005) Compounding and derivation: Evidence for construction morphology. In: Dressler W.U., Rainer F., Kastovsky D., Pfeiffer O. (eds) Morphology and its demarcations. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 109–132Google Scholar
  14. Booij G. (2007) Construction morphology and the lexicon. In: Montermini F., Boyé G., Hatbout N. (eds) Selected proceedings of the 5th Décembrettes: Morphology in Toulouse. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA, pp 34–44Google Scholar
  15. Booij, G. (2008). Construction morphology and compounding. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 201–216). Oxford: Oxford University Press. M. Aronoff, Z. XuGoogle Scholar
  16. Booij, G. (2009). Constructions and lexical units: An analysis of Dutch numerals. Linguistische Berichte 19(Sonderheft), 1–14.Google Scholar
  17. Bybee J.L. (1985) Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  18. Cole P. (1982) Imbabura Quechua (Lingua Descriptive Series 5). North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. Comrie B. (1975) Causatives and universal grammar. Transactions of the Philological Society 1974: 1–32Google Scholar
  20. Comrie, B. (1976). The syntax of causative constructions: Cross-language similarities and divergences. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), The grammar of causative constructions (Syntax and semantics) (Vol. 6, pp. 261–312). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dimmendaal G.J. (1983) The Turkana language. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  22. Embick D., Marantz A. (2008) Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 1–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Embick D., Noyer R. (2001) Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Good, J. (2003). Strong linearity: Three case studies towards a theory of morphosyntactic templatic constructions. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  25. Greenberg J. (1963) Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In: Greenberg J. (eds) Universals of language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 73–113Google Scholar
  26. Grimshaw J. (1986) A morphosyntactic explanation for the mirror principle. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 745–749Google Scholar
  27. Grimshaw J. (1997) Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 373–422Google Scholar
  28. Grimshaw J. (1997) The best clitic: Constraint conflict in morphosyntax. In: Haegeman L. (eds) Elements of grammar. Kluwer, Dortrecht, pp 169–196Google Scholar
  29. Grimshaw J. (2001) Optimal clitic positions and the lexicon in Romance clitic systems. In: Legendre G., Grimshaw J., Vikner S. (eds) Optimality-Theoretic syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 205–240Google Scholar
  30. Halle M., Marantz A. (1993) Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In: Hale K., Keyser S.J. (eds) The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 111–176Google Scholar
  31. Haspelmath M. (1993) A grammar of Lezgian. Mouton de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  32. Hyman L.M. (2003) Suffix ordering in Bantu: A morphocentric approach. Yearbook of Morphology 2002: 245–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Julien, M. (2000). Syntactic heads and word-formation: A study of verbal inflection. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
  34. Kager R. (1996) On affix allomorphy and syllable counting. In: Kleinheiz U. (eds) Interfaces in phonology. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, pp 155–171Google Scholar
  35. Kager R. (1999) Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Kenstowicz M. (1994) Phonology in generative grammar. Blackwell, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  37. Kenstowicz M. (1997) Base identity and uniform exponence: Alternatives to cyclicity. In: Durand J., Laks B. (eds) Current trends in phonology: Models and methods. University of Salford, Salford, pp 363–394Google Scholar
  38. Kiparsky P. (1982) Lexical phonology and morphology. In: Yang I.-S. (eds) Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul, HanshinGoogle Scholar
  39. Kiparsky P. (2005) Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. Yearbook of Morphology 2004: 113–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lakämper R., Wunderlich D. (1998) Person marking in Quechua: A constraint-based minimalist analysis. Lingua 105: 113–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. MacBride, A. I. (2004). A constraint-based approach to morphology. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  42. Magometov A.A. (1965) Tabasaranskij jazyk. Tbilisi, MecnierebaGoogle Scholar
  43. Magometov A.A. (1970) Agul’skij jazyk. Tbilisi, MecnierebaGoogle Scholar
  44. Mascaró J. (2007) External allomorphy and lexical representation. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 715–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Matthews P.H. (1972) Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Matthews P.H. (1974) Morphology: An introduction to the theory of word-structure. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Matthews P.H. (1991) Morphology (2nd ed). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. McCarthy, J. J. (2011). Pausal phonology and morpheme realization. in T. Borowsky, S. Kawahara, T. Shinya & M. Sugahara (Eds.), Prosody matters: Essays in honor of Lisa Selkirk. http://www.equinoxpub.com/books/showbook.asp?bkid=417.
  49. McCarthy J.J., Prince A. (1993) Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993a: 79–153Google Scholar
  50. McCarthy, J. J., & Prince, A. (1993b). Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-482.Google Scholar
  51. McCarthy, J. J., & Prince, A. (1994). The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. In M. Gonzàlez (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS 24 (pp. 333–379). Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.Google Scholar
  52. McCarthy, J. J., & Prince, A. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J. N. Beckman, L. W. Dickey, & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18) (pp. 249–384). Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.Google Scholar
  53. Mohanan, K. P., & Mohanan, T. (2003). Universal and language-particular constraints in OT-LFG. In M. Butt & T. H. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG03 conference. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  54. Moor M. (1985) Studien zum lesgischen Verb. Otto Harrassowitz, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  55. Noyer R. (1998) Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness. In: Lapointe S.G., Brentari D.K., Farrell P.M. (eds) Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp 264–285Google Scholar
  56. Palmer F.R. (2001) Mood and modality (2nd Ed). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  57. Paster M. (2005) Pulaar verbal extensions and phonologically driven affix order. Yearbook of Morphology 2005: 155–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Paster, M. (2006). Phonological conditions on affixation. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  59. Paster, M. (2009). Phonologically conditioned affix order as an illusory phenomenon. Paper presented at the workshop on division of labor between morphology and phonology. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  60. Rice K. (2000) Morpheme order and semantic scope: Word formation in the Athapaskan verb. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rice, K. (2008). Forming the Athapaskan verb: What role for phonological factors? Paper presented at the Berkeley workshop on affix ordering.Google Scholar
  62. Rosenthall S. (1997) The distribution of prevocalic vowels. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 139–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Russell, K. (1995). Morphemes and candidates in Optimality Theory. Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-44.Google Scholar
  64. Russell K. (1997) Optimality Theory and morphology. In: Archangeli D., Langendoen D.T. (eds) Optimality Theory: An overview. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 102–133Google Scholar
  65. Sapir E. (1921) Language: An introduction to the study of speech. Harcourt Brace & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  66. Spencer A. (2003) Putting some order into morphology: Reflections on Rice (2000) and Stump (2001). Journal of Linguistics 39: 621–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stiebels, B. (2000). Linker inventories, linking splits and lexical economy. In B. Stiebels & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Lexicon in focus (Studia Grammatica) (Vol. 45, pp. 211–245). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  68. Stiebels B. (2003) Transparent, restricted and opaque affix orders. In: Junghanns U., Szucsich L. (eds) Syntactic structures and morphological information. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 283–315Google Scholar
  69. Stump G.T. (1993) On rules of referral. Language 69: 449–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stump G.T. (2001) Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stump, G. T. (2009). The typology of ordinal formation and its implications for a theory of derivational morphology. Paper presented at the conference “Universals and typology in word-formation”, P. J. Šafárik University, KoŠice, Slovakia.Google Scholar
  72. Trommer, J. (2001). A hybrid account of affix order. In M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston, & S. Neuvel (Eds.), Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 37, pp. 469–480).Google Scholar
  73. Trommer J. (2003) The interaction of morphology and syntax in affix order. Yearbook of Morphology 2002: 283–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Uslar, P. K. (1896). Étnografija Kavkaza. Jazykoznanie. VI. Kjurinskij jazyk [Ethnography of the Caucasus. Linguistics. VI. The Küre language]. Tiflis.Google Scholar
  75. Wolf, M. A. (2008). Optimal interleaving: Serial phonology–morphology interaction in a constraintbased model. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  76. Woolford E. (2001) Case patterns. In: Legendre G., Grimshaw J., Vikner S. (eds) Optimality-Theoretic syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 509–543Google Scholar
  77. Wunderlich D. (1997) Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 27–68Google Scholar
  78. Wunderlich D. (2001) A correspondence-theoretic analysis of Dalabon transitive paradigms. Yearbook of Morphology 2000: 233–252Google Scholar
  79. Wunderlich, D. (2006). Syntax: Optimality Theory. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., Vol. 12, pp. 408–418). Elsevier: Oxford.Google Scholar
  80. Wunderlich D., Fabri R. (1996) Minimalist morphology: An approach to inflection. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 1995 14(2): 236–294Google Scholar
  81. Wurzel W.U. (1989) Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  82. Xu, Z. (2007a). An Optimality-Theoretic account of full and partial identity of forms. In Proceedings of the thirtieth annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (PLC-30). Penn Working Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 13, Issue 1, pp. 421–434).Google Scholar
  83. Xu, Z. (2007b). Inflectional morphology in Optimality Theory. Ph.D. thesis, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
  84. Xu, Z., & Aronoff, M. (2008). A realization Optimality-Theoretic approach to blocking and extended morphological exponence. Paper presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
  85. Yip M. (1998) Identity avoidance in phonology and morphology. In: Lapointe S.G., Brentari D.K., Farrell P.M. (eds) Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax. Stanford, CSLI, pp 216–246Google Scholar
  86. Zwicky, A. (1985). How to describe inflection. In M. Niepokuj, M. van Clay, V. Nikiforidou, & D. Feder (Eds.), Proceedings of Berkekey Linguistic Society (Vol. 11, pp. 372–386). Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA
  2. 2.Department of Chinese StudiesNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations