Advertisement

The theoretical status of morphologically conditioned phonology: a case study of dominance effects

  • Sharon Inkelas
Part of the Yearbook of Morphology book series (YOMO)

Abstract

This paper addresses the very general topic of morphologically sensitive phonology, arguing for a theory of the phonology-morphology interface in which the phonological grammar is completely insensitive to morphological information. The interface between phonology and morphology lies in the association between phonological subgrammars (“cophonologies”) and particular morphological constructions.

Keywords

Minor Rule Dominance Effect Theoretical Status Tone Pattern Markedness Constraint 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abraham, R.C. 1962. Dictionary of the Hausa Language. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  2. Alderete, J. et al. 1996. “Reduplication and Segmental Unmarkedness”. Posted electronically on the Rutgers Optimality Archive (http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html), #ROA-175–0297.
  3. Anderson, S. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bat-El, O. 1986. Extraction in Modern Hebrew Phonology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  5. Bat-El, O. 1989. Phonology and Word Structure in Modern Hebrew. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  6. Bat-El, O. 1994. “Stem Modification and Cluster Transfer in Modern Hebrew”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory12, 571–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blevins, J. 1993. “A Tonal Analysis of Lithuanian Nominal Accent”. Language69, 237 – 273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Booij, G. 1994 “Lexical Phonology: a Review”. In R. Wiese (ed.), Theorie des Lexicons 56: Recent Developments in Lexical Phonology. Düsseldorf: Heinrich Heine Universität, 3–29.Google Scholar
  9. Booij, G. 1995. The Phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Buckley, E.L. 1994. Theoretical Aspects of Kashaya Phonology and Morphology. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N. and M. Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  12. Chung, S. 1983. “Transderivational Relationships in Chamorro Phonology”. Language59, 35–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohn, A. 1989. “Stress in Indonesian and Bracketing Paradoxes” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory7, 167–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Czaykowska-Higgins, E. 1993. “Cyclicity and Stress in Moses-Columbia Salish (Nxa’amxcin)”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory11, 197–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Emeneau, M. 1955. Kolami: a Dravidian Language. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fabb, N. 1988. “English Suffixation is Constrained Only by Selectional Restrictions”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory6, 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fillmore, C. and P. Kay. in progress. “Construction Grammar”. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  18. Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Halle, M. and M. Kenstowicz. 1991. “The Free Element Condition and Cyclic Versus Noncyclic Stress”. Linguistic Inquiry22, 457–501.Google Scholar
  20. Halle, M. and K.P. Mohanan. 1985. “Segmental Phonology of Modern English”. Linguistic Inquiry16, 57–116.Google Scholar
  21. Halle, M. and J.-R. Vergnaud. 1981. “Harmony Processes”. In W. Klein and W. Levelt (eds.), Crossing the Boundaries in Linguistics. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halle, M. and J.-R. Vergnaud. 1987a. An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Halle, M. and J.-R. Vergnaud. 1987b. “Stress and the Cycle”. Linguistic Inquiry18, 45–84.Google Scholar
  24. Hargus, S. 1985. The Lexical Phonology of Sekani. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  25. Hargus, S. 1988. The Lexical Phonology of Sekani. New York: Garland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  26. Harris, J. 1977a. “Remarks on Diphthongization and Spanish Stress”. Lingua 41, 261–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harris, J. 1977b. “Spanish Vowel Alternations, Diacritic Features and the Structure of the Lexicon”. Proceedings of NELS7, 99–113.Google Scholar
  28. Harris, J. 1989. “The Stress Erasure Convention and Cliticization in Spanish”. Linguistic Inquiry20, 339–363.Google Scholar
  29. Hockett, C. 1954. “Two Models of Grammatical Description”. Word10, 210–231.Google Scholar
  30. Hualde, J. 1988. A Lexical Phonology of Basque. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  31. Hulst, H. van der, and J. van der Weijer. 1995. “Vowel Harmony”. In J. Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 495–534.Google Scholar
  32. Inkelas, S. 1996. “Dominant Affixes and the Phonology-Morphology Interface”. In U. Kleinhenz (ed.), Interfaces in Phonology. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 128–154.Google Scholar
  33. Inkelas, S. in press. “Exceptional Stress-Attracting Suffixes in Turkish: Representations vs. the Grammar”. In H. van der Hulst et al. (eds.), Prosodic Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Inkelas, S. and C.O. Orgun. “Level (Non)Ordering in Recursive Morphology: Evidence from Turkish”. In S. Lapointe et al. (eds.), Morphology and its Relations to Syntax and Phonology. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Inkelas, S., C.O.Orgun and C. Zoll. 1997. “Implications of Lexical Exceptions for the Nature of Grammar”. In I. Roca (ed.), Derivations and Constraints in Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 393–418.Google Scholar
  36. Itô, J. and A. Mester. 1995. “Japanese Phonology”. In J. Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. 817–838.Google Scholar
  37. Kiparsky, P. 1982a. “From Cyclic to Lexical Phonology”. In H. van der Hulst and N. Smith (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations, part I. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  38. Kiparsky, P. 1982b. “Lexical Morphology and Phonology”. In I.-S. Yang (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, 3–91.Google Scholar
  39. Kiparsky, P. 1982c. “The Lexical Phonology of Vedic Accent”. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
  40. Kiparsky, P. 1982d. “Word-Formation and the Lexicon”. In F. Ingemann (ed.), 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference Papers. University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
  41. Kiparsky, P. 1984a. “A Compositional Approach to Vedic Word Accent”. In S.D. Joshi (ed.), Amrtadhara: Prof R. N. Dandeka Felicitation Volume. Ajanta Publications, Jawahar Nagar Delhi.Google Scholar
  42. Kiparsky, P. 1984b. “On the Lexical Phonology of Icelandic”. In C.-C. Elert, I. Johansson and E. Strangert (eds.), Nordic Prosody II: Papers from a Symposium. University of Ume.Google Scholar
  43. Kiparsky, P. 1987a. “On the Morphology of Sanskrit Accentuation”. Paper presented at the Phonology Workshop, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  44. Kiparsky, P. 1987b. “Systematic Optionality in the Lexical Phonology of Chamorro”. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  45. Kiparsky, P. 1993. “Towards a Reconstruction of the Indo-European Accent”. In S. Hargus and Ellen Kaisse (ed.), Studies in Stress and Accent. Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  46. Kiparsky, P. and M. Halle. 1977. “Towards a Reconstruction of the Indo-European Accent”. In L. Hyman (ed.), Studies in Stress and Accent. Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  47. Koenig, J.-P. 1992. “Shared Structure vs. Constructional Autonomy in Construction Grammar”. International Congress of Linguists, Paris.Google Scholar
  48. Koenig, J.-P. 1994. Lexical Underspecification in Syntactic Theory. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  49. Koenig, J.-P. and D. Jurafsky. 1994. “Type Underspecification and On-Line Type Construction in the Lexicon”. In R. Aranovich et al. (eds.), The Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  50. Lieber, R. 1980. On the Organization of the Lexicon. PhD dissertation, Masachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  51. McCarthy, J. and A. Prince. 1986. Prosodic Morphology. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Brandeis University.Google Scholar
  52. McCarthy, J. and A. Prince. 1990. “Foot and Word in Prosodic Morphology: the Arabic Broken Plural”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory8, 209–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McCarthy, J. and A. Prince. 1993a. “Generalized Alignment”. In G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993. Dordrech: Kluwer. 79–153.Google Scholar
  54. McCarthy, J. and A. Prince. 1993b. “Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction”. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  55. McCarthy, J. and A. Prince. 1994. “The Emergence of the Unmarked”. In M. Gonzàlez (ed.), Proceedings of the Northeastern Linguistic Society 24. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  56. McCarthy, J. and A. Prince. 1995. “Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity”. In J. Beckman et al. (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  57. McCarthy, J. and A. Prince. in press. “An Overview of Prosodic Morphology.”. In H. van der Hulst et al. (eds.), Prosodic Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. McCawley, J.D. 1968. The Phonological Component of a Grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  59. Melvold, J. 1986. “Cyclicity and Russian Stress”. In J. McDonough and B. Plunkett (eds.), Proceedings of the Northeastern Linguistic Society17. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  60. Mohanan, K.P. 1982. Lexical Phonology. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology.Google Scholar
  61. Mohanan, K.P. 1986. Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  62. Newman, P. 1986. “Tone and Affixation in Hausa”. Studies in African Linguistics17, 249–267.Google Scholar
  63. Newman, P. 1995. “Hausa tonology: Complexities in an ”Easy“ Tone Language”. In J. Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 762–781.Google Scholar
  64. Orgun, C.O. 1994. “Monotonic Cyclicity and Optimality Theory”. In M. Gonzàlez (ed.), Proceedings of the Northeastern Linguistic Society 24. Amherst, MA: GLSA, 461 - 474.Google Scholar
  65. Orgun, C.O. 1995a. “Flat vs. Branching Morphological Structures: the Case of Suspended Affixation”. In J. Ahlers et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 21. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society, 252 - 261.Google Scholar
  66. Orgun, C.O. 1995b. “Suspended Affixation: a New Look at the Phonology-Morphology Inter-face”. In U. Kleinhenz (ed.), Interfaces in Phonology. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 251–261.Google Scholar
  67. Orgun, C.O. 1996. Sign-based Morphology and Phonology: With Special Attention to Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  68. Orgun, C.O. in press. “Sign-Based Morphology: a Declarative Theory of Phonology-Morphology Interleaving”. In B. Hermans and M. van Oostendorp (eds.), The Derivational Residue.Google Scholar
  69. Parsons, F.W. n.d. Morphological (Singular, Plural) Classes of Disyllabic Nouns in Hausa. Mimeographed teaching materials. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
  70. Pesetsky, D. 1979. “Russian Morphology and Lexical Theory”. Unpublished manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  71. Pollard, C. and I. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: CSLI Publications and University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  72. Poser, W.J. 1984. The Phonetics and Phonology of Tone and Intonation in Japanese. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  73. Poser, W.J. 1989. “The Metrical Foot in Diyari”. Phonology6, 117–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Prince, A. and P. Smolensky. 1993. “Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar”. Unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University and the University of Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
  75. Pulleyblank, D. 1983. Tone in Lexical Phonology. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  76. Pulleyblank, D. 1986. Tone in Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Riehemann, S. 1994. “Morphology and the Hierarchical Lexicon”. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  78. Ringen, C. 1975. Vowel Harmony: Theoretical Implications. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  79. Shaw, P. 1987. “Non-Conservation of Melodic Structure in Reduplication”. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 23. Part 2: Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  80. Shaw, P. 1993. ‘Templatuc Evidence for the Syllable Nucleus”. In A.J. Shafer(ed.), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 23. Amherst: GLSA, 463–477.Google Scholar
  81. Stump, G. in press.“Comments on Inkelas and Orgun’s Paper”. In S.Lanford et al.(eds.), Morphology and its Interaction with Syntax and Phonolgy. Stanford, CA: CSLI PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  82. Tarpent, M.-L. 1983. “Morphophonemics of Nisgha Plural Formation”. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics8 /2.Google Scholar
  83. Walsh, L. 1990. “Syllable Structure in Nisgha”. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  84. Zec, D. 1988. Sonority Constraints on Prosodic Structure. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  85. Zoll, C. 1996. Parsing Below the Segment in a Constraint-Based Framework. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  86. Zonneveld, W. 1978. A Formal Theory of Exceptions in Generative Phonology. Lisse: Peter de Ridder.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zwicky, A.M. 1994. “Morphological Metageneralizations: Morphology, Phonology, and Morphonology”. Kentucky Foreign Language Conference, University of Kentucky.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharon Inkelas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations