Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:13:08.635Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Generalised mora affixation and quantity-manipulating morphology*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2015

Jochen Trommer  and
Eva Zimmermann
Jochen Trommer*
Affiliation:
University of Leipzig
Eva Zimmermann*
Affiliation:
University of Leipzig
*
E-mail: jtrommer@uni-leipzig.de
E-mail: eva.zimmermann@uni-leipzig.de.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the major attributes of autosegmental phonology is the possibility ofreducing procedural techniques of morphological exponence to a generalisedconcept of concatenation. This research programme, which equates the triggers ofnon-concatenative processes with affixes consisting of incomplete autosegmentalor prosodic representations, is called Generalised Non-linear Affixation inBermúdez-Otero (2012). In this paper, we argue that the GeneralisedNon-linear Affixation analysis of segmental lengthening by mora affixationextends naturally to subtractive morphology. Defective (phoneticallyuninterpretable) integration of an affix mora into the prosodic structure of itsbase triggers deletion and shortening. We show that this approach derives allmajor types of quantity-manipulating morphology (vowel shortening, segmentalsubtraction and vowel-length polarity), and thus demonstrate that GeneralisedNon-linear Affixation extends fully to subtractive morphology, which has beenseen as the ultimate problem for a concatenative reanalysis (Anderson 1992).

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , December 2014 , pp. 463 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

Footnotes

*

We would like to thank the audiences at the 28th West Coast Conference onFormal Linguistics (Los Angeles, February 2010), the 18th ManchesterMorphology Meeting (Manchester, May 2010) and the 5th Workshop onTheoretical Morphology (Lutherstadt-Wittenberg, June 2010) for valuablecomments and discussion.

References

Adelaar, Willem F. H. (1984). Grammatical vowel length and the classification of Quechua dialects. IJAL 50. 25–47.Google Scholar
Alber, Birgit & Arndt-Lappe, Sabine (2012). Templatic and subtractive truncation. In Trommer (2012). 289–325.Google Scholar
Albright, Adam & Hayes, Bruce (2011). Learning and learnability in phonology. In Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory. 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 661–690.Google Scholar
Andersen, Torben (1988), Consonant alternation in the verbal morphology of Päri. Afrika und Übersee 71. 63–113.Google Scholar
Andersen, Torben (1989). The Päri vowel system with an internal reconstruction of its historical development. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 11. 1–20.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. (1975). On the interaction of phonological rules of various types. JL 11. 39–62.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. (1992). Amorphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. & Browne, Wayles (1973). On keeping exchange rules in Czech. Papers in Linguistics 6. 445–482.Google Scholar
Arbaoui, Nora (2010). Les dix formes de l'arabe classique à l'interface phonologie-syntaxe: pour une déconstruction du gabarit. PhD thesis, Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric (2000). Harmony, dominance and control. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Banksira, Degif Petros (2011). Featural mobility and phonology-morphology interface in Chaha. Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Available (August 2014) at http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2011/Banksira_2011.pdf.Google Scholar
Bat-El, Outi (2002). True truncation in colloquial Hebrew imperatives. Lg 78. 651–683.Google Scholar
Bateman, Leah, O'Keefe, Michael, Reilly, Ehren & Werle, Adam (eds.) (2007). Papers in Optimality Theory III. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Bendjaballah, Sabrina & Haiden, Martin (2003). Templatic architecture. Recherches de Linguistique de Vincennes 32. 157–168.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2012). The architecture of grammar and the division of labor in exponence. In Trommer (2012). 8–83.Google Scholar
Broadwell, George Aaron (1993). Subtractive morphology in Southern Muskogean. IJAL 59. 416–429.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen, Chen, Su-I & Huffman, Marie (1997). Syllable weight: convergence of phonology and phonetics. Phonology 14. 47–82.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen & McCarthy, John J. (1983). A theory of internal reduplication. The Linguistic Review 3. 25–88.Google Scholar
Bye, Patrik & Svenonius, Peter (2012). Non-concatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. In Trommer (2012). 427–495.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Hume, Elizabeth V. (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.) The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 245–306.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart & Ueda, Isao (2002). Mora augmentation processes in Japanese. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 18. 1–23.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart & Ueda, Isao (2006). Prosodic vs. morphological mora augmentation. Lexicon Forum 2. 121–143.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2012). Morphophonological polarity. In Trommer (2012). 121–159.Google Scholar
Ettlinger, Marc (2008). Input-driven opacity. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, Colleen & Fountain, Amy (1995). The optimal account of Tohono O'odham truncation. Ms, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, Justin M. (2004). A concatenative theory of possible affix types. Ms, MIT. Available (August 2014) at http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000662.Google Scholar
Flack, Kathryn (2007). Templatic morphology and indexed markedness constraints. LI 38. 749–758.Google Scholar
Goldrick, Matthew (2000). Turbid output representations and the unity of opacity. NELS 30. 231–245.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Golston, Chris & Wiese, Richard (1996). Zero morphology and constraint interaction: subtraction and epenthesis in German dialects. Yearbook of Morphology 1995. 143–159.Google Scholar
Grimes, Steve (2002). Morphological gemination and root augmentation in three Muskogean languages. Ms, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Guerssel, Mohand & Lowenstamm, Jean (1990). The derivational morphology of the Classical Arabic verbal system. Ms, Université du Québec à Montréal & Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R. (1946). A Proto-Muskogean paradigm. Lg 22. 326–332.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth (1965). Some preliminary observations on Papago morphophonemics. IJAL 31. 295–305.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth (1973). Deep–surface canonical disparities in relation to analysis and change: an Australian example. In Sebeok, Thomas (ed.) Current trends in linguistics. Vol. 11. The Hague: Mouton. 401–458.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec (1993). Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.) The view from building 20: essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 111–176.Google Scholar
Hardy, Heather K. (2005). Alabama. In Hardy, Heather K. & Scancarelli, Janine (eds.) Native languages of the southeastern United States. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. 75–113.Google Scholar
Hardy, Heather K. & Montler, Timothy R. (1988). Imperfective gemination in Alabama. IJAL 54. 399–415.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. (1942). Morpheme alternants in linguistic analysis. Lg 18. 169–180.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. LI 20. 253–306.Google Scholar
Heilig, Otto (1898). Grammatik der ostfränkischen Mundart des Taubergrundes und der Nachbarmundarten. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane H. & Zepeda, Ofelia (1992). Derived words in Tohono O'odham. IJAL 58. 355–404.Google Scholar
Horwood, Graham (2001). Antifaithfulness and subtractive morphology. Ms, Rutgers University. Available as ROA-466 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Zoll, Cheryl (2005). Reduplication: doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko (1988). Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1995). Consequences of catalexis. In Hulst, Harry van der & de Weijer, Jeroen van (eds.) Leiden in last. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. 269–298.Google Scholar
Kimper, Wendell (2009). Constraints on what's not there: the role of serial derivations in subtractive truncation. Paper presented at HUMDRUM, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1991). Catalexis. Ms, Stanford University & Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin.Google Scholar
Kosa, Loredana (2006). An argument for process-based morphology: subtractive morphology in Tohono O'odham (Uto-Aztecan). MA thesis, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda & McCarthy, John (1991). Prosodic circumscription in Choctaw morphology. Phonology 8. 37–71.Google Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean (2003). À propos de gabarits. Recherches de Linguistique de Vincennes 32. 7–30.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1995). Extensions of faithfulness: Rotuman revisited. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1996). Remarks on phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. In Lecarme, Jacqueline, Lowenstamm, Jean & Shlonsky, Ur (eds.) Studies in Afroasiatic grammar: Papers from the 2nd Conference on Afroasiatic Linguistics, Sophia Antipolis. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. 215–243.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003a). Sympathy, cumulativity, and the Duke-of-York gambit. In Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.) The syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 23–76.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003b). Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29. 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2005). Optimal paradigms. In Downing, Laura J., Hall, T. Alan & Raffelsiefen, Renate (eds.) Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 170–210.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2007). Hidden generalizations: phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., Kimper, Wendell & Mullin, Kevin (2012). Reduplication in Harmonic Serialism. Morphology 22. 173–232.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1990a). Foot and word in prosodic morphology: the Arabic broken plural. NLLT 8. 209–283.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1990b). Prosodic morphology and templatic morphology. In Eid, Mushira & McCarthy, John (eds.) Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics II. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 1–54.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1994). The emergence of the unmarked: optimality in prosodic morphology. NELS 24. 333–379.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 249–384.Google Scholar
Martin, Jack (1988). Subtractive morphology as dissociation. WCCFL 7. 229–240.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology: an introduction to the theory of word-structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morén, Bruce (1999). Distinctiveness, coercion and sonority: a unified theory of weight. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Muller, Jennifer S. (2001). The phonology and phonetics of word-initial geminates. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van (2005). The first person singular in Dutch dialects. NELS 35. 1–12.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van (2006). A theory of morphosyntactic colours. Ms, Meertens Institute, Amsterdam. Available (August 2014) at http://egg.auf.net/06/docs/Hdt%20Oostendorp%20coulours.pdf.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van (2008). Incomplete devoicing in formal phonology. Lingua 118. 1362–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pater, Joe (2007). The locus of exceptionality: morpheme-specific phonology as constraint indexation. In Bateman et al. (2007). 259–296.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Reh, Mechthild (1996). Anywa language: description and internal reconstruction. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Revithiadou, Anthi (1999). Headmost accent wins: head dominance and ideal prosodic form in lexical accent systems. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Revithiadou, Anthi (2007). Colored turbid accents and containment: a case study from lexical stress. In Blaho, Sylvia, Bye, Patrik & Krämer, Martin (eds.) Freedom of analysis? Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 149–173.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon (2007). Chaha (Gurage) morphology. In Kaye, A. S. (ed.) Morphologies of Asia and Africa. Vol. 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. 403–427.Google Scholar
Rucart, Pierre (2006). Morphologie gabaritique et interface phonosyntaxique. PhD thesis, Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
Saba Kirchner, Jesse (2010). Minimal Reduplication. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Saba Kirchner, Jesse (2013). Minimal Reduplication and reduplicative exponence. Morphology 23. 227–243.Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri (1994). A unified analysis of crosslinguistic morphological gemination. In Ackema, Peter & Schoorlemmer, Maaike (eds.) ConSole I proceedings. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. 265–283.Google Scholar
Samko, Bern (2011). Compensatory lengthening in Harmonic Serialism. Qualifying Paper, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Samuels, Bridget (2010). The topology of infixation and reduplication. The Linguistic Review 27. 131–176.Google Scholar
Seiler, Guido (2008). How to do things with moras: variation and change of quantity alternations across Upper German dialects. Paper presented at the International Morphology Meeting, Vienna.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. (2001). Lexical category and contrast. In Kirchner, Robert, Pater, Joe & Wikeley, Wolf (eds.) PETL 6: Proceedings of the Workshop on the Lexicon in Phonetics and Phonology. Edmonton: University of Alberta. 61–72.Google Scholar
Stonham, John (2007). Metathesis as prosodic repair. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 13. 3–23.Google Scholar
Topintzi, Nina (2008). On the existence of moraic onset geminates. NLLT 26. 147–184.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen (2011). Phonological aspects of Western Nilotic mutation morphology. Habilitationsschrift, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen (ed.) (2012). The morphology and phonology of exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen (2013). Stress uniformity in Albanian: morphological arguments for cyclicity. LI 44. 109–143.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen (2014). Moraic prefixes and suffixes in Anywa. Lingua 140. 1–34.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen (in press). Moraic affixes and morphological colors in Dinka. LI 46.Google Scholar
Ussishkin, Adam (2005). A fixed prosodic theory of nonconcatenative templatic morphology. NLLT 23. 169–218.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew (2007). For an autosegmental theory of mutation. In Bateman et al. (2007). 315–404.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira (2002). Tone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. (2003). The morphology and phonology of infixation. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga (1995). Sonority constraints on syllable structure. Phonology 12. 85–129.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Eva (2014). A phonological account of morphological length. PhD thesis, Leipzig University.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Eva & Trommer, Jochen (2013). The linearization of morphological weight. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 90. 123–161.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Eva & Trommer, Jochen (to appear). Inflectional exponence. In Baerman, Matthew (ed.) The Oxford handbook of inflection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar