Epenthesis and deletion

transcript

LING 451/551

Spring 2011

Epenthesis and Deletion

• schema for epenthesis rules

0 X / (in some context)

• schema for deletion rules

X 0 / (in some context)

Iraqi Arabic

„my‟

binit binti „daughter‟

riʤil riʤli „leg‟

ʔisim ʔismi „name‟

ʧiðib ʧiðbi „lie‟

siʕir siʕri „price‟

ʔuxut ʔuxti „sister‟

ʃuɣul ʃuɣli „work‟

xubuz xubzi „bread‟

ʕumur ʕumri „age‟

kuʃuk kuʃki „cabin‟

Morphological analysis

„my‟

binit bint-i „daughter‟

riʤil riʤl-i „leg‟

xubuz xubz-i „bread‟

ʔuxut ʔuxt-i „sister‟

Iraqi Arabic words: root(-suffix)

Alternations

• Alternating forms of morphemes

– [binit] ~ [bint] „daughter‟

– [riʤil] ~ [riʤl] „leg‟

– [xubuz] ~ [xubz] „bread‟

– [ʔuxut] ~ [ʔuxt] „sister‟

– etc.

• Alternating segments

– i~0

– u~0

Distribution of alternants

CVCVC form of root

CVCC form of root

Possible analyses

• Deletion analysis

– URs • /binit/ „daughter‟, /binit-i/ „my daughter‟

– Deletion: high vowels 0 / VC ___ CV

• Epenthesis analysis

– URs • /bint/ „daughter‟, /bint-i/ „my daughter‟

• /xubz/ „bread‟, /xubz-i/ „my bread‟

– Epenthesis: 0 i / iC___C#

u / uC___C#

Deciding between epenthesis and

deletion

• Either rule describes the data provided

• Neither rule is especially complex or

implausible

• More data

„my‟

ʔibil ʔibili „camels‟

kutub kutubi „books‟

„my‟

ʔib-i-l ʔib-i-l-i „camels‟

kut-u-b kut-u-b-i „books‟

-i „my‟

-i/u- plural

Iraqi Arabic words: ro(-infix)ot-suffix

Prediction of deletion analysis

(output of morphology)

UR /ʔib-i-l-i/ „my camels‟

Deletion 0

PR *[ʔibli]

Epenthesis required for alternating forms

Root URs

bint „daughter‟

riʤl „leg‟

ʔism „name‟

ʧiðb „lie‟

siʕr „price‟

ʔuxt „sister‟

ʃuɣl „work‟

xubz „bread‟

ʕumr „age‟

kuʃk „cabin‟

ʔibl „camel‟

kutb „book‟

Distinctive features for vowels

ɑ (not seen in data) (with [back] instead of [front]) i u ɑ [high] + + - [back] - + + [round] - + - [low] - - + many possibilities: [high], [back]; [high], [round]; [back],

[round]; [back], [low]; [round], [low]

Affix URs

• -/i/ „my‟:

• -V- plural

Epenthesis, using features

0 i / iC___C# i.e. 0 V / V C___C#

[+high]

[-back] [-back]

u / uC___C# i.e. 0 V / V C___C#

[+high]

[+back] [+back]

“collapsible” (statable as a single rule)

0 V / V C___C#

[+high]

[back] [back]

Iraqi Arabic summary

• Morphemes

– Bound

• -i „my‟

• -i/u- pl.

– Roots

• /CVCC/

• High vowel epenthesis

More X~0 alternations

• Problems involving epenthesis and

deletion can be tricky

– element of uncertainty in morphological

analysis when X~0 at morpheme boundary

sg/prox plural obviative

[si:si:p] [si:si:pak] [si:si:pa] 'duck'

[mi:kis] [mi:kisak] [mi:kisa] 'bead'

[astis] [astisak] 'mitten'

[mo:s] [mo:swak] [mo:swa] 'moose'

[mostos] [mostoswak] 'buffalo'

[asa:m] [asa:mak] 'snowshoe'

[atim] [atimwak] [atimwa] 'dog‟

[pi:sim] [pi:simwak] 'sun'

[ayo:skan] [ayo:skanak] 'raspberry'

[amisk] [amiskwak] [amiskwa] 'beaver'

Data on downloadable handout

singular plural obviative

[si:si:p] [si:si:p-ak] [si:si:p-a]

The plural suffix is at least -/ak/, and the obviative

suffix is at least -/a/.

What about „moose‟?

[mo:s] [mo:s-wak] ?

[mo:sw-ak] ?

[mo:s-w-ak] ?

[mo:s-wa] ?

[mo:sw-a] ?

[mo:s-w-a] ?

All we can really tell:

„moose‟ is at least [mo:s]

plural and obviative suffixes are at least -/ak/ and -/a/,

respectively

Morphological status of [w] (~0)

Could be:

a) part of suffix morphemes (i.e. -/wak/, -/wa/)

deleted in certain contexts

b) part of (certain) root(s), e.g. /mo:sw/-,

deleted in certain contexts

c) not part of either morpheme, e.g. /mo:s-ak/,

epenthesized in certain contexts

What are the alternating morphemes?

Morphological analysis (a): [w] part of suffix

-a ~ -wa

-ak ~ -wak

Morphological analysis (b): [w] part of root

mo:s ~ mo:sw etc.

Morphological analysis (c): [w] not part of any morpheme

no alternating morphemes

Morphological analysis (a) ([w] part of

suffix)

Alternating morphemes: -[ak] ~ -[wak], -[a]

~ -[wa]

All roots are non-alternating

/si:si:p/ /si:si:p-wak/ /mo:s/ /mo:s-wak/

W-deletion 0

[si:si:p] [si:si:pak] [mo:s] [mo:swak]

W-deletion: w 0 / (context to be determined) [w] 0

k___a p___a

s___a s___a

m___a m___a

No natural classes

Look farther for conditioning?

sk___a i:p___a

os___a is___a

im___a a:m___a

an___a

Still no natural classes

Nothing that seems likely to condition [w] deletion

Now what?

Morphological analysis (b) ([w] part of

(certain) root(s))

Alternating morphemes

some roots: [mo:sw] ~ [mo:s]

Non-alternating morphemes

other roots: [si:si:p]

all suffixes: -[ak], -[a]

/si:si:p/ /si:si:p-ak/ /mo:sw/ /mo:sw-ak/

W-deletion 0

W-deletion: w 0 / (context to be determined)

___V ___#

/w/ 0 / ___ #

Morphological analysis (c) ([w] not part of

any morpheme)

No alternating morphemes

roots: [mo:s], [si:si:p]

suffixes: -[ak], -[a]

/si:si:p/ /si:si:p-ak/ /mo:s/ /mo:s-ak/

w-epenthesis w

0 [w] / (context to be determined) [w] 0

k___a p___a

s___a s___a

m___a m___a

Deciding between analyses

• Morphological analyses (a) ([w] part of suffix), (c) ([w] not part of any morpheme) – Distribution of [w] cannot be predicted

k___a p___a

s___a s___a

m___a m___a

• Morphological analysis (b) ([w] part of certain roots) – Distribution of [w] is phonologically predictable

– /w/ 0 / C ___ #

Summary of analysis

/w/ Deletion:

w --> 0 / ___ # (probably C ___#)

• Affixes:

-/ak/ plural

-/a/ obviative

Root URs • /Cw/-final roots:

/mo:sw/ „moose‟

/mostosw/ „buffalo‟

/atimw/ „dog‟

/pi:simw/ „sun‟

/amiskw/ „beaver‟

• /C/-final roots:

/si:si:p/ „duck‟

/mi:kis/ „bead‟

/astis/ „mitten‟

/asa:m/ „snowshoe‟

/ayo:skan/ „raspberry‟

In Cree, there is an underlying contrast between roots which end in

/Cw/ and those which end in a single consonant. The contrast is

neutralized word-finally in favor of the single consonant.

Epenthesis and deletion

Documents