.. ...
Allomorphy and ION
Mark Aronoff 20E-221, lVl .I.~. April 6, 197D
0
Principal Conclusions
I. Allomorphy
Any rule which effects a phonological change, and
i) which need not follow any phonological rule
ii) whose environment may be stated morphologically
is a rule of allomorphy.
Rules of allomorphy follow the rules of word formation
and provide the input to the phonology.
Rules of allomor phy are not extrinsically ordered.
II. ben-Moshe's Laws of the h OOt
First Law: Only and most roots which take the marked
form of a suf f ix exhibit allomor phy.
Second Law: If a root is marked, then all occurences
of that root take the marked suffix.
Third Law:If any occurence of a given root exhibits
allomor pny in a given environment, then all
occurences of that root in that environment
will show the same allomorph.
Thanks fo
Morris Halle Hichard Oehrle Alan Prince ~dwin Williams
Crosley Shelvador ben-Moshe
Susan Nartin
1
o. This paper had,originally, a very clever
introductory paragraph, wherein I noted, somewhat
sarcastically, the popularity o_{ the orizing in
linguistics, and warned Lhe reader that they would _rind
little of t1~a t in the toll owing pages. Despite tnis
salutation, about half-way through the aej)aal body of
the work, I realized,to my great chagrin,that ~ was
making, and assuming,some raher strong,and somewhat novel
theoretical claims. these claims have to do with morph
ology,particularly that aspect of mor~hology which
commonly goe under the rubric of readjustment rules
( cf. Chomsky and 11alle 196B, henceforth SPE). In
particular,I will of ten have recourse to one type of
r~Iorphological rule (1'1-rule), a rule oi allomorphy,
which states generally irregular phonological changes
in the shape of a morpheme in different morphological
environments.
Before going 1'urther into the notion of
allomorphy, let me first elucidate that of morpho
logical environment, or conditioning, one which, though
it is tacltly assumed in much work on Generative 1honolo-gy,
especially in ~PE, has not, to my knowledge, been explic
itly isolated. Since I am eneral~y concerned with word
formation, I will give examples o.i' various types of possible
environmen~s for (conditions on) rules of this sor~. Je
2
are familiar with syntactic, semantic,and phonological
conditions on word formation . An example of a syntactic
cundition is the fact that the suffix -ment is generally
attached to Lexical Items which have the syntactic label
Verb • .Nominals in -ment thus have the form X+ment, W11ere
X is a verb. A phomologi cal condition, rirst noted by
J.R. Ross, and discussed in ~iegel ( 1~71), holds on the
.rormation of nouns in -al. Basically, -al may appear - -after a stressed vowel, followed by an optional glide or
sonorant, and no more han one consonant. So denial,
appraisal,and dispersal. 'l'he stem-word is also generally
bi-syllabic 1 .1m example of a semantic c_;ndi tion, auain
a slightly modi ied vers on of one in siegel (1~71; , is
that on the Iormation of words in -ee. the stem of such
a word must be a transitive verb (or the root of a trans
itive verb), which selects an animate object, or indirect
object. So presentee, evacuee, payee,promisee,patentee. 2
The sole exception to this rule is escapee.
A morphulogical condition, tnen ,is, by eliminatiGn,
one which is neither syntactic, semantic,nor phonological;
one which is grammatically arbitrary, in that it depends
on some >'f eature which usually plays no part in the
derivation of sen~ences. A good example of a morphological
condition is that on the suf.Lix -ity which restricts it
to l.Jatinate stems . Morphologi cal features are sometimes
relevant to phonological processes. In .h.'nglish , all those
3
instances of lf which eventually become s or 3 are J.·ound
in Latinate morphemes, and are usually orthograyhically
c. The rule,or rules, which take k too~ must therefore be
sensitive to the morphological feature +Latinate3 • 1n SPE,
and other works,morphological features are encoded into
the phonology by means of rule-features. Thus all Latinate
morphemes with kin the relevant phonological environmamm
will be marked by a rule-feature as undergoing the k to e
rule. Whether this is the correct device, or whether
morphological features may play a direct role in the
phonology, l do not at present Anow.
A rule ol" all :Jmorphy is thus a special type of
morphologically conditioned rule, which spells out the
various forms of a morpheme, and which, I claim is
distinct from, and, intrinsically, precedes the rules of
the phomology. Allomorphy lS not a novel c .)ncept. It was
widely used in ~tructural linguistics. However, in the
great r~olt against Taxonomic ~honemics, allomorphy,
which,in that framework, covered both regular and irregular
processes indi s criminately, was rejected in all but the
most glaring cases of suppletion (go/went) •. ~hen examples
ofnon-suppletive irregularity were later discovered, thes
were handled by rule-features. But the use of the rule-
eature in cases of morphological alternation is very
4
diffrent from other uses of tnis device. ~n general,
\ cf. Kiparsky 1968 )rule - L· ea tures are used to avoid
having to posit abstract phonological units (phoneues)
which never appear on the surface. However in the cases
of allomorphy which I discuss below, Lhere is no need to
posit such new phonemes . A morpheme can have more than
one allomorph, but each allomor 9h has aphonologically
regular form , i.e. contains no "abstract" ph nemes.
The rules of allomorphy thus do not pretend to replace all
uses of rule-1ea tures, only those which cannot be motivated
in terms of abstarctness, and which invmlve morphological
al tarnation. In general, then, t_le rules of allomorphy
take the place of a very speci1ic class of phonological
rule(P-rule). ~hese rules have the peculiarity that tneir
environment must (or may) be morphologically marked, and
that there is no P-rule which must pre cede them. There are
rules which possess only one of these properties. So the
rule which ta ,< es ,! to y_ in iVn (SPE p.227) must be marked,
for only certain instances of ivn undergo it. However ,
this rule must allow phonological rules, specifically
stress rules, and therefore cannot be a rule of allomorphy .
One might vie .. Lhe rules of allomorphy as very
arly P-rules. However , there is some indication that this
5
is not correct. ~her seems to be no extrinsic ordering
among the rules ol" allomorphy( with one type of exception
which I will discuss below). If this is so, vhen one can
say that these rules precede,but are not included in,the
P-rules. ~hey are in fact, as I noted above, more or less
equivalent to a class of readjustment rules. So, for example,
the rule .luat spells out the irre0 ular, and single regular
var·ant of the English plural morpheme can be considered
a rule of allomorphy.
By separating rules of allomorphy from the
phonology proper, I am, inciden'tally,making a claim that
cer'tain alternations are not phonological. One interes~ing
variant of this is t..lle claim 1:;hat theses alternations are
not necessarily those which cannot be stated phonologically,
i.e. without recourse to morphological conditions, but rather
those which need not be so stated. This claim is corroborated
by some fascinating work done on the Maori passive morpheme
( cf. Hale 196?), and gains some support from a few o1' the
alternations discussed below.
RE~KK : ~his paper, uespite the last five pages ,should not be taken as a theoretical polemic in favor of allomorphy.
I did not set out with ~ hat purpose i~ mind, but rather to describe a set of data. Allomorphy proved to be a useful tool in the description of that data;it seemed to unite diverse phenomena in an interesting way,and it is with this in mind that I would nope the paper will be read and considered.
6
1.1 Armed ~ith this i orwarning, let me tell the
still curious Gnat t iis is a,hopefully,detai led s ~udy
of the English nominal marker -At+iVn (IO~). This suff ix
is very widespread. ~ alker lists about 2000 words ending
in it (4% of the items in that dictionary). Normally,it
is a dverbal nominalizing sufi ix (fascination/fascinate),
however there are nominals in lON whose s t em l S not a free
word (compunction/compunct,salvation,salvate). There are
also some very lew which have a corresponding adjective
or noun, instead of t he expec~ed verb ,contr i tion/contrite,
ideation/idea). The suffix is usually restricted to Latinate
stems, agin with a few excep~ions (botheration,flirtation).
Not all instances of orthographic Xion are to
be taken a s instance;:; of -ro.~.~. All forms in which the i
is syllabic are not (accordion,ganglion). Also disregarded
are words such as onion,companion,million, which can pro
bably be excluded on semantic grounds.
I will not deal in this paper with the actual
formation, or analysis (morphological) of vJords in -lON,
and will have correspondingly little to say about the
productivity o1· the suf .r ix. This work is rather a pre
liminary,in many ways , to a morpholog~ cal statement.
1.2. The phonology of -~ ON is dea lt WLth very
thoroughly and c onv ~ncingly i n ~PE. There an underlying
phonological t orm (+At)iVn is posited 1"or it. iVn must
be bi-syllabic because of stress facts, namely the
7
placement of primary stress on the syllaole preceding it
(prohibition,SPE p.87),and the operation of the tri-syllabic
laxing rule(decide/decision,S~E p.182). A later rule takes
ito :t.. (SPE p.2 <' 5-2 .c 7) • .v· urther rules of spiran oization
and palatalization yield the correct output.
On then, to the allomorphs of ION. As many
peoplehave,I am sure,noticed, this sui .t' ix has several
underlying phonological .{orms , as shown by t 1e following
alternations:
realize realization *realizion
" educate education *educatation •.
repeat repetition *repetation *repetion
commune communion *communation
resume resumption *resumion *resumation
resolve resolution *resolvation
I believe that from these, anu other examples, we can
dmonstrate that ION exhibits the following allomorphs:
+iVn, +At+iVn, +t+iVn, and possibly +it+iVn, +U~+iVn
The distribution of these forms is somewhat complex,
but 1 will try to give as complete a description as
possible.
2.1. At+i Vn this is the unmarked variant. I~ is
freeest in terms of conditions on its attachment, and
alsotne most productive . As evidence of its productivity
let us look at verbs in the suffix +ize. These verbs may,
8
almost without exception, form nominals in +At+iVn. so,
if I create the verb communalize, I may automa~cally
create the corresponding nominal communalization. ln the
cases where a nominal in +At+iVn may not be 1.'ormed , it is
because there already exists a parallel nominal of another
form,as i'or example criticize,*criticizaLion, criticism.
The strong productivity of +At+iVn suffixation with verbs
in +ize can be strikingly compared with suf ixation in
+ment, a Latinate nominal suffix with almost parallel
semantics. /Jalker lists only the following 1'i ve nominals
in .X.izemen"t:
afiranchisement, advertisement,chastisement, divertisement agg:randizemen t.
So we see an almost exceptionless tendency for verbs in
+ize to have nominals in +At+iVn, as opposed to +ment.
How this fact is to be captured I."ormally , I do not at
present know.
~-2 As far as I can see,there is no restriction on
the iinal consonant of verbs to which: +At+iVn may attach.
The following list demonstrates this point.
9
List of +At+iVn nominals
LABIAL
perturb(ation) l:: orm(ation) exhum(ation) usurp(ation)
CORO.NAL
cess(ation; de grad (a ti on) elicit(ation) accus(ation) revel(ation) declar(ation) examin(ation) represent(ation) deport(ation) manifest(ation) COnSU.lt(ation) affect (a ti on) commend(ation) sens(ation) indors(ation)
VBL.AR
evoc(ation) purg , ation) prolong(ation)
~here do not appear to be any principled gaps.
?v • >· There are only a few instances o1· +At+i Vn
at"ter a vowel-final stem. 1'his can simply be traced to
the relative paucity of ~ vowel-final Latinate stems.
Examples are renounce/renunciation, vary/variation,
continue/continuation. 8he 1nte~~sting cla§s of vowel-,'
final stems does exist. As noted in SP~ (p.201),verbs
in +fz and +£1l generally nave nominals in ication,as
ampli1·yj ampli1" i ca tipn, imply/ implication. 'l'his al terna t
ion is covered by the.following "ad-hoc" P-rule:
(SP~ p.201,rule (b2))
ampliiy is thus derived from ampli i ik, and the i in
ampli.Lication ls shortened by -,;he rule tnat shortens
10
the r"irst a of explanation. :rhe rule is "ad-hoc 11 in a
non-pejorative sense. lt is so rormulated as to have its
structural desc ·iption met only by verbs .. vi th the roots
+1y, ±E!l· ~ven the + ooundary does its job, serving
to prevent dis=lik rrom being converted into dis=li.
The rule is peculiar, t1ough, in that though u~E lists
it among the P-rules, there is no other P-rule ~hat
mutJ~; precede it ~,.vowel shi . .L t must follow it). lt could
be the ~irst rule of the phonology. This leads us quite
naturally to ask whether this is indeed a Y-rule at all •
..t'erhaps it is a rule of allomorphy. Is ~here any evidence
for this proposalY
~irst of all, stating \62; as a r ule of
allomorphy ~·wuld immedia Lely account f Jr its ordering
properties, for such rules must vrecede all P-rules.
Secondly, (62; could just as easily have a mor phological
as a phonological environment, since its domain or
application is limited to two roots. utating the
environment phonologically does, however, make a certain
prediction, namely ~hat no wurd of the form HX+C 1Ik#
will ever reach ~he s urface in ~nglish. aS noted
above the + is crucial. ~here are words such as dis=like
and outpsyche. these ~ = boundaries have a nasty habit of
fading away to +4 . If,perchance, outpsyche, a very common
11
verb,did lose its =, would it then become *awtsi.
Doubtful. This intuition is a strong indication
that the environment ;or the k-dropping is indeed
not c1Ik, but rather vhe two roots ln question. lf
we persist in stating the rule as phonological, we
must mark them ~ith a rule feature as +(62). If
we simply regard (62) as a rule of allomorphy, we
lose a rule-feature and minor rule combination. The
rule-feature in question is, in addition, not
motivated on grounds of abstraction.
ords in +fy provide us V;i th another example
of a rule-feature minor rule combination which may be
included in "the rules o:t: allomoryhy. As mentioned in
SPE, certain verbs in +fy have nominals in +faction
(putrefy/putrefaction). SPE accounts J.'or this by having
the verb marked oy a rQle-feature for undergoing
::>hart Vowel Shil"t, the minor rule tnat accounts .for
the sing/sang alternation. aore 1.)recisely, the rule that
assigns the rule-feature (+0VSJ must assign it only
to the morpheme +fy, in order to avoid having the
other vowels of the word in question undergo SVS.
The deivation of satisfaction thus proceeds as J.ollows
(cf. ::>PE pp.201-202):
12
(+8VSJ satis+(~Ik)+t+iVn.
fik fak
satisi'ak~-i:n
laxing ;_cc SV0 etc.
There is some doubt as to tne status of SVS. The sing/sang
alternation has been claimed (Hoard & Sloat 1j 73J to
be the result of other distinct rules. There is also a
quetion as to .• hether rule :eeatures may be assigned to
constituent morphemes, ra t. her tnan entire Lexical
Items (SPE 373 ff.). The rule-feature is also, i r, cidentally,
of the non-abstract variety. This suggests that the
fik to fak process may be morphological. In tnis case,
there is very strong evidence, from the .{ orm of t.heiO.N
suft"ix, that this is so.
All nominals in +fak are oi· the 1orm i+factian
(liguefaction/*liguefacation). All nominals in +fik, with
the sole exce~tion of crucifixion, are of the I orm
X+fication. +fak is thus a root With the property that
the ~ of At+iVn drops after it. •rhis property is very
common; +t+iVn is the marked form of the sufLix, after
non-coronals, as will be seen below. There are , i urther-
more, no cases where the rule that assigns the marked
suf f ix must make reference to a derived phonologl cal
property(other than perhaps the root final consonantJ
~ e must, therefore,presume that it is the feature (+SVS)
which determines the form of the suffix here:
13
R 1. At+iVn t+iVn I fik(+~V~J+ __
But there is no other case of a rule feature determining
the form of the suffix either. (R1), which must be ~osited
if the fik/fak alternation is phonological, is thus a
very s i ngular rule. If, on the other hand, we state the
alternation at a mor phological level, we obviate the need
for both such a bizarre rule as (R1), and the suspec~
rule feature and minor rule.~he morphological solution
is thus to be preferred on several gr Junds.
2.4. I can feel the critical reader, squirm~ng
in their seat, hand outs tretched in objection; it
appears that sut·f icient evidence has not been presented
with regard to the last two issues. ~he alternate
solutions have not been discredited;both generate the
required output. 1 will remind this reader,though, that
the question here is not one of generation, but of
evaluation; when presented with a form, which may be
dealt with in either of two ways, which one does the
5Tammar choose? I have tried to show that when faced
with the dilemma, rule-feature plus minor rule, or
mor pholog1cal rule, the grammar chooses the latter.
Of course this decision calls into question the status
of rule-feature minor rule pairs. If they can be
eliminatd from the grammar entirely, then tnere is
no longer a dilemma.
14
2.5. The proposed derivation of nominals from
stems in +fy and ±ElY provides us with one case in .... , ~
which there is an ordering between morpnological~
The r' ik/fak rule must apply to the stem beiore the
condition on the attachment of At+iVn can be stated,
r'or the marked variant t+iVn is attached to fak, and
not to fik. It is probable, however, that rules of
stem allomorphy always precede rules of suffix
allomorphy. lf this indeed turns out to be the general
case, then we can say that though tnere may be ordering
among morphological rules, the ordering may never be
extrinsic. ln any case, the issue a v, ai ts further
evidence.
3.1. We have now encoun1.ereu. a set of ION nom..Lnal-
izations, the X+faktion type whose formation, or analysis
is not purely agglutinative. I shall turn then to other
forms in which there appears to be a change in the
suffix from the unmarked f orm At+iVn, and sometimes,
concomitant change in the root of the stem verb. In this
regard, we have already seen that fak is the marked
nominal forming variant of f.Y: it only appears with cer
tain verbs, such as satisfy, and with others which are
marked by the purely non-phonological pre ence of an
~before the +fy (liquefy, putrefy). It is this marked
variant which takes the marked form of the suffix. This
15
phenomenon is quite general. T'lany of the roots which
take marked forms of the suffix exhibit mor 1)hological
variation. This is called ben-Moshe's first law of
the marked root.
3.2. Verbs in +At (equivocate, prevaricate) ,form
IO~ nominals about as productively as those in +ize,
with a corresponding lack of nominals in +ment(only
abatement and (rein,mis,under)statement. As has been 11
observed before (Siegel1971), the derived nominals do
not reduplicate the At (equivocation/*eguivocatation,
prevarication/*prevaricatation). It appears that the
restriction does not merely hold on*+At+At sequences
but on any XAt+At; so relate must be analyzed as
re+lat, yet we have relation and not*relatation.
Contrary to this tendency, however, we have dilatation,
where the unanalyzability of +lat seems to indlcate that
the narrowform (+At+At) of the restriction holds.
~imilarly with natation • The existence of dilation,
though, does point to a preference for the extended form.
Perhaps a look at other unanalyzable Latinate stems in
Xate will help here. There are three, to my knowledge:
abate, sate, and state. sate has an alternate satiate
from which t he nominal satiation is ~L"ormed. Tricky.
·r~ i th abate and s ~,ate something quite fantastic happens.
16
They are, as no~ed above, the only verbs of ~ne form
Xate which 1orm nominals in +ment. 1 can only concluue
!rom this that faced with Lhe crucial case, which will
decide be~ween two possible verslons of s rule, the
grammars equivoca~es, ana avoids having ~o maKe a uecisionJ.
Other cases o~ ~he extension of an environment
~rom morphological to phonological nave been uiscussed
by Pr1nce ~1972). He points out tirstly tnat nouns in
osis(arteriosclerosis) nave adjectives in otlc and never
o~ical. However ~he environment covers all cases of Xot,
and not just X+ot; nence iulotic(*alJ,uespotic(*al).
~uio~ical and uespo~ical were posslble words not too
long ago. ~nis sugges~s a historical change in ~ne rule,
from restricted ~o extended, morphological to phonolog
ical. ~imilarly, verbs in i+fy have adjectives in i+fic
(specify/specific), and not i+fic+al (*specifical). This
has been extended in some cases (scientific(*al)), but
not all (Pontiff,*pontific,pontifical).
It appears ,the~, that the~ is a constraint
prohibiting +At+At orXAt+At sequences. How one might ask,
does the constraint operate? Does some rule delete the
first At, or the second? ~·rom looking at other suffixes
we can gain some insight. It appears that stem final +At
deletes generally before suffixes, so celebrate/celebrant,
nominate/nominee. If we wish to make a general statement,
17
we ean say that +At deletes before a suf1.ix, i.e. it
is the firs:t .A.t that deletes. One might claim as a
rule that .tit+iVn, being the unmarked varian"t ol" the
suffix ION, is also the only productive form of the suffix,
and the fac"t that it is the first At which deletes in n
the formation of this very productive class of derived
nominals (Xate/Xation) is evidence for this claim. How
ever, in order to have any strength, the claim snould
have relevance to other suffixation processes. If one
could show that, in general , the unmarked .rorm of a
suffix is the only productive form, then t:nis particular
caes would be decided by the theory. I am , at present,
not in any pos 1tion to discuss the matter further .
4. The Harked Roots
4. 1 • We come now to those cases which I consider
the most interesting, the marked roots. I have already
mentioned that fak is such a root. It is marked, and -.
takes t+iVn, rather than At+iVn. Note that fak is not
a lexical item, it is a morpheme, distributionally
determined, with very little sema: tic content(compare
the semantics of putrel"y and satisfy, in particular,
what does sa~is+ mean?). One might think that this is
an exceptional case, and that when a given lexical
i tern has a nominal in A t+i vn, the form of the s u.f i ix
is determined by that individual and entire lexical
18
item. This is not so. It is rather the last morpheme
of the stem, which can usually be called the root,
which determines the form of the suffix. lf a root is
marked, then all occurences of that root take the marked
suffix. 1'his ben-Moshe' s second law of the root • .J.!'urther
more, if any occurence of a given root exhibits
allomorphy (/~At+iVn), then all occurences of that root
will show the~sam£ allomorph. fy/fik/fak is the only
exception to this last rule.
I will give an example. Take tne list of all
verbs of the form xsume:
subsume,resume,presume,consume,assume
~he first elements of ~hese verbs are common Latinate
prefixes, which may be isolated distributionally . The
verbs have very little in common semantically, and there
is no possible way inwhich, by giving the morpheme
+sume some meaning, h~wever broad, we may derive the
meanings of the separate verbs compositionally. ~
is therefore a distributionally determined morpheme ,
with little, if any, semantic content. now all of
these verbs have nominals in I v~:
subsumption,resumption,presumption,consump$ion,assumption
The .form of the suf1.·ix must be t+iVn (as with fak),
and is never At+iVn (consummation, as in ~hakespeare
is from consummate). This fact is not determined
19
phonologically , for we have exhume/exhumation,
de·plWile/deplumation. Yet every verb in +sume takes
the same marked Jorm of the suf...._" ix. 11 e can conclude
either that this fact is the product oi chance,or
that it is determined by +sume. ~·urther examples will
demonstrate that it is no matter of chance. v~e must
therefore conclude that tne root +sume is marke u to
form nominals in+t+ivn.
'l'he verbs ln+sume provide a good example o1'
another phenomenon too . If a verb containing a marked
root permits nominalization by rrn , it is usually the
case that all verbs in that root will have a parallel
nominal f orm. This is a tendency, and not s u strict
as the second law.
4 .2. ~·, hat are the marked .forms of vhe af .L'.L X ION?
For roots endlng in non-coronals, i.e. labials and
velars, the marked .L·J rm is +t+iVn. +fak and +sume
are two examples of t his. others are listed below
verb root /_+ION
d4=k+e d4=k deduce deduction
skrib skrib prescribe prescription - conceive conception sev sep
- - redeem redemption em em
sorb sorb absorb absorption
stroy struk destroy destruction
20
These are the marked non-coronal roots . By ben-lVioshe 's
laws, no verb containing any one of these roots will
have a nominal in At+iVn . This is the case . The point
about +sume having little or no intrinsic meaning
holds for these roots too, as 1well as the tendency
.{ or all verbs in a given root to have ION nominals .
A list of the verbs and IO~ nominals in +ceive and
+duce demonstrates these two independent points
quite well:
receive reception deceive deception conce l ve conception perceive perception apperceive apperception
deduce deduction reduce reduction seduce seduction
? induce induction ? conduce conduction
produce production introduce introduction reproduce reproduction
Marked coronal-final rou"ts c·,J mprise the most
irregular and complex class, especially with regard to
changes of the root. E~en the form of the marked ION
sufix after coronals is unclear. hany investigators
(cf Schnitzer(1 ~ 71 1 , Householder(1 972)) list it as
21
+t+iVn, i.e. the same suffix as with marked non-cor onals.
This cannot be so. nather the suf f ix must be +ivn,as
in SP~, f or the following rasons.
¥irstly, alternations such as rebel/rebellion,
commune/communion, demand the positing of +iVn, at
leas~ after some occurences of nasals and liquids.
Secondly, as alternat ions like decide/decision
revise/revision, argue, the vowel preceding Iu1~ must
be laxed by tri-syllabic laxing. In cases such as
abrade/abrasion, ro~ate/ro~ation, t his vowel has
further undergone a rule that tenses non-high vowels
in the following environment(S~E p.1 d1):
-low I -hi -cons V
-back -stress
This rule also operates in alternations s uch as
Canada/Canadian,Abel/~belian. Crucially, there must oe
one and only one consonant af ter t he af f ected vowel.
If the suffix in abrasion is +t+iVn, the environment
will not be met. ~here must, tnerefore, be a rule which
deletes t he ; t, bef ore the above rule applies. Since
this t-deleti on rule is not crucially ordered after
any ~-rule, the suf f ix can just as easily be +iVn,
exactly as it is in commlli4ion and rebellion. We can
thus nave a uni1orm suffix for all marked coronals.
22
Note, by the way, that the environment for the rejected
rule of t-deletion cannot be stated phonologically,but
rather in terms of marked coronal roots,or stems.
~he root ven (convene/convention) shows an
interesting interaction oi the two phenomena just
dealt with under the two argumen~s. One might be
tempted to regard the alternation of this root as
evidence of the suffix being +t+iVn after at least
some occurences of g. However, if the suffix is
+t+iVn, the t must be deleted, in most cases,before
the tensing rule applies, as I have just demonstrated.
One would, therefore ,have to mark ven as an exception
to this !-deletion rule. If, however,the root ven
has the form vent as an allomorph /_10~, there is no
need to mark this root as an exception to any rule.
The root change is also equivalent in effect to
marking ven as taKing +t+iVn, instead mf +iVn, like
communion. The t-dropping thus requires an ex~ra
marking. What,in the t+iVn SJlution was two separated
unrelated marks, thus becomes one und..1orm morphological
change, by a rule of allomorphy.I give the two
derivations,r·cr comparison.
23
Rival derivations of vention
+iVn
Morphological. markings 1.ven=vent/At+iVn
underlying forms vent+At+iVn
(mark1)
Rules of suffix At+iVn=iVn
/ marke ~ coronals (mark1)
Phonolog1cal vent+iVn rules 1.~-dropping n.a.
2. '.tri-syllabic laxing
(or laxing /vu) n.a.
3. tensing n.a.
+t+iVn
1.At+iVn=t+iVn/ven __ ( As opposed to iVn/mune __ )
2.ven is an exception to t-deletion.
ven+At+iVn (mark1, 2)
A-c+iVn=t+iVn \mark1, +mark)
ven+t+iVn
ven+t+iVn \mark2 J
ven+t.+iVn
n.a.
UUT.PU'r ven:s~n
et cetera ven~~n
24
ls~id above that ~he rule o~ !-dropping is
suspect, in that there is no P-rule which it must
!allow, and at least one ,~ensing; which it must
precede6 • There is one example in the li teratUL·e, however,
in which the t is put to some phonological use.Schnitzer '-(1971) attempts to derive succession !rom sub=Ked+t+iVn.
He uses the ! t.,O devoice the _9;. Hov,ever there is no way
.f:or him to shorten the e, and his 1inal !·arm is
suk=ses+iVn , the incorrect outpu~.,. uEE (p.1b2) ~ists
~ as exemp~ !rom the ~ensing rule; e is thUS snortened
by tri-syllabic laxing, and markedly not lengthened.
Using the device of root allomorphy, we can list ced
as ~/_+At+iVn ~_or shorten the ~ !_co. The double
consonan~ prevents the e from tensing, and is in
accora with the distributional fact that there are
no Latinate roots of the rorm *XVs+.
~hus the only caes l know 01 where the t
has been claimed to perform some phonological
runction can be aealt with in a princ~pled fashion
if the marked coronal su1fix is iVn, and if we make
use o.i hte device of allomorphy in marked roo~s
\ ben-I•wshe' s t irst law) • lu 1 act tne princip: al
01 allomorphy is very strongly supported oy both of the
last examples \the derivation of Xvention and acession).
whe.L·e t ormerly i l.ems had to be marked with rule
reatures, in one case several unrelated rule features ,
the same effect can be gai~ed by a simple rule of
2)
allomorphy, whicn serves in addition ~o mark ~he root
in question.
4.4. Hartin's observations
Beiore aelving urther into coronals, we
must maKe a short siae-trip, and look into t he c ;nclus
ions or some wor k uone by :::>usan 1·1art1n ~ 1972), which • ...
will be 01. great nelp 1n the analysis ot the data.
Martin observes tnat derived words in t he s ,!: t ixes
lUN,-ive,-ory,=£!, are built on what seems to be the
same form of a given root, a .r orm which, as we have
seen in t he case of lON, of ten differs fr om that of
the stem verb. The following alternations de monstrate
this point:
divide
compel
subvert assert
retain
accuse
excrete apprehend
division compuls i on
subvers ion
assertion
divisive compulsive
s ubversive
assertive
re t ention retentive
accusation ~accysative)
excretion apprehension a ppr ehensive
percuss percus s ion percussive
divisor compulsory
accusatory
excretory
Let us accept,then, in the light o!: theabove alternations,
that the various suffixes are attached to t he same allo-
morph of a given stem,i.e. to t ne same underlying phono
logical form. Since t here is so much neutralization of
26
contrast in the lU~ forms, we may now discover the
underlying rinal consonant(s) of a : r root / ION -~ -
by inspection of the corresponding +ive or+ory
form.
Martin also maKes the i'urther point t .t1at
in general the IO~ suffixea word is primary. One
very sel dom finds a +ive or +ory word which does
not have a corresponding +IO~ form, and, even
historically, of the ION +ive pairs, the . ION form
can generally be shown to have entered the language
before the +ive form. This second point of Nartin's
proves to be crucial when we try to ~ ormalize the first
one,i.e. at what s t age in a derivation do the IO~ and
+ive f orms have the same final consonant(s)?
There is a ;· great deal of allomorphy
exhibited by coronal f inal stems. I will discuss
as best I can all the al~ernations, and have,as a
prelude to this,listed them inthe table below. The
table may be used as a reference in t.t1e discussion
that fol l ows.
27
Table of marked coronal alternations
Samnle verbs verb-f inal -· c I +iVn I +ive
excrete ,X+sert t t t
X+mit (permit) t t s
X+vert (convert) t t s
digest st s~ st
connect kt k~ kt
decide,explode d t s
X+ cede (concede) d ~ s
apprehend nd n~ ns
commune n n
scan n nt
convene ,retain n nt nt
prevent nt n~ nt
recense ns nt
coerce rs rt rs
disperse rs rt./rt rs
submerge,asperge rdt. rt. rs
adhere r t s
recur r rt. rs
rebel 1 1
.X.+pel ~expel) 1 lt ls
convulse ls 1~ ls
revise z t percuss s t s
admonition t ~ t
28
ti e can extract from this list some very general properties of the /_ION and /_ive forms.
Firstly, of the full consonants, only ~ and t occur
before +ive. The absence of any VJiced full conso-
nants before this suffix can be easily captured by the
following ad-hoc rule:
C = -voice/ __ +ive
The fact that there are no voiceless counterparts to
1 and g might account for two interesting gaps in our
paradigm. There are no cases of *Xlive or *Xnive.
communion has no corresponding adjec~ive, and rebellion
has rebellious. Just as with abatement and statement,
the morphology avoids a phonological dilemma.
~he second general fac~ to be noted is that
except after 1 and g, +iVn is preceded only by the pala~als
~,~,~. This is the result of palatalization, an apparently
simple process (but see below, and SP~ 229-231).
Looking at the alternations, we note only
eight cases where the .final consonant (cluster) of the
verbal stem is in a one-to-one correspondence (one way)
with the c .nsonant(s) preceding ION and+ive. These are
~,Vz,st,kt,nt,nd,~,ls. Except for nd, all these have
exactly the same consonant before +ive as they do word
finally. This suggests that whatever alternation is
manifested I iVn, can be accounted for phonologically •
~he general correspondence is
z/<t, t/~ s/~
29
After!! however, we have t/~ (question). these l"acts can
be handled by the following simple rules:
palatalization 1
palatalization 2
t=~/s_yV
+C(tllS
-voc = -ant I +strid _yv
Palatalization before lY . seems . to be a very general
phenomenon;however, the a~tempt to state it as one rule
runs into many phonological problems, which 1 will not
d1scuss here. r1lost fo -che relevant !"acts can be found
in ~PE (229-235).
Turning now to nd, we find the following:
-n~4:n# -nsiv#
~her are several roots in -nd
+hend +tend +pand +cend
apprehend, comprehend pre~end, contend, ex~end expand ascend
n54:n# ~ells us that the nominal/adjec-cival stem must be
either Xnt or Xns. nsiv# tells us that it must be Xns.
lfl.J.!j may therefore posit the following rule:
d= s/n ~on -lve
~his may not be the proper way to state the rule, and
1 will re~urn to it later.
~-final stems are curious:
abolish abolition admonish admoni ti.on punish
admonitive punitive
30
~he fact that we have ~/ __ +ive shows that these stems
have a combina~ry variant Xt. Here is a case where
roots show the same sur1ace segment ~ in two environ
ments, but where . there is good evidence that these
two segments must be deriveu from two distinct
underlying segments, in distinct allomorphs. One might
try to state the ~ to t rule phonologically. Note
however that the change only takes place before iVn
and ive, i.e. in a morphological environment. ~his is
important.
t-final stems show interesting alternations.
~he must common one is t/~/t (excrete,assert,transitJ
This involves no morphological change of any sort.
with the root +mit, however, we .f i nd t1~/s (permit,
permissive,permission). There are no cases of -~~.x.mitive
or Xmitative, facts which, we recall, are predi~ted by
ben-Moshe's laws. This can be accoun~ed for by pos i ting
for +mit the allomorph +miss / __ Io~.
+Vert is another
root which exhibits allomorphy. ~nbtead of the expec ~ ed
subver~~n,subver~iv, we ge~ subver~~n,subversiv. The
occurence of : .1: tells us that the relevant allomorpn
ml.lst be ~·
r~/r1J:
31
.!!'rom vert we may turn to other cases of
coerce disperse immerse emerge asperge/se submerge/se deterge
coer~.fn
di sper 1J.fn (? ~.fn)
immer ~.fn (? 1J.fn) emer1J.fn(*~.fn)
asper1J.fn(*~.fn)
submer1J.fn(*~.fn)
deter1J.fn(*~~n)
coersiv
detersiv
With stems in xrge we always nave r1J. The s in detersive suggests a rule similsr to that involving Xnd:
g =z/_IO.N
Note that this orthographic g is most likely velar
underlyingly (purge/purgaii.on). If we wish to preserve
the uniformity of the statement that +iVn attaches
to coronals and +t+iVn to non-coronals, in marked
stems, then the g to z rule must apply before ~his state
men~ can be made. rtowever, the g to z rule seems to be
phonologically mo~i vated by the glide 01 +1:..:!.£, just~ · ..
as wi~n the nd to~ rule, and thus to follow the suffix
allomorpny rule or ION to +ivn. ~noosing this ~atter order
would rorce us to state the distribution rule as
IO~ =iVn 1af~er marked coronals, ana illarkedg (not lf)
The distribution rule canno~ be stated ar~er g to !'
sine it feeds i~ ,ir the~ is indeed the p~onological
trigger.We thus have the follow.hg alternative solutions:
32
1
1. g=z (allomorphy)
~. IO~ =ivu/coronals __
2
lO~=iVn (with skewea en vir onmen t.)
g=z (pnonological)
The existence OI back forms asperse,submerse, is
relevant here, tor 1t shows tha~ the g to~ rule is
opaque. disperse,immerse are also back-formations.
uispersion is M~, disperse 1450, immersion is 1450,
immerse 1650. This is aaaea eviaence for the opaci~i or
g to ~' which leads me to support the hypothesis
expressea by the oraering in \1) 1•
The two roots in r are good examples or roots
marked by allomorphy. Lhey are the onli r-Iinal roots
~hat take IO.L~, and are both marked by unpredic~able
allomorphy (.kur/kurz,her/hez). +ne:re is also a good
example ot· the ex~ension or a smi ix to all verbs in a
given root:
inhere adhere cohere
inhesion adnesion conesion
innesive adhesive conesive
+tain/+ten~ (retain/retetion) is curious. lt.
shows a vowel cnange;we would expect *ret.antio11. uP~\p.202;
accounlis tor th1s change by making +~ain undergo the
short vowel shift rule, as was done witn ra.k. ~his seems
53
to be another unwarran1ied. use of a rule i'eature
minor rue pair. Au inspection ot all the items that
undergo ~v~ shows that this putatively general process
applies only to items which are marked. bya non-abs"tract
rule Ieature vO undergo it.
4.6. case,
1 have lei't i'or last tne most regular and. puzzling
the £-i'inal roo"ts. ~'t i'irst glance, they appear
to be no puzzle at all. Except for the root cede, which
was discussed above, we always have the same alternation.
£/~/~ (decid.e/uec~sion/decisive; • Thre is a rule "taking
! "to ~ in some environmen"t. ~he question is, as in many
cases above, how to state the environment, and what sort
of' rule we are dealing with, phonological or morpological.
Keeping in mind Martin s observation ~hat
+ive and +ory, are secondary, and Iu~ is primary,we may
disregard. +ive ana +ory dS environments i'or the rule's
application. ~ne rule appl~s bei'ore 10~ orivn, and the
secondary suliixes take their stems i'rom the output of
'tnat rule. This way of dealing wi1..h the change allows
us both to restrict ~ts environment, and Iormalize the
notion of seconaary sufiix.
~o d=z /_101'-l or~ .n. ls ~ t the sUIIix or the
i tnat conditions this change,i.e. is the rule morphol
ogically or phonologically conditioned? Generally,£
aoes not appear bei'ore Y:.- (i=y in lVl'l, as noted above).
34
ln fact, the rule that takes i "tOY:. after coronals (..::>_t)~ p.225)
is idiosyncratically blG>cked by ,9; (pavilion/enchiridion).
1n the only case v11ere a.+y does arise, mther than bet ore
ION , we get~~ (cordia}) Thus the rule that takes d to
~ applies only before IO~/ivn, am its derivatives.~ote
in ada.i "tion, that ~ a.oes not spiran tize before IO .....
1nere is no rule taking t to ~' fer the .! appears before
+ive (secretive/decisive).
Thus, the change, if phonological, is highly
marke~. lt can just as easily be stated with a
morphological environment, and, since it follows no
~-rule, as a rule of allomorphy. Lhis rule can also,
incidentally, be applied to the instances of lli!
discussea. earlier. Such an extension would necessitate
a rule devoicing ~/n_. ~his latter rule does seem to be
well motivated. Lhere is only one case of word fmnal
~' bronze, and no cases oi lz. X+pulsion,propuls~n)
and a+vulsion(revul~~n).
The critical hand is rising again. 1 have
argued now, in several dEtinet instances, against a
phonological rule, and have posited instead a rule
of allomorphy, which applies to more than one root,
nd to ~'~ to t, g to ~, £ to ~· But these cases are
really the e<n>e of the paJW_er. It appears, from Nartin' s
remarks, that a speaker, when coining a word in +ive
35
or +ory, takes the requisite word in ION, and
performs a kind of unravelling of phonological rules,
until they can go no further. It is tm this last
form, the product of the last unravelling,that they
add the suffix +ive,~+ory. Everything beyond is
opaque, unavailable. By positing the above rules as
morphological rather than phonological rules, I am
claiming that this last 1'\l'm is significant, it is
the ultimate and first form, the basic phonological
form. ~he rules that prod~e this form, are, I claim,
in every case of an entirely different sort from the
P-rules. ~hey are morphological, and their environments
are stated morphologically. I have also shown that if
we always sta~ these rules as rules of allomorphy, we
gain something. We can preserve the generality and
position of the statement of suffix alternation • .Now
any one of these points may be challenged, particularly
these last rules o1' allomorphy; but they cohere.
'.rake just one away, and the others 1·a11.
5.1. ~here remains only a little mopping up to be
done. Two more possible variants o1' ION are in need of
comment. ~hey are +it+iVn and +~t+iVn. Evidence i or the
first is the following set of alternations:
add ?rend vend define .X.+pose compete repeat imbibe
addition rendition vendition definition .X.+posi tion competition repetition imbibition
36.
additive
definitive .X.ot-positive/ory competitive repetitive
~hese can be handled in one of twm ways. ~ither we mark these rules for a special suffix
IO~o it+iVnl root+M
orwe change the root by adding !!· So, for example
add=addit/ __ IO~
The first solution entails having more than one marked
suffix. A given markeo root will either ~ake (t)+iVn
arit+iVn. and will have to be markedfor the given variant.
~his is more complicated than the second . Other than that
1 can see no !actor that determines a choice here.
5.2. :J.:he possibility of there being a suffix
+~t+iVn is provided by the following:
revolve resolve dissolve solve
revolution resolution dissolution solution
The two roots are odd, both eding in lv. One could
simply mark them . ~he suffix would then be t+iVn,
(after a non~cornal), and we would nave, for example,
revolvtion. ~he v could then go to u /_t.
37.
Alternatively, we could have a suffix
~t+iVn, and drop the v. The first s olution seems slightly
better. we can use a sUf f ix we have already. Both require
an ad-hoc rule.
.~ , > t I '-i..,.. I
l tf~) /
38
~-- OOT.N OTES
1. The sole exception to the stress condition is burial.
Exce~ions to the second are trial,rental,cital,quittal,
with mono-syllabic stems, and presupposal,disavowal,
disapproval witn tri-syllabic stems. ~ote that in the
latter cases all are prefixed, and there exist supeosal
avowal,approval.
2. The indirect object case is no longer productive, and
words formed in it are felt to be somewha t obsolete.
3. The reader should note that such a morphological
property as +Latinate is the pr operty not of a phono
logical form, but of a morpheme. l or example there are
in English two homophomous morphemes ride. The one is
-Latinate, and appears in the verbs ride,override.
the other is +Latinate, and appears in the verb deride •
The suff ix ION attaches to +Latinate rCots, am theref~
may attach to the latter to form derision, but not to
the f ormer, *overrision. I owe this poin"t to l"larchand
(1 960).
4. See Shelvador (fo rthcoming)
5. The "teleological nature of this phenomenon has be en
taken by E. S .Williams as a sign of the hand of God at
work. The gap can be explained, he no"tes,only as the
result of an ac"tive in"telligence's wish to confuse the
investigator,
39.
6. ~he comparison of digest/digestion with fwt/factual
will reveal another such rule (cf. SP~ 230-233).
7. Some readers may s corn the use of philology, and
historbal information aoout the chicken and the egg
in arguments about synchronie description. no .vever, we
are dealing here with frozen, learneu, Latinate vocab
ulary, not with any general or producrtive phenomenon ,
and in such cases, whatthe linguist often sees as a
general1zation, may in fact be a mere artifact.
40
BIBLIOGRAPlH
1. Chomsky,A.N. and M. Halle (1968) The sound Pattern
of English,New york 2. nale,Kenneth(196?) Paper on the Maori passive 3. Householder,F .w.(1 972) A Problem in rule ordering???'
in Linguistic Inguiry(III,3) 4. Kiparsky, Paul ( 1968) How Abstract is Phonology ("-'4s) 5. Marchand,Hans (1960) The 0ategories and ~ypes of
Present-lJay English \•lord iormation , Wiesbaden 6. Martin, Susan -ive arl other -ion based suf1ixes(Ms) 1. Prince, Alan s. IC (Ms) 8. Schni~zer, Marc. L. A problem in rule ordering
in Linguistic Inquiry (11,3) 9. Shelvador,0rosley(fotthcoming) The phonetics of = and+ 10. :::>iegel, Dorothy Some Lexical 'l'ransderivational
Constraints in ~nglish (ms)