Lexi Cal Phonology

7/29/2019 Lexi Cal Phonology

1/32

Lexical Phonology

1998


2/32

Kiparsky: early 1980s

Developing work by Dorothy Siegel,

Steven Strauss, Mark Aronoff, David

Pesetsky.


3/32

A theory of many things...

A theory of the relationship between

phonotactics and what once was called

automatic morphophonology.

(But automatic morphophonology grew into

all of what phonology was.)

A theory oflevels or layers in morphology.

A constraint on neutralizations rules'

application in nonderived environments

A theory of underspecification

(markedness).


4/32


5/32

Lexical phonology is extremely

derivational: things happen, some

things happen before other thingshappen, and if something happens

before X appears on the scene, then too

bad for X. If Y isn't "in the lexicon", thena lexical rule can't "see" it (whatever

that means).


6/32

The most remarkable claim of lexical

phonology is that the generalizations

describing markedness principles of alanguage are the same as the rules

governing the changes of sounds under

conditions of word-formation.


7/32

Lexical/postlexical components

This is the most important distinction,

one going back a long way, but dropped

for a while in generative phonology. Lexical rules have exceptions, do not

create novel segments or sequences =

morphophonemic rules. Postcyclic: flapping; word-final

devoicing in German, Dutch, Russian;

Cyclic = trisyllabic laxing.


8/32

Lexical/post-lexical split

Lexicon

Structure-preserving(output is possibleUR)

Not necessarily

phonetically natural never applies across

words

Apply only in

derivedenvironments

Trisyllabicshortening

No lexical

exceptions not necessarily

structure-preserving

may apply across

words May not refer to

internalmorphological

information Flap formation

Ordered: Lexical >> Postlexical


9/32

Derived environmentsthe case

from Finnishhalut-a to want

halus-i wanted

Non-derived environments:

tila room

aiti mother


10/32

Finnish (2): interaction with

ei/__ #joki river joke-na essive sg.

iti mother iti-n essive sg

vesi water vete-n essive sg

ksi hand kte-n essive sg

Watch difference between itiand vete.


11/32

Trisyllabic shortening (aka Trisyllabic

Laxing)divine divinity

serene serenity

profane profanity

vile vilify

clear clarityrite ritual

grade gradual

tyrant tyranny tyranize tyrannouspenal penalize

fable fabulous

exceptions.


12/32

Trisyllabic shortening

nightingale, stevedore, ivory, Amory,bravery, mightily, pirating, obesity.

So: 3SS has lexical exceptions, it

doesnt look over word-boundaries, andit seems to be a markedness

statement for nonderived forms; it

creates a segment type that existsunderlyingly.

CVstressCVlongV ][__/][


13/32

Certain suffixes trigger the shortening: ity,

ify, ual, ??ize (no), ??ous

Group 1: stress affecting:

-ic, -al, -ity, -ion, -y (nominalizing), -al, -

ate, -ous, -ive, -ation

Group 2 stress neutral

-hood, -ful, -ly, -ize, -ness, -less, -y (adj.)

fictionalizeBoth?

-able (Aronoff)

-ism (Goldsmith: philosophy 1, language-


14/32

Basis for stratal distinction:

Group 1 easily attaches to non-wordroots (e.g.,paternal), while Group 2

almost always attaches to existing

words.

Group 1, when it attaches to words, is

stress-changing. Group 2 is stress-

neutral, always

Group 1 make the resultant word look

as much as possible like a (simple)

word.


15/32

Combinations of Class 1,2

Class 1 + Class 1: histor-ic-al, illumina-

at-tion, indetermin-at-y;

Class 1 + Class 2: frantern-al-ly,transform-ate-ion-less;

Class 2 + Class 2: weight-less-ness

?? Class 2 + Class 1: *weight-less-ity,

fatal-ism-al


16/32

Derivational suffixes in Englishable fixable, doable,

understandableant claimant, defendant

(at)ion realization, assertion, protection

er teacher, workering the shooting, the dancing

ing the sleeping giant, a blazing fire

ive assertive, impressive, restrictive

ment adjournment, treatment,amazement

ful faithful, hopeful, dreadful

(i)al presidential, national


17/32

(i)an Arabian, Einsteinian, Minnesotan

ic cubic, optimistic, moronic,telephonic

ize hospitalize, crystalize

ize modernize, nationalizeless penniless, brainless

ous poisonous, lecherous

ate activate, captivate

en deaden, blacken, harden

ity stupidity, priority

ly quietly, slowly, carefully

ness happiness, sadness


18/32

Strauss, Goldsmith ist-ic

sexist *sexistic sadist sadistic

faddist *faddistic fascist fascistic

rightist *rightistic linguist linguistic

racist *racistic deist deistic

rapist *rapistic jurist juristic

putchist *putschist sophist sophistic


19/32

fatalist fatalistic masochist masochisticregalist regalistic plagiarist plagiaristichumorist humoristic populist populisticsocialist socialistic atheist atheistic

humanist humanistic aphorist aphoristicrealist realistic hedonist hedonisticcommunist communistic anarchist anarachistic


20/32

Word-final stress in base

cartoonist *cartoonistic escapist *escapistic

falangist *falangistic

alarmist *alarmistic defeatist *defeatistic

adventist *adventistic

conformist *conformistic

extremist *extremistic

reservist *reservistic

careerist *careeristic


21/32

Strauss notes:

-icmay not attach to an X+ist base if:

a. the final syllable of X is not primary

stressed; and

b. X is a lexical item.


22/32

Stress clash in English

OK morpheme internally:

Revlon, nylong, Ticonderoga, Rangoon,

Illini

Contrast alarmisticand admonish:

admonish is like alarmistin stress, but

admonition sounds fine, while

alarmisticdoes not.


23/32

abnormal -> abnormality

2 1 3 2 2 1 3 3


24/32

Suffixes that care about stress:

-ize:

distinguish catholicize ornotarize from

Bermudaize.

Standardize and cannibalize suggest

Stratum 2.

Winterize, summerize, autumnize (cf.

autumnal), but *fallize, *springize.


25/32

alphabetizeradicalize

departmentalize*cartoonizejournalize*magazinize

*bookizepublicizelegalizeBostonize*New Yorkize


26/32

Perhaps what is not possible is:

[+stress] ]Stratum II [+stress]

that would suggest:

[ [ alarm ]stratum II

ist ]stratum I

ic


27/32

English stress, a bitAssuming the final syllable does not

have a long vowel, then we canapproximate English stress with the

Latin main stress rule: stress on the

penult if heavy, on the antepenultotherwise.

In fact, Group 1 causes a lot of

changes, and Group 2 doesnt, but wedont have an explanation of that within

lexical phonology


28/32

Problems, so far: In tough cases, we have to say that a

suffix falls into both classes, whichreduces the strength of the claim a lot.

Typical cases are -able, -ism, -ize.

Discussion of -mentin AMP. If -ize is Stratum 2 (always) then

organization is a problem, since it

violates the Level Ordering Hypothesis(Mark Aronoffs observation). Perhaps

likewise is ability, and istic.


29/32

GJs example of morphologically

sensitive rule (p. 120)Underlying Surface Glosslo:p]verb + @n]inf lo:p@ to walk

za:k]noun + @n]Pl za:ke things

[te:k @n] @n ] inf te:k@ ne to draw

te:k@n]noun te:k@ sign

o:p@n]adj o:p@ open

te:k@n]verb te:k@n draw

o:p@n]verb o:p@n open

What is the alternative hypothesis?


30/32

Kenstowicz' Polish example

o >> u / __ +cons, -nasal, +voiced.

1. lexical exceptions: skrop

"scratch"imper. from /skrob/

2. Morphological conditioning: more

frequent in feminine and neuter nounsthan in masculines:


31/32

fem doz-a pagod-a mod-a

with genitive plural: dus, pagut, mut;

contrast with masc. mop, snop

"Polish speakers are aware of thesound substitution effected by the

raising rule...the voicing change isessentially below the level ofconsciousness." Careful!!

Does not introduce any new phones "Raising of o to u before a voiced

nonnasal consonant is an arbitrary andphonetically unmotivated sound

substitution. " Careful!!


32/32

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scent1389
View:	226 times
Download:	0 times

Lexi Cal Phonology

Documents