Non-Derivational Phonology Roca

5/21/2018 Non-Derivational Phonology Roca

1/29

ANO PRINT ROM

Derivat ions and Constraintsin Phonology

Edited b yI G G Y R O C A

C L A R E N D O N P R E S S O X F O R D1 9 9 7


2/29

8Non-de r iva t iona l Phonology MeetsLexical Phonology

GEERT BOOIJ

1. I N T R O D U C T I O NA proper theory of phonology has to provide at least the three subtheoriesl isted in( 1 ) :( 1 ) (i) a theory of the na ture o f phon olog ica l represen ta t ions

( i i ) a theory of the form of phonolog ica l genera l iza t ions( i i i ) a theory of the organ iza t ion of phonology as par t of the g r a m m a r

Autosegmen ta l phonology , Prosodie Phonology, and the theory of FeatureGeometry are examples of theories that deal w i t h (aspects of) the nature ofphonological representat ions.

T he issueof how to express phonological generalizat ions has becomeone ofthe foci of recent phonological research.The basic ingredients of theclassicalSPE approach, and of Lexical Phonology in i ts standard form, are rules andderivat ions. We now observe a shift to constraint-based approaches such asConstraints-and-Repairs Phonology (Paradis1988-9)andHarm onic Phonology(Goldsmith 1990; 1993), in which both ru les and const ra ints p lay a role, andOpt imal i ty Theory (OT). In the lat ter theory, rules have been completelyabolished in favor of a hierarchy of constraints, and there is noder iva t iona l ,ser ial computation of the correct phonetic form of a word (Prince and Smo-lensky 1993). In ano ther approach , D eclarat ive Phon ology, rules have beenreplaced w i t h stat ive, declarat ive statements that express well-formednessconstraints that apply conjunct ively (Coleman 1995).Lex ica l Phonology (hencefor th LP) in i t s different varieties is in essence atheory of the organization of the grammar, that is , of how phonologyin terac ts w i t h other components of the grammar , in par t icular morphologyand syntax . In addit ion, it is a sub stant ia l theory of the form, in terac t ion ,and applicat ion of rules (Elsewhere Condit ion, Str ic t Cyclici ty, and LevelOrdering) .T he three subtheories mentioned above are not comple te ly independen t .For instance, given a r icher theory of prosodie structure and prosodie


3/29

262 Empirical Studiesdomains, our theory about the organization of the grammar can often besimplified (Booij 1994). The en r ichmen t of phonological representations byAutosegmental Phonology has also led to s impler formula t ions of phonolo-gical generalizations. Therefore, it is wor thwh i le to investigate to w h a textent th e insights and generalizations of LP, which have been formulatedin a ru les-and-der ivat ions- f ramework , carry over to, or are in conf l ict w i th ,constraint-based theories of phonological generalizations. This is the mainaim of th is chapter. Therefore, I w i l l first discuss the theoretical core of LPin section 2. Subsequen t ly ,I w i l l discuss how the different c la ims of Lexica lPhonology bear on constraint-based theories. First, L P makes use of ruleordering, in par t icular counterbleeding and counterfeeding order, for theexpression of phonological generalizations. These devices are not availablein non-derivational phonology. Cases of counterbleeding order w i l l be dis-cussed in section 3, those of counterfeeding order in section 4 . Second, rule-based generative phonology acknowledges morpholexical rules, i .e . phono-logical rules of a restricted nature in the sense that they are conditioned bylexical and/or morphological properties. Can the generalizations expressedby such rules also be expressed in non-d erivation al phonology? This is thetopic of section 5. In section 6 I give my main conclusions: There is noevidence for rule-ordering effects (in the sense of serial rule application,w i t h extr ins ic rule ordering) in Dutch that cannot be reanalysed in a waycompa t ib le w i th OT, and perhaps preferably so. There is, however, strongevidence for level-ordering effects. OT is compa t ib le wi th th is notion ofderivat ion. Even when restated wi th in Correspondence Theory, the factsdiscussed continue to argue for some degree of serial computation inphonology.

2. THE C O R E OF L E X I C A L P H O N O L O G YThecore hypotheses of LP(cf. Pesetsky 1989; K ipa rsk y 1982;B ooij 1981)a rethe fo l lowing:(2 ) (i) There is a sys temat ic di f fe rence b e t w e e n lexica l and pos t lex ica l p h o n o l o g y ,

( i i ) M orphology and phonology app ly in tandem.The f i r s t hypothesis reflects th e classical dist inc tion betw een w ord phonologyand sentence phonology, and wi l l b e discussed in section 3. Clearly, th ishypothesis is not ex clu siv e to Lexic al Phonology.

The second hyp othe sis m eans, to put it sim p ly, that you take a w ord, andapply the applicable phonological rules r ight away (= f irst cycle) ; you maythen apply a morphological rule to that word, whichcreates a new domain ofapplication for the phonological rulesof the language ,the second cycle, w h i c h


4/29

Non-derivational a nd Lexical Phonology 263in turn can be i n p u t for another morphological operat ion that creates a th i rdcyc le , and so o n . '

T he d i f fe rence be tween the t radi t ional cycl ic appl ica t ion of phonologica lrules and LP istha t , in the first approach , phonology isordered after m orphol-ogy , and tha t it has to be s t ipu la ted tha t phonologica l ru les apply to the mos tinternal morpho log i ca l domain firs t , then to the ne x t morpho log i ca l domain ,etc. It incorrectly excludes th e possibility of morphology being dependent onderived phonologica l proper t ies of its bases.H ypothesis (2i i ) p redic t s tha t(3) a. the phonological rules of a language t h a t apply to words apply cyclically, at

l e a s t i n principle;b. the morphological rules of a language may refer to both underived and derived

phonological properties of t h e i r i n p u t words.T he cyclic application ofp honological rules in turn predicts that(4) phonological and morphological rules may make use of phonological i n f o r m a t i o n

that is no longer present in the phonetic forms of words.The c la ims in (2-4) are in fact a consequence of an even simpler idea,

namely the f o l low ing m i n i m a l a s s u m p t io n :2(5) A p p l y a r u l e when possible.This pr inc ip le predic t s , for ins tance , tha t the ru le of word stress of al anguageappl ies immedia te lyto a given word, before it is sub jec t to ( fu r ther ) morpho-logica l opera t ions . Thus , cycl ic i tyof stress ass ignmen t fo l lows fromp r i n c i p l e(5) . Since words are formed in the lexical component , the rules of wordphono logy w i l l a p p ly to those words r ight away , before they en ter thes y n t a x ,w h i c h g ives the effect tha t word phonology precedes sen tence phonology .

Why is cyc l i c ru l e app l i ca t ion des i rab l e? O ne importan t reason is tha t itaccountsfor the fact that m orphological operations, for instance th echoiceo f apa r t i cu la r a f f i x , may be dependent on der ived phonologica l proper t ies of thebase to w h i c h tha t a f f i x at taches, for in s t ance the stress pattern or prosodies t ructure . A n o t h e r a rg u m e n tis tha t , as far as stress assignment is concerned,cycl ic appl ica t ion accounts for the fact tha t in some languages the stresspattern of a c o m p l e x w o rd is not affected by every a f f i x that it conta ins : the

' The f o r m u l a t i o n 'you take a w ord , and apply thea p p l i c a b l e phono logica l ru les ' im pl ies tha t i tis wo rds t h a t fo rm c y c l ic do ma in s , no t mo rph emes . Th i s is in l ine w i t h th e conc lus ions of B r a m e(1974) and Harris (1983), w ho argue tha t cyc l ic domains m u s t b e do min a t ed b y a lexical categorynode. It isalso in l i n e w i tht he l exeme- based v i ewof morphology as advocated in Aro n o f f (1976)and And erson (1992 ) . That i s , morphology i s no t seen pr im ari ly as the ' syn tax of mor p he me s ' , b u tas a set of language-spec i f ic ru les for the c rea t i o n of c o mplex wo rds .Thepoin t tha t Le xica l Phonology iss i m p l yac o n sequen c e ofth i s min im a l a s sumpt io n isa l somade b y K a y e ( 1 9 9 2 : 1 4 1 ) .


5/29

264 E m p i r i c a l Studiesdis t inc t ion be tw een s t ress -shi f t in g and s t ress-neut ra l a f f ixes can be expressedb y a t t a ch ing the la t ter af ter stress a s s i g n m e n t .

T he ques t ion then arises h ow w e block reapp l ica t ion of the stress rule afterthe a t ta ch m en t of a s tress-neut ra l aff ix . In the standard version of LP this isachieved b y m e a n s o f leve l -order ing: the m a i n stress rule only app l ies on thefirst level , whereas s t ress-neutra l a f f ixes are at tached on a second leve l . How-ever , l eve l -order ing has a n u m b e r o f prob lem at ic p roper t ies (c f . Booi j 1994),and we can do w i t h o u t it as far as stress is concerned in the f o l l o w i n g w a y .Stress-shif t ing a f f ixes are spec i f ied as cyc l ic , w h i ch m e a ns t ha t t he y erase thestress pattern o f their base , thus i n d uc ing re a p p l i ca t ion of the main stress rule(Ha l l e and Ve rgna ud 1987) . Stress-neutra l suff ixes , on the other hand, arespecified as non-cyc l i c in the sense that they do no t erase the stress pat tern oft h e i r base . T h u s the m a i n stress rule cannot reapp ly because ex is t ing met r ica ls t ruc t u re m u s t b e respected. T he o n l y k i n d of stress tha t can be assigned tostress-neutra l suff ixes is secondary stress, a r h y t h m i c k i n d of stress (Booi j1995: 105-13).

Pr inc ip l e (5 )doesnot pred ic t tha ta ll phonologica l ru les of a language app lyin the lex icon . R ul es tha t app ly w i t h i n the dom ain of the syl lab le , the foot, orthe prosodie word can a l ready app ly in the l e x i con because these prosodieca tegories are a l ready ava i lable dur ing the cons t ruc t ion of w ords (Boo i j 1988;Inke las 1989) . However , many ru les have domains la rger than the word, e .g .the phonologica l phrase . Such ru les a re by def in i t ion pos t lex ica l ( i . e . syntac t ic )ru les , s ince the i r app l icabi l i ty depends on the a v a i l a b i l i t yof dom ains c reatedon the basis of syntac t ic s t ruc ture .

W i t h i n the lex ica l l eve l some ru les must b e cons t rued as pos tcyc l ic ( tha t is,word- leve l ) because they m u s t a p p l yaf ter a l l m orpho logy has been performed .For ins tance , the rule of Coda Devoic ing in Dutch s ta tes tha t obs t ruents arevoiceless incodap os it ion . Th i s ru le ca nno t a p p ly cy c l i c a l l y ,becausew ew o u ldthen der ive wrong phone t ic forms , such as [ h e l t i n ] for held-in 'he ro ine ' ,derived f rom held /he ld / hero , instead of the correct [ h e l d i n ] : su f f ixa t ioncauses the m orp he m e - f ina l un d e r ly ing ly vo ice d obs t rue n t to appear in onsetposi t ion, and hence it r e m a i n s vo iced .3 I ts pos tcyc l ic i ty fo l lows f rom a prohi-bi t ion on absolu te n eu t ra l iz a t io n . In o ther w ords, the ru le cannot app ly cyc l i-c a l l y b ecause of S t r ic t C yc l ic i ty , the p r inc ip le tha t forb ids the cyc l ica p p l i ca t i on of rules in a non-der ived en vi ro nm ent (p rosod ie s t ruc ture suchas 'Coda' does no t c o u n t as der ived env i ron m ent , s ince o therwise S t r ic tC yc l i c i t y w o u l d b e m a d e v a c u o u s ) .

The dis t inct ion b etween lex ical and pos t lex ical rules is a ref lec t ion of the c la ss ic ald i s t i n c t i o nb e tween ' w o r d phono logy ' and ' s en tence phono logy ' tha t can b e f o u n d in the Projet de termino-logie standardise of the P rague L ingu is t i cCirc le ( ' p h o n o l o g i e du mot ' ve r sus ' phono log ie de laphrase ' , Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de P rague 4 : 309-23), and in van W i j k (1939 : 132):'woordphono log ie ' versus 'z insphono logie ' .


6/29

Non-derivat ional and Lex ical Phonology 265So we ge t in LP three levels at w h i c h phonological rules can apply (Booi jand Rubach 1987 ) :

(6) l ex ica l l eve l : cyc l i c l eve lword levelpos t lex ica l l eve l

T he theoret ical d iscuss ion w i t h i n the f r a m e w o r k of LP also inc ludes an u m b e r of related issues, such as the hypothesis of S t r i c t Cyc l i c i ty , and thedis t inguish ingproperties of lexical rules versus postlexical rules . I will leavethese issues out of the discuss ion , because they do not bear directly on theissues discussed in th ischap te r .4

3. C O U N T E R B L E E D I N G O R D E RCoun te rb leed ing order poses a chal lenge to non -der iv at ion al theories becauseit requires an extr insic ordering of rules , whereas the constraints of non-der iva t ional phonology can be ranked, but cannot be ordered s ince they applys i m u l t a n e o u s l y .So let us inves t iga te w ha t k indof genera l iza t ion coun te rb leed-in g order is meant to express . Our f irs tcase of cou nterb leedin g order concernsthe order ingof lex ical ru les before po s t lexical ru les . T he second case involvescoun te rb leed ingorder w i t h i none cyc le of the lexical phonology of a language .

3.1 Lexica l versus postlexical phonologyT he issue at hand is tha t of the n u m b e ro f levels of abs trac t ion in phonology .Certain generalizations only hold at a certain systematic level of abstraction,andm ay b eopaqueat the phonetic surface. In OT, this kindofopacity doesn otnecessar i ly lead to the p o s t u l a t i o n of levels , because cons tra in ts arev io l a b l e ,and therefore they are also able to express generalizations that are violated atthe phonet ic sur face . But the point is tha t a certain level of abs trac t ion , inparticular the lexical level, plays a systematic role. First, I w i l l argue thatcandidates have to beeva lua ted in two steps, at the lexical and the pos t lexicallevel . Second, certain constraints are only val id fo r words , w h i c h means tha tthere is a d i f fe rent c o n s t r a in t - r a n k in gat the pos t lexical level .In this connection, I would l ike to stress that there is no logical conflictb e t w e e n O pti m al i ty Theory and (a res t ric ted form of) seria l co m pu tat ion . Thein t r ins ic con tent of OT concerns the form of ph onological gen eral izat ions , andthis does not necessarily exclude each form of serialism. This is pointed outexp l ic i t ly in Cohn and McCar thy (1994: 4 f f . , 47 f f . ) ; note, moreover , that in

4 See Hargus and Kaisse (1993) and Booi j ( 1 9 9 4 ) for a survey and discussion of these issues.


7/29

266 Empir i ca l Studiesthe ap pend ix to McC ar thy and Pr ince (1993) tw o l eve l s a r e d i s t ingu i shed fo rthe phonology of A x i n i n c a C a m p a .

T he lex i ca l / po s t l ex i ca l d i s t inc t ion is a l so acknowledged in G o l d s m i t h(1990; 1993) and inLako f f (1993) . For ins tance , Goldsmith (1993:32) positeda level be tween the u n d e r l y i n g l ev e l and the phonet ic leve l , the W- leve l . Hegave the fo l low ing cha rac ter iza t ion of these levels:5(7 ) M - le v e l, a m o r p h o p h o n e m i c l e v e l , the level a t w h i c h m o r p h e m e s a re

ph o n o lo g ica l ly specif ied;W -level, the level a t w hich express ions are s t ruc tured in to wel l - formed syl lablesand w e l l - f o r m e d w ords , b u t w i t h a m i n i m u m o f r e d u n d a n t p h o n o l o g ic a li n f o r m a t i o n ; an dP-level , a level of broad p hon et ic descrip t ion th at is the interface w ith theper iphera l a r t i cula tory and acoust ic devices .

T he relevant point hereisthat Goldsm ith acknowledgeso ne intermediate stageb e t w e e n the i n p u t leve land th eo u tp u t l eve l ,the w ord l eve l , w h ichc anr o u g h l yb e equated w i t h thephonem ic leve l of s t ruc tura l i s t phonology . In LP th i sis thelevel r eached when all lex ica l ru les have appl ied , and before the post lex ica lru les apply .

A n im por tan t m ot iv a t ion for the di s t inc t ion between a lex ica l leve l and apostlexical level is that at the lexical level certain generaliza tions hold thatm ay be made op aque in sur face s t ru ctu re due to pho nologic a l processes tha tapp ly to sequences of words in a sen tence . Inpa r t i cu la r , m any l anguag es havesegments tha t show the e f fects o f a sy l l a b i c posi t ion in which they do no tsurface ( c f . H a rgus 1993). A c lea r example from D u t c his the f o l l o w i n g .D u t c hhas a nu m ber of v ow e l - in i t ia l c l i t ic s , most o f w h ich beg in w i t h a schwa .Thesec l i t i c sob l iga tor i ly form one prosodie w ord w i t h the preceding w ord , since theycannot form a proper prosodie w ord of the i r ow n (B ooij 1995; 19 96) : aprosod ie w ord mu s t con ta in at least one s y l l a b l e w i t h a f u l l vowe l . Moreove r ,a prosodie word cannot beg in w i t h a s c h w a , w h i c h s ho w s t ha t sy l lab les headedby as c h w a m u s t h a v eanonset .T he la t te r con st ra in ti son lym et w h ena s c h w a -sy l lab le occurs in non -w ord - i n i ti a l p os i t ion , w here itw i ll a l w a y s h a v eanonse tconsonant . Therefore , s c hwa- i n i t i a l c l i t i c sa re p red ic t ab ly enc l i t i c s ( excep t insen tence- in i t i a l p o s i t io n ) . C o n s e q u e n t l y , word-f ina l obstruents of the preced-in g host word f i l l the onse t posi t ionsof the sy l lab les headed by thecl i t ic- in i t ia lvow els . Y et those ob st ru en ts tha t a re vo iced u n d e r l y i n g l y ,are voiceless in suchonset posit ions (a = sy l lab le ) :

In G oldsm i th ' s v iew , the re a re i n t r a - l ev e l an d cross- level rules . Int ra - leve l rules apply s i m u l -t an eo us ly at one par t icular level , and are harmonic , i . e . they only apply i f they improve thephonological represen tat ion . Cross- level rules express correspondences betw een tw o levels , andare not necessar i ly harmonic ; they are not to be seen as d i r ec t iona l , and are not ex t r in s i ca l lyordered.


8/29

Non-derivational and Lexical Phonology 267( 8 ) ( i k ) heb ' t 'I h a v e i t ' / h e bat/ ( h E )0 ( p a t ) a(hi j ) had ' t 'he had i t ' /had at/ (ha)CT (tat)CT( i k ) heb 'r ' I have her ' /heb a r / (he)0(par)0So, we fi rst have to a p p l y th e rule of Coda Devoic ing at the word level , andt he n , at the pos t lexical level , the a t tachm ent of v ow el- in i t ia l c l i t ic s to thepreceding w ords leads to ^sy l lab i f ica t ion , i . e . the devoiced o bs true nt is shif tedto onset posit ion. This is a typ ica l example of counterbleeding order . Thisorder need not be s t ipu lated, but fo l low s f rom the organizat ion of the gram m aras sumed in LP, and in al l other models that assume the lexical /pos t lexicaldis t inc t ion .

Instead of fo rm ula t ing Coda Devo ic ing as a rule, w e c a n also express th isgeneralization in the form of a constraint: the feature [+voice] is not license dforob s t ruen ts incoda pos i t ion ,andhence it w i l l b e d e l i n k e di nthat pos i t ion . InO T t e r m s w e m ig h t s a y tha t this is a Coda Condi t ion that impl ies that thefeature [ +v o i c e ] cannot be parsed for obs truents in coda pos i t ion . Whateverthe formof th is phonological general izat ion , the p o in t is that itonly holds at acer ta in level of abs t rac t ion of the gram m ar , before the ef fec ts of c l i t ic iza t ionon the syllabif ication of w o r d s in syntactic contexts are taken into account .

I t is not possible to solve t h i s problem by adher ing to one level of appl ica-t ion of ru les /cons tra in ts and by cons ider ing the obs truents involved as ambi-syl labic when fol lowed by such c l i t ics , as proposed by Coleman (1 9 9 5 )w i th i nthe Dec la ra t ive Phono logy f r amework , wh ich does no t acknowledge di f feren tlevels of representat ion:(9 ) M a n y standard e x a mp le s of structure-changing operations can be reanalysed as

p ure l y s t r uc t u r e -bu i l d i ng . Ana l yses emp l oy i ng a ^sy l l ab i f i ca t ion operat ion . . .w h i c h removes a consonant f rom coda pos i t ion and a t taches it to the onset node oft he fo l l ow i ng sy l l ab l e , c an b e replaced b y an ana l y s i s i n w h i c h t he coda c o n s o n a n ti s shar ed w i t h t he onset o f t he fo l l ow i ng sy l l ab l e ( am bi sy l l ab i c i t y ) . (C o l eman1995: 360)

This so lu t ion i s no t v iab le fo r Dutch , because am bis y l la b ic i ty b locks CodaDevoic ing . This can easily be seen f rom words wi th a shor t vowel . Dutch issubjec t to thecon s t ra in t tha ta r h y m ehas tocon ta in at least tw opo sit ions . In aword- in te rna l V C V sequence, the C wi l l the re fo re b e ambisy l lab ic (Van derH u l s t 1984; Booij 1995: 32) , as show n here for the word adder /adar/ 'snake':

Here, the /d/ w i l l be realized as [d] .Coda Devo ic ing , fo rmula ted in ( 1 1 ) ,doesno t app ly .


9/29

268 E m p i r i c a l Studies( 1 1 ) Coda

xl

[ s on ]

+ v o i c e ]In t e r m s of l i cens ing we can say tha t in ( 1 0 ) the fea tu re [+voice] o f the /d/ isl i censed paras i t i ca l ly (Go ldsmi th 1990), b y also b e in g l i n ked to the onse tpos i t ion . In a ru l e -bas ed app roac h , appl ica t ion of the r u l e o fCoda D ev o i c in gw i l l b e b l o c k e d by the U n i f o r m A pp l i c ab i l i t y Co n d i ti o n (UA C) o f Schein an dSteriade (1986: 727), as s h o w n in Booi j (1995: 32), or by Hayes's L i n k i n gCons t ra in t ( H a y e s 1986), w h i c h sta tes tha t associat ion l ines in s t ruc tu ra ldescr ip t ions a re in te rp re ted as e x h a u s t i v e .

T he impl ica t ion of th isp h e n o m e n o n for OT i stha t the se t o f cand idates m u s tb e ev a lu a t ed i n t wo steps, at the lexical level and at the pos t lex ica l l eve l . T om a k e th e discussion more conc re t e , le t us a s s u m e th e f o l l o w in g c o n s t r a in t s :( 1 2 ) Schwa-Onset : a sy l lab le headed by schwa m u s t have an onset.Coda Devoic ing : [+voice] is not licensed for obstruents in coda posi t ion .(The Schwa-Onset const ra in t is not e x a c t l y the same as the general Onsetconstraint that requires filling of onsets, because Dutch prosodie words canbegin wi tha ful l vowel . ) In thederived w ord hebber/ h e b + a r /[hcbsr] 'greedyperson ' , the /b/ w i l l (also) be parsed as an onset , and hence i t w i l l r ema invoiced. On the o the r hand , the /b / of heb [ h e p ] has to devoice, even if itb ec o mesthe onset of the f o l l o w i n g c l i t ic sy l la b le , as in the last ex am ple o f (8 ) ,heb er 'have her ' . Therefore , eva lua t ion m u s t take place in two steps; other-wi se , Coda Devoicing would no t ge t a chance to apply in word+c l i ti c com b i -nations. In other words, as far as Coda Devo ic ing in D u t c h is concerned,lex ica l morphemes and lex ica l combinat ions o f morphemes must be evalua tedbefore post lex ica l morpheme combinat ions are evalua ted . Note tha t th is is acasew here the sur face opac i ty o f obst ruen t devoicing is no t a ma t ter o f anothercons t r a in t domina t ing Coda Devoicing: Schwa-Onset does no t interact w i t hCodaD evo ic ing in the sense thatCodaD evo ic ing isviolateddue to the higher-ranked Schwa-Onset const ra in t . T he m i n i m a l pai r hebber heb e r [heba r ][ h c p a r ] can o n l y be accounted for by eva lua t ion in two steps.

T hecaseof D u t c his by nom e a ns an iso la ted exa m ple . There are m a n ycasesattested in the l i terature where a phonological generalizat ion that holds at thel ex ica l level is made opaque by resyl lab i f ica t ion at the sentence level . Booij( 1 9 8 4 ) and Booij and R u b a c h ( 1 9 8 7 ) m e n t i o n a n u m b e r of phonologica lgenera l iza t ions concern ing French tha t are made opaque by post lex ica l resyl-


10/29

Non-derivational a nd Lexical Phonology 269lab i f ica t ion liaison and enchanement), and Harr is (1994 : 182-3) ment ionss im i l a r fac ts of Spanish: cer ta in ru les apply to coda consonan ts wh ich subse-quen t l y becom e the onsets of the fo l low ing vow el- in i t ia l w ords. These are allcases of counterbleeding order . For ins tance, in French connected speechword-f inal consonants syllabify with the init ial vowel of the next word ofthe same phonological phrase, as in premire a m i e 'first g i r l f r i e n d '( p r 3 ) ( m j c ) ( r a ) ( m i ) . Yet , the second vowel o premire is [+ low] accordingto the ru le of Closed Syl lable A d j u s t m e n t , which says tha t m id v o w e l s are[ + l o w ] in closed syll ab les . So ^sy l l ab i f i ca t ion w ould b leed Closed Syl lab leA d jus tm e n t , if resyl labi f ica t ion app l ied before Closed S yl lab le A dju s tm ent .Therefore , the cou nterb leed ing order is requ ired . This order fo l low s f rom thefact tha t Closed S y l l a b l e A d j u s tm e n tis a ru le th a t can already apply in the

P e x i c o n , w h e r e a s resy l lab i f i ca t ion is a pos t lexical ru le because i t appl ies tosequences of words in phonological ph rases . In te res t ing ly , K ens tow icz (1994)cam e to the same c onc lus ion that con s tra in t ev alu at io n has to take place in tw ostages, based on analyses of s tress patterns in Carib, Shanghai Chinese, andPolish .

A n im p l i c a t i o nof th i s two-s tage der iva t ion /evalua t ion i s that w em us t a l lowfor resyl lab i f ica t ion , a l b e i t of a restr icted type: an o b s t r u e n t w h i c h is at onestage in coda posit ion shif ts to an onset posit ion in the next s tage . That is, theg r a m m a r m u s t a l lo w for cer ta in i n fo rma t i on to be o v e r w r i t t e n .In R u b a c handBooij (1990) i t has been proposed that resy l lab i f i ca t ion has to be a l lowed for ,but is restr icted to coda erasure at the r igh t edges of m o r p h e m e s .

In his ar t ic le on the organizat ion of the grammar , Mohanan (1995: 64)m a k e s th e fo l lowing comment on the issue under discussion here:(13) One cansubscr ibeto thehypothes is that phonologica l theory needsto separateth emodule of word - in t e rna l s t ructure from th e mo du le of s t ructure across words,

w i t h o u t necessarily assuming that the former module precedes the latter in aprocedural sense. In a non-sequent ia l c o n c ep t io n ,th e mo du lesand the levels ofrepresentation that areassociatedw i th them,are ' co-presen t ' ,asstructuresa longak mul t idimens ional space, where informat ion from different ' l eve ls ' or d imens ionsof organiza t ion is s imul taneous ly accessible to principles of the g r a mma r .

Al t hough I agree tha t m ul t id im ens io na l r epresen ta tions are necessary (seeBooi j and Lieber 1993 for arguments in favor of the co-presence of themorpho log ica l and the prosodie s truc ture of w ords) , I do see a pro ble m fort h i s ' pa ra l l e l ' in te rp re ta t ion of the lex ica l / pos t lex ica l d i s t inc t ion w h ic h is

6 It is possible to avoid a two-s tage eva lua t ion b y m a k i n g use of empty pos i t ions which arel i nke d to o ther p os i t i ons . For the case under d i s cu s s ion , th i s im p l ies tha t the onset obs truents inword + c l i t i c comb ina t ions a re co - indexed w i t h a n e m p t y coda pos i t ion in the hos t word . Onseto bs t r uen t s w o u l d t h e n b e devoiced because they are co -indexed w i th a coda position. Such anapp roach ison l y m o t i v a t e d if ev idence cou ld b e provided for s u c h 'traces' inp h o n o l o g y , and I amnot aware of such independent evidence . Moreover , such a so lu t iondoesno te x p l a i n why the onsetpos i t ion does not p a ra s i t i ca l l y l icense th e fea tu re [+vo ice ] in tha t po s i t i o n .


11/29

27 0 Empir i ca l Studiesi l lus t ra ted b y t h e D u t c hcase un der d iscuss ion : bo th m odules p er ta in to thesame d imens iono f s t ruc tu re , nam e ly p rosod ie s t r uc tu r e . T h u s , the lex i ca l andthep ost lex ica l represen ta t ion of the prosodie s t ruc tureof aD u t c h w o rd +c l i t i cc o m b i n a t i o n make con t r ad ic to ry p r ed ic t ions wi th respect to the phonetic rea-l izat ion of m o r p h e m e - f i n a l u n d e r l y i n g l y voiced obst ruen ts . T he quest ion is: isan u n d e r l y i n g /d / tha t occurs in coda pos i t ion in one d i m e n s i o n ,and inonse tposition in another one, to berealizedas a [t] or a [d]?In a deriva tional, i .e.ser ial , approach we can say that the lexical level c o m e sf irst, and tha t thereforesuch an u n d e r l y i n g /d/ is to be p ronounced as a [ t ] . W h a t thed e r i v a t i o n a lmetaphor cor rect ly expresses is tha t th e lexical level takes pr ior i ty over thepos t lex ica l level , and th i s is what phonologica l theory has to express as aun ive r sa l o f g rammat i ca l o rgan iza t ion .3 . 1 . 1 Correspondenc e theoryThereseems to be an alternative in OT for cap tu r ing th e dist inct ion be tweenthe l e x i c a land the post lex ica l leve l :the genera l ized theory o f Correspondenceadvocated , for in s tance , in M c C a r t h y ( 1 9 9 5 ) , w h i c h a l l o w s fo rc o n s t r a i n tso nther e la t ion be tw eentheo u t p u t f o r m so fre la ted words . S im i la r ideas have beenput f o r w a r db y B urz io (1995; 1996) and F l e m m i ng& Kens towicz ( 1995 ) , w hoalsoa rgue in f avo rof ident i tyc ons t r a in tson theo u t p u t fo rmsof related words.T he i n t r o d u c t i o no f ou tpu t -ou tpu t c ons t r a in t s m eans tha t th e p a r a d i g m a t i cre la t ions be tween words p lay a role in the c o m p u t a t i o n of the phone t i c formof aword. That is, it is a form of paradigmat icphonology.

Suppose now tha t w e assume an ident i ty const ra in t tha t requ i res th e pho-net i c f o r m s of m o r p h e m e s in d i f f eren t con tex t s to be id e n t i ca l . C lea r ly , th i sm u s t b e a v io la b le cons t r a in t because o the rwise morphemes wou ld neve r b ea l l o w e d to have a l l o m o r p h s . In the case under d iscuss ion it is only fea tura lident i ty tha t is r e q u i r e d ; the prosodie s t ructure m i g h t b e d i f f eren t : the /b / o fheb ' h a v e ' is a coda, b u t tha t of heb er ' have he r ' is an onset . T he FeatureIdent i ty cons t r a in t w i l l induce ove rapp l i ca t iono f Coda D e v o i c i n g : the /b / inheb er isdevoiced although i t should not be, since it is in onset position. .N ote, how ever , t ha tw e s t i l l h a v eto d i f f eren t ia te b e t w e e n suf f ixes and c l i t i c sw i t h respect to the i r e f fect on the phone t i c fo rms o f morphemes : the FeatureIdent i ty const ra in t should no t a p p l y to m o r p h e m e s f o l l o w e d b y a suff ix . F orins tance , whereas the morpheme heb sur faces as [hep] in i so la t ion and beforecl i t ics , i t sur faces as [heb ] be fo re vow e l - in i t i a l suf f ixes . I f we do not haverecourse to ordering of ru les , w e therefore have to assume co-phonologies .Tha t is, a l anguage then has more than one phonologica l sys tem. Each sub-system is formed by a language-specific r ank ing of the universa l constraints .Each of the co-phonologies app l ies to a par t icu lar dom ain of the langua ge , fo rins tance , the word domain or the domain of non-nat ive words . In the caseu n d e r discuss ion , w e h a v e to a s s u m e tw o co-phonologies fo r D u t c h : one inw h i c h f a i t h f u l n e s s cons t r a in t s dom ina te the Feature I d e n t i t y Const ra in t ( the


12/29

Non-der iva t ional a nd Lexical Phonology 27 1l ex ica l co-phon ology, in w hic h the fea ture [+ voice ] of the re lev ant ob s t ruentsis parsed) , and one in w h ic h the Fea ture Id ent i ty Co nst ra in t dom ina tes Fa i th-fu lness (pos t lex ica l p hon ology , in w hich the re levant f ea ture [+ voice ] i s notparsed).It seems to m e tha t us ing Correspondence Theory for the e l im ina t io n ofeva l ua t i on in two steps, a t the lex ica l and the pos t lex ica l l eve l , i s not r ight ,be ca use it forces us to a s s u m e tw o co-p hono log ie s wi t h d i f f e r e n t r a n k i n g so fthe Fea tura l Iden t i ty co ns t ra in t , w hereas the fac t s d i scussed here d i rec t lyf o l l o w w i t h o u t d i f fe rent r a n k i n g s i f we e va lua t e i n t wo steps, at the l e x i c a lleve l and s u b s e q u e n t l yat the pos t lex ica l l eve l ( see In k e las , Org un , and Zol l ,Chap te r 13 below , for spe cif ic d isc uss ion of the issue of co-ph onologies) .|p 1.2 The systematici ty of the lexical levelThe lex ica l l eve l de fended here as an in te rmedia te s tep in the computa t ion of

phone t ic forms has a sys temat ic role in the g r am m a r , in tha t the cons t ra in ts o fword p hono logy a re dif ferent f rom those of sentence phonology . For ins tance ,m a n y cons t ra in t sth a t a p p l yto consonant c lus te rs inD u t c h w o r d s, do no ta p p l yt o p o s t l e x i c a l c o m b i n a t i o n so f consona n t s in prosodie word s t ha t are clitic-hostc o m b i n a t io n s :( 1 4 ) t f - ' t va l t ' i t fa l l s '

k b - 'k ben 'I am'ks - ' k za l ' I w i l l 'ty- 't gaat 'it goes'

S i m i l a r l y , Del l (1995) pointed ou t th a t the p hono ta c t i c s o f French at the wordlevel is m uch m ore re s t r i c t e d tha n tha t a f te r the a p p l i ca t i on of in f lec t ion ands y n t a x , w h i c h re f l ec t s the t ra d i t i ona l d i s t i nc t i on be tw e e n ' p hono log ica l sy l la -b le ' and 'phone t ic sy l lable ' .

In s u m , the c l a s s i c a l d i s t i nc t i on be tw e e n w ord p hono logy an d sentencep hono logy , wh i ch f o rm s p a r t of the LP model of the gra m m a r , shou ld b em a i n t a i n e d w h a t e v e r the f o r m a t o fone's phonologica l genera l iza t ions .) W ha t t he d e r iva t iona l m e ta p hor o f e v a l u a t i o n in two steps expresses is tha tthe p os t l e x i ca l p hono logy m ay m a k e the e f fec ts of the l e x i ca l p hono logyop a que , whe re a s the inve rse , l e x i ca l p hono logy m a k ing th e p os t l e x i ca l p ho-no logy op a que , does not occur . Tha t i s , we should not in terpre t the twop hono log ie s a s co -p hono log ie s t ha t a p p ly s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , but as sequ en t i a l l yordered phonologies . In th i s w a y , w e also avoid the need to a s sum e a FeatureIdent i ty Cons t ra in t w i t h tw o d i f f eren t r a n k i n g s .

3.2 Cyclic applicat ion of rulesCy cl ic ru le app l ic a t io n has been a pe rs i s tent top ic in gen era t ive phon ologys ince SPE. T he cy c l ic app l ic a t io n of ru les has been par t and parce l of L ex ica l


13/29

272 Em pirical StudiesPhonology , and fo l l o w s from the basic claim of Lexica l Phonology tha tphono logy and morphology apply in t andem, as outl ined above.

W h a t I w i l l not discuss here is how far cycl ic appl ica t ionof stress rules (theclassic case of ru l e cyc l i c i t y )is necessary in order to derive the correct stresspatterns of complex words.7 I w i l l focus on twootheraspects of the cyclicityhypo thes i s in LP:( 1 5 ) ( i) m orphological ru les m ay refer to derived phonological propert ies o f the i ri np u t s ;

( i i ) morphological and phonological ru les may refer to phonological proper t iesthat never c o m e to the surface.T he qu es t ion , t hen , is how farthese ins ig hts conc ern ingthe organiza t ionof theg r a m m a r i m p l y a der iva t ional approach to phonology .

A s t ra igh t fo rward example of the dependence of morpho logy on derivedphonological propert ies of its inp u t s is the case of Germ an pas t pa r t i c i p l e s ,w h i c h are formed by suf f ixa t ion of -en (strong verbs) or t/d (weak verbs) , andby s i m u l t an e o u spref ixa t ion of ge- if the first syl lableof the verbal stem carriesm a i n stress:( 16) Verb stem Past participle

lauf ' w a l k ' g e l a u f e nfil trier 'fi l ter ' fi l trier treaktivi 'er ' reac t ivate ' reak t iv ier tSuchag enera l iza t ion can , b u tneed not necessari ly ,b eexpressed in the formof

a cycl ic der iva t ion in w h i c h first stress is assigned to the verba l s tem, andsubsequently past-participleform at ion takesplace.It isalsopossible toexpressthisg enera l iza t ionas an o u t p u tc onst ra in t w hic h sta tes tha t the presence of g e-ison ly l icensed b y a fo l low ing sy l l ab l ew i th main stress, because thei n fo rm a -t ion on the stress pattern of the verbal stem w i l l be p resen t at the surface .

A n o t h e r i l lus t ra t ion of the first of these tw o i m p l i c a t i o n sof the L P model isnoun p l u ra l i z a t i on in D u t c h . D u t c h ha s two c o m p e t i n g suff ixes fo rp l u r a l i z a -t ion , -s /s/ and -en /an / .The select ion of the correct suff ix isde te rmined by thestress pattern of the base word:( 1 7 ) -en af ter a s tem ending in a stressed sy l l ab l e-s af ter a s tem ending in an unst ressed sy l lab leT he f o l low ing e x a m p l e s i l lus t rate th i s select ion pat tern:( 1 8 ) (a ) dam ' id . ' dam m -en

k a n o n ' g u n ' k a n o n n - e nka n a a l ' c h a n n e l ' k an l - enledikant 'bed' l d i k n t - enol i fan t ' e l ephan t ' l i f an t - en

7 A survey and an a ly s i sof the discuss ions of this topic can be f ound inCole ( 1 9 9 5 ) .


14/29

Non-der ivat ional and Lexical Phonology 273(b ) k a n o n 'canon' kanon-sbezam 'sw eep ' bezam -stoga 'gow n' toga-s

professor ' id . ' professor-sAl though there are a nu m b er of comp l ica t ions w i th respect to the p lura l iza t ionof loanwords and certain types of complex w o r d ,8 th is general izat ion concern-in g the role of stress is an es tab l i shed ins ightin Dutch morphology (cf . Booi jand van Santen 1995: 64 f f . ) .

T he basic propert ies of the Dutch stress system are as fol lows. Main stressfalls on the pen u l t im a te sy l lab l e of a word , un less its last syl lable is super-heavy (i .e . contains a VVC- or VCC-rhyme); in the lat tercasem ain stress fal ls

Io n the f i n a l sy l lab le . H ow ever , cer ta in French loan words such as kanon 'gun 'and trompet ' t rum pe t ' hav e final stress al thoug h they do not end in a super-heavy sy l lab le ,and therefore have to be d iac r i t ica l ly m arked as [+ F] (mn e -m o n i c a l l y for [+ French ] ) . W e also find w o rd s w i t h antep enu l t im ate s tress , inw h i c h the last syl lable has to be marked as extrametrical . So, unless i ts lastsyllable issup e rheavy , m arked as [+ F] , orext ramet r ica l ,a Dutch w ord ends ina syl labic trochee. Secondary stress is determined by a lexical rule of al ter-nat ing stress . Furthermore, syl lables headed by schwa never bear stress. T h u sto a large extent the stress pat terns of Dutch words are predictable .

T he facts concern ing the select ion of the correct p lu ra l suffix g iven aboveform aperfect illustration of LP's claim that phonology and m orphology applyin t a n d e m , and tha t morphology m a y b e dependent on derived phonologicalpropert ies . On the fi rst cycle , stress is assigned to the no m ina l stem. O n thesecond cyc l e , where the p lu ra l suff ix is at tached, the rule can m a k e use of therelevant , predictable info rm ation conc erning the stress p at tern of the nom inals tem.

These plura l suff ixes , l ike all inf lect ional suff ixes of Du tch , are stress-neutra l : they do not inf luence the stress pat tern of their stems. We have tocreate someprovision forthis .Forinstance,if the -softoga s 'gowns' counted' for st ress assig nm ent ,thelas t sy l lab leofth i s p lu ra l fo rm w ou ldb e superheavy ,since it srhy m e consis ts of a long vow el fo l lowed by aconsonant/s/,and hencecarry main stress . This is incorrect, since it is the first syl lable ofth is word tha tcarries main stress. In LP stress ne utra l i ty can b e expressed by the ordering ofrule blocks: the rules of inf lect ional m orphology are ordered after the M ainSt ress R ule of Du tch . Al terna t ive ly , w e may not assume ordered ru le b locks ,but mark stress-neutral suf f ixes as noncycl ic suff ixes in the sense of Ha l l eandVergnaud (1987), which implies that they do not trigger reapplication of the

8 For instance, insome ty pes of c o mplex wo rd w i th a suff ix ending in schwa, the der iva t ionalsuff ix m ay de t e rmin e the select ion of the plura l su f f ix : d i m i n u t i v e n o u n s , w h i c h end in s c h w a ,a l w a y s requi re -s as th e i r p l u ra l suf f ix . En g l i sh loans often have a p l u r a l suffix -s even when theyend instressed syllable, as in tram-s.


15/29

27 4 Empir ica l StudiesM a i n Stress R u l e o f Dutch ,aso u t l i n e dinsection 2 .This la t tera l t e rna t i ve is tob e prefer red, because there exis t complex words in D u t c h in w h i c ha stress-neut ra l suff ix precedes a s t ress -shif t ingo ne (Booi j 1995) , w h ic h is an obviousp r o b l e m for the ordered-b locks ana lys i s.Is a non-d er ivat io nal accou nt of these fac ts poss ib le? To b egin w i th , theprosodie cons tra in t involved in the selection of p l u r a l suf f ixes can be used asan argument for output constraints instead of rules that select th e correcta l l o m o r p h . T he e f fec t of the genera l i za t ions g iven in ( 1 7 ) is tha t a p lu r a ln o u n w i l l a l w a y s end in a disy l lab ic t rochee . That is, the f o l l o w i n g ( v i o l a b l e )o u t p u t cons t ra in t can be as sumed for D u t c h :( 1 9 ) Words end in a s y l l a b i ctrochee.T he a d v a n t a g eof s u c ha n o u tp u t c o n s t r a i n tis tha t the func t iona l m o t iv a t i o n f o r th e condi t ions on the choice between -s and -en is expressed, whereas ageneral izat ion such as ( 1 7 ) does not express this : if the inverse conditionsappl ied -s after s tressed syllables , -en after unstressed syllables) , the ru lesw o u l d not be more compl ica ted .

A consequence of th is OT-type of approach to a l l o m o r p h y is tha t G E Ngenerates tw o candidate sets fo r each p l u ra l n o u n , one for the n o u n e n d in gin -s and one for the same no un end ing in -en. S i m i l a r a r g u m e n t sfor such ano u t p u t cons t ra in t -based approach to prosodica l ly de te rmined a l lomorphy a reprovided b y Trane l ( 1 9 9 4 ) for French and by K a g e r ( 1 9 9 5 ) for Es ton ian .Given aconstraint-based accoun t o f the p lu ra l suf f ix a l lomo rphy o f Dutch ,the q u e s t i o n r e m a in s ho w w e a c c o u n t for the fact that the p lu r a laff ixes do notaf fec t the locat ion of the m ain s tress . Inc o m p u t in gth e prosodie s t ruc tureof ap lu r a l n o u n , the p lu r a l suf f ix m u s t b e ignored as far as the location of m a i ns t ress is concerned . O therwise , a p l u ra l f o r m s u c h astoga s / to:7a:s/ ' g o w n s 'w o u l d get f inal s tress , just l ike solaas /so:la:s/ 'solace', because bo th wordsend in a sup erhea vy sy l lab le . S tr ess n eu t r a l i t y ca n be a c c o u n t e d for ind e r i v a -t iona l theories b y cyc l ic der ivat ion:( 2 0 ) 1st c y c l e /to:ya:/

M a i n St ress Rule o:2nd c y c l eSuff ixa t ion + sM a i n Stress R u l e [b locked ; see be low ]p hone t i c fo rm [ to :ya :s |

A p p l i c a t i o nof theM ain S tres s Ru leon the second cycle isb lock ed because thesuffix -s ism arked as asuff ix thatdoesnot induce s tress erasure,and thereforethe e x i s t i n g m e t r i c a l st r u c t u r eis respec ted .I t is not possible to ob ta in th i s cyc l i c i tye f fec t by an a l i g n m e n t c o n s t r a in t( M c C a r t h y and Pr ince 1994 ) w h ich requ i resthe r igh t edge o f a stem to a l ignw i t h the r igh t edge of a foot . This k i n d o f s o lu t i o nis proposed in Cohn and


16/29

Non-derivat ional and Lex ical Phonology 27 5M c C a r t h y ( 1 9 9 4 ) for Indone sian . As they po int ou t , th is w orks for cases inw h i c h the stem is fo l lowed by a suff ix of the CV form. Vowel- in i t ia l su f f ixesof Indonesian, on the other hand, do not allow for such an a l i g n m e n t becausethe suff ix- ini t ia l vowel fo rms a syllable with the stem-final consonant , andCohn and McCar thy (1 9 9 4 )c la im tha t it isp recisely insuchcases that there isn o c y c l i c i t ye f fec t . In the Dutchcase under discussion here, however , there ispreservat ion of the location of ma in stress of the s tem, a l though there is noa l i g n m e n t of the r ight edge of the stem and the r igh t edge of a foot, as thefo l l owi ng exa m ples i l lus t ra te ( the r igh t s tern edge is indicated b y ] ) :( 2 1 ) toga-s ' gowns ' F

o ato: ya:]s

kandl -en ' channe l s ' F

t\ka: na: l | .mThat is, the stress-neutral suff ixes m u s t b e incorporated into the prosodiestructure of the words they belong to af ter the in i t ia l determinat ion of theprosodie s t r u c t u r e ( i n c l u d i n g m a i n stress ass ignment) . Subsequent ly , the pro-sodie structure w i l l b e par t ia l ly recomp uted . This is necessary because theou t pu t const ra in t on p lura l nouns tha t they must end in a trochee must ev i -dent ly be eva lua ted wi th respect to the prosodie struc ture of the w hole plu ralf o rm , i n c l u d i n g the inf lec t iona l suff ix . Therefore, the cyc l ic i ty e f fect under

^discuss ion here cannot b e obtained through a l i g n m e n t .9So i tseems that w ehave to assum e tw ostageshere within word phonology,w h i c h can be character ized in terms of al ignment differences: at the f irst levelthe r i g h tedge of prosodie s t ructu re m ust a l ign w i th the m orphologica l bound-ary before the inf lect ional suf f ix ; at the second level the r ight edge of theprosodie s t ructure must a l ign wi th the r igh t wo rd edge . That is , we have toassume tw o steps in the c o m p u t a t i o n of the proper form of a w o r d .1 0

An alternative for cyclic der ivation is the use of anti-al lomorphy constraints(Burzio 1995; 1996), alsocalled iden ti ty constraints (Flem m ing andK e n st ow i c z

9 T he same problem holds for the solution suggested b y K e n s to w i c z (1994 : 21 ) .10 Orgun ( 1 9 9 4 ) reaches th e same conc lusion tha t not all cyc l ic i ty e f fec ts can b e accounted forb y m ean s of a l i g n m e n t c o n d i t io n s , on the basis of data f rom Turkish .


17/29

276 E m p i r i c a l Studies1995) , or correspondence cons t r a in t s (McCar thy 1995). T he idea is that thereis a c lass of const ra in ts tha t requ i re the outpu t fo rm of the stem o f a c o m p l e xw o r d to be m a x i m a l l y s i m i l a rto the outpu t fo rm of the corresponding lexic ali t em . F o re x a m p l e, w em i g h t a s su m e an iden t i ty cons t r a in t (Head Iden t i ty ) tha trequ i res th e head of the prosodie word of toga s 'gowns', th e vowel /o:/ , tom a t c h th e head of the prosodie w o r d of toga.

Stress neutral i ty is not a property of al l Dutch suff ixes, however : non -na t ivesuf f ixes do affect the location of the main stress, and such s tem + non-nat ivesuff ix comb ina t ions behave w i t h respec t to stress assignment as i f they areunder ived . Therefore , the Head Iden t i ty cons t ra in tdoes no t a p p l y to the non-na t ive part of the m orphologica l sys tem of D u t c h . We a re thus forced toassume tw o co-phonologies fo r D u t c h : a nat ive and a n o n - n a t i v ec o - p h o n o l -.ogy , w i th d i f fere n t const ra in t rank ings . In the na t i ve co-phon ology , the con-*s t ra in t tha t final supe rheavy sy l l ab le s are the heads of prosodie words(Su perh eavy ) is dom inated b y the Head Ide nt i ty con st ra in t tha t requ i res iden-tity w i t h respec t to prosodie headsh ip . In the non- nat iv e co-phonology , ther a n k i n g o f these tw o const ra in ts is the inverse . Compare the eva lua t ion oftoga s w i t h the evalua t ion of the de-ad ject iva l noun absurditeit ' a b s u r d i t y ' ,der ived from the adject ive absurd ' id . ' w i th the non -na t ivesuff ix -iteit ' - i ty ' :(22)

toga-stoga-s

Head Iden t i t y

*i

Superheavy*

absrd- i te i t absurd- i t i t

S u p e r h e a v y*i

Head I d en t i t y

*

T he exis tence o f co-phonologies im pl i es cycl ic evalua t ion of const ra in ts :each suffix in its tu r n de te rm ines w h ich co -phono logy governs the eva lua t ion .For instance, the plura l fo rm o f absurditeit ' ab su rd i ty ' is absurditeit-en. Fortheevalua t ion o fth is word w ehave to use thenat ive co-phonology becausethep l u ra l suff ix ind uc es na t iv e phonology . In order to check Head I dent i ty , w ehave tolook at the outpu t fo rmof itss t em ,abxurd-iteit.T he ou tp u t fo rm ofth i sword can on ly be computed by f i r s t comput ing the ou tpu t o f i t s base absurd.Cruc ia l ly ,w e cannot d i rect ly comp are absurditeiten w i thabsurd, because thenwe wou ld have to conc lude tha t the Head Id e n t i ty Constraint is violated ( inabsurditeiten the part absurddoes not bear main stress) . That is, the in t roduc-


18/29

Non-derivational andLexicalPhonology 277t ion o f correspondence con s t ra in t s invo lves cyc l i c evalua t ion o f c o m p l e xwords in languages w i th co-phonologies,a form ofserial computa t ion .

4 . C O U N T E R F E E D I N G R U L E O R D E RCounterfeedingorderis aform ofextrinsic rule ordering thatisclearly atoddsw i t h non -de r i va t i on a l phono l ogy . I s hou l d add, how ever , t h a t i t i salso a fo rmof ru le o rder ing tha t should b e avoided as m u c h as possible in de r i va t i ona lp h o n o l o g y . It is to be avoided s ince it is essen t ia l ly s t ipu la t ive , anddoes notf o l l o w f rom t he o rgan i z a ti on o f the g ramm ar , u n l i k e t he app l i c a t ion o f lex i c a l

Pules before pos t l ex ica lones, or the app l i c a t i on o f a ru le on a cycle before theapp l i c a t i on o f another ru le on the n e x t cycle.W hereas cy c l i c i ty is no t necessar ily in con f l i c t w i th a co ns t ra in t -based

app roac h , the ext r ins ic o rder ing o f rules w i t h i n a cyc le c lear ly i s . So theques t i on is w h e t h e r we ca n d o a w a y w i t h t h i s k i n d o f ext r ins ic o rder ing .T he c om b i na t i on o f c yc l i c app l i c a t i on and ex t r i n s i c o rde r i ng o f ru l e s tha t isof ten fou nd in L P analyses can be i l lus t ra ted on the bas i s o f the fo l low ing fac t so f Du t c h d i s c u s s ed in Booi j (1995: 8 0 ff . ) . N o n - n a t i v e w o rd s e n d i n g in asy l l a b le w i t h a V C r h y m e t h a t does n o t bea r ma i n s t r e s s exh i b i t vowe llengthening: the v o w e l of the last syl lable is lengthened before non-nat ivesu f f i xes , w h i c h are al l v ow e l - i n i ti a l . C ons i de r th e f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s :( 2 3 ) kan[o]n 'canon' kan[o:]nfek 'canonical '

mot[3 ] r 'engine ' mot[o :J r isch 'engine- 'mot [o : ]nek ' w a yof m oving '

s ; i i [ u | i i 'id.' sat[a:]nisch 'satanical 'al fab(c ) t 'a lphabet ' alfab[e:]t isch 'a lphabe t ica l 'profess[a]r ' id . ' profess[o:]raal 'professorial 'profess[o:]raat 'professorate'^ organisat[o]r 'organizer ' organisat[o:]risch 'organiza t ional 'alcoh[D]l ' id . ' alcoh[o:] l isch 'a lcohol ic-A'alcoh[o:] list 'alcoholic-N'

The c ruc ia l condi t ion i s tha t the sy l l ab le t ha t i s l eng t heneddoes no t bea r ma i nstress in thebase word . Given th i s s t ress condi t ion on v o w e l l e n g t h e n i n g ,t hev o w e l s o f m o n o s y l l a b i c base w o r d s w i l l n e v e r b e leng thened because theya l w a y s have main s t ress . T he st ress pat tern of the bas e wo rd , however , is notpreserved in the complex word : as po in ted ou t above , non-nat ivesu f f i xes erasethe st ress pat tern of thebase w o rd w h e n the s t ress pa t t e rnof the der ived wordis c ompu t ed . In t he c ompl ex wo rds , ma i n s t r e s s fa l l s on the last stressables y l lab l e ( exc ep t fo r w o rds w i t h t he suff ix -isch, w h e r e m a i nstress fal ls on thelast sy l lab le before the su f f ix ) . W e also f i nd nea r -m i n i ma l pa i r s s uc h a s


19/29

278 Empirical Studiesknonek [ ka : no : n i : k ] ' c anon i c a l ' de r i ved f rom knon 'canon' ve r s u s kanon-nier [ ka : non i : r ] ' gun man ' , de r i ved f rom th e w o r d kanon 'gun':( 2 4 ) Nolengthening

ton 'id.' t | D J n n a g e 'number of tons'blok ' b l oc k ' bl [3]kkeer 't ob l o c k 'kanon ' g u n ' k a n [ D ] n n f e r gunm a n 'model ' id . ' mod[e]l leer 't om o d e l'libretto ' id . ' l i b r ( c ] t t f s t ' i d . 'T he stress of a l lbase w o r d s i n v o l v e d is regu lar , and hence predic tab le b y rule( exc ep t fo r d i s y l l ab i c wo rds s uc h a s kanon ' g u n ' : t h i s word fo rms a m i n i m a lp a i r w i t h th e regu lar ly s t ressed knon 'canon'). So the bas i c i ng red i en t s o fru le-based L P f o r express ing th e genera l i za t ion invo lved are: cyc l i c assign-gm e n t o f stress, and ext r ins ic o rder ing of v o w e l l e n g t h e n i n g b e f o re stress"a s s i g n m e n t . These ru l e s have to be ordered in c o u n t e r f e e d in gorder, bec aus eo t h e r w i s eStress E rasu re w ou l d feed V ow e l Le ng t hen i ng , w i t h i n co r rec t r e s u l ts( l eng t hen i ng o f the s ec ond vo w e l ) fo r a wo rd l i ke kanonnier der ived f romkanon. F o r i n s t anc e , the LP d e r i v a t i o n ofkanonnier runs as f o l l o w s :( 2 5 ) 1stcyc le | k a :n 3 n ]NM a in StressRule 52nd cycle [ | ka : n A n ) N i : r ] N

Vowel Lengthening blockedStress Erasure oM a i n StressRule f:Secondary Stress output [ k a : n D n f : r ]

T h i s de r i va t i on p re s uppos es aga i n t ha t non -na t i vesuf f ixes a re c yc l i c su f f i xesin the sense o f H a l le a n d V e r g n a u d ( 1 9 8 7 ) , w h i c h m e a n s t h a t t h e y erase thestresspat te rn o f t he i rbase w o r d, a f te r w h i c h th e M ain St ress R u l e is reapp l i edt o the w ho l e s t r ing i n c l ud i ng t he s u f f i x . Th is n ice ly i l lu s t ra te s the idea t ha tphonolog ica l ru les m a y re fe r to pho nolog ica l p roper t ies tha t nevercome to thesur face .

N o t e t h a t the b l o c k i n g o f v o w e l l e n g t h e n i n g c a n n o t b e m a d e d e p e n d e n t onthe presence o f the d iac r i t i c fea tu re [+ F] tha t i s necessary t o ge t exc ep t i ona lm a i n stress on words s uc h as kanon and trompet. T he reason is tha t there area l s o wo rds s uc h as to n an d libretto w i t h r egu l a r s tr e ss , w he re th e stressedv o w e l also re s i s t s l eng t hen i ng .

If th i s type o f analy s i s w ere the on ly poss ib le accou nt , i t w ould fo rm as t rong case in favo r of a ru le-based approach to phono l ogy , in the s p i r i t o fB r o m b e r g e r and H a l l e ( 1 9 8 9 ) , w ho c l a i m t h at it ise x t r i n s i c o rde r ing o f ru l e st ha t di s t ing u ish es phonology f rom th e other c omponen t s of the g r a m m a r .However, as has been pointed out by e.g. L akoff (1993) and Coleman(1995), it ispossible to reanalyse th e Bromberger-Halle d a ta w i t h o u t m a k i n g


20/29

Non-derivat ional and Lex ical Phonology 279use of ex tr insic ordering. G ene rally , the use of extr ins ic ordering of rule s sho uldbe avoided as m u c h as possible in a constrained theory of phonology, sinceex t r ins ic ordering adds to the n u m b e r of s t ipu la t ions in the g r a m m a r of apart icular language . I t is preferable to have a theoryof ru le or con straint inter-act ion that can do w i t h o u t the device o f st ipulated extr insic ordering. In thisrespect extrinsic ordering isd i f fe rent from cyclic rule applicat ion, because thela t te r need no t be s tipu la ted , bu t fo l low s f rom the pr incip le ' apply a ru le w henposs ib le ' . It isalsoth e goal of LP to reduce th eorderof app l i ca t ionof ru lesasm u c h aspossible tou n ive r sa l p r inc ip le s suchas the Elsew here Condi tion .4 .1 Correspondence constraints?

fone poss ib le so lu t ion to th is desc r ip t ive prob lem w i th in the cor respondencetheory proposed b y F l e m m i n g and K e n s t o w i c z (1995 ) is the fo l lowing : ' theconstraint requiring a stem final vowel to be long isdom inatedby a const ra intthat matches the head of the prosodie word of the base w ith the correspondingv o w e l in thede r ived s t r uc tu re ' . W ha t th i s fo rm u la t ion imp l i e sis the fo l lowing :in a word such as kanonnier (derived from kanon) the v o w e l of the secondsy l lab le may not be lengthened because i t may not be d i f fe rent f rom the vowelof the second syllableofkanon,th i s vow el being the head of the prosodie w ordof the base (i.e. it bears main stress) . On the other hand, the v o w e l of thesecond syllable of kanoniek can be lengthened because th is vowel does notcorrespond to the head of the prosodie word of the base , w h i c h is the firstv o w e l of the base , the /a/. This is a typ i ca l ly pa rad igm a t i c so lu t ion : a l thoug hthere is no p r i m a r y stress on the second sy l lab leo f kanonnier that can b lockth e lengthe ning , there issuch a primary stress on the cor responding base word .

A l t h o u g h I do not w a nttoe x c l u d e the possib i l i ty tha t paradigm at ic re la t ionsmay play a role in phonology, i t is at present a very unconstrained device .Therefore, it is w o r t h w h i l eto inves t iga te w he the ran a l t e r n a t i v e a n a l y s i s w i t h -ou t correspondence constraints is possib le . Such an ana ly s i s wou ld run asf o l l o w s . N on-n a t ive w ords in Du tch o f ten appear to have two d i f feren t fo rms*m der iva t ional morphology , one for non-nat ivesuff ixation and one for nativesuff ixat ion . Somet imes , the a l lomorph that is used in non-native suff ixation isnot even pronounceable as such, that is , i t is not a proper prosodie word, as isth e case for the a l l o m o r p h filtr of the word filter 'id.'. Also, it is oftenimposs ib le to der ive one a l lom orph f rom the o ther by means o f a phonologica lrule . Consider the follo w ing ex am ple s ( from Booij 1995: 83):(26) orke st 'orch estra ' orkestr-eer 't o orches t ra te '

g y m n a s i u m ' g ra m m a r s ch o o l ' g y m n a s i - a st ' g ra m m a r s cho o l pu p i l 'traum a ' id . ' t raum at- isch 'traumatic'f u n c t i e ' f un c t io n ' f un c t io n - e e r 'to f u n c t i o n 'hor izon ' id . ' hor izo n t-aa l ' hor iz on ta l 'orgel ' o r g a n ' organ- is t 'organ player '


21/29

280 Empirical StudiesT h e c o n c l u s i o n to d ra w f rom the se e x a m p le s is tha t fo r s u c h ( n o n - n a t i v e )word s tw o s t e m a l lom orp hs ha ve to be l is ted , one tha t i s subca tego r i zed fo rn o n - n a t i v e suf f ixa t ion and one tha t has no subca tegor iza t ion , the de faul ta l lomorph . The d e f a u l t a l l o m o r p h is chosen w he n the w o r d is used as as i m p l e x w o r d , in pref ixa t ion , and in n a t i v e suf f ixa t ion .

W e m i g h t t h en use the same stra tegy forcasessuch asknonknoniek, andl is t two s tem a l lomorphs in the lex icon for the re levant word : /ka:non/ an d/ka:no:n/. The only d isadvantage of th i s s o lu t ion i s t ha t we d o n o t d e rive onea l lom orp h f rom the other by m e a ns o f a r e gu la r ru l e o f p hono logy , a s wa sposs ib le in the ana lys i s p resented above . Note , however , tha t the ru le of vowell e n g t h e n i n g does no t ha ve the cha ra c t e r of an a u tom a t i c p hono log i cal ru l ea n y w a y , s ince i t s app l ica t ion i s res t ri c ted to non -na t ive com plex w ords. I thas excep t ions su ch as claxonneer 'to sound one's horn ' , de r ived f romE ng l i s h loan klaxon 'horn'.

A s a rgue d by A ronof f (199 4 ) , t he re is a m p le e v ide nce f rom a num be r o flanguages for lex ica l ru les tha t de r ive one s tem a l lomorph f rom another one ina sys t e m a t i c way (see alsoSpencer 1988)."In thecase under d iscuss ion here,t h i s ru l e wou ld ha ve th e f o l l o w i n g f o r m :(27) Non-na t ive morphemes ending in . . . V C , V j C have an a l lomorph in. . . V C | V j V | C subcategorized for non-nat ive suffixat ion.

Condi t ion: the morpheme does not bearth e diacritic feature |+ FJ .B y re qu i r ing the absence of [+ F] (= [+French]), we e nsure t ha t on ly thosem o r p h e m e s in -VC|VC tha t do no t carry main s t ress get an a l l o m o r p h w i t h along v o w e l in the f inal sy l l a b l e . S oknon / k a : n o n / 'canon' has an a l l o m o r p h/ k a :no :n / , bu tkanon 'gun', w i t h the excep t iona l w ord- f in a l s tress t riggered b ythe fea ture [ + F ] does no t . M onosy l l a b i c word s such as to n and p o l y s y l l a b i cword s such as libretto do no t h a v e the p hono log i ca l f o rm re qu i re d by thea l lom orp hy ru l e , a nd he nce d o no t e x h ib i t vowe l l e ng the n ing .

There isind e p e nd e n t e v id e nce for a s t e m a l lom orp hy a na lys i s inthesecases.N o n - n a t i v e nouns e nd ing in -o n o r -o ralso e x h i b i t th i s v o w e l - le n g t h a l te rna-t ion op t iona l ly in s ingu la r-p lura l pa i rs:(28) Singular Plural Derived worddmon ' d e m o n ' dmons /dem| : ]nen dem[ : )n i sch 'demoniac '

elektron 'e lec t ron ' elktrons /e lektr | : ]nen elektr [ : ]n isch 'electronic 'motor 'engine ' m tors /mot | : ]ren mot[: ] r i sch 'engine- 'doctor 'doctor' doctors/doct[o:]ren doct[o:]raal 'doctoral '

1 ' N ote that Spencer (1988) uses the term 'morpho lex i ca l r u l e ' for l e x i c a l r e d u n d a n c y r u l e stha tre la te two or more l i s t ed a l lomorphs , whereas I use the t e rm , l ike Anderson, as a s y n o n y mof'morphono log ica l rule ' , i .e . ap hono log ica l r u l e cond i t ioned b y non-phono log ica l (morpho log ica land/or l e x i c a l )properties.


22/29

Non-derivat ional a nd Lex ic a l Phonology 281The cruc ia l observation is that a difference in plural suffix correlates wi th adi f ference in the location of the main s t ress , a l though normal ly p lura l suff ixesdo not af fect the stress patternsof their base words.These facts fo l low di rect lyif w e a s s u m e tw o a l lomorphs for these words, as proposed above . T he on lyexceptional aspect of the behavior of these words in -on and -or, then, is tha tth eallom orph that is normally used only for non-native suff ixation m ayalsob eused for inf lec t iona l suf f ixa t ion . When the a l lomorph demon is used, theprosodie o u tp u t con st ra in t onp lu ra l nouns r equ i re s -s , because the predictables t ress pa t te rni sd m on.T he a l lomorphdemoon,on the other hand, wil l receivem a i n stress on its f inal sy l lab le , because th is sy l lab le is supe rheavy , and t h u sforms a foot of its own . Af te r prosodie integration of the suffix -en, th e wordw i l l end in a trochee, as r equ i r ed .1 2

P In su m , w h a tw e have seen here is that in some cases the extr insic orderingof ru lescan be avoided b y m a k i n guse ofrules ofstem a l lomorphy . Thus, thesedata do not const i tu te decis ive ev idence in favor of a rule-based approach tophonology.

4 .2 Non-native al lomorphyAnother re levant case of a l lomorphy is the f o l l o w i n g . W h e n a Du tch non -na t ive word has two allomorphs, one of them m a y b e unpronounceab le , i .e . itdoes not form a proper phonologica l word . T he gene ra l i za t ion is tha t , un l i k enon-native suff ixation, native su ff ixatio n alw ays requires its inputs to be fu l lyprosodically l icensed. Consider the f o l l o w i n g e x am p l es :(29)filter 'id. ' [- native]:filtr-eer 'to filter', filtr-aat'f il trate'

[+ nat ive] : filter-en 'to filter, inf . ' , fil ter- ing 'id. 'regel ' ru le ' [ - nat ive] : regl -ement ' rules '[+ native]:regel-en 'toarrange , inf . ' ,regel-ing' a r rangem ent 'exempe l ' examp le ' [ nat ive] :exem pl-a ri sch' e x e m p l a r y'

[+ nat ive] : exempel-en ' examp les 'ft arbiter 'id.' [ nat ive] : arbitr-age 'refereeing' , arbitr-eer 't o referee'[+ native]: arbiter-en 'to referee ' , inf . 'center 'id.' [ native]: centr-eer 'to center', centr-aal 'central'[+ nat ive] : center-en 'to center ' , inf . '

ci l inder ' c y l i n de r ' [ native): ci l indr- isch 'cy l indr ical 'integer 'honest' [ nativ e]: integr-eer 'to integrate', integr-iteit 'integrity'[+ na t ive) : integer-e 'honest ' , inflected formA [ native] stem al lomorph such as filtr cannot be complete ly licensedprosodica l ly : a coda /tr/ of th i s monosy l l ab i c s tem w ou ld v io la t e theSonor i ty

2 T he p lu ra l s u f f i x -eni sexcept ional herein that ita t t achesto anal lom orph thatdoesnotoccuras an independent word . F or ins tance , de m oon does notoccur as word . T he normal base iden t i tycons train t for n a t i v e suff ixa t ion should no t app ly .


23/29

28 2 E m p i r i c a l StudiesSequencing General izat ion , and hence the /r/ w i l l remain ex t rasy l lab ic un les ssome action is taken. In the case o f non-na t ive suf f ixa t ion , the v o w e l - i n i t ia lsuffix tr iggers resy l lab i f i ca t ion , as in (ft l)0 ( t re : r )0 . Thus , the M is prosodicallyl icensed . When the m o r p h e m e filtr is to be realized as a w o r d , th e d e f a u l tv o w e l ofD u t c h ,th es c hw a , is inserted befo re the /r/ , andhence we get the form/ f i l t a r / . It is th i s form that feeds nat ive suff ixat ion . So, a l t h o u g h a na t ivevowel- in i t ia l suffix could have saved th e /r / of filtr, th i s is not the propersolution fo r w o r d s w i t h n a t i v esuf f ixes , and the s c h w a has to be inserted.

In a classical L P approach this array of fac ts can be accounted for bya s s u m i n g t w o m orpho log ica l leve l s: a leve l of n o n - n a t i v esuf f ixa t ion f o l l o w e dby a leve l of n a t i v e suf f ixa t ion . T he rule of schwa inser t ion w i l l then beordered after the first, and before th e second level of suf f ixa t ion . That is, aform of extr ins ic order ing seems to be necessary . {In cons tra in t-based phonology it ispossible toana lyse these fac tsb ym a k i nguse of cons t ra in t so f co r re spondence .1 3 T he schwa inse r t ion in a word such as

filter-en can beseen as acaseof overapp l i ca t iono fschw a epenthes is , t r iggeredby an o u tp u t - o u tp u t iden t i ty con s t ra in t tha t ho lds for the na t ive phono logy ofDutch : thep hone t i c fo rm of a s tem used inn a t i v es u f f i x a t i on m u s tb eiden t i ca lto the p h o n e t i c f o r m of that s tem when rea l i zed as a w o r d in i so la t ion . In aru le-based approach w i tho ut ex tr ins ic order ing , on the o ther hand, the tw oa l l o m o r p h s c a n n o t b e d e r i v e d from a c o m m o n unde r l y i ng f o r m .

A g a i n , the use of correspondence cons t ra in t s does no t e l im ina te serialcom puta t ion comp le te ly . For ins tance , i f we have to eva lua te the cand ida tesfor the complex word f i l tr-eer-ing ' f i l t ra t ion ' , the n a t i v e s u f f i x -ing inducese va lua t ion on the basis of the c o n s t r a in t - r a n k in gof the na t ive phono logy , inw h i c h the re levan t iden t i ty c o n s t r a in t is u n d o m i n a t e d . H o w e v er , in order toeva lua te th i s cons t ra in t we canno t d i r ec t lyc o m p a ref i I tr -eer - iny ,to the pho ne t i cform of the m o r p h e m e / f i l t r / , [ f i l t a r j . T h i s w o u ld g iv e the w r o n g c o n c lu s io nthat the re levant iden t i ty cons tra in t has been viola ted . Ins tead, we have toeva lua te f i l t r -eer- ing w i t h respec t to the p h o n e t i c o u tp u t of the stem f i l tr-eerw h i c h the gram m ar a lso computes . T he c o n c lu s io nw i l l th e nb eth at there isnovio la t ion of the ident i ty cons tra in t . H ow ever , in order to com pu te the properphone t i c o u t p u tof f i l tr-eer, w e h a v e tocheck the candida tes w i th respect to allcons t ra in ts , inc lud ingthe(no w d om ina ted) iden t i ty cons t ra in tin ther a n k i n gasdef ined for then on-na t ive phono logy : thec ons t ra in t appear s to be v io l a t e d ,b u tthat does no t m a t t e r in n o n - n a t i v e p h o n o lo g y , w h e r e fa i th fu lness b e t w e e ni n p u t and o u tp u t is a p p a r e n t l y r a n k e d h ig h e r t h a n the iden t i t y cons t ra in t .

In short , i f we in terpret phonological s t ra ta ( level order ing)as co-phono lo -g ies, comp lex w ords m u s t b ee v a l u a t e d c y c l i c a l ly ,and hence w e h a v etoa l l o wfor se r ia l computa t ion .

T h i s so l u t i on w as suggested lo me b y B e r n a r d T r a n e l .


24/29

Non-derivational a nd Lex ical Phonology 2835 . M O R P H O L E X I C A L RU L ES

Generative phonology deals not only w i th purely phonological general izat ions,in the derivational model in the form of automatic phonological rules, but alsow i t h m orpho lexical ru les, i .e. phonological gen eral iz at ion s that on ly hold for aspecific lexical or morphologicalclass of words .

An inte res t ing consequence of the L P model is that m orpholexical rule s neednot necessarily precede au tomat ic phonologica l ru les . T he effect of an auto-mat ic phonological rule on a cycle can be relevant for the appl icat ion of am orpholex ical rule on the nex t cyc le ( w i t hi n a cycle , morpholexical rules applybefore phonological rules) .T he a l lomorphy of the Du tch d i m i n u t i v e s u f f i x canJ>e used to i l lustra teth is po in t . The Dutchd i m i n u t i v e s u f f i x has fivea l lomorphs ,

f-tje, -je, -etje, -kje, -pje. The al lomorphs -etje and -kje both appear after a stemthat ends in a velar nasal; the allomorph -etje appears after stems ending in asonorant consonant,if thelast syllable bears(primary orsecond ary) stress;afteran unstressed syl lable ending in the velar nasal the a l lomorph -kje appears:(30) rfng 'id. ' ring-etj e

sering ' l i lac ' sering-etjehorizon ' id . ' horizo nn-etj ewnde l - ing ' w a l k ' wande l - ing -e t j eefen- ing 'exercise ' oefen-ing-etjes t rm- ing 'stream' strom-in-kj elid-ing 'p ipe ' leid-in-kjekon ing ' k i n g ' konin-k jepal ing 'eel' pal in-k je

As pointed out above, the nat ive suffixes of Dutch, including the inflect ionalsuff ixes , are stress neutral . This also appl ies to the dve rba l nom ina l i z ings u f f i x -ing. The d eterm inat io n of the locat ion of m ain stress in Dutch depends

k o n the segmenta l s t ructureof the last ( three) syl lables (Kager 1989) . However,'a s amply mot iva ted in Booi j (1995), the ass ignmen t of secondary stress is acompletely rhythmical matter in which not ions l ike syl lable weight and stressneut ra l i ty do not play a role. T he rule of Secondary Stress creates an alterna-t ion of stressed and unstressed s yllables w ith ou t crea ting stress clashes. There-fore, in a word l ike wandeling (a dverbal noun derived from the verb wandel'to take a w a l k ' ) th e last syllable receives secondary stress.

In the classical L P model , the form of the dim inu tiv e noun wandelingetje isder ived as fo l low s :(31) 1 st cycle [ w a n d a l ]

M a i n Stress 6Sec. Stress not appl icable


25/29

28 4 Emp i r i ca l Studies2n d cyc le | | w a n d 3 l ] i r j |Sec. Stress i3rd cyc le [ | | w a n d 3 l | i r j ) t j 3 lStress rules nota p p l i c a b l eA l l o m o r p h y r u l e atjgPhoneticform [ w o n d D l i n a t j a ]

On the th i rd cyc le , no st ress ru le app l ies . The M ain Stress R u ledoes not applybecause the d i m i n u t i v e suf f ix , l ike - ing, is s t ress -n eu tra l . The ru le of Second-ary Stress does not apply because syl la ble s headed by s c h w a can never bearstress.In a non -der iva t iona l f r am ew ork , the re a re tw o p oss ib i l i t i e s fo r a n a l y s i n gthese data . T he prob lem tha t m us t b e solved is tha t the schwa epen thes i s i nwords such as wandelingetje is not t r iggered by an au tom at ic pho nolog ical ru leof schw a epenthes is ; i t only app l ies to dim in u t iv e w ords . This can eas i ly beseen from the pair xtil-te /st i l ta / 'silence' versus still-etje /stibtjs/ 'chamber-p o t ' : al though these words have the same adjec t ival s tem, stil ' s i l en t ' ,and bothcon ta in a/ / - in i ti a l suff ix , it ison ly before the d i m i n u t i v e s u f f i x tha t a s c hw a isinserted . Therefore , in a cons tra in t-b ased no n-d er iv at io na l phon ology w e haveto a s su m easpec if ic co-phonology ford i m i n u t iv e s , a set of cons t ra in t r ank ingsthat isu n i q u eto thed i m i n u t i v e s u f f i x . Al t e rna t i ve l y , s ince w e cer ta in ly wan tt oavoid a pro l i fera t ion of morph em e-spec if ic co-phonologies , w e m ay l is t thef ive a l l o m o r p h s of the d i m i n u t i v e s u f f i x , and provide each w i t h the re levan tphonological subc ategor izat ion . The re l a t io n betw een the f ive a l lom orphs isthen to be expressed by a l lo m orp hy ru les , i. e . lexical red un da nc y ru les thatrelate these fo rms to each other . Thus, the choice for a cons tra in t-basedphon ology app ears to favor a non-p honolog ical an alys is of that k i n d of allo-morphy tha t is not condi t ioned b y ' pu re ' phono logy .

As pointed out above, the a l lomorph -etje requires the preceding syl lable tobear (pr imary or secondary) stress. In a theory of phonology based on o u t p u tcons t ra in t s th i s is nop r o b l e m : the p hono log ica l subca tegor iza t ion func t ions asan output cons tra in t that checks the stress pattern of the d i m i n u t i v e . T h u s , .when GEN genera tes bo th wandelingetje and wandellngkje, it is the first f o rm 'that is selec ted, whereas for a noun such as koning it is kninkje th a t isse lected , not kningetje, because in this latter word the second s y l l ab l e doesnot bear stress.

In te res t ingly , these conc lus ions concern ing a l lomorphy suppor t thec o n c l u -sion reached above as to how to account for the phenomenon of vowell eng then ing in non-nat ive words : the a l lomorphs must be l is ted , and re la tedby means o f r edundancy ru les , ins tead of being der ived f rom a commonu n d e r l y i n g f o r m .We thus see that the category of morpholexical ru les does not form aproblem for non -der iva t ion a l theor ies of phono logy i f we accept an al lomor-p hy ana lys i s for the a l t e r n a t i o n s i n v o lv e d .


26/29

Non-derivat ional and Lex ical Phonology 2856 . C O N C L U S I O N S

The e m pir ica l ly a t tes ted types of ru le in te rac t ion tha t form par t of the m ot iva-t ion of the LP m od e l of phonology show tha t a non-der iva t iona l concep t ion ofphon ology, in w hich the re i s only one se t of ranked c ons t ra in ts tha t app lys i mu l t aneous l y , i s p roblemat ic .

First , a ll phonologica l theor ies must d i s t inguish genera l iza t ions w i th i n thew ord phonology f rom genera l iza t ions concerning sentence phonology . T heeffects of prosodica l ly condit ioned rules of word phonology may be m a d eopaque by resy l lab i f i ca t ion effects a t the sentence level , and therefore evalua-tion in two steps appears to be necessary.Second, a l though we can probably do without extrinsic ordering of ind ivi -

al p hon ologica l ru les , the most typ ica lcase of 'ser ia l ' p hono logy , ce r t a inp h e n o m e n a re qu i re t he re to be more thanone stage atw h i c h ru l e sc an a p p ly orconstra ints can be evalua ted: weneed cyclici ty .

Thi s im p l i e s tha t the three levels of L P th e cycl ic leve l , the pos tcyc l ic(= word) leve l , and the p o s t l e x i c a l le v e l c a n n o t b e g i v e n up in cons t ra in t -based phonologies.M oreover, w e stillneed a principle such asStrictC yc l i c i tytha t te l l s u s w h i c h c o n s tr a in ts m u s t b e e va lua t e d cyc l i ca l l y , and w h i c h c o n-s t raints should only b e e v a l u a t e d at the word level .T he insights concerning th e interaction of phonology and morphology thathave been expressed in the LP m od e l of the organiza t ion of the g r a m m a r h a v eto be prese rved , wha teverone's theory of the form of phonologica l genera l -izations. In an OT f ramework , they can be part ia l ly expressed by means ofa l i g n m e n t and correspondence cons t ra in ts , but eva lua t ion in more than onesteprem ains necessa ry . A restricted form of se r ia l i sm appears to be necessary,even in p r im ar i l y pa r a l le l m ode ls of phonology .

F ina l ly , we have seen tha t in non-d er iv a t ion a l phonology the genera l iza t ionsexpressed by m orph olex ic a l ru les lead to a p rol i fe ra t io n of m orp hem e-sp ec i f icr a n k i n g s of co ns t ra in ts . The only w ay to avoid th i s i s anoth er ana lys i s of th i sof a l l o m o r p h y . I n s te a do fd e r i v i n gthe a l l o m o r p h s from a c o m m o n u n d e r -

f o r m , th e c lass ica l s t ra tegy of genera t ive phonology, each a l lomorph isl e x i c a l l y represented . As Goldsmi th (1995 : 9 ) r igh t ly points out , we shouldnot take the c lass ica l (= phonologica l ) approach to a l lom orp hy wh ich Gold-smi th sum m a r i ze s i n t he f o rm ula 'm in im ize a l l om orp h y ' fo r g ra n te d . Thuscons t ra in t -based p h o n o l o g y m ay c o n t r i b u t e to ap r inc ip l e d cho ice as to w h ic hal lomorphy belongs to the domain of phonology, and where morphology, th em od ule t ha t deals w i t h the select ion of morphemes , t akes over.A C K N O W L H D O E M E N T S

T h i s c h a p t e r isbased on a paper g iven at the Essex workshop onD e r i v a t io n sand Const ra in ts in Phonology organized b y Iggy Roca . A p r e l i m i n a r y v e r s io n


27/29

286 Empir i ca l Studiesof i t was pub l ished in J . Durand and B . Laks (eds . ) , Current Trends inPhonology: Models a nd Methods, (Pa ri s: CN RS and Sal ford : Sa l ford Univer -s i ty Press) , under the t i t le 'Lexica l Phonology and the der iva t ional res idue '( pp . 69-97). I w o u l d l i k e to t h a n k Bi l l Idsard i , G jer t Kr is to f fersen , tw oanonymous referees, and the editor , Iggy Roca, for their he lp fu l commentson the draf t of this ar t icle .

K l I I . K h N C E S

Anderson , S . ( 1992) . A-morphous Morphology. Cam br idge : Cam br idge U n i v e r s i t yPress.

Aronoff , M . ( 1 9 7 6 ) . Word Format ion inGenerativeGrammar.C a m b r i dg e , M a s s . : M APress.- ( 1994 ) . Morphology byItself. Cambridge, Mass . : MITPress.Booi j , G .(1 98 1 ) . 'Ru le o rder ing , ru l e app l i ca t ion ,and theo rgan i za t iono fg r a m m a r s ',in

W. U. Dressler et al . (eds . ) , Phonologica 1980. I n n s b r u c k : Ins t i tu t f r S p r a c h w i s -sensc ha f t .

(1984). 'French C/0 -a l t e rna t ions , e x t r a s y l l a b i c it y , and Lex i ca l Phono logy ' , T heLinguistic Review3:181-207.

(1988) . 'On the re l a t ion be tween Le x i ca l Phono logy and Prosodie Phonology ' , inP . M . B e r t i n e tt o a n d M . Loporcaro (eds . ) , CertamenPhonologicum. T u r i n : R o s en -berg & Sellier, 63-76.- ( 1994 ) . 'Lexical Phonology , a r e v i e w ' . Lingua e Stile29:525-55.- ( 1995 ) . ThePhonology o fDutch. Oxford : C larendon Press .(1996). 'C l i t i c i za t ionas p rosod ie i n t eg ra t ion ,the case of D u t c h ' , T heLinguisticReview 13219^*2.

and L ieber , R . (1993 ) . 'On the s i m u l t a n e i t y of morpho log i ca l and prosodies t ruc ture ' , in S. H a r g u s and E . Kaisse (eds . ) , Studies in Lex i ca l Phonology. SanDiego: Academic Press, 23-42.

and R u b a c h J . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . 'Postcycl ic versus post - lexic al ru lesin Le xical Phonology ' ,Linguistic Inquiry 18: 1-44.

and van San ten , A . ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Morfologie: D e woordstructuur van he t Neder land**A m s t e rd a m : A m s t e rd a m U n i v e r s i t yPress.B r a m e , M . ( 1 9 7 4 ) . 'Thecycle in pho nology: s t ress in Pa les t in ian , M al tese , and Spa n-

i sh ' , Linguistic Inquiry 5:39-60.B r o m b e r g e r , S., and H a l l e M . ( 1 9 8 9 ) . ' W h y p h o n o lo g y isd i f f e r e n t ' ,Linguistic Inquiry20:51-70.B u r z i o , L . ( 1 9 9 5 ) . 'The rise o f O p t i m a l i ty Theo ry ' , G LO T International 1(6): 3-7.

(1996) . 'Su r face cons t r a in t s vs . u n d e r l y i n g rep resen ta t ions ' , in J . D u r a n d and B .L a k s (eds .) , Current Trends in Phonology. P a r i s : C N R S / Sa l fo rd : Un iver s i ty ofSalford Press.

Cohn , A. , and M c C a r t h y J . , ( 1 9 9 4 ) . ' A l i g n m e n t and Pa ra l l e l l i sm in In dones i an Phono l -ogy ' . MS, Cornel l U n i v e r s i t y / Unive r s i t y of Massac huse t t s , A m h e r s t.

Cole , J . (1995) . 'Thecycle in p h o n o l o g y ', in G o l d s m i t h ( 1 9 9 5 6 :72-113).C o l e m a n , J . ( 1995 ) . 'Declarat ive Le xical Pho nology ' , in J . Du rand and F . K a t a m b a


28/29

Non-derivational and Lexical Phonology 287(eds.) . Frontiers o f Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations. L o n d on : L o n g m a n ,333-82.

Del l , F . (1995 ) . 'Consonant c lus ters and p h o n o l o g i c a l s y l la b l e sin French ' , Lingua 9 :5-26.F l e m m i n g , E. , and K e n s t o w i c z , M . (1995) . 'Base- iden t i t y and U n i f o r m E x p o n e n c e :Al ternat ives to Cyc l i c i t y ' . M S , Dep t . of L i n g u i s t i c s , M I T .

Go ldsmi th , J . ( 1 9 9 0 ) . Autosi-gmental a n d Metrical Phonology. O x f o r d : B l a c k w e l l . (1993) . 'Harmon ic Phono logy ' , i n Go ldsmi th ( ed . ) , The Last Phonological Rule.Chicago: Chicago Unive r s i t y Press,21-60.- (1995a) . ' In t roduc t ion ' , inGo ldsmi th (1995b : 1 -15) .

(ed.)(19956). The Handbook of P hono l og i c a l Theory. Oxford : Blackwel l .H a l l e , M . , and V e r g n a u d , J . - R . (1 9 8 7 ) . An Essay o n Stress. Cambr idge , M ass. : M IT

tPress,jyes , B . (1986) . ' Ina l t e r ab i l i t yin CV phonology ' , La n g ua g e 6 :321-53.Hargus , S . ( 1993 ). 'M od e l l i ng the phono logy -morpho logy in t e r f ace ' , i n S . Hargusand E . Ka i s se (eds.) . Studies in Lexical Phonology. San Diego , Cal i f . : AcademicPress,45-74.

and K a i sse E . ( I993 ) . ' In t ro du c t ion ' , i n Hargus and Ka i s se (eds.) , Studies inLexical Phonology. San Diego, Cal i f . : A c a d e m i c Press, 1-19.

Harr i s , J . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Syl lable Structure a nd Stress in Spanish. Cambr idge , Mass . : M ITPress.

(1994 ) . ' In tegr i ty of prosodie c o n s t i t u e n t sand the d o m a i n of sy l lab i f ica t ion ru lesin S p a n i s ha nd C a t a l a n ', in K . H a l e and S. J . Keyser (eds.) , The Viewfrom Building20: Essays in Linguist ics in Honor of Sylvain B r omb er ger . Cambr idge , Mass : M ITPress, 177-94.

H u l s t , H. van der (1984) . Syllable Structure a nd Stress inDutch. Dordrecht: Foris.I n ke la s , S . (1989 ) . 'Prosodie C o n s t i t u e n c y in the L exicon ' . Disser ta t ion , S tanford

U n i v e r s i t y .Kager , R . ( 1 9 8 9 ) . Metrical Theory of Stress a nd Depressing in Engl ish a nd Dutch.

Dordrech t : Foris.- (1995) . 'OnAff ix A l l o m o r p h yandS y l la b l e C o u n t i n g ' .MS,U n iv e rs i tyofUt rech t .

K a y e , J . (1992 ) . 'On the in te rac t ion of theor ies o f Le xica l Phonology and theor ies o ffe p hono l og i c a l p h e n o m e n a ' , in W. U . Dressier e t al . , (eds . ) , Phnologien 1988. C a m -b r idge : Cambr idge U n i v e r s i ty Press, 1 4 1 - 55 .

K e n s t o w i c z , M . (1994 ) . 'Cyclic vs. nonc yc l i c c o n s t r a i n t e v a l u a t i o n ' ,M IT WorkingPapers in Linguist ics 21

Date post:	12-Oct-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jason-cullen
View:	22 times
Download:	0 times

Non-Derivational Phonology Roca

Documents