Li8 Structure of EnglishLi8 Structure of English

Lexical phonology and morphology

Today’s topicsToday’s topics

Phonology-morphology interactions LPM: a model for said interactions with

many interesting results Some key data:

singer vs younger damn vs damnation mice catcher vs *rats catcher atómic vs. átomy innate vs unnatural

M-P interactions IM-P interactions I

We have already seen several cases where morphological rules make reference to phonological information: Comparative and superlative formation Ass-affixation Indefinite article allomorphy Definite article allomorphy?

Is there a larger system governing these interactions? Can phonological processes refer to morphological

structure? Can any morphological process refer to any

phonological structure, or are there limits?

M-P interactions IIM-P interactions II

In order to address these questions, let’s look at a number of striking properties of M-P interactions in English: Phonological influence of affixes on stems Morpheme order

P effects in affixationP effects in affixation

Affixes fall into two categories wrt their phonological effects on the stem to which they’re added: Those which influence the phonology of the

stem (“Level I affixes”) -ic, -al, -ate, -ion, -ity; sub-, de-, in- Typically Latinate

Those which do not (“Level II affixes”) -less, -ness, -y, -ing, -ly, -ful, -some; re-, un-, non- Typically Germanic

Levels of affixationLevels of affixation

We have already seen that affixes appear in a certain order: [inflection[derivation[root]derivation]inflection] nation-al-s, not *nation-s-al Note also that Level II affixes occur outside Level I

affixes: linguist-ic(k)-y, refus-al-less…

Does this follow from some principle of grammar, or is it chance? Probably not chance—all languages seem to act this

way

LPMLPM

To account for these patterns, Paul Kiparsky developed a model of Lexical Phonology and Morphology (LPM), in which morphology and phonology are interleaved: Some morphology applies (level I affixation), then lexical

phonological rules get a chance to apply to these structures. After this some more morphology applies (level II affixation),

then the phonological rules get another chance to apply. After all of these levels of affixation + phonology have been

completed (there may be more than two), the post-lexical phonology applies Applies to whole words and phrases Automatic Regular

LPM LPM model of Englishmodel of English

Underlying Representation

Level 1 derivation, irregular inflection stress, shortening…

Level 2 secondary derivation and compounding cpd stress…

Level 3 regular inflection laxing…

Syntax post-lexical phonological rules

lexicon

Properties of lexical and Properties of lexical and post-lexical rulespost-lexical rules

Lexical rules …Lexical rules … Post-lexical rules …Post-lexical rules …

Apply only within words. Apply within words or across word boundaries.

Typically have exceptions. Do not have exceptions.

Morphologically conditioned. Not conditioned.

Structure-preserving. Not necessarily structure-preserving.

Apply first. Apply later.

Conscious Subconscious

Don’t normally transfer in SLA. Typically transfer in SLA.

Post-nasal drop IPost-nasal drop I

singer : younger (vs. young) URs: //, // comparative -er: Level 1 agent -er: Level 2 is post-nasal drop lexical or postlexical?

Lexical (has exceptions) Which lexical level, though?...

UR // //

Level 1 cpv. -er - —

nasal place assim. - post-nasal drop —

Level 2 agent -er — -

SR [] []

Post-nasal drop IIPost-nasal drop II

Other interesting resultsOther interesting results

Latinate vs Germanic r-insertion Trisyllabic laxing Nasal place assimilation Stress shift n-deletion Irregular plurals in compounds

Latinate vs GermanicLatinate vs Germanic

Recall that Latinate affixation is normally Level I, whereas Germanic affixation is Level II.

Now consider un-natur-al vs in-nate. Are un- and in- Latinate, or Germanic? How do these words behave wrt the English

rule of degemination? Is degemination lexical or postlexical?

Latinate vs GermanicLatinate vs Germanic

UR /nate/ /natur/

Level 1 in-, -al in-nate natur-aldegemination inate —

Level 2 un- — un-natur-al

SR i[n]ate [u[n:]atural]

r-insertionr-insertion

algebraic (*algebraric) vs Homeric drawring, pizzarish, data-r-y, Brendar and

Eddie) Rule insert r / {} _ V Assume that r-insertion is post-lexical

Reasonable, since it has no exceptions for many speakers (pizza-y?)

r-insertionr-insertion

UR /algebra/ /pizza/

Level 1 -ic, stress, length algebrá:ic pízza

Level 2 -ish, -y, -ing, — pízza-yunstressed V reduction — pízzə-y

Post-lex r-insertion — pízzə[r]-y

SR algebrá:ic pízzəry

Trisyllabic LaxingTrisyllabic Laxing

vile : vilify; profane : profanity V: V / _ CV1CV2

where V1 is unstressed

might : mightily; brave : bravery

Nasal place assimilationNasal place assimilation

impotent, illegal unpopular, unlawful

*umpopular, *ullawful Which level is each affix? Which level is the assimilation rule?

Stress shiftStress shift

pyramidal, homonymous, atomic partisanship, atomy Which level is each affix? Which level is the stress rule?

n-deletionn-deletion

condemn : condemnation : condemning Which level is each affix? Which level is the rule of n-deletion?

CompoundsCompounds

Underlying Representation

Level 1 derivation, irregular inflection stress, shortening…

Level 2 secondary derivation and compounding cpd stress…

Level 3 regular inflection laxing…

Syntax post-lexical phonological rules

lexicon

mice

mice catch-er, rat catch-er

can’t insert -s inside cpd rat catch-er

ConclusionsConclusions

A large number of surprising properties of phonology, morphology, and their interactions can be accounted for by postulating a model of the grammar in which affixation and phonology apply outward from the root of a word.