Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Wiley-Blackwell Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info


New from Oxford University Press!

ad

Language Planning as a Sociolinguistic Experiment

By: Ernst Jahr

Provides richly detailed insight into the uniqueness of the Norwegian language development. Marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of the Norwegian nation following centuries of Danish rule


New from Cambridge University Press!

ad

Acquiring Phonology: A Cross-Generational Case-Study

By Neil Smith

The study also highlights the constructs of current linguistic theory, arguing for distinctive features and the notion 'onset' and against some of the claims of Optimality Theory and Usage-based accounts.


New from Brill!

ad

Language Production and Interpretation: Linguistics meets Cognition

By Henk Zeevat

The importance of Henk Zeevat's new monograph cannot be overstated. [...] I recommend it to anyone who combines interests in language, logic, and computation [...]. David Beaver, University of Texas at Austin


Query Details


Query Subject:   Library Funds: Linguistics vs. Literature
Author:   Trudel Meisenburg
Submitter Email:  click here to access email

Linguistic LingField(s):  Morphology
Phonology
Language Family:  Germanic
New English


Query:   Dear friends and colleagues,

I'm currently working on a cross-linguistic study of subcategorization
effects in morphology and phonology, and I'd like to appeal to the members
of the listserv for examples and references. I will prepare a summary of
the responses of this query for future reference on the list.

The basic type of pattern I'm looking for is one in which a morpheme
'subcategorizes' for a phonological property of a neighboring morpheme,
i.e., it only occurs when a subcategorized phonological property is
present. For example, it is sometimes said that the adjective-forming
suffix /-ful/ in English subcategorizes for a stressed syllable at the end
of the stem to which it attaches, e.g., forgetful, cf. *forgettingful
(Siegel 1973; though this example is more complicated, see Brown 1958 and
Chapin 1970).

Subcategorization effects such as this can block the application of a
morphological process, as in the case with English /-ful/. Or it may be
the basis of the selection of a particular allomorph when two or more
morphemes compete for a particular collocation, e.g., noun-forming {-ei,
-erei} in German, where -erei is chosen if the stem ends in stress, and
-ei if the stem-final syllable is unstressed (Hall 1990, Hargus 1993); one
might say therefore that -erei subcategorizes for a stem that ends in a
stressed syllable. Examples such as these have contributed to the study of
interactionism in phonology and morphology (Siegel 1974, Hargus 1993,
Booij & Lieber 1993), the prosodic dependence/independence of morpheme
classes (Inkelas 1989), the nature of alignment constraints (McCarthy &
Prince 1993, Kager 1996), and the structure of OT grammars (Orgun &
Sprouse 1999).

If any examples like this come to mind (which are not already listed
below) in the languages you understand well, I'd greatly appreciate it if
you could take the time and respond with a brief description of the facts
and the relevant references. Many of the examples listed below are
prosodic in nature, but examples of subcategorizatin for segmental
properties are also very welcome. As far as whether an example
'qualifies', it is best to err on the side of inclusion. In fact, any
significant discussion of these phenomena (but see references below) or
relevant examples of phonologically governed blocking and allomorphy would
be most welcome. The list of examples and references below are my starting
place, but if you know of useful discussion that builds on this work, or
gives critical assessment, that would be helpful as well. Please address
all correspondence to this address (repeated at the end of the message).

Finally, please forward this message to colleagues who you feel would
be able to contribute but may not be on this listserv.

Thank you for your time. -John Alderete


Examples:

Dutch -ig (N->A), only attaches to stems ending in stressed syllables (may
induce both blocking and stress shift, see Trommelen & Zonneveld 1989,
Kager 1996)

Dutch {-isch, -ief} (N->A), -ief is chosen when the final syllable is
stressed in the underived base and ends in -ie, -isch chosen elsewhere
(Booij & Lieber 1993)

English /-en/ (A->V), only attaches to heavy syllable stems; cannot attach
to stems ending in liquids, nasals, or vowels (Siegel 1974: 174-176)

English /-ful/ (N->A), only attaches to stems ending in stressed
syllables; cannot attach to stems ending in /v f/ (Siegel 1974: 164-174,
Brown 1958, Chapin 1970)

English /-al/ (V->N), only attaches to stems ending in c1V(c2)(c3), where
V is stressed, c2 (optional) is [+son] and c3 is either a coronal or a
labial (Ross 1972, Siegel 1974: 164-168)

English /-ize/ (N/A->V), only attaches to stems ending in an unstressed
syllable (Raffelsiefen 1996)

English {-eteria, -teria}, -eteria when stem-final syllable is stressed,
-teria elsewhere (Siegel 1974: 176-178)

German ge- (perfective participle), only attaches to stems that begin with
a stressed syllable (references welcome)

German {-ei, -erei} (V->N), -erei if the stem ends with a stressed final
syllable, -ei if stem ends with an unstressed final syllable (Hargus 1993,
Hall 1990)

Lappish {-ide, -ida} (illative plural), -ide when stem has an even number
of syllables, -ida when stem has odd number of syllables (Hargus 1993,
Bergsland 1976)

Latin {-ia, -ie:s} (abstract nouns in 1st and 5th declension), -ie:s is
blocked if before a heavy syllable (i.e., if it leads to 'prosody
trapping', see Mester 1994)

Polish {-s, -ejs} (comparatives), -ejs is chosen if the underived stem
ends in an extrasyllabic consonant, -s otherwise


References:

Anttila, Arto. 1995. Deriving variation from grammar: a study of Finnish
genitives. Ms., Standard University.

Anshen, Frank, Mark Aronoff, Roy Byrd, Judith Klavans. 1986. The role of
etymology and word-length in English word formation. Ms., SUNY Stony
Brook/IBM Watson Research Center.

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge: The
MIT Press.

Booij, Geert & Rochelle Lieber. 1993. On the simultaneity of morphological
and prosodic structure. In Hargus & Kaisse (eds.), pp. 23-44.

Brown, A.F. 1958. The derivation of English adjectives ending
-ful. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Chapin, Paul. 1970. On affixation in English. In Manfred Bierwisch & Karl
E. Heidolph (eds.), pp. 51-63, Progress in linguistics. A collection of
papers. The Hague: Mouton.

Fabb, Nigel. 1988. English suffixation is constrained only by selectional
restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 527-539.

Hall, T. 1990. Syllable structure and syllable-related processes in
German. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.

Hargus, Sharon. 1993. Modeling the phonology-morphology interface. In
Hargus & Kaisse (eds.), pp. 45-74.

Hargus, Sharon & Ellen Kaisse. 1993. Phonetics and Phonology 4. Studies in
Lexical Phonology. San Diego: Academic Press.

Inkelas, Sharon. 1989. Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. Doctoral
dissertation, Stanford University.

Ito, Junko & Jorge Hankamer. 1989. Notes on monosyllabism in Turkish. In
Junko Ito & Jeff Runner (eds.), Phonology at Santa Cruz. Santa
Cruz: Linguistics Research Center, pp. 61-69.

Kager, Rene. 1995. On affix allomorphy and syllable counting. Ms., Utrecht
University.

Kager, Rene. 1996. Stem stress and peak correspondence in Dutch. Ms.,
Utrecht University.

McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1993. Generalized alignment. Yearbook of
Morphology 1993, pp. 79-153.

Mester, Armin. 1994. The quantitative trochee in Latin. NLLT 12: 1-61.

Orgun, Cemil Orhan & Ronald Sprouse. 1999. From MParse to
Control: deriving ungrammaticality. Phonology 16: 191-224.

Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: constraint
interaction in generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University & University of
Colorado, Boulder.

Raffelsiefen, Renate. 1996. Gaps in word formation. In Ursula Kleinhenz
(ed.), Interfaces in phonology. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, pp. 194-209.

Ross, John. 1972. A reanalysis of English word stress. In Michael Brame
(ed.), pp. 227-323, Contributions in generative
phonology. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Siegel, Dorothy. 1974. Topics in English morphology. Doctoral
dissertation, MIT.

Trommelen, Mieke, & Wim Zonneveld. 1989. Klemtoon en Metrische
Fonologie. Muiderberg: Coutinho.


=============================================================

Dr. John D. Alderete, Postdoctoral Associate

Department of Linguistics Center for Cognitive Science
18 Seminary Place 152 Frelinghuysen Road
New Brunswick NJ, 08901-1184 Piscataway NJ, 08854
Office: 003 (basement) Office: A109 (Psych Addition)
Phone: (732) 932-3217 Phone: (732) 445-6157
Fax: (732) 932-1370 Fax: (732) 445-6715

Email: alderete@ruccs.rutgers.edu
Website: http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/~alderete/

============================================================
LL Issue: 12.3046
Date posted: 05-Dec-2001



Back

Sums main page