Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lexical Morphology and Phonology PDF

    Uploaded by

    Jose Erwin Borbon
    11 views45 pages

    Original Title

    Lexical Morphology and Phonology (2).pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    11 views45 pages

    Lexical Morphology and Phonology PDF

    Uploaded by

    Jose Erwin Borbon

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 45
    Lexical Morphology and Phonology Paul Kiparsky Mkt, 1. Lexical Morphoony The approach to word suture that I shall explore here represen 3 convergence of several enpinally independent strands of researeh. One isthe merging theory of morphology and the lexicon (. ArenolT 1976), snd tore paral the iden of eve-ordered morphology elaborated by D. Siege! (197, 1977, M. Allen (1978) and others. Another centers around the problem of constraining Ieseal representations and phonological rules, oginning with various verons af the Alteration Condition (Kiparsky 19st, T973) and continuing with the coueption of Cyeie Puonslogy ist proposed by Masear (1974) and subsequently pursed ina numberof ties {tthe phonologits of patel languages (ost extensively Rubach (1961). shall ao be drawing on aspects of the recent mera theory of sess (bern and Prine 197, Hayes 1981) and sable strueiure. When these ‘ews ave put together nd developed in a extan dzection they explain a ‘eves of properties of phonolgieal rues and thei ration to morphology nd the fexicon that have s for appeared as unexplained generalizations, ‘rin some cast even deed coherent formulation or escaped notice ak together “Th basic insight of Ievehorderod morphology is that the derivational and Inetonal processes of language canbe organized ina series of levels ach evel it asecated witha set of phonologial rule for which it defines the domain of application. The ordering of levels moreover defies the posible ordering of morphological procates ia word-formation. Following [propost!of Peeisky (1979) let wt assume that the output of each word. formation pnoces i submited within the lescon ist the phonological ‘ules of ts lve. This establishes a basi division ameng phonological rules ‘into thowe which ae assigned to one or more eel inte lexicon, and thooe Which operate after words have en combined into senfenes inthe syntax. “The former, the rules of leicol phono) are intrinsically eyelicbacause they reapply after each step of word-formaton at their morphoogia! eve 131 ‘The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed), 1982, Linguists in the Morning Calm, Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co. 4 ra ay ‘The ater, the eues of postexicalplonolog, are inwaszally noneyelc, The lexicon i accordingly sete nthe follwing way o speed ese ems [jes tne —=| [waning =—| apn] fio \ 4 etn morplony | evel a phonology —— rs ee} $f rococo] ‘The output ofthe eght-hand boxes eolectivelyconstuts the set of eed stems ofthe language: The point thatthe result of every layer of dersation {sie excl item wil have important consequenes late on Mods ofthis type have also been investigated by Strats (199), Bool (0981, Plleybink (1981, and especially by Harris (1982) for Spanish and ‘Mohanan (1981) for Malayalam, the later aso wih extensive theoretical justcation ofthe framework. For conreeness T add tentative sketch of how the English lexicon ‘might be organized Tt draws on previous explorations of Bagsh morphology ‘by Seg! (1978), Alla (1978), Selkirk (MS), and Willams (198), bt tere in some respects from each. eaculaates aaeas ; 7 ee | =n || [+ boundary” ntetion “| stress, shortening evel 1 cee | rcvoundary eration ——=| compound cess | | et 2 ese fe ‘poundary” intetion | tuning evel 3 poalleel plonoogy (OF the three levels in (2) the fis evel comprises the aes which have ‘usualy bron atest with the} Hoondary. They corespond to the “Seimaey aufins” of traiional descriptions such 26 that of Sanskrit by Whitney (189), This lve ncdes derational sues such a8 ou. us, “iat an ection vfs such a thse Inept, me, Mo, hen ‘adicnde, ines, oct aswel as “blast, “umlaut” and other steanging ‘morphology as in tate, bled, hare, vot, Uie. To the second Teel we ‘sign #-boundary secondary”) deviation and compounding Such deriv tional sofnes at hood nee, eri, belong hee. The third level takes fae of the remaining, “regula” inletion (leaped, pleated, books, com> ‘drs, indexes, crocuses). ‘Aithough the division between level {and level 2 fies coincides entirely ‘withthe famine distinction berween the “-+ boundary” and the "# bound {ny lie, we hall se ttt infact Bas deeper roots inthe morphoogial fate. la what follows Iwill frst motivate 2) on morpholopial grounds tnd then proseed to develop some of its consequences onthe phonological ide 6 Pa easy Fist let us introduce « specie format for morphological rules ia the grammar Following Lieber (980) [shall dstingush two basi clases of ‘word-formation process, compounding and afiation, aid asume thet ‘wordformatin i endocentie By this lena tha the category ofa derived ‘word is alwaysnon-distinet from the category of ead in English wally the rightmost constituent (cf. Williams 1981)" The categories in question include no ony lexical categories but ao features like Transtve, Agent tte. In any approach to morphology its necessary to provide eetsin kinds of information Tor any given aft: to what sorts of things the ax nay be fdded, whether i is prefixed or sufied, and what are the properties ofthe ‘esting form. Lieber propos tha this information is encoded i the lexis ety of thea ise by means ofa subeategorization frame and an inherent ‘ateporial specication Which pereoltes spward fom an alto the eon strvtions whose head it i. For our purpotes it wll be convenient to fonsiue thes subeategoriations and inherent feature spciatons of axes asso many contextual restitions on the rules whi set then ‘Aes wil then not be lexial entries and they wil ave lexical features ithe inhereny ory peraation Exch af A inodued hy aut he {@).lnsert A in env. [X_ Zh where ¥,Z corespond 16 the “subsategorization frame” of A and X cor ‘sponds ots inherent categovalspecifeation in Lieber’ format, ‘Consider fst infection. Inflectional afies re added to stems inthe content of excl and paradigmatic features asocated with thve ses, To lutrate et the noun ox have ben inserted 8 [ones A MOFDROIR fal ruleat evel I then obligatory ser the satin“ ae i 4). Taset fn neo. OX homes Tee moun boys not subet oak > Pra undergoes ae 3) a ©) laser Jf env. Koons ‘The morphological processes at dierent ves are elated in certain charac tetitic ways which recur from language to language 1. One phenomznoa to be accounted for tthe "bioeking” fet, which hasbeen discussed for derivation merphetogy by Paul (1896), Esau (1973) ‘Aronof (197, Clark and Clark (1979), Toman (1980), and shows sp sl ‘more eles i infction. Words which are ifecte at level 1, for example, usually do aot receive the general suites a evel 3. Tere sno “fot, oer onside fect, oxen, and no *kesped, ected alongside kept, met, We sal however have co explain not only why such the normal case but alo how itis posible for occasional doublets to exist, eg, feclednet, dreamed ‘heat, crocuses|croi, indexes. In deivationl morphology doublets fre aetally quite common, tothe point that blocking thre can harly be eee ee ee eee ee eee eee eter Trt rr ey ase Marty a Poles 1 conde or than general nde. ‘Costing poromeaan flv om obliga of morbologa su Foretample xf irl, ware) an 0 te 00 ‘yw dre eves byte lr le (Fae of cing, sing Ie WEuze he vowel! and domed ih ne ak ote She maked ces cba by mang th ps ale onal fe hve “Ti c af them als To et the Mocking ee for deans iy, we tthe ao a8 imei he conte ofthe appopramerpeopea tego. We sal ‘pepe tht lca ns are hee) sand foetal Tame (he ie kibs bund of fetes We ve wih he evan of eet TREE cto A eed tf yrs low oun to be made at ve 18 TE ine sane ae denon (hich aisto bea phonology ‘Sip. Thee sts ar mond at eve! Ty sch le “One I nen Ve heroes wee pie Bre soi So fom fpeh eco we dev he nan Ue flan wich i fed teas it endocnt FV 9008 esta apy an Teatig soured ou bene tl tcc The ner ‘Sisyetslnon tha eon sujet one of hoe eel 1 rues tend Sere eri aternse potter ened y the eoroponing fue (7) at level 2: (0). nset ern en. [V_enn sae ®) soy. tae inbavitant: “inhabit ‘And wien both do exis, th

    You might also like