Universität Tübingen
Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft
Phonetics
k
Phonology
Phonology
- Rule Ordering (Hall, Kapitel 5)
Christian Ebert
[email protected]
Rule Ordering
the case of English plural formation illustrates that the order in which
rules are applied is important
here the epenthesis must apply before the assimilation; otherwise one
could derive unwanted surface forms (such as *[dISs])
rules can be ordered in four different ways:
feeding
counterfeeding
bleeding
counterbleeding
Rule Ordering
feeding
two rules R1 and R2 are in feeding order, if
R1 generates an output that makes an application of R2 possible &
R1 is applied before R2
way of saying this: „R1 feeds R2“
example: place assimilation and g-elision must be in feeding order to
derive [N] from underlying [ng] (see penultimate exercise):
assimilation: [+nas] > [+back] / __ [-son,-cont,+back]
g-elision:
[-son,-cont,+voice] > Ø / [+nas,+back] __ #
Rule Ordering
feeding
the assimilation outputs [+back] nasals, which make up the left
environment for application of the g-elision
/bank/
â
UR
/Eng/
[+back]
â
baNk
ENg
-
â
[baNk]
[EN]
[+back]
assimilation
g-elision
SF
Rule Ordering
counterfeeding
two rules R1 and R2 are in counterfeeding order, ine Ausgabe erzeugt,
R1 generates an output that makes an application of R2 possible but
R1 is applied after R2
„R1 counterfeeds R2“
example for counterfeeding order: Isthmus Nahuatl (Veracruz, Mexiko)
(s. Kenstowicz & Kisseberth, 1979, S.299)
unstressed short vowels can be dropped after (voiced) sonorants:
[Sikakiæli]
[kiætaya]
[kikoæwa]
[taæmi]
~
~
~
~
[Sikakiæl]
[kiætay]
[kikoæw]
[taæm]
„put it inside“
„he already sees it“
„he buys it“
„it stops“
Rule Ordering
counterfeeding
the rule for the apocope looks as follows:
V > Ø /[+son,+sth] __ #
a further rule in that language is that [l] becomes voiceless at the end of a
syllable and [w] optionally becomes voiceless word-finally (devoicing)
[taæyo:lß]
[e:lßwatotþs]
[tþSooæw] ~ [tþSooæwß]
„schaliges crops“
„slim person“
„boy!“
but this rule does not apply to forms that are derived by the apocope:
*[Sikakiælß]
*[kikoæwß]
therefore: apocope counterfeeds devoicing
Rule Ordering
bleeding
two rules R1 and R2 are in bleeding order if
R1 generates an output that makes an application of R2 impossible &
R1 is applied before R2
„R1 bleeds R2“
example: in the case of English plural formation epenthesis and
assimilation are in bleeding order, i.e. epenthesis bleeds
assimilation
the epenthesis transforms inputs like /dIS+z/ into SFs such as [dISIz];
this destroys the environment for application of the assimilation
Rule Ordering
counterbleeding
two rules R1 and R2 are in counterbleeding order if
R1 generates an output that makes an application of R2 impossible but
R1 is applied after R2
„R1 counterbleeds R2“
example: place assimilation of /n/, g-elision and final devoicing
[-son] > [-sth] / __ #
Rule Ordering
counterbleeding
different rule orderings:
/Eng/
/Eng/
â
ENg
assimilation
â
ENg
assimilation
â
ENk
final devoicing
â
EN
'g'-elision
--*[ENk]
'g'-elision
--[EN]
final devoicing
final devoicing counterbleeds g-elision
Rule Ordering
intrinsic vs. extrinsic
the place assimilation of /n/ and g-elision are in feeding order:
place assimilation creates the environment for application of the
g-elision
assumption: a rule applies whenever the context matches its
environment; hence some rule orderings need not be specified
explicitly
such free orderings that need not be specified explicitly are called
intrinsic
extrinsic orderings, on the other hand, must be specified explicitly to
prevent the derivation of wrong results
example: bleeding order of the English plural formation
Rule Ordering
the „elsewhere“ condition
the elsewhere condition determines which of two rules applies if one
is a „special instance“ of the other;
it basically says: special rule before general rule
elsewhere condition:
if two rules R1 and R2
●
have the same inputs,
●
incompatible outputs and
●
if the environment of R2 is a refinement of the environment of
R1 (i.e. whenever R2 applies, so does R1, but not vice-versa)
then R2 applies and the application of R1 is blocked
Rule Ordering
the „elsewhere“ condition
examples from Finish:
/menek/
/menek##pois/
/menek##kotiin/
/menek##alas/
>
>
>
>
[mene]
[meneppois]
[menekkotiin]
[menealas]
„go“
„go away“
„go home“
„go down“
word-final /k/ is assimilated for place to the initial consonant of the
following word, but is deleted elsewhere
place assimilation:
/k/ > [αplace] / __ # # [+cons,αplace]
k-elision:
/k/ > Ø / __ #
(note that [αplace] stands for any place of articulation feature)
Rule Ordering
the „elsewhere“ condition
if the k-elision would apply before the place assimilation, the
derivations would be incorrect
/menek##pois/
â
mene##pois
k-elision
--*[menepois]
place assimilation
the elsewhere condition predicts the order place assimilation > kelision and hence it need not be specified explicitly
Rule Ordering
the „elsewhere“ condition
place assimilation and k-elision have
●
the same input
/k/
●
incompatible outputs
[αplace] vs. Ø
●
the environment of the place assimilation is a refinement of the
environment of the k-elision:
__ # # [+cons,αplace]
vs.
__ #
word-boundary with following consonant vs. word-boundary
therefore place assimilation applies before k-elision, which is blocked
in this case
Rule Ordering
the „elsewhere“ condition
this yields the correct derviations:
/menek##pois/ /menek##alas/
/menek##kotiin/
â
---
â
menep##pois
menek##alas
menek##kotiin
---
â
(blocked)
[meneppois]
[menealas]
[menekkotiin]
UR
assimilation
k-elision
SF
Exercise
(1)
in the language Lardil the suffix marking accusative future /-u±/ has
the allomorphs [-±] and [-wu±]:
uninflected
[kentapal]
[ketÏar]
[miyar]
[mela]
[kuNka]
[Nuka]
[tÞempe]
[ke©µe]
[pape]
non-future
future
[kentapal-in]
[ketÏar-in]
[miyar-in]
[mela-n]
[kuNka-n]
[Nuku-n]
[tÞempe-n]
[ke©µi-n]
[papi-n]
[kentapal-u±]
[ketÏar-u±]
[miyar-u±]
[mela-±]
[kuNka-±]
[Nuku-±]
[tÞempe-±]
[ke©µi-wu±]
[papi-wu±]
„Dugong“
„river“
„spear“
„ocean“
„ledge“
„water“
„father of mother“
„woman“
„mother of father“
Exercise
Assume that the inflected root forms are underlying (e.g. /ke©µi/).
The following apocope derives the suffix /-±/:
V > Ø / V __
Give a rule that derives the correct distribution of the suffix
/-wu±/ and illustrate the derivation by deriving the form [Ni©iwu±]
(„skin“).
How must the apocope be ordered w.r.t. this new rule? What type
of ordering is it?