..
..
Allomorphy and ION
Mark Aronoff
20E-221, lVl .I.~.
April 6, 197D
0
Principal Conclusions
I. Allomorphy
Any rule which effects a phonological change, and
i) which need not follow any phonological rule
ii) whose environment may be stated morphologically
is a rule of all omorphy.
Rules of allomorphy
follow the rules of word formation
and provide the input to the phonology.
Rules of allomor phy are not extrinsically ordered.
II. ben-Moshe's Laws of the h OOt
First Law: Only and most roots which take the marked
form of a suf f ix exhibit allomor phy.
Second Law: If a root is marked, then all occurences
of that root take the marked suffix.
Third Law:If any occurence of a given root exhibits
allomor pny in a given environment, then all
occurences of that root in that environment
will show the same allomorph.
Thanks fo
Morris Halle
Hichard Oehrle
Alan Prince
Crosley Shelvador
ben-Moshe
Susan Nartin
~dwin
Williams
1
o.
This paper had,originally, a very clever
introductory paragraph, wherein I noted, somewhat
sarcastically, the popularity
o_{
the orizing in
linguistics, and warned Lhe reader that they would _rind
little of
t1~a t
in the toll owing pages. Despite tnis
salutation, about half-way through the aej)aal body of
the work, I realized,to my great chagrin,that
was
~
making, and assuming,some raher strong,and somewhat novel
theoretical claims. these claims have to do with morphology,particularly that aspect of
mor ~ hology
which
commonly goe under the rubric of readjustment rules
( cf. Chomsky and 11alle 196B, henceforth SPE). In
particular,I will of ten have recourse to one type of
r~Iorphological
rule (1'1-rule), a rule oi allomorphy,
which states generally irregular phonological changes
in the shape of a morpheme in different morphological
environments.
Before going 1'urther into the notion of
allomorphy, let me first elucidate that of morphological environment, or conditioning, one which, though
it is tac lt ly assumed in much work on Generative 1honolo-gy,
especially in
~PE,
has not, to my knowledge, been explic-
itly isolated. Since I am
eneral~y
concerned with word
formation, I will give examples o.i' various types of possible
environmen~s
for (conditions on) rules of this
sor~.
Je
2
are familiar with syntactic, semantic,and phonological
conditions on word formation . An example of a syntactic
c undition is the fact that the suffix -ment is generally
attached to Lexical Items which have the syntactic label
Verb • .Nominals in -ment thus have the form X+ment, W11ere
X is a verb. A phomologi cal condition, rirst noted by
J.R. Ross, and discussed in
~iegel
( 1~71), holds on the
.rormation of nouns in -al. Basically, -al may appear
-
-
after a stressed vowel, followed by an optional glide or
sonorant, and no more
han one consonant. So denial,
appraisal,and dispersal. 'l'he stem-word is also generally
bi-syllabic 1 .1m example of a semantic c_;ndi tion, a uain
a slightly modi ied vers on of one in siegel
(1~71; ,
is
that on the Iormation of words in -ee. the stem of such
a word must be a transitive verb (or the root of a transitive verb), which selects an animate object, or indirect
object. So presentee, evacuee, payee,promisee,patentee. 2
The sole exception to this rule is escapee.
A morphulogical condition, tnen ,is, by eliminatiGn,
one which is neither syntactic, semantic,nor phonol ogical;
one which is grammatically arbitrary, in that it depends
on some >'f eature which usually plays no part in the
derivation of
sen~ences.
A good example of a morphological
condition is that on the suf.Lix -ity which restricts it
to l.Jatinate stems . Morphologi cal features are sometimes
relevant to phonological pro cesses. In .h.'nglish , all those
3
instances of lf which eventually become s or 3 are J.·ound
in Latinate morphemes, and are usually orthograyhically
c. The rule,or rules, which take k
must therefore be
sensitive to the morphological feature +Latinate 3 • 1n SPE,
too~
and other works,morphological features are encoded into
the phonology by means of rule-features. Thus all Latinate
morphemes with kin the relevant phonological environmamm
will be marked by a rule-feature as undergoing the k to e
rule. Whether this is the correct device, or whether
morphological features may play a direct role in the
phonology, l do not at present Anow.
A rule ol" all :Jmorphy is thus a special type of
morphologically conditioned rule, which spells out the
various forms of a morpheme, and which, I claim is
distinct from, and, intrinsically, precedes the rules of
the phomology. Allomorphy
lS
widely used in
linguistics. However, in the
great
r~olt
~tructural
against Taxonomic
not a novel c .)ncept. It was
~honemics,
allomorphy,
which,in that framework, covered both regular and irregular
processes indi s criminately, was rejected in all but the
most glaring cases of suppletion (go/went) •. ~hen examples
ofnon-suppletive irregularity were later discovered, thes
were handled by rule-features. But the use of the ruleeature in cases of morphological alternation is very
4
diffrent from other uses of tnis device.
\ cf. Kiparsky 1968 )rule
- L·
~n
general,
ea tures are used to avoid
having to posit abstract phonological units (phoneu es)
which never appear on the surface. However in the cases
of allomorphy which I discuss below, Lhere is no need to
posit such new phonemes . A morpheme can have more than
one allomorph, but each allomor 9h has aphonologically
regular form , i.e. contains no "abstract" ph nemes.
The rules of allomorphy thus do not pretend to replace all
uses of rule-1 e a tures, only those which cannot be motivated
in terms of abstarctness, and which invmlve morphological
al tarnation. In general, then, t_le rules of allomorphy
take the place of a very speci 1 ic class of phonological
rule(P-rule).
~hese
rules have the peculiarity that tneir
environment must (or may) be morphologically marked, and
that there is no P-rule which must pre cede them. There are
rules which possess only one of these properties. So the
rule which ta ,< es ,! to y_ in iVn (SPE p.227) must be marked,
for only certain instances of ivn undergo it. However ,
this rule must
allow phonological rules, specifically
stress rules, and therefore cannot be a rule of allomorphy .
One might vie .. Lhe rules of allomorphy as very
arly P-rules. However , there is some indication that this
5
is not correct.
~her
among the rules
ol"
seems to be no extrinsic ordering
allomorphy( with one type of exception
which I will discuss below). If this is so,
vhen one can
say that these rules precede,but are not included in,the
P-rules.
~hey
are in fact, as I noted above, more or less
equivalent to a class of readjustment rules. So, for example,
the rule .luat spells out the irre 0 ular, and single regular
var·ant of the English plural morpheme can be considered
a rule of allomorphy.
By separating rules of allomorphy from the
phonology proper, I am, inciden'tally,making a claim that
cer'tain alternations are not phonological. One
interes~ing
variant of this is t..lle claim 1:;hat theses alternations are
not necessarily those which cannot be stated phonologically,
i.e. without recourse to morphological conditions, but rather
those which need not be so stated. This claim is corroborated
by some fascinating work done on the Maori passive morpheme
( cf. Hale 196?), and gains some support from a few o1' the
alternations discussed below.
paper, uespite the last five pages ,s hould
not be taken as a theoretic a l polemic in favor of allomorphy.
I did not set out with ~ hat purpose i~ mind, but rather to
describe a set of data. Allomorphy proved to be a useful
tool in the description of that data;it seemed to unite
diverse phenomena in an interesting way,and it is with this
in mind that I would nope the paper will be read and considered.
RE~KK :
~his
6
1.1
Armed
~ ith
this i orwarning, let me tell the
still curious Gnat t iis is a,hopefully,detai led
of the English nominal marker -At+iVn
is very widespread.
~ alker
(IO~).
s ~ udy
This suf f ix
lists about 2000 words ending
in it (4% of the items in that dictionary). Normally,it
is a dverbal nominalizing suf i ix (fascination/fascinate),
however there are nominals in lON whose s t em
l S
not a free
word (compunction/compunct,salvation,salvate). There are
also some very lew which have a corresponding adjective
expec~ed
or noun, instead of t he
verb ,contr i tion/contrite,
ideation/idea). The suffix is usually restricted to Latinate
stems, agin with a few
exce p~ ions
(botheration,flirtation).
Not all instances of orthographic Xion are to
be taken a s instance;:; of
-ro.~.~.
All forms in which the i
is syllabic are not (accordion,ganglion). Also disregarded
are words such as onion,companion,million, which can probably be excluded on semantic grounds.
I will not deal in this paper with the actual
formation, or analysis (mor phological) of vJords in -lON,
and will have correspondingly little to say about the
productivity o1· the suf .r ix. This work is rather a preliminary,in many ways , to a
1.2.
The phonology of
thoroughly and
c o nv ~ ncin g ly
morpholog ~ cal
-~ ON
in
statement.
is de a lt WLth very
~PE.
There an underlying
phonological t orm (+At)iVn is posited 1"or it. iVn must
be bi-syllabic because of stress facts, namely the
7
placement of primary stress on the syllaole preceding it
(prohibition,SPE p.87),and the operation of the tri-syllabic
laxing
rule(decide/decision,S~E
p.182). A later rule takes
ito :t.. (SPE p.2 <' 5-2 .c 7) • .v· urther rules of spiran oization
and palatalization yield the correct output.
On then, to the allomorphs of ION. As many
peoplehave,I am sure,noticed, this sui .t' ix has several
underlying phonological .{orms , as shown by
t
1e following
alternations:
realize
realization
*realizion
"•. educate
education
*educatation
repeat
repetition
*repetation
commune
communion
*communation
resume
resumption
*resumion
resolve
resolution
*resolvation
*repetion
*resumation
I believe that from these, anu other examples, we can
dmonstrate that ION exhibits the following allomorphs:
+iVn, +At+iVn, +t+iVn, and possibly +it+iVn,
+U~+iVn
The distribution of these forms is somewhat complex,
but 1 will try to give as complete a description as
possible.
2.1.
At+i Vn
this is the unmarked variant.
I~
is
freeest in terms of conditions on its attachment, and
alsotne most productive . As evidence of its productivity
let us look at verbs in the suffix +ize. These verbs may,
8
almost without exception, form nominals in +At+iVn. so,
if I create the verb communalize, I may
automa~cally
create the corresponding nominal communalization. ln the
cases where a nominal in +At+iVn may not be 1.'ormed , it is
because there already exists a parallel nominal of another
form,as i'or example criticize,*criticizaLion, criticism.
The strong productivity of +At+iVn suffixation with verbs
in +ize can be strikingly compared with suf ixation in
+ment, a Latinate nominal suffix with almost parallel
semantics. /Jalker lists only the following 1'i ve nominals
in .X.izemen"t:
afiranchisement, advertisement,chastisement, divertisement
agg:randizemen t.
So we see an almost exceptionless tendency for verbs in
+ize to have nominals in +At+iVn, as opposed to +ment.
How this fact is to be captured I."ormally , I do not at
present know.
~-2
As far as I can see,there is no restriction on
the iinal consonant of verbs to which: +At+iVn may attach.
The following list demonstrates this point.
9
List of +At+iVn nominals
LABIAL
CORO.NAL
perturb(ation)
l:: orm(ation)
exhum(ation)
usurp(ation)
~here
?v •
>·
cess(ation;
de grad (a ti on)
elicit(ation)
accus(ation)
revel(ation)
declar(ation)
examin(ation)
represent(ation)
deport(ation)
manifest(ation)
COnSU.lt(ation)
affect (a ti on)
commend(ation)
sens(ation)
indors(ation)
VBL.AR
evoc(ation)
purg , ation)
prolong(ation)
do not appear to be any principled gaps.
There are only a few instances o1· +At+i Vn
at"ter a vowel-final stem. 1'his can simply be traced to
the relative paucity
of ~ vowel-final
Latinate stems.
Examples are renounce/renunciation, vary/variation,
continue/continuation.
final stems
8he
,'
1nte~~sting cla§s of vowel-
does exist. As noted in
SP~
(p.2 0 1),verbs
in +fz and +£1l generally nave nominals in ication,as
ampli1·yj ampli1" i ca tipn, imply/ implication. 'l'his al terna tion is covered by the.f ollowing "ad-hoc" P-rule:
(SP~
p.201,rule (b2))
ampliiy is thus derived from ampli i ik, and the i in
ampli.Lication ls shortened by -,;he rule tnat shortens
10
the r"irst a of explanation. :rhe rule is "ad-hoc 11 in a
non-pejorative sense. lt is so rormulated as to have its
structural desc ·iption met only by verbs . vi th the roots
+1y,
±E!l·
the + ooundary does its job, serving
~ven
to prevent dis=lik rrom being converted into dis=li.
The rule is peculiar, t1ough, in that though
u~E
it among the P-rules, there is no other P-rule
mutJ~;
~,.vowel
precede it
be the
~i rst
lists
~hat
shi ..L t must follow it). lt could
rule of the phonology. This leads us quite
naturally to ask whether this is indeed a Y-rule at all •
..t'erhaps it is a rule of allomorphy. Is
~here
any evidence
for this proposalY
of all, stating \62; as a r ule of
~irst
allomorphy
~·wuld
immedia Lely account f Jr its ordering
properties, for such rules must vrecede all P-rules.
Secondly, (62; could just as easily have a mor phological
as a phonological environment, since its domain or
application is limited to two roots. utating the
environment phonologically does, however, make a certain
prediction, namely
will ever reach
~he
~hat
no wurd of the form HX+C 1 Ik#
s urface in ~nglish. aS noted
above the + is crucial.
and outpsyche.
these ~ =
~here
are words such as dis=like
boundaries have a nasty habit of
fading away to +4 . If,perchance, outpsyche, a very common
11
verb,did lose its =, would it then become *awtsi.
Doubtful. This intuition is a strong indication
that the environment ;or the k-dropping is indeed
not
c1Ik,
but rather vhe two roots ln question. lf
we persist in stating the rule as phonological, we
must mark them
~ith
a rule feature as +(62).
If
we simply regard (62) as a rule of allomorphy, we
lose a rule-feature and minor rule combination. The
rule-feature in question is, in addition, not
motivated on grounds of abstraction.
ords in +fy provide us V;i th another example
of a rule-feature minor rule combination which may be
included in "the rules
o:t:
allomoryhy. As mentioned in
SPE, certain verbs in +fy have nominals in +faction
(putrefy/putrefaction). SPE accounts J.'or this by having
the verb marked oy a rQle-feature for undergoing
::>hart Vowel Shil"t, the minor rule tnat accounts .for
the sing/sang alternation. aore 1.)recisely, the rule that
assigns the rule-feature (+0VSJ must assign it only
to the morpheme +fy, in order to avoid having the
other vowels of the word in question undergo SVS.
The deivation of satisfaction thus proceeds as J.ollows
(cf. ::>PE pp.201-202):
12
(+8VSJ
satis+(~Ik)+t+iVn.
fik
fak
laxing
SV0
etc.
;_cc
satisi'ak~-i:n
There is some doubt as to tne status of SVS. The sing/sang
alternation has been claimed (Hoard & Sloat 1j 73J to
be the result of other distinct rules. There is also a
quetion as to .• hether rule :eeatures may be assigned to
constituent morphemes, ra t. her tnan entire Lexical
Items (SPE 373 ff.). The rule-feature is also, i r, cidentally,
of the non-abstract variety. This suggests that the
fik to fak process may be morphological. In tnis case,
there is very strong evidence, from the .{ orm of t.heiO.N
suft"ix, that this is so.
All nominals in +fak are oi· the 1orm i+factian
(liguefaction/*liguefacation). All nominals in +fik, with
the sole
exce ~ tion
of crucifixion, are of the I orm
X+fication. +fak is thus a root With the property that
the
~
of At+iVn drops after it. •rhis property is very
common; +t+iVn is the marked form of the sufLix, after
non-coronals, as will be seen below. There are , i urthermore, no cases where the rule that assigns the marked
suf f ix must make reference to a derived phonol ogl cal
property(other than perhaps the root final consonantJ
~e
must, therefore,presume that it is the feature (+SVS)
which determines the form of the suffix here:
13
R 1.
At+iVn
t+iVn I
fik(+~V~J+__
But there is no other case of a rule feature determining
the form of the suffix either. (R1), which must be
~ osited
if the fik/fak alternation is phonological, is thus a
very s i ngular rule. If, on the other hand, we state the
alternation at a mor phological level, we obviate the need
for both such a bizarre rule as (R1), and the
rule feature and minor
rule.~he
suspec~
morphological solution
is thus to be preferred on several gr J unds.
2.4.
I can feel the critical reader,
squirm ~ ng
in their seat, hand out s tretched in objection; it
appears that sut·f icient evidence has not been presented
with regard to the last two issues.
~he
alternate
solutions have not been discredited;both generate the
required output. 1 will remind this reader,though, that
the question here is not one of generation, but of
evaluation; when presented with a form, which may be
dealt with in either of two ways, which one does the
5Tammar choose? I have tried to show that when faced
with the dilemma, rule-feature plus minor rule, or
mor pholog 1cal rule, the grammar chooses the latter.
Of course this decision calls into question the status
of rule-feature minor rule pairs. If they can be
eliminatd from the grammar entirely, then tnere is
no longer a dilemma.
14
2.5.
The proposed derivation of nominals from
stems in +fy and ±ElY provides us with one case in
....
which there is an ordering between
morpnological~
,
~
The r' ik/fak rule must ap ply to the stem beiore the
condition on the attachment of At+iVn can be stated,
r'or the marked variant t+iVn is attached to fak, and
not to fik. It is probable, however, that rules of
stem allomorphy always precede rules of suffix
allomorphy. lf this indeed turns out to be the general
case, then we can say that though tnere may be ordering
among morphological rules, the ordering may never be
extrinsic. ln any case, the issue a v, ai ts further
evidence.
3.1.
We have now encoun1.ereu. a set of ION nom..L nal-
izations, the X+faktion type whose formation, or analysis
is not purely agglutinative. I shall turn then to other
forms in which there appears to be a change in the
suffix from the unmarked f orm At+iVn, and sometimes,
concomitant change in the root of the stem verb. In this
regard, we have already seen that fak is t he marked
nominal forming variant of f.Y: it only appears with certain verbs, such as satisfy, and with others which are
marked by the purely non-phonological pre ence of an
~before
the +fy (liquefy, putrefy). It is this marked
variant which takes the marked form of the suffix. This
15
phenomenon is quite general. T'lany of the roots which
take marked forms of the suffix exhibit mor 1)hological
variation. This is called ben-Moshe's first law of
the marked root.
Verbs in +At (equivocate, prevaricate) ,form
3.2.
IO~
nominals about as productively as those in +ize,
with a corresponding lack of nominals in +ment(only
abatement and (rein,mis,under)statement. As has been
11
observed before (Siegel1971), the derived nominals do
not reduplicate the At (equivocation/*eguivocatation,
prevarication/*prevaricatation). It appears that the
restriction does not merely hold on*+At+At sequences
but on any XAt+At; so relate must be analyzed as
re+lat, yet we have relation and not*relatation.
Contrary to this tendency, however, we have dilatation,
where the unanalyzability of +lat seems to indlcate that
the narrowform (+At+At) of the restriction holds.
~imilarly
with natation • The existence of dilation,
though, does point to a preference for the extended form.
Perhaps a look at other unanalyzable Latinate stems in
Xate will help here. There are three, to my knowledge:
abate, sate, and state. sate has an alternate satiate
from which t he nominal satiation is
·r~ i
~L"ormed.
Tricky.
th abate and s ~,ate something quite fantastic happens.
16
They are, as
above, the only verbs of
no~ed
~ne
form
Xate which 1orm nominals in +ment. 1 can only concluue
!rom this that faced with Lhe crucial case, which will
decide
two possible verslons of s rule, the
be~ween
grammars equivoca~es, ana avoids having ~o maKe a uecisionJ.
Other cases
~rom
o~
extension of an environment
~he
morphological to phonological nave been uiscussed
by Pr1nce
He points out tirstly tnat nouns in
~1972).
osis(arteriosclerosis) nave adjectives in otlc and never
o~ical.
However
environment covers all cases of Xot,
~he
and not just X+ot; nence iulotic(*alJ,uespotic(*al).
~uio~ical
and
long ago.
~nis
uespo~ical
sugges~s
from restricted
ical.
~imilarly,
~o
were posslble words not too
a historical change in
~ne
rule,
extended, morphological to phonolog-
verbs in i+fy have adjectives in i+fic
(specify/specific), and not i+fic+al (*specifical). This
has been extended in some cases (scientific(*al)), but
not all (Pontiff,*pontific,pontifical).
It appears
,the~,
that
the~
is a constraint
prohibiting +At+At orXAt+At sequences. How one might ask,
does the constraint operate? Does some rule delete the
first At, or the second?
~·rom
looking at other suffixes
we can gain some insight. It appears that stem final +At
deletes generally before suffixes, so celebrate/celebrant,
nominate/nominee. If we wish to make a general statement,
17
we ean say that +At deletes before a suf1.ix, i.e. it
is the firs:t .A.t that deletes. One might claim as a
rule that .tit+iVn, being the unmarked varian"t ol" the
suffix ION, is also the only productive form of the suffix,
and the fac"t that it is the first At which deletes in n
the formation of this very productive class of derived
nominals (Xate/Xation) is evidence for this claim. However, in order to have any strength, the claim snould
have relevance to other suffixation processes. If one
could show that, in general , the unmarked .rorm of a
suffix is the only productive form, then t:nis particular
caes would be decided by the theory. I am , at present,
not in any pos 1tion to discuss the matter further .
4. The Harked Roots
4. 1 •
We come now to those cases which I consider
the most interesting, the marked roots. I have already
mentioned that fak is such a root. It is marked, and -.
takes t+iVn, rather than At+iVn. Note that fak is not
a lexical item, it is a morpheme, distributionally
determined, with very little sema: tic content(compare
the semantics of putrel"y and satisfy, in particular,
what does
sa~is+
mean?). One might think that this is
an exceptional case, and that when a given lexical
i tern has a no minal in At+i vn, the form of the s u.f i ix
is determined by that individual and entire lexical
18
item. This is n ot so. It is rather the last morpheme
of the stem, which can usually be called the root,
which determines the form of the suffix. lf a root is
marked, then all occurences of that root take the marked
suffix. 1'his ben-Moshe' s second law of the root • .J.!'urther more, if any occurence of a given root exhibits
allomorphy
will show
(/~At+iVn),
the~sam£
then all occurences of that root
allomorph. fy/fik/fak is the only
exce ption to this last rule.
I will give an example. Take tne list of all
verbs of the form xsume:
subsume,resume,presume,consume,assume
~he
first elements of
~ hese
verbs are common Latinate
prefixes, which may be isolated distributionally . The
verbs have very little in common semantically, and there
is no possible way inwhich, by giving the morpheme
+sume some meaning,
h ~ wever
broad, we may derive the
meanings of the separate verbs compositionally.
~
is therefore a distributionally determined morpheme ,
with little, if any, semantic content. now all of
these verbs have nominals in
I v~:
subsumption,resumption,presumption,consump$ion,assumption
The .form of the suf1.·ix must be t+iVn (as with fak),
and is never At+iVn (consummation, as in
~hakespeare
is from consummate). This fact is not determined
19
phonologically , for we have exhume/exhumation,
de·plWile/deplumation. Yet every verb in +sume takes
the same marked Jorm of the suf...._" ix. 11 e can conclude
either that this fact is the product oi chance,or
that it is determined by +sume.
~·urther
examples will
demonstrate that it is no matter of chance.
v~e
must
therefore conclude that tne root +sume is marke u to
form nominals in+t+ivn.
'l'he verbs ln+sume provide a good example o1'
another phenomenon too . If a verb containing a marked
root permits nominalization by
rrn ,
it is usually the
case that all verbs in that root will have a parallel
nominal f orm. This is a tendency, and not s u strict
as the second law.
4 .2.
~·, hat
are the marked .forms of vhe af .L'.L X ION?
For roots endlng in non-coronals, i.e. labials and
velars, the marked .L·Jrm is +t+iVn. +fak and +sume
are two examples of t his. others are listed below
verb root
/_+ION
d4=k+e
skrib
sev
-em
sorb
stroy
d4=k
skrib
sep
-em
sorb
struk
-
deduce
prescribe
conceive
redeem
absorb
destroy
deduction
prescription
conception
redemption
absorption
destruction
20
These are the marked non-coronal roots . By ben-lVioshe 's
laws, no verb containing any one of these roots will
have a nominal in At+iVn . This is the case . The point
about +sume having little or no intrinsic meaning
holds for these roots too, as 1well as the tendency
.{ or all verbs in a given root to have ION nominals .
A list of the verbs and
IO~
nominals in +ceive and
+duce demonstrates these two independent points
quite well:
receive
deceive
conce l ve
perceive
apperceive
deduce
reduce
seduce
? induce
? conduce
produce
introduce
reproduce
reception
deception
conception
perception
apperception
deduction
reduction
seduction
induction
conduction
production
introduction
reproduction
Marked coronal-final rou"ts c·,J mprise the most
irregular and complex class, es pecially with regard to
changes of the root.
E~en
the form of the marked ION
sufix after coronals is unclear. hany investigators
(cf
Schnitzer(1 ~ 71 1 ,
Householder(1 972)) list it as
21
+t+iVn, i.e. the same suffix as with marked non-cor onals.
This cannot be so. nather the suf f ix must be +ivn,as
in
SP~,
f or the following rasons.
¥irstly, alternations such as rebel/rebellion,
commune/c ommunion, demand the positing of +iVn, at
leas~
after some occurences of nasals and liquids.
Secondly, as alternat ions like decide/decision
revise/revision, argue, the vowel preceding
Iu1~
must
be laxed by tri-syllabic laxing. In cases such as
abrade/abrasion,
ro~ate/ro~ation,
t his vowel has
further undergone a rule that tenses non-high vo wels
in the following
I -hi
environment(S ~E
p.1 d 1):
-low
-cons V
-back
-stress
This rule also operates in alternations s uch as
Canada/Canadian,Abel/~belian.
Crucially, there must oe
one and only one consonant a f ter t he af f ected vowel.
If the suffix in abrasion is +t+iVn, the environment
will not be met.
~here
must, tnerefore, be a rule which
deletes t h e ; t, bef ore the above rule ap plies. Since
this t-deleti on rule is not crucially ordered after
any
~-rule,
the suf f ix can just as easily be +iVn,
exactly as it is in commlli4ion and rebellion. We can
thus nave a uni1orm suffix for all marked coronals.
22
Note, by the way, that the environment for the rejected
rule of t-deletion cannot be stated phonologically,but
rather in terms of marked coronal roots,or stems.
~he
root ven (convene/convention) shows an
interesting interaction oi the two phenomena just
dealt with under the two
argumen~s.
One might be
tempted to regard the alternation of this root as
evidence of the suffix being +t+iVn after at least
some occurences of g. However, if the suffix is
+t+iVn, the t must be deleted, in most cases,before
the tensing rule applies, as I have just demonstrated.
One would, therefore ,have to mark ven as an exception
to this !-deletion rule. If, however,the root ven
has the form vent as an allomorph
/_10~,
there is no
need to mark this root as an exception to any rule.
The root change is also equivalent in effect to
marking ven as taKing +t+iVn, instead mf +iVn, like
communion. The t-dropping thus requires an
ex~ra
marking. What,in the t+iVn SJlution was two separated
unrelated marks, thus becomes one und..1orm morphological
change, by a rule of allomorphy.I give the two
derivations,r·cr comparison.
23
Rival derivations of vention
+t+iVn
+iVn
Morphological.
markings
1.ven=vent/At+iVn
underlying
forms
Rules of
suffix
1.At+iVn=t+iVn/ven__
( As opposed to iVn/mune__ )
2.ven is an exception
to t-deletion.
vent+At+iVn
(mark1)
ven+At+iVn
(mark1, 2)
At+iVn=iVn
/ marke ~ coronals
(mark1)
A-c+iVn=t+iVn
\mark1, +mark)
Phonolog1cal
rules
vent+iVn
1.~-dropping
n.a.
2. '.tri-syllabic
laxing
(or laxing /vu)
n.a.
3. tensing
n.a.
ven+t+iVn
ven+t+iVn
\mark2 J
ven+t.+iVn
n.a.
et cetera
UUT.PU'r
ven:s~n
ven~~n
24
above that
ls~id
rule
~he
o~
!-dropping is
suspect, in that there is no P-rule which it must
!allow, and at least one ,~ensing; which it must
precede 6 • There is one example in the li teratUL·e, however,
in which the t is put to some phonological use.Schnitzer
'-
(1971) attempts to derive succession !rom sub=Ked+t+iVn.
He uses the !
t.,O
devoice the _9;. Hov,ever there is no way
.f:or him to shorten the e, and his 1inal !·arm is
suk=ses+iVn , the incorrect
~
as
exemp~
!rom the
outpu~.,.
~ensing
uEE (p.1b2) ~ists
rule; e is thUS snortened
by tri-syllabic laxing, and markedly not lengthened.
Using the device of root allomorphy, we can list ced
as
~/_+At+iVn
consonan~
~_or
prevents
shorten the
~
!_co.
The double
the e from tensing, and is in
accora with the distributional fact that there are
no Latinate roots of the rorm *XVs+.
~hus
the only caes
know 01 where the t
l
has been claimed to perform some phonologi cal
runction can be aealt with in a
princ~pled
fashion
if the marked coronal su1fix is iVn, and if we make
use o.i hte device of allomorphy in marked
roo~s
\ ben-I•wshe' s t irst law) • lu 1 act tne princip: al
01
allomorphy is very strongly supported oy both of the
last examples \the derivation of Xvention and acession).
whe.L·e t ormerly i l.ems had to be marked with rule
reatures, in one case several unrelated rule features ,
the same effect can be
gai~ed
by a simple rule of
2)
allomorphy, whicn serves in addition
mark
~o
~he
root
in question.
4.4. Hartin's observations
Beiore aelving
urther into coron als, we
must maKe a short sia e-trip, and look into t he c ;n clusions or some wor k uone by :::>usan 1·1art1n
will be
01.
~
1972), which •...
great n elp 1n the analysis ot the data.
Martin observes tnat d erived words in t h e s ,!: t ixes
lUN,-ive,-ory,=£!, are built on what seems to be the
same form of a given root, a .r orm which, as we have
seen in t he case of lON, of ten differs fr om that of
the stem verb. The followin g alternations de monstrate
this point:
divide
division
divisive
divisor
compuls i on
compulsive
compulsory
compel
subver s ion
subvert
s ubversive
assert
assertion
assertive
retain
re t ention
retentive
accusatory
accuse
accusation ~accysative)
excretion
excretory
excrete
apprehend
apprehension a ppr ehensive
percus s
percus s ion
percussive
Let us accept,then, in the light o!: theabove alternations,
that the various suffixes are attached to t he same allomorph of a given stem,i.e. to t ne same underlying phonolo gical form. Since t here is so much neutralization of
26
contrast in the
lU~
forms, we may now discover the
underlying rinal consonant(s) of a
: r root / ION
-~
-
by inspection of the corres ponding +ive or+ory
form.
Martin also maKes the i'urther point t .t1at
in general the
IO~
suffixea word is primary. One
very se l dom finds a +ive or +ory word which does
not have a corresponding
+IO~
form, and, even
historically, of the ION +ive pairs, the . ION form
can generally be shown to have entered the language
before the +ive form. This second point of Nartin's
proves to be crucial when we try to
~ ormalize
one,i.e. at what s t age in a derivation do the
the first
IO~
+ive f orms have the same final consonant(s)?
There is a ;· great deal of allomorphy
exhibited by cor onal f inal stems. I will discuss
as best I can all the
al~ernations,
and have,as a
prelude to this,listed them inthe table below. The
table may be used as a reference in t.t1e discussion
that fol l ows.
and
27
Table of marked coronal alternations
Samnle verbs
excrete ,X+sert
X+mit (permit)
X+vert (convert)
digest
connect
decide,explode
X+ cede (concede)
apprehend
commune
scan
convene ,retain
prevent
recense
coerce
disperse
submerge,asperge
adhere
recur
rebel
.X.+pel ~expel)
convulse
revise
percuss
admonition
verb-f inal -· c
t
t
t
st
kt
d
d
nd
n
n
n
nt
ns
rs
rs
rdt.
r
r
I +iVn
t
t
t
s~
k~
t
~
n~
I +ive
t
s
s
st
kt
s
s
ns
n
nt
nt
n~
nt
rt
rt./rt
rt.
t
rt.
1
1
1
ls
z
s
t
1~
lt
t
t
~
nt
nt
rs
rs
rs
s
rs
ls
ls
s
t
28
ti e can extract from this list some very
general properties of the /_ION and /_ive forms.
Firstly, of the full consonants, only
~
and t occur
before +ive. The absence of any VJiced full consonants before this suffix can be easily captured by the
following ad-hoc rule:
C
= -voice/__ +ive
The fact that there are no voiceless counterparts to
1 and g might account for two interesting gaps in our
paradigm. There are no cases of *Xlive or *Xnive.
communion has no corresponding
adjec~ive,
and rebellion
has rebellious. Just as with abatement and statement,
the morphology avoids a phonological dilemma.
~he
second general
fac~
to be noted is that
except after 1 and g, +iVn is preceded only by the
~,~,~.
pala~als
This is the result of palatalization, an apparently
simple process (but see below, and
SP~
229-231).
Looking at the alternations, we note only
eight cases where the .final consonant (cluster) of the
verbal stem is in a one-to-one correspondence (one way)
with the c .nsonant(s) preceding ION and+ive. These are
~,Vz,st,kt,nt,nd,~,ls.
Except for nd, all these have
exactly the same consonant before +ive as they do wordfinally. This suggests that whatever alternation is
manifested I
~he
iVn, can be accounted for phonologically
general correspondence is
z/<t,
t/~
s/~
•
29
After!! however, we have
t/~
(question). these l"acts can
be handled by the following simple rules:
t=~/s_yV
palatalization 1
palatalization 2
+C(tllS
-voc
Palatalization before lY .
phenomenon;however, the
=
-ant I
+strid _yv
seems .
a~tempt
to be a very general
to state it as one rule
runs into many phonological problems, which
1
will not
d1scuss here. r1lost fo -che relevant !"acts can be found
in
~PE
(229-235).
Turning now to nd, we find the following:
-n~4:n#
-nsiv#
are several roots in -nd
~her
+hend
+tend
+pand
+cend
n54:n#
~ells
apprehend, comprehend
pre~end, contend, ex~end
expand
ascend
us that the nominal/adjec-cival stem must be
either Xnt or Xns. nsiv# tells us that it must be Xns.
lfl.J.!j
may therefore posit the following rule:
d= s/n ~on
-lve
~his
1
may not be the proper way to state the rule, and
will
re~urn
to it later.
~-final
abolish
admonish
punish
stems are curious:
abolition
admoni ti.on
admonitive
punitive
30
~he
~/__+ive
fact that we have
have a
shows that these stems
variant Xt. Here is a case where
combina~ry
roots show the same sur1ace segment
~
in two environ-
ments, but where . there is good evidence that these
two segments must be deriveu from two distinct
underlying segments, in distinct allomorphs. One might
try to state the
~
to t rule phonologically. Note
however that the change only takes place before iVn
and ive, i.e. in a morphological environment.
~his
is
important.
t-final stems show interesting alternations.
~he
must common one is
t/~/t
(excrete,assert,transitJ
This involves no morphological change of any sort.
with the root +mit, however, we .f i nd
t1~/s
(permit,
permissive,permission). There are no cases of
or Xmitative, facts which, we recall, are
ben-Moshe's laws. This can be
accoun~ed
-~~.x.mitive
predi~ted
by
for by pos i ting
for +mit the allomorph +miss / __ Io~.
+Vert is another
root which exhibits allomorphy.
subver~~n,subver~iv,
we
ge~
~nbtead
of the
expec ~ ed
subver~~n,subversiv.
The
occurence of : .1: tells us that the relevant allomorpn
ml.lst be
~·
31
.!!'rom vert we may turn to other cases of
r~/r1J:
coerce
disperse
immerse
emerge
asperge/se
submerge/se
deterge
coersiv
coer~.fn
di sper 1J.fn (? ~.fn)
immer ~.fn (? 1J.fn)
emer1J.fn(*~.fn)
asper1J.fn(*~.fn)
submer1J.fn(*~.fn)
deter1J.fn(*~~n)
detersiv
With stems in xrge we always nave r1J. The s in detersive
suggests a rule similsr to that involving Xnd:
g =z/_IO.N
Note that this orthographic g is most likely velar
underlyingly (purge/purgaii.on). If we wish to preserve
the
uniformity of the statement that +iVn attaches
to coronals and +t+iVn to non-coronals, in marked
stems, then the g to z rule must apply before
men~
~his
state-
can be made. rtowever, the g to z rule seems to be
phonologically
mo~i vated
as
to~
wi~n
the nd
by the glide
01
+1:..:!.£,
just~ · ..
rule, and thus to follow the suffix
allomorpny rule or ION to +ivn.
~noosing
this
~atter
order
would rorce us to state the distribution rule as
IO~
=iVn
1af~er
The distribution rule
sine it feeds
i~
,ir
marked coronals, ana illarkedg
(not lf)
canno~
the~
be stated
ar~er
is indeed the
g to !'
p~onological
trigger.We thus have the follow.hg alternative solutions:
32
1
2
1. g=z (allomorphy)
lO~=iVn
~.
g=z (pnonological)
IO~
=ivu/coronals __
(with skewea
en vir onmen t.)
The existence OI back forms asperse,submerse, is
relevant here, tor 1t shows
tha~
the
g
to~
rule is
opaque. disperse,immerse are also back-formations.
uispersion is
M~,
disperse 1450, immersion is 1450,
immerse 1650. This is aaaea eviaence for the
g to
~'
opaci~i
or
which leads me to support the hypothesis
expressea by the oraering in \1) 1 •
The two roots in r are good examples or roots
marked by allomorphy. Lhey are the onli r-Iinal roots
~hat
take
IO.L~,
and are both marked by
unpredic~able
allomorphy (.kur/kurz,her/hez). +ne:re is also a good
example ot· the
ex~ension
or a smi ix to all verbs in a
given root:
inhere
adhere
cohere
inhesion
adnesion
conesion
+tain/+ten~
innesive
adhesive
conesive
(retain/retetion) is curious. lt.
show s a vowel cnange;we would expect *ret.antio11.
accounlis tor th1s change by making
+~ain
uP~\p.202;
undergo the
short vowel shift rule, as was done witn ra.k.
~his
seems
53
to be another unwarran1ied.
use of a rule i'eature
minor rue pair. Au inspection ot all the items that
undergo
shows that this putatively general process
~v~
applies only to items which are marked. bya non-abs"tract
rule Ieature
4.6.
vO
undergo it.
1 have lei't i'or last tne most regular and. puzzling
case, the £-i'inal roo"ts.
i'irst glance, they appear
~'t
to be no puzzle at all. Except for the root cede, which
was discussed above, we always have the same alternation.
£/~/~ (decid.e/uec~sion/decisive;
!
• Thre is a rule "taking
"to ~ in some environmen"t. ~he question is, as in many
cases above, how to state the environment, and what sort
of' rule we are dealing with, phonological or morpological.
Keeping in mind Martin s observation
+ive and +ory, are secondary, and
disregard. +ive ana +ory
application.
~ne
rule
dS
Iu~
~hat
is primary,we may
environments i'or the rule's
appl~s
bei'ore
10~
orivn, and the
secondary suliixes take their stems i'rom the output of
'tnat rule. This way of dealing wi1..h the change allows
us both to restrict
~ts
environment, and Iormalize the
notion of seconaary sufiix.
~o
i
d=z /_101'-l
or~
.n. ls
~t
the sUIIix or the
tnat conditions this change,i.e. is the rule morphol-
ogically or phonologically conditioned? Generally,£
aoes not appear bei'ore Y:.- (i=y in lVl'l, as noted above).
34
ln fact, the rule that takes i "tOY:. after coronals
(..::>_t)~
p.225)
is idiosyncratically blG>cked by ,9; (pavilion/enchiridion).
the only case v11ere a.+y does arise, mther than bet ore
1n
ION , we
~
get ~ ~
(cordia}) Thus the rule that takes d to
applies only before
in ada.i "tion, that
~
am
IO~/ivn,
its
derivatives.~ote
a.oes not spiran tize before IO.....
1nere is no rule taking t to
~'
fer the .! appears before
+ive (secretive/decisive).
Thus, the change, if phonological, is highly
marke~.
lt can just as easily be stated with a
morphological environment, and, since it follows no
~-rule,
as a rule of allomorphy. Lhis rule can also,
incidentally, be applied to the instances of lli!
discussea. earlier. Such an extension would necessitate
a rule devoicing
~/n_.
~his
latter rule does seem to be
well motivated. Lhere is only one case of word fmnal
~'
bronze, and no cases oi lz.
and
a+vulsion(revul~~n).
X+pulsion,propuls~n)
The critical hand is rising again.
1
have
argued now, in several dEtinet instances, against a
phonological rule, and have posited instead a rule
of allomorphy, which applies to more than one root,
nd to
~'~
to t, g to
~,
£ to
~·
But these cases are
really the e<n>e of the paJW_e r. It appears, from Nartin' s
remarks, that a speaker, when coining a word in +ive
35
or +ory, takes the requisite word in ION, and
performs a kind of unravelling of phonological rules,
until they can go no further. It is tm this last
form, the product of the last unravelling,that they
add the suffix
+ive,~+ory.
Everything beyond is
opaque, unavailable. By positing the above rules as
morphological rather than phonological rules, I am
claiming that this last 1'\l'm is significant, it is
the ultimate and first form, the basic phonological
form.
~he
rules that
prod~e
this form, are, I claim,
in every case of an entirely different sort from the
P-rules.
are morphological, and their environments
~hey
are stated mor phologically. I have also shown that if
we always
sta~
these rules as rules of allomorphy, we
gain something. We can preserve the generality and
position of the statement of suffix alternation • .Now
any one of these points may be challenged, particularly
these last rules o1' allomorphy; but they cohere.
'.rake just one away, and the others 1·a11.
5.1.
~here
remains only a little mopping up to be
done. Two more possible variants o1' ION are in need of
comment.
~hey
are +it+iVn and
+~t+iVn.
Evidence i or the
first is the following set of alternations:
36.
additive
add
addition
?rend
rendition
vend
vendition
definitive
define
definition
.X.+posi tion
.X.ot-positive/ory
.X.+pose
compete
competition
competitive
repeat
repetition
repetitive
imbibition
imbibe
~hese can be handled in one of twm ways. ~ither we mark
these rules for a special suffix
IO~o
it+iVnl root+M
orwe change the root by adding
add=addit/__
!!·
So, for example
IO~
The first solution entails having more than
suffix. A given markeo root will either
~ake
one marked
(t)+iVn
arit+iVn. and will have to be markedfor the given variant.
~his
is more complicated than the second . Other than that
1 can see no !actor that determines a choice here.
5.2.
+~t+iVn
:J.:he possibility of there being a suffix
is provided by the following:
revolve
resolve
dissolve
solve
revolution
resolution
dissolution
solution
The two roots are odd, both eding in lv. One could
simply mark them .
(after a
~he
non~cornal),
revolvtion.
~he
suffix would then be t+iVn,
and we would nave, for example,
v could then go to u /_t.
37.
Alternatively, we could have a suffix
~t+iVn,
and drop the v. The first s olution seems slightly
better. we can use a sUf f ix we have already. Both require
an ad-hoc rule.
.~
>
l
t
I '-i..,..
,I
tf~)
/
38
~--
OOT.N OTES
1. The sole exception to the stress condition is burial.
Exce~ions
to the second are trial,rental,cital,quittal,
with mono-syllabic stems, and presupposal,disavowal,
disapproval witn tri-syllabic stems.
~ote
that in the
latter cases all are prefixed, and there exist supeosal
avowal,approval.
2. The indirect object case is no longer productive, and
words formed in it are felt to be somewha t obsolete.
3. The reader should note that such a morpholo gical
property as +Latinate is the pr operty not of a phonological form, but of a morpheme. l or example there are
in English two homophomous morphemes ride. The one is
-Latinate, and appears in the verbs ride,override.
the other is +Latinate, and appears in the verb deride
The suff ix ION attaches to +Latinate rCots, am
theref~
may attach to the latter to form derision, but not to
the f ormer, *overrision. I owe this poin"t to l"larchand
(1 960).
4. See Shelvador (fo rthcoming)
5. The "teleological nature of this phenomenon has be en
taken by E. S .Williams as a sign of the hand of God at
work. The gap can be explained, he no"tes,only as the
result of an ac"tive in"telligence's wish to confuse the
investi gator,
•
39.
6.
~he
comparison of digest/digestion with fwt/factual
will reveal another such rule (cf.
SP~
230-233).
7. Some readers may s corn the use of philology, and
historbal information aoout the chicken and the egg
in arguments about synchronie description. no .v ever, we
are dealing here with frozen, learneu, Latinate vocabulary, not with any general or producrtive phenomenon ,
and in such cases, whatthe linguist often sees as a
general1zation, may in fact be a mere artifact.
40
BIBLIOGRAPlH
1. Chomsky,A.N. and M. Halle (1968) The sound Pattern
of English,New york
2. nale,Kenneth(196?) Paper on the Maori passive
3. Householder,F .w.(1 972) A Problem in rule ordering???'
in Linguistic Inguiry(III,3)
4. Kiparsky, Paul ( 1968) How Abstract is Phonology ("-'4 s)
5. Marchand,Hans (1960) The 0ategories and ~ypes of
Present-lJay English \•lord iormation , Wiesbaden
6. Martin, Susan -ive arl other -ion based suf1ixes(Ms)
1. Prince, Alan s.
IC (Ms)
8. Schni~zer, Marc. L. A problem in rule ordering
in Linguistic Inquiry (11,3)
9. Shelvador,0rosley(fotthcoming) The phonetics of = and+
10. :::>iegel, Dorothy Some Lexical 'l'ransderivational
Constraints in ~nglish (ms)