ACTL Autumn School 2016
Anti-lexicalism in
phonology and morphology
Sam Steddy, UCL
[email protected]
28th October 2016
Idiosyncrasy in the Lexicon
Marantz (1997) notes that until c. the 1990s, different types of linguistic
idiosyncrasy or irregularity were considered lexical properties. See, for
example, the work of Edwin Williams on morphology, or David Pesetsky
or Paul Kiparsky in phonology in the 1980s.
Essentially, under lexicalist analyses, morphological idiosyncrasies are
not derived in syntax, phonology, or semantics.
Idiosyncratic phonology: Morphological Allomorphy
(1)
a.
b.
talk + ed
speak + PAST
→
→
(2)
a.
b.
kid + s
→
child + PLURAL →
talked
spoke
kids
children
2
Idiosyncrasy in the Lexicon
Today is dedicated to idiosyncrasy in phonology, but it should be noted
that idiosyncrasy in meaning is an equally important topic within
Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993).
Idiosyncratic meaning: Idiomaticity
(3)
a.
b.
chocolate + cake
pan + cake
→
→
(4)
a.
b.
c.
school + boy
cow + boy
game + boy
‘a boy who goes to school’
??‘a boy who works with cows’
*‘a boy who goes to games’
→
→
→
‘a cake made of chocolate’
*‘a cake made of pans’
3
What is Lexicalism?
Without dwelling too much on the past, one way of thinking about
lexicalism is that they allow some parts of a derivation to occur in the
lexicon, where phonology and meaning are still ‘changeable’.
LEXICON
speak
with
PAST
pan
Bob
the
cook
cake a Louise
SYNTAX
4
Problems with Lexicalism
On a conceptual level, lexicalism implies large scale memorisation or
lexical listing of properties of morphemes or combinations of morphemes.
There would be nothing wrong with this per se, but if idiosyncrasy can be
derived then it is our job to work out how.
• At best, some lexical approaches are open about being ’placeholder’
analyses, which suffice until more is known about the topic.
• At their worst, other lexical approaches seem contradictory to
principles of Universal Grammar.
5
Overview
Today I’ll present two case studies which show two different ways in
which phonological idiosyncrasy can be derived:
i. Palatalisation in Italian verb paradigms
- which is governed not by any lexical listing of the verbs a
phonological rule applies to, but by phonological correspondence.
ii. Suppletion in comparative adjective paradigms
- otherwise termed morphologically conditioned allomorphy, which is
governed by morphosyntactic structure.
Though these two research domains share similar objectives, the
similarity between the two has not been widely remarked on.
6
I: Phonological Correspondence
Case Study: Palatalisation in Italian verbs
Italian has a phonological rule that palatalises velar stops [k,g] to become
affricates [tʃ, dʒ] when followed by front vowels [i,e].
(6)
farmako
viŋko
farmatʃi
vintʃi
‘medicineM.SG/PL’
‘win1/2.SG’
For the purposes of formalism, a simple palatalisation rule is given below:
(7)
k,g → [+STRIDENT] / __ V+FRONT
We are more interested today in where the rule applies, rather than why
or how it applies. (Though on the latter point see Wilson 2006.) Note,
then, that there are plenty of exceptions to this rule in Italian:
(8)
antiko
dimentiko
antiki
dimentiki
‘ancientM.SG/PL’
‘forget1/2.SG’
8
Lexicalist-style analyses
Burzio (2004), and then Krämer (2009), claim the failure to apply
palatalisation is due rules like (7) being blocked in certain word forms:
Eg., the feminine plural nominal suffix -e never causes palatalisation:
(9)
liriko
liritʃi
lirika
lirike
‘lyricalM/F.SG’
‘lyricalM/F.PL’
Thus, the rule is prevented from applying in feminine nouns/adjectives:
(7')
*k,g → [+STRIDENT] / [ __ V+FR ]N/A.FEM
Many masculine nouns also fail to apply palatalisation. Krämer resorts to
listing lexeme by lexeme whether the rule applies, but see Giavazzi
(2010a, 2010b) for a superior stress-based analysis (which does not refer
9
to correspondence)
Palatalisation in verbs
Similarly, Burzio and Krämer claim that palatalisation does not apply in
the first conjugation class of Italian:
(10) Conj. Class 1
dimentiki, pagi
‘forget2.SG, pay2.SG’
Conj. Class 3
viŋtʃi, viŋtʃe, voldʒi, voldʒe
(7'')
‘win2/3.SG, turn2/3.SG’
*k,g → [+STRIDENT] / [ __ V+FR ]CLASS 1
By the end of Krämer’s study in particular, over half the nouns and
adjectives in the Italian lexicon, as well as the largest and only remaining
productive verb family, have been protected from palatalisation.
10
Palatalisation by correspondence
The account developed hereon is based on theories of phonological
correspondence between words (Benua 2000, Kager 2000), which is also
known as Output-to-Output Phonology.
In brief, it will be proposed that palatalisation in conjugated verbs
corresponds with palatalisation in the infinitive form of the verb - but only
when the relevant segments of the infinitive receive stress.
(11a)
Palatalisation blocked in 1st Conjugation Class:
dimentik-áre
(11b)
diméntik-o
diméntik-i
‘forgetINF/1.SG/2.SG’
Palatalisation free to apply in 3rd Conjugation Class:
víntʃ-ere
vínk-o
víntʃ-i
‘winINF/1.SG/2.SG’
11
Correspondence between words
One of the original uses for Phonological correspondence (Benua 2000)
was to account for the emergence of marked phonological structures in
otherwise unexpected positions. A famous example:
(American) English words cannot end in a low front V and [ɹ] in coda
position, (ie. *æɹ(c)).
(12)
c[ɑ]r
h[ɑ]rd
*c[æ]r
*h[æ]rd
Though this is permitted in certain nicknames
(13)
L[æ]rry → ✔L[æ]r
B[æ]rry → ✔B[æ]r
12
Mapping correspondence relations
Phonological Correspondence, or derivations that take into account more
than just input and output forms, is usually formalised in Optimality Theory
(as based on McCarthy & Prince’s (1996) analysis of reduplication).
This can be abstracted away from by mapping out the relationship
between the input form, the output form, and a third base form.
Correspondence with a base usually takes priority over correspondence
with the input
(14)
Base
Input
L[æ]rry
Output
*æɹ
L[æ]rry+ ?
L[æ]r
*æɹ
13
Stress-dependent correspondence
Consider the vowels highlighted in the classic pair of examples below (in
that they pre-date theories of phonological correspondence).
(15)
a. cònd[ɛ]nsátion
b. còmp[ə]nsátion
The two forms show the same stress assignment, but the vowel in (15a)
resists reduction to [ə].
There are two ways of thinking about this alternation.
14
Stress-dependent correspondence
Either
i) There is no base form for (15b), in contrast to (15a), meaning that the
derivation is regularly input-to-output
(16a)
cond[ɛ]nse
/condens-ation/
(16b)
cònd[ɛ]nsátion
*comp[ɛ]nse
/compens-ation/
còmp[ə]nsátion
15
Stress-dependent correspondence
Or
ii)
There *is* a base form for (15b), but it does not stress the relevant
vowel so trivially provides [ə] for correspondence
(17a)
cond[ɛ]nse
/condens-ation/
(17b)
cond[ɛ]nsation
còmp[ə]nsáte
/compens-ation/
comp[ə]nsation
16
Back to Italian
Let’s now consider a more comprehensive derivation of the palatalisation
patterns seen in Italian verb paradigms.
Something I’ve neglected to show so far: the base form should be derived
by regular phonology.
Derivation of palatalisation and stress in the base (ie. the infinitive):
(18) a. dimentik-are →
dimèntikáre
‘forget’
b. vink-ere
→
víntʃere
(cf. viŋko)
‘win / (1.SG)’
c. tak-ere
→
tatʃére
(cf. takwi)
‘be quiet / (PAST)’
*Note (18a-c) implies that stress is mobile in infinitive forms. This is only true in
the third conjugation class (b-c), where it seems sensitive to weight, resembling
the Turkish stress rule (Sezer 1981). See also Davis et al (1987).
Underpalatalisation in the 1st conjugation
With the infinitive derived, it can now serve as the base for the remainder
of the Italian verb paradigm.
First, the first conjugation class. Palatalisation is blocked before the 2.sg
suffix -i (19b).
(19) a.
dimenti[ká]re
/dimentik-o/
diménti[ko]
*[ki]
b.
dimenti[ká]re
/dimentik-i/
diménti[ki]
*[ki]
18
Normal palatalisation in the 3rd conjugation
Next, the third conjugation class.
For verbs whose infinitives do not stress the relevant segment,
palatalisation applies normally before 1.sg suffix -o and the 2.sg suffix –i:
(20) a.
vín[tʃe]re
/vink-o/
b.
vín[ko]
*[ki]
vín[tʃe]re
/vink-i/
víntʃi
*[ki]
19
Overpalatalisation in the 3rd conjugation
Something perhaps unexpected is how palatalisation can overapply.
This happens with third conjugation verbs whose infinitives *do* stress a
relevant segment. This forces the affricate to be maintained even when
the stem takes a suffixes that should not trigger the rule (21a).
(21) a.
ta[tʃé]re
/tak-o/
b.
tá[tʃo]
*[ki]
ta[tʃé]re
/tak-i/
tá[tʃi]
*[ki]
20
Can lexicalism be abandoned?
Despite a reduction in its use, the analysis is not ‘lexicalism-free’: recall
that stress assignment in the infinitive had to be sensitive to conjugation
class.
Looking at the language as a whole, though, some reference to lexical
properties must be made to integrate the analysis of verbs presented here
with a quite different phonology in the language’s nouns and adjectives.
21
Categorial phonology
Giavazzi (2010) on palatalisation in Italian nouns and adjectives
(22)
k,g → [+STRIDENT] / σ.σ.__ V+HIGH,+FRONT
*k,g → [+STRIDENT] / σ.__ V+HIGH,+FRONT
(23)
líriko
antíko
líritʃi
antíki
‘lyricalM.SG/PL’
‘ancientM.SG/PL’
These rules won’t work for the phonology of verbs as seen earlier consider the derivation of [víntʃere].
However, a noun/adjective vs. verbal divide in a language’s phonology is
a simpler classification that that proposed by Käger. However, do
consider how this split seems to be quite common crosslinguistically. (If
you are interested see Smith (2011) on Categorial Phonologies.)
22
II: Morphologically Conditioned Allomorphy
Suppletion
Suppletion is the substitution of one phonologically unrelated root for
another, as conditioned by morphological structure:
(24)
ADJ
COMPARATIVE
SUPERLATIVE
a.
b.
long
good
long-er
bett-er
long-est
be-st
*c.
good
*good-er
*good-est
Traditional grammars refer to suppletive phenomena as irregular verbs,
adjectives, plurals, etc.
This is also termed Morphologically Conditioned Allomorphy, as opposed
to regular Phonologically Conditioned Allomorphy.
24
Suppletion and allomorphy
Despite bearing similarities, suppletion is not the same as regular
phonological allomorphy:
(25)
Phonological allomorphy of the plural
a.
b.
(26)
/z/ → z
/z/ → s
/ C[+voc] __
/ C[-voc] __
eg. dog → dogs
eg. cat → cats
Morphological allomorphy (ie. suppletion) of the plural
a.
b.
c.
PL
PL
PL
→ ø
→ -(r)en
→ /z/
/ ]N __
/ ]N __
/ ]N __
where N = sheep, foot, ...
where N = child, ox, ...
elsewhere, ie. (2)
25
More suppletion
Suppletion is very common cross-linguistically, and isn’t particularly
restricted to any one area of morphology:
(27)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Comparative
Past
Plural
Plural
long
good
long-er
bett-er
*good-er
walk
go
walk-ed
wen-t
*go-ed
girl
person
girl-s
people-ø
#person-s
lošadj
čelovek
lošad-i
ljud-i
‘hors(es)
‘person/PL’
Russian
26
Suppletion rules
Suppletion is modelled by having ABSTRACT morphemes (otherwise
known as √roots) spelled out in different ways depending on their
morphological context:
(28)
(29)
a.
b.
GOOD
a.
b.
GO
GOOD
GO
→
→
be(tt)good
/ __ ] CMPR
→
→
wengo
/ __ ] PAST
These spellout rules are also termed Rules of Exponence.
27
Bobaljik’s Containment Hypothesis
Bobaljik (2012) shows that suppletion is conditioned by morpho-syntactic
structure. Developing an understanding of the locality conditions on
suppletion, Bobaljik and others (eg. Moskal 2015) elaborate on the finer
details of certain morphological structures.
Chief among these is that superlative adjectives are always built on
comparatives, which in turn are built on simple adjectives:
(30)
a.
b. *c.
28
Czech
In some environments, this is entirely transparent, but in others it is not:
(31)
a.
b.
(32)
ADJ
COMPARATIVE
SUPERLATIVE
mlad-y
špatn-y
mlad-ši
hor-ši
nej-mlad-ši
nej-hor-ši
a.
YOUNG
→
mlad-
b.
c.
BAD
→
→
horšpatn
BAD
‘young’
‘bad’
/ __ ] CMPR
29
Suppletion patterns: ABB
This pattern generalises to all of the languages in Bobaljik’s survey. The
comparative, as the more local affix to the adjective, causes suppletion
which is maintained in the superlative
(33)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
ADJ
COMPARATIVE
SUPERLATIVE
good
bad
špatn-y
hea
asko
guat
bett-er
worse
hor-ši
pare-m
gehi-ago
pez-ar
be-st
wor-st
nej-hor-ši
par-im
gehi-en
pez-ar-ste
‘bad’
‘good’
‘many’
‘good’
English
English
Czech
Estonian
Basque
Cimbrian
30
Suppletion patterns: ABC
The ABC pattern, though comparatively rare, also exists:
(34)
ADJ
a. bon-us
b. da
c. maìth
COMPARATIVE
SUPERLATIVE
mel-ior
gwell
ferr
opt-imus
gor-au
dech
‘good’
‘good’
‘good’
Latin
Welsh
Old Irish
31
Suppletion patterns
The following paradigm exhausts the possible patterns:
(35)
ADJ
CMPR
SPRL
a.
b.
c.
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
C
big - bigger - biggest
good - better - best
bonus - melior- optimus
*d.
*e.
A
A
B
A
A
B
*good - better - goodest
*good - gooder - best
This is based on >300 languages, c. 70 of which have comp. suppletion.
From these, he identifies 116 cognate triples (111 ABB, 5 ABC).
eg. good - better - best; hea - parem, par-im, etc. = 1 triple
32
Deriving ABB and ABC
Given Bobaljik’s comparative and superlative structures, these two
patterns are derived as a product of how many spellout rules an adjective
has and how specific the rules are:
(36)
English
a.
b.
(37)
GOOD
GOOD
→
→
be(tt)good
→
→
→
optmelbon-
/ __ ] CMPR
Latin
a.
b.
c.
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
/ __ ] CMPR ] SPRL
/ __ ] CMPR
33
Comparative deletion
NB: In languages like English, the comparative must be deleted in the
context of the superlative:
(38)
a.
*b.
long - long-er - long-est
long - long-er - *long-er-est
This can be captured with a specific ‘null’ rule for the comparative:
(39)
b.
CMPR
→ ø-
/ __ ] SPRL
34
Deriving *ABA
If the superlative did not contain the comparative, we would expect to find
ABA patterns, contrary to fact.
(40)
Without CMPR, suppletion context (a) would not be met, thus
‘good-est’ is wrongly predicted, via (b):
a.
b.
GOOD
GOOD
→
→
be(tt)good
/ __ ] CMPR
However, AAB is claimed to exist, but
not for comparatives. I’ll save this data
for the tutorial.
35
Anti-homophony
If the superlative could be directly merged with the adjective, it would be
theoretically possible to propose a spellout rule for superlative contexts
that that mimicked comparative contexts:
(41)
*GOOD →
be(tt)-
/ __ ] SPRL
But, Bobaljik appeals to principles of antihomophony: (41) is disallowed as /be(tt)/
is the exponent of a different rule.
This similarly rules out deriving an ABA pattern in the way that the ABC
pattern is derived:
(42)
*GOOD →
good
/ __ ] CMPR ] SPRL
36
Comparative syntax
All the data shown so far are synthetic comparatives, ie. comparative
forms that form one ‘word’. By zooming out, some further points can be
made about how suppletion is conditioned.
Analytic comparatives, where comparative structures form more than one
‘word’, show more evidence for Bobaljik’s containment hypothesis:
(43)
ADJ
a. grand-e
b. psil-ós
COMPARATIVE
SUPERLATIVE
più grand-e
pjo psil-ós
il più grand-e
o pjo psil-ós
‘big’
‘tall’
Italian
Greek
37
Comparative syntax
Bobaljik considers comparative structures to be complex heads derived
from an articulated syntactic structure (via downward head movement):
(44)
a.
b.
The intuition to the derivation is that analytic comparatives are derived
when this movement does not take place.
Why derive comparative structure?
The derivation in (44) allows several additional facts to be understood.
First, briefly, it disallows the undesired derivation seen earlier in which an
adjective is directly affixed by a superlative.
Second, the derivation in (44) also explains what Bobaljik terms the
Synthetic Superlative Generalisation:
(45)
No language has synthetic superlatives (X-est) without also having
synthetic comparatives (X-er)
ADJ
COMPARATIVE
SUPERLATIVE
*long
more long
long-est
39
The Root Suppletion Generalisation (RSG)
Thirdly - and most importantly for studying suppletion - is that it explains
another of Bobaljik’s observations, the Root Suppletion Generalisation.
(46)
Root suppletion is limited to synthetic comparatives (X-er):
a.
b.
*c.
ADJ
CMPR
SPRL
A
A
A
B-er
more A
*more B
B-est
most A
*most B
40
The RSG
This can be seen in Modern Greek, which has a relatively free alternation
between synthetic vs. analytic exponence.
(47)
a.
b.
*c.
ADJ
COMPARATIVE
SUPERLATIVE
kak-ós
kak-ós
kak-ós
cheiró-ter-os
pjo kak-ós
*pjo cheiró-s
o cheiró-ter-os
o pjo kak-ós
*o pjo cheiró-s
‘bad’
41
Locality in the RSG
Thus, suppletion appears to occur when two morphemes are in the same
‘word’. To this end, Bobaljik proposes the RSG be formalised as follows:
(48)
The Root Suppletion Generalisation
β may condition α in (a), but not (b)
a.
α … ]X∘ … β
b.
α … ]XP … β
In other words, suppletion can be conditioned over a head node (Xº) but
not over a phrasal node (XP).
42
Locality in the RSG
The Greek data can thus be accounted for via the derivation in (49) with
the rules in (27).
(49)
(50)
a.
b.
a.
b.
BAD
c.
d.
CMPR
BAD
CMPR
→
→
cheirókak-
/ __ ] CMPR ]
→
→
-tero
pjo
/ ]aº __ ]
43
The RSG in English
English also has both synthetic and analytic comparatives.
(51)
a.
b.
ADJ
SYNTHETIC
ANALYTIC
long
good
long-er
bett-er
more long
more good
But, the language has a complication that continues to defy explanation.
Adjectives longer than ~2 syllables cannot form synthetic comparatives
(52)
a.
b.
ADJ
SYNTHETIC
ANALYTIC
clever
intelligent
clever-er
*intelligent-er
more clever
more intelligent
This leads Bobaljik to claim head movement, which derives the structure
that allows suppletion, is influenced - albeit indirectly - by phonology.
References
Benua, Laura. 2000. Phonological relations between words. New York/London: Garland,
Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Burzio, Luigi. 2004. Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Relations in Italian Verbal Inflection. In
Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics: Selected Proceedings of the 33rd
Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Davis, Stuart, Linda Manganaro, and Donna Jo Napoli. 1987. Stress on Second Conjugation
Infinitives in Italian. Italica 64: 477–98.
Giavazzi, Maria. 2010a. The phonetics of metrical prominence and its consequences for
segmental phonology. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Giavazzi, Maria. 2010b. Review of The phonology of Italian, Martin Krämer. Phonology 27:
332–341.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection.
In The View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Ken Hale and
Samuel Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kager, René. 2000. Surface Structure of Metrical Structure in Optimality Theory. In The
Derivational Residue in Phonology, ed. Ben Hermans and Marc van Oostendorp, 207–
245. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
References
Krämer, Martin. 2009. The phonology of Italian. Oxford linguistics. Oxford/New York: Oxford
University Press.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy
of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 201–
225.
McCarthy, John, and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity. In
University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality
Theory, ed. Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk, 249–384.
Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Moskal, Beata. 2015. Limits on Allomorphy : A Case Study in Nominal Suppletion. Linguistic
Inquiry 46.
Sezer, Engin. 1981. On non-final stress in Turkish. Journal of Turkish Studies 5: 61–69.
Wilson, Colin. 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: an experimental and
computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive science 30: 945–982.
Smith, Jennifer L. 2011. Category-specific effects. In The Blackwell Companion to
Phonology, ed. Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Beth Hume, and Keren Rice, 2439–
2463. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.