180
The Morpheme Altemant Theory
181
The Problem of Abstractness
idiosyncratic features must he drawn. The problem confronting the Ii"
guist is to determine what principle;; are to he followed in making thi
distinction-that is. what arc the principles that the language learn
utilizes in arriving al an analysis or phonetic representations? How do
he decide what is to he taken as basic and what is derived'.' How does h
choose an underlying representation and a set or rules to account f
morphophonemic nlternations'!
In this chapter we discuss some of the important issm:s that revolv
around che fundamental problem of the nature and choice of underlyi
represe11!ations. Our discussion will he quite inconclusive. reflecting t
many uncertainties that the problem of .. abstractness .. of underlyi
representations engenders.
In the first section of this chapter we try to make clear exactly what i
being claimed when it is said that the variou~ phonetic realizations of
morpheme are derived from a single underlying representation. Having
seen the motivation for an underlying representation. we then take up the
question of the degree to which it may diverge l"rom the PR. This issue has
been approached in two different ways in the literature. First. there are
writers who propose constraints for the selection of the most appropriate~
UR on the basis of critcrial properties of its associated PRs. Within this.f
approach one can distinguish varying degrees or divergence pennitted ·l·
between the UR and PR. A convenient midpoint is whether or not the UR :
may contain sounds which do not appear in some <tssociated PR. In the ·.
second and third sections we examine various cases that lie on either side.•
of this midpoint. Finally. there are writers who approach the problem of
abstractness by developing constraints on the form phonological rules ...
may assume in mapping URs into PRs. Given these constraints. only'••
certain kinds of rules are permitted. and hence only certain kinds of URs.
In the final two sections we examine a couple of the more influential
constraints of this nature.
The Morpheme Alternant Theory
As we have seen. the generative model proposes to account for all
systematic aspects of the pronunciation of a morpheme by letting an
ordered set of rules assign such properties in the derivation of the UR.
Those features which are idiosyncratic to the morpheme are listed in its
lexical representation and hence appear in the UR via lexical insertion. If
the morpheme happens to appear in a context which calls for the application of no phonological rules, then the PR of the morpheme in such a
context is identical to the UR.
better appreciate what is involved in the claim that the PR is
· from the UR by a set·of rules, we will contrast this position with
rnative approach which we shall label the morpheme alternant
0
~cording to this theory. all alternants of a morpheme are to be listed
lexicon and a set of rules is given for choosing the correct alternant
ch given context in which the morpheme appears. On this view one
ant is not derived from another. Rather, the rules of selection
Uy state the context in which each alternant may occur. In particular,
· there is no notion of an underlying form from which all surface
;hants are derived.
· rr::Although we have stated the morpheme alternant approach very
imprecisely. the following exa~ple will clarify t~e basics of this meth~d
for;dealing with alternations. Recall the alternation of the plural suffix m
·English. It appears as -iz after sibilants (buses. brushes, ~tc.), -s a~t~r
voiceless nonsibilants (cats, maps, etc.), and as -z after voiced nonstbilants (bags. boys. sofas, etc.). Given the morpheme altemant approach,
e"gth of the alternants -iz. -s, and -z would be listed in the lexical repres~ht~tion of the plural suffix in the lexicon. The following rules of selecti()ri would be associated with this lexical representation to choose the
correct alternant for each given noun stem.
·
(I)
a. Choose -i:z if the stem ends in a sibilant.
b. Choose -s if the stem ends in a voiceless nonsibilant.
c. Choose -z if the stem ends in a voiced nonsibilant.
Not~ that on this approach each alternant is derived directly. No alternant
is derived from any other alternant. The basic claim is thus that all
alternants are on a par with one another.
· The morpheme alternant approach attains an air of plausibility in this
case because it is not clear which alternant is the most appropriate UR.
There is a vast literature on this particular aspect of English phonology in
which each of the three different alternants has been defended as basic by
some linguist. The morpheme alternant theory simply avoids the issue.
Since one alternant is not derived from another, the problem of which
alternant is underlying does not arise. But it is precisely for this reason
' One or another version of this theory represents the basic approach to morphophonemics taken by American structuralists of the 1940s and 50s. ln an important paper.
Wells {1949) compares this approach with the earlier one of Sapir and Bloomfield, bot~ of
whom utilized hypothetical underlying forms to account for morpheme alternatlon.
Bloomfield made explicit use of rule ordering as well. For further .discussion, see
Kenstowicz (1975).
The Morpheme Altemant Theory
182
;~
The Problem of Abstractness
J .. , .
183
,pheme alternant framework consistently replace rules of selection
that the morpheme alternant theory cannot be accepted as an ad.equate ii~ <:}lie~ as (3) with rules like (4).
approach to phonological alternations. There are many cases in w~1ch it is.~
~
quite ~I ear. that one alternant is ?1or~ ~.asic than a~oth~r~ .Cons1d,er the;j .
~~:, a. Choose the /ka/ alternant when a morpheme follows that befollowing simple example from L1thuan1<1n. In this langu<1ge there are now;·
gins with /s/.
long (geminate) consonants phonetically .. If one looks at the languag~~i.
b. Choose the /kas/ alternant elsewhere.
from the point of view of s~andard generat1~e p~onol.~gy. one would sa~~1
'!D~-'
that whenever a cluster of hke consonants anses across mor~heme. bound:iJ
This approach says that /kas/ is used in all cases except where the /ka/
aries degeminati~n. occurs. For purposes of th: present. d1scuss1on, w~~f(
~lternant is chosen. In essence. it says that the /kas/ alternant is somewill assume that 11 1s the first consonant of the clt~ster that d~l.etes. As ~I
how the norm. chosen without regard for context; /ka/ is a special case.
1
result o!' this degemination process. a morpheme hke /kas/ has the alter111
5 ~'1ected by the environment in which the morpheme 'dig' appears.
nant /b/ when followed by the future suffix /-s/ (cf.. suk-ti 'to turn';1$,
· The introduction of the notion ··elsewhere·· into the rules of selection
'
~
.rnk-s 'he will turn').
.(,*
renders the morpheme alternant theory largely indistinguishable (in the
si~plest cases) from the theory that derives alternants from a single
underlying representation. For now there is a strict isomorphism between
(2)
the two approaches. A rule of selection such as (4a). which chooses a
ka-s
'he will dig'
kas-<1 'he digs'
r~!
particular phonetic form on the basis of the phonetic context, is comparaIf we we: re to try to use the morpheme alternant approach to describd~
ble to a rule that modifies an UR in a particular phonetic context. The
this alternation. the alternants /kas/ and /ka/ would both be entered in]
alternant that represents the "elsewhere .. case is comparable to the UR
the lexical representation for 'dig' and the following rules of selection;*
(re,call that phonological properties of the UR of a morpheme will be
would accompany the lexical representation.
,);i
r~alized phonetically in all cases except where a phonological rule applies
to alter the UR).
a. Choose the ulternant /ka/ ll'he11 a morpheme fol/ou·s that he- i·~
(3)
Despite the similarity between the morpheme alternant approach (as
gins ll'ith /s/.
.
supplemented by the notion ··elsewhere'") and the generative approach.
b. Choose the altcmant /kas/ \\"hen a morpheme .fol!oll's that /
which utilizes a single underlying representation to account for cases of
begins ll'ith a 1·0\\·c/ or any consonant other than /sf.
rule-governed morpheme alternation. there are significant differences. To
get at some of these differences, let us begin by noting a rather obvious
Since each alternant is treated as being on a par with every other one. this'.
inadequacy of the rules of selection discussed above. Recall that these
theory claim~ that there are two principles of Lithuanian phonology.~
rules of selection were regarded as rules about individual morphemes.
operating here: the use of an alternant lacking a final /s/ when /s/ follows ·
Thus (4) states when /ka/ is used as opposed to /kas/. But clearly there
and the use of an alternant with final /s/ when a vowel or consonant other
are situations where a large number of morphemes obey what would
than /s/ follows. But this is clearly absurd. The rule ~hat /~a/ rather than·.
appear to be the same rules of selection. Consider the following example
/kas/ is used when a morpheme follows that begins with /s! can be
from Kinyarwanda, a Bantu language spoken in Rwanda and parts of
regarded as a reflection of the general constraint that two 1dent1.cal conUganda.
sonants cannot appear next to one another in Lithuanian phonetic re~re­
In (5) we give a number of verbal forms involving the root ·cut'.
sentations. But the rule that /kas/ is chosen in the environment betore
vowels and consonants other than /s/ does not reflect a rule of the
(5)
·cut!'
tema
language. Rather. the appearance of the /s/ in these contexts is an
·cut for me!'
nhemera
arbitrary property of the particular morpheme 'dig'.
·cut for him!'
mutemera
Practitioners of the morpheme alternant approach were of course
'cut for them!'
bat em era
cognizant of the fact that whereas the /ka/ alternant in the above examp~e
is the consequence somehow of the environment. the /k~s/ alte.rn~nt is
The root ·cut' ordinarily appears in the shape /tern/, but after a prefix
not. In order to account for this difference. descriptions written within the
d;;;:
~:::z; :~~.~;·
~::::;· ~:~·~;.
I
184
The Morpheme Altemant Theory
The Problem of Abstractness
consisting of a nasal consonant the root assumes the shape /hem/. (In
some dialects. /them/ may be heard rather than /hem/; the present
discussion describes the speech of our consultant.) The following rule of
selection might account for this alternation within the morpheme alternant
approach.
(6)
a. Choose the a/temant /hem/ qfrer a nasal consonw!f.
i1 . Choose the altenwnt /tern/ elseH·hcrc.
A rule of selection like (6) is clearly inadequate. All morph.: mes that
with the sound /t/ have ari al!l'rnunt beginning with /h/ when a
precedes. Thus examples like those in (7) arc cllmmon.
(7)
fl/Ill£/
teeka
tegere::.a
·send!'
·clluk''
·wait 1•
11/11mw
nheekcra
11hegcrc::.a
·-;end mc!'
·cook for me 1•
·wait for me 1•
The mDrpheme alternant approach requires that we list in ihe lexicon·
both alternants (/tum/ and /hum/. /teek/ and /heck/. and so on). However. it is apparent that there should he just one rnle uf sckcti<ln <:tJvering
all these alternations. rather than separate ruks ftlr each example. How
might such a general rule be formuluted' 1 A ruk like (8) will exprc":-. the
generalization.
(8)
U'a n10rpheme has fll'O altenwnts. one hcgi1111i11g 1dth /t /and the
mher beginning H'ith /h /, 11se the altemant ll'ith /h /after a na.rnl
consonant and use the other ulter11a11t clse1d1ere.
Given a rule such as (8). it would no longer be necessary to have a rule of
selection for each morpheme exhibiting the t ~h alternation. One rule
would cover all such examples.
.
There is an important sense in which rule (8) fails to adequately
characterize the knowledge of a native speaker of Kinyarwanda. Notice
that rule (8) says that {fa morpheme has two alternants. one beginning
with /t/ and the other with /h/. then the /h/ alternant will be used after a
nasal. Rule (8) in no way predicts 11"hich morphemes will exhibit this
alternation. Rule (8) does not exclude the possibility that there might be
many morphemes which have a pronunciation beginning with /t/ in all
environments. But this represents a significant failure: in Kinyarwanda.
there are no verb roots beginning with /t/ that do not have an alternant
with /h/ after a nasal. The generative approach to these data would be to
say that the roots ·cut', ·send'. ·cook', and ·wait' are underlyingly /tern/.
185
/jm/, /teek/, and /tege_rez/. and that there i.s a rule that repl~ces /t/ by
;Jt:Aafter a nasal. The existence of such a rule m the grammar will account
fact that all roots with an initial /t/ have an alternant with /h/ after
af,!!?.sal. The rule that converts /t/ to /h/ predicts this situation. Rule (8)
4.9$.S not make such a prediction. Thus the generative approach, with its
uM qf underlying representations and associated morphophonemic rules,
aRp~ars to better represent a native speaker's knowledge of his language
ti\~!) does the morpheme alternant approach.
.; ;cThe following example from the Dravidian language Pengo (Burrow
19,70) provides some additional difficulties for the morpheme alternant
approach. Viewed from the generative point of view, this language would
twsaid to have a rule that neutralizes the opposition between voiced and
vqiceless obstruents: the rule in question assimilates the voicing of an
Qbstruent to the voicing of a following obstruent. (9) illustrates the effects
of;this voicing assimilation rule.
f~he
(9)'
2 sg. imperative 3 sg. past
tu:b-a
tog-a
ra:k-a
hi:p-a
tu :p-t-an
tok-t-an
ra:k+an
hi:p+an
Gerund
tu :b.~/i
tog~ji
ra :g~fi
hi :b~/i
Gloss
'blow·
'step on
'offer worship·
·sweep
In the generative approach the voicing alternation would be described by
taking the alternants appearing before vowels as underlying and deriving
the stem alternants appearing in the 3 sg. past and gerund by a rule of
voicing assimilation. How would the morpheme alternant theory handle
these data? Both alternants (/tu: b /and /tu: p /, /hi: p /and /hi: b /, and so
on) would be entered in the lexicon. The following rule of selection would
account for the 3 sg. past and the gerund forms:
(10)
If a morpheme has two alternants, one ending in a voiced
obstruent and the other in a voiceless obstruent, choose ihe
former alternant before suffixes beginning with a voiced
obstruent and choose the latter alternant before suffixes begin·
ning with a voiceless obstruent.
Obviously, this rule of selection is very similar to the rule of voicing
assimilation that the generative approach would postulate. Once again,
however, this approach is inadequate because it fails to capture the
significant generalization that there are no morphemes ending in an
186
The Morpheme Altemant Theory
The Problem of Abstractness
obstruent that'fail to alternate when they appear in the relevant environment.
Let us turn now to the derivation of the 2 sg. imperative forms in (9).
The rule of selection in ( 10) determines which alternant is to be used
before a suffix beginning with an ohstruent: it does not specify which
alternant is to be used before a vowel-initial suffix. It should be obvious
that there is no general rule of selection involved here. In the case· of
'blow' and ·step on·. the alternant ending in a voiced obstruent is used:
but in tl>c case of ·offer worship· and ·sweep·. the alternant ending in a
voicele'-' obstruent is used. Consequently. a separate selection rule will
be reqtwed for each stem in the language that exhibits the voicing alternation. For the morpheme 'blov.. · we would need to incorpl)rate a selection
"rule" that chooses the alternant /tu: b/ before vowels, while ·sweep'
would require a rule selecting /hi: p/. But clearly the appearance of a ·
voiced ver~us a voiceless obstruent hefore a vowel is not a principle of :
Pengo phonology. Rather. these are idiosyncratic features of each particular morpheme. Treating them by the same device (a selection ruk1 as that
used to seled the systematic feature of voice hefore an obstment is a
category-mistake.
In the generative model which explicitly reCl)gnizes an underlying
form, the correct distinctions are made. Predictable features of pronunciation. such as the voicing of an obstruent before another l)hstruent. are
assigned by rule. while unpredictable features are listed in the lexicon and
incorporated into the UR. The alternant that appears when no rules have ·
applied (the prevocalic alternant in the Pengo example) is the UR-the
basic alternant.
As pointed out by Wells ( 1949). cases of reciprocal alternation pose a
serious challenge to the morpheme alternant theory. These situations
involve a pair of morphemes exhibiting alternations where the choice of a ·
particular alternant for one morpheme materially depends on the choice of .
a particular alternant for the other (usually adjacent) morpheme. For ·
example. recall the alternation in the past tense of Russian verbs dis·
cussed in Chapter 3.
( 11)
Stem
/pisa/
/nes/
/met/
/ved/
Fem. past
Neuter past
Gloss
pisa-1
pisa-1-a
nes
nes-1-a
me-/
ve-1
me-I-a
pi.rn-1-o
nes-1-o
me-1-o
ve-1-o
·write
·carry
·sweep
'lead'
Masc. past
1•e-1"·a
187
The past tense suffix /-I/ has the alternant 0 when word final and preceded by a consonant. while stems ending in a dental stop have alternants
without a dental stop in the past tense. The selection rule stated as ( 12)
below will not be sufficient to guarantee the correct choice for the past
tense suffix.
(12)
Choose the 0 alternant of the past tense morpheme when wordfinal and preceded by a consonant; otherwise choose the /-I/
alternant.
This rule will produce the correct results when the final consonant of the
preceding verb stem does not alternate with 0. as in nes. But for stems
that show the dental-stop/zero alternation (12), as stated, is not sufficient.
In order to derive the forms me-I and ve-1, it must be insured that it is the
/me/ and /ve/ alternants that are used for conditioning the past tense
selection and not the consonant-final altemants /met/ and /ved/. This
might be accomplished by imposing an order on the selection rules to
insure that the stem shapes /ve/ and /me/ are first selected, and only
then spelling out the correct alternant for the past tense suffix. In order for
this to work, however, the rule selecting the /ve/ and /me/ alternants
could not take the following form: Select the stem alternant without a
final dental stop before the past tense suffix /-I/. This formulation is
insufficient because it presupposes that the choice between the j.l/ and 0
altemants has already been resolved. Instead, the rule would have to be
expressed as follows: Select the alternant without a final dental stop (f the
verb is in the past tense. Note that this formulation capitalizes on the fact
that the following morpheme has. a special grammatical status as a marker
of tense; it refers to this grammatical information directly, without regard
to the phonetic shape (-I or 0) of the suffix. (See Chapter IO for discussion.)
The morpheme alternant approach can account for the Russian data,
but it does so by introducing ordering statements-and by so doing it
moves closer to the generative approach. Furthermore, the ordering solution for the Russian data works only because it is possible to view the
selection of the /me/ and /ve/ alternants as being independent of the
particular past tense alternant chosen. In other words, for the ordering
solution to work it must be the case that the first selection rule applied is
not sensitive to the phonological make-up of the morpheme introduced by
the second selection rule. Unfortunately for the morpheme alternant
theory, such situations do arise.
Recall the rules of vowel shortening and vowel harmony in Yawel-
188
The Morpheme Altemant Theory
The Problem of Abstractness
mani discussed in Chapter 4. A root such as /do: s/ ·report' has a shortvowelled alternant /dos/ when preceding a consonant (due to the princi- ·
pie that a long vowel may not precede two consonants). This means that1
one must introduce the phonological shape of the suffix before one cani
determine correctly the alternant of the root that should be used. But
recall that a suffix such as /k'a/, imperative. has an altcrnant /k'o/ after
root~ with an /o/ vowel. Thus it appears that one must introduce the
phonological shape of a root hcfore one can determine correctly the.
pronunciarion of the q:f~i .x. Consequently. we have a problem in accounting for the pronum:iatil'n of a word such as dos-/.:'o ·report (imper.)'. We
cannot dwose an altcrnant for the root until we have chosen an alternant
for the suffix. but \\C cannot choose an alternant for the suffix until w
have chosen an altcrnant for the root.
In order to escap;:: .the difficulties imposed by the previous example,,
one might try to take advantage of the fact that the /dos/ alternant would!,
be required by either /k'a/ or /k'o/. and the /k'o/ alternant would be.
required by either /dn: s/ or /dos/. In other words. it is the initial
consonant of the imperative suffix that is relt>vant to the choice of a short:
vowel in the root. and it is the /of-quality of the root vowel that is·
relevant to the choice of /o/ in the imperative suffix. Furthermore,
neither the consonant of the suffix nor the /o/ quality of the root vowel,
actually alternate. The above observations permit the following sort of
analysis within the morpheme alternant framework.
Let us suppose that the lexical representation of the verb ·report' and
the imperative suffix are as in ( 13).
( 13)
/do
J~l
s/
'report'
k'
\~J
imperative
The first step in constructing tt'le pronunciation of the imperative of
·report' will be to combine these two representations into a single representation like ( 14).
( 14)
/#do
!~J s + k' j~j #/
Two rules of selection will apply to this representation. One will say that
0 (i.e., shortness) will be chosen rather than : (i.e., length) when two
successive consonants follow. The other will say that o rather than a will
be used after /of-quality vowels. This version of the morpheme alternant
theory has the virtue that it no longer treats the different alternants of a
morpheme as being totally unrelated in structure. Representations such as
those in ( 13) recognize that there are certain constant features of the
189
rphemes 'report' and the imperative suffix, as well as certain alternatfeatures.
'· h'e above revision of the morpheme alternant theory moves it much
to t?e generative approach, which utilizes a single underlying
sentat1on. Nonalternating parts of morpheme alternants have a
~<;. repr~sentation in ( 13): only the alternating parts have a multiple
1;,~presentat10n. It should be noted, .however. that this revision of the
mrrphe~e ~lternant theory does not alter the fact that this theory does
!19l predict many way H'hcther a morpheme will exhibit alternation. Thus
itfails to satisfactorily account for situations where all morphemes of a
pq,rticular structure exhi~it alternation.
..;: Representations such as ( 13) would still require ordered selection
r.1,1les. For instance. the form me-I in Russian would derive from the
representation in (15).
r.
(15)
nJ:
/#me
j~J
+
j~J
#/
ft~ould still be necessary to select the alternant /me-/ before dcterniinm~q.vhether to choose the
/-1 / or 0 form of the past suffix.
.
, . Notice that i? the Russian example the suffixal alternant /-1/ is
c.~osen on ~he ?as1s of t.hc stem alternant that actually appears together
w,1th the sutfix m phonetic representation (/me-/) rather than on the basis
?fthe _other stem ~lternant (/met-/). There are, however. many exaniples
m which the choice of a given alternant for morpheme A materially
depends on an alternant for an adjacent morpheme B where the latter
altern~nt is not. in fact. used in conjunction with morpheme A. The
following example should make this observation clearer.
... In many dialects of English. dental stops are deleted after a nasal
when the plural suffix follows. Nevertheless, the choice of the plural
allomorph depends on the deleted dental stop. The data in ( 16) illustrate
the problem.
(16)
Sg.
pla111
hand
plan
Pl.
p/an-[s]
han-[z]
p/an-[z]
A. fo~m ~uch as plant has the two alternants /plant/ and /pl~n/ whose
d1stnbut10n co~ld be specified easily enough by a selection rule (e.g .. use
the alternant without the final /t/ before the plural suffix. elsewhere use
190
The Morpheme Altem,;mt Theory
The Problem of Abstractness
191
?'."~~·~
the alternant with final /t/). The problem is with the selection rule for the
plural alternant. In order to explain why the plural of plant takes the
voiceless fricative /s/. while the plural of plan takes the voiced alternant
/z/. the selection rule for the plural suffix must clearly be sensitive to the
alternants /plant/ and /plan/. respectively.
Under the revised morpheme alternant theory. the representations
for the noun plant and the plural suffix would be as in ( 17).
(17)
/plan
\~ j I
'plant'
The representation of the plural noun plants would then be as in ( 18).
( 18)
In order to derive the correct phonetic form (plan-ls]), it is nel:essary to
guarantee that the selection rule for the plural suffix chooses the /plant/
alternant rather than the /plan/ alternant as the appropriate environment.
But how is this to be done 9 Ordering the selection rules is of no avail here.
If we chose the stem alternant first. we would choose /plan/ (since this is
the form that is used before the plural suffix). Having selected /plan/. we
would then expect the /z/ form of the plural suffix to be used. since
/plan/ ends in a voiced nonsibilant sound. But this is incorrect. If we try
to choose the plural suffix first. then we have an ambiguous situation: The
/plant/ alternant of the stem suggests a /s/ plural. but the /plan/ alternant
suggests a /z/ plural. There appears to be no principled way to decide
which alternant will determine the shape of the plural suffix. We must
somehow specify /plant/ as being the alternant of the stem that determines the shape of the plural suffix. even though /plant/ is not the
altemant that appears before the plural suffix. Obviously. this has the
effect of saying that the representation /plant/ is involved in the determination of the pronunciation of plants even though this representation does
not directly appear in the surface form of this word. Notice that this is
entirely analogous to the generative claim that /plant/ is the underlying
representation of the noun and that the rule determining the shape of the
plural suffix applies before /plant/ is changed to /plan/.
Notice that in the generative approach a rule can be ordered so that it
applies directly to the underlying structure. before any rules that alter that
structure, or a rule can be ordered so that it applies only after certain
other rules have had a chance to apply. The morpheme alternant approach
must essentially have the same power in order to describe both the
English and the Russian examples discussed above. That is. in order to
~U~rive
the English plural noun plants the rule specifying the selection of
fife, plural alternant must be applied in terms of the representation /plant/.
~en though this representation does not actually occur in the pronunciadBn of the plural form (p/an-[s]). In order to derive the masculine past
me/ in Russian, the rule selecting the past tense alternant must be
~pplied in terms of the stem alternant /me-/, which is the alternant that
dctually 'occurs in the masculine past tense form, and not in terms of the
alternant /met-/. From these examples it seems fair to conclude that an
atlequate theory must allow the pronunciation of one morpheme to be
determined either by the actual pronunciation of an adjacent morpheme or
by a different representation of that same morpheme. In the generative
approach that "different" representation is either the underlying representation or some representation intermediate between the UR and
the actual phonetic realization. In the morpheme altemant theory that
''different" representation is presumably any alternant that the morpheme in question exhibits. This means that in order to utilize the morpheme alternant approach, one would have to identify which alternant of
ai morpheme is to be used to condition the choice of an alternant for a
neighboring morpheme. Obviously such a specification is moving very
dose to the generative approach, which does much the same thing by
specifying a single underlying representation for each morpheme.
In the morpheme alternant approach it would be necessary to choose
the alternant for the plural suffix on the basis of the stem alternant
/plant/. Notice that this is the alternant that occurs in the singular form. It
is not, however, possible to claim that in English the plural alternant is
always selected on the basis of the stem alternant that shows up in the
singular. Consider examples like knife [nayf], knives [nayv-z] and wife
[wayf], wives [wayv-z]. These nouns undergo a rule that applies to a
restricted set .of items; the rule voices the final /f/ of the noun stern in the
plural. The /-z/ alternant of the plural suffix is then used; clearly, /-z/ is
being chosen on the basis of the final /v / of the noun stem, .but the /v /
form of the noun occurs only in the plural and not the singular. The
altemant /nayfI is uninvolved in the selection of the plural suffix; only ~he
alternant /nayv I matters.
There are numerous cases where, given the morpheme alternant
approach, a rule of selection must be sensitive to representations other
than those that actually occur in the word in question. A particularly
interesting example of this type is provided by Turkish. Turkish noun
stems inay end in a consonant or a vowel. A number of suffixes have two
different alternants depending on whether the stem is consonant- or
vowel-final. For instance, the dative suffix is -yA (where A represents a
vowel that alternates between a and e due to a rule of vowel harmony that
form
192
The Morpheme Altemant Theory
The Problem of Abstractness
is not relevant for the present discussion) after vowel-final stems. but -A
after stems ending in a consonant. Similarly, the 3 sg. possessive suffix is
-sf (where I represents a vowel that alternates between i. ii. 1. and u by
vowel harmony rules) after vowels and-/ after consonants. These suffixes
contrast with those such as the plural -/Ar which begin with a consonant
that does not alternate with 0 and with a suffix such as the I sg. possessive
-Im, which truncates its vowel after a vowel.
(19)
Abs. sg.
llfl
araha
ha.<
vel
kiz
3 sg. poss. I sg. poss.
Abs. pl.
Dative
an-far
araha-lar
ha.<-lar
yel-ler
k1z-/ar
an-ya
araha-ya
ha.<-a
ye!-e
art-SI
an-1n
araha-.'1
ha.<-1
yel-i
araha-1n
ha.1'-1111
yel-im
k1~-l/
k1~-1
k1z-11n
Gloss
"bee
·wagon
"head'
"wind'
'<laughter
Polysyllabic stems ending in -k exhibit a k - 0 alternation. while
most monosyllabic stems whose final consonant is -k do not alternate with
0.
(20)
ok
sik
kok
a yak
inek
kuyruk
ok-lar
sik-ler
k6k-I er
a_vak-lar
inek-ler
kuyruk-lar
ok-a
sik-e
kok-e
a ya-a
ine-e
kuyru-a
ok-u
sik-i
kok-u
aya-1
ine-i
kuyru-u
ok-um
sik-im
kiik-um
aya-1m
ine-im
kuyru-um
·arrow
·penis
·root'
'foot'
'cow
'tail'
According to Zimmer (1975) the k - 0 alternation is to be accounted for
by a rule deleting the final k of a polysyllabic stem when it is intervocalic.
Given a theory that permits the derivation of a phonetic form from an
underlying representation. aya-1 'his foot' could be derived from underlying /ayak-s1/ by ordering the rule deleting the initial -s of /-sl/ before the
k-deletion rule.
(21)
/ayak-s1/
ayak-1
aya-1
Consonant deletion
k-deletion
193
I #aya ( ~ } + { ~ } I #I
In order to resolve the choice of /-sl/ versus /-1/, we must make referb.nce to the stem alternant /ayak/ rather than /aya/, even though /aya/ is
fl'le stem alternant that is actually used in the pronunciation of this word.
fr is the fact that /a yak/ ends in a consonant that permits /-1/ to be chosen
father than /-sl/. Having made use of the /ayak/ alternant to derive /-1/,
ifts now the /-1/ form of the suffix that triggers the choice of /aya/ rather
'than /ayak/ (since /aya/ appears before vowels whereas /ayak/ appears
before consonants). It should be obvious that this method of arriving at
the surface parallels, step-by-step. the derivation given in (21) above. for
in the generative approach, /ayak/ occurs in the underlying representation and permits the suffixal alternant /-1/ to be derived by the
consonant-deletion rule. Once this alternant is derived. the appearance of
/aya/ follows because the k is now intervocalic. Clearly. in order for the
morpheme alternant theory to work at all in this case. we must, in effect,
reintroduce the notion of a derivation, and this involves accounting for the
pronunciation of a word by makingappeal to a form of a morpheme that
does not in fact appear directly in that word.
We will cite just one other example which shows that the morpheme
alternant theory must in essence make use of an underlying form (i.e., a
form that does not actually appear in the word in question, but, nevertheless, must be appealed to in order to account for the pronunciation of the
word) and a derivation. The data for this example comes from Klamath,
an Amerindian language spoken in Oregon (Barker 1963). Example (23)
illustrates the construction of causative verbs in this language.
(23)
ge :.Jig-a
qdo:c-a
m'a:s?-a
'is tired'
'it rains·
'is sick'
sne-ge :jig-a
sno-qdo:c-a
sna-m'a :s?-a
'make? tired'
'makes it rain'
'makes sick'
Notice that the causative prefix in Klamath has the shape sn V-, where the
quality of V depends on the quality of the first vowel of the verb stem. In
the morpheme alternant approach, the representation of the causative
prefix would be as in (24).
(24)
Consider the problem these data pose for the morpheme alternant theory.
A rule of selection would be required for the noun stem and also for the
dative and 3 sg. possessive endings. The representation for aya-1 'his foot'
would be as in (22).
The precise number of alternants would depend, of course. on how many
194
The Morpheme Altemant Theory
The Problem of Abstractness
different vowel qualities can be found in the first vowel of verb stems. A
rule of selection like (25) would then be required to pick the appropriate
alternant of the causative prefix.
(25)
Choose the alternant of the causative prefix that has the same
vmi·el quality as the next vowel in the word.
.,
u•.•
This rule of selection will thus pick the alternant /sne-/ when an e-quality
vowel follows, /sna-/ when an a-quality vowel follows. and so on.
NoF consider the examples in (26).
(26)
pag-a
nqot'-a
ll'et-a
'barks'
'scorches·
'laughs'
sna-px-a
'makes a dog bark'
sno-nqt'-a 'scorches s. t. ·
sne-wt-a
'makes laugh'
The verb stems in these examples each display two alternants: /pag/ and
ipg/. /nqot'/ and /nqt'/. and /wet/ and /wt/. Within a generative approach we would say that the first vowel of a verb stem. if it is short,
elides after the causative prefix. Long vowels do not elide. as the examples in (23) show. This rule of elision would clearly have to be applied
after the rule that assigns the causative prefix its vocalic shape, since the
vowel used in the causative prefix depends on the vowel of the verb stem.
Consider now how the morpheme alternant theory would have to
deal with these data from Klamath. The verb stems in (26) would have
representations like (27),
(27)
al
/ptI 0 g/
When these representations are combined with the representation of the
causative prefix, the result is a representation like (28).
(28}
The rule of selection for the stem alternant would be that the form without
the vowel is chosen after the causative prefix. The rule of selection for the
causative prefix (25) will assign the appropriate shape to the prefix just in
case it makes reference to the stem alternant /pag/. even though /pag/ is
not actually the stem alternant used in the causative form of the verb.
Once again we see that the morpheme alternant theory must make use ofa
195
representation other than the one that actually occurs in the word whose
pronunciation is being determined.
In Klamath one finds numerous alternations between glottalized and
nonglottalized consonants. For example, the stem /sl'eq' / 'to rust' ends
in a glottalized consonant when a vowel follows (cf., s/' eq' -a 'it rusts') but
ends in the corresponding nonglottalized consonant when an obstruent
follows (s/' eq-di: I-a 'is rusted out underneath'). In general, glottalized
consonants do not appear in front of obstruents in Klamath. Within the
generative approach, we would set up underlying /sl'eq' / and invoke a
rule of deglottalization that operates when an obstruent follows. In the
morpheme alternant theory, a rule of selection such as (29) wouid be
invoked.
(29)
If a morpheme exhibits an alternation between a g/ottalized and a
nonglottalized consonant, choose the nonglottalized form when
an obstruentfollows, and choose the glottalizedform elsewhere.
Let us now consider an example such as nt'op'-a 'rots' and sno-ntp'-a
·causes to rot'. The representation for the verb stem must be /nt
{0} {0} p' [
When this representation is combined with the causative prefix, we get (30).
(30)
How is this representation to be assigned its correct phonetic shape?
Clearly. the choice of the prefixal vowel must be made on the basis of the
alternant of the stem containing the vowel /o/ rather than the alternant
lacking a vowel. Of course, the alternant containing the vowel /o/ is not
the one that is actually pronounced i'n this word. But now let us consider
how we .can choose the proper form of the verb stem. It is clear that in
ord~r to choose the alternant lacking glottalization we must choose the
alternant that lacks the vowel /o /. It is only the absence of the stem vowel
that permits the consonant exhibiting the glottalization alternation to be
next to an obstruent. Recall that the rule of selection (29) chooses the
nonglottalized alternant just in the event an obstruent follows immediately. It should be clear that the abo\l'e process of choosing the
surface form· sno-ntp'-a precisely matches the kind of analysis that the
generative approach would give; note the derivation in (31).
196
(31)
The Basic Altemant
The Problem of Abstractness
/snV-nt'op'-a/
sno-nt'op'-a
sno-nt'p'-a
sno-ntp'-a
Prefixal vowel harmony
Vowel elision
De glottalization
Notice that the above derivation makes use of the underlying form of the
verb stem to determine the prefixal vowel. and it makes use of the form of
the stem resulting from vowel elision to trigger the application of deglottalization. The morpheme alternant approach would in effect have to do:
·;
exactly the same thing.
The conclusion to be drawn from the above discussion is that in.
order to account for the data cited, the morpheme alternant approach
would have to be granted the power to choose the equivalent of an
underlying representati~n and to impose an ordering on its rules of selection that essentially matches the derivations used in the generative approach. On the other hand, the morpheme alternant theory regards it as
being totally unpredictable whether a morpheme will or will not exhibit an
alternation. Since there is considerable evidence that morphemes, in fact,
do alternate by rule (i.e., that all morphemes of a certain structure will
predictably exhibit a certain alternation), the morpheme alternant theory
cannot in fact characterize the native speaker's knowledge of his language·
as successfully as can the approach utilizing underlying representations
plus an (ordered) set of rules modifying those underlying representations
in particular contexts.
The Basic Alternant
Having given some of the motivation for the concept of an underlying
representation which is converted into a phonetic representation by the
application of phonological rules, we now turn to the question of possible
constraints on the degree to which these two representations may diverge.
The constraints examined in this section are all fairly strong in that they
require a rather direct relation between the UR and its associated PRs.
They all require that the UR be identical with one of its PRs. They differ in
just which PR is claimed to be the UR. Some of these constraints have
been explicitly proposed by one or another phonologist, while others are
logical possibilities whose validity needs to be examined. We will see that
none of these constraints can be accepted as absolute requirements on
underlying representations if certain internally well-motivated analyses
are to be maintained.
The first of these may be stated as follows:
.. 'm,
197
The UR of a morpheme is identical 2 with the phonetic alternant
that appears in isolation (or as close to isolation as the grammar
of the language permits).
~prlnciple such as this seems to be implicitly assumed in many pedagogicj\fJY oriented descriptions where one often finds rules about how to
cbnstruct a plural noun on the basis of the singular form of that noun, or
~dW to construct a dative form of a noun on the basis of the nominative
form, etc. This principle has also been proposed by Vennemann (1974). It
· s to be motivated by the following two considerations. First, the UR
' morpheme is often obscured when it is combined with other morJ6~mes because of the operation of phonological rules. If the morpheme
J~i:i be located in isolation, this obscuring effect can be eliminated and the
tfb~forlying form revealed. In addition, the unaffixed or minimally affixed
· fdr'nl of a root morpheme often appears in a semantically more basic
cc>'ntext (e.g.' singular is more basic than plural; subject case is more basic
than object case; third person is more basic than first or second), and
tbere may be a tendency to identify the UR of a morpheme with the
afrernant appearing in the semantically more basic context, perhaps on
tHe grounds that this context is more frequent-especially during the
iri'itial stages of language learning.
.,.... But we have seen that word-initial and especially word-final position
often induce phonological mutations that obscure the UR of a morpheme.
Recall the internally and externally motivated rule of final devoicing in
Russian (Chapter 3), where in isolation the final sounds of forms such as
trup 'corpse' and xlep 'bread' are identical, but contrast when a case
suffix is added: trup-u versus xleb-u. Con.straint (32) would require the
URs of these morphemes to each end in a voiceless consonant. An
arbitrary lexical division of the morphemes of Russian would then be
required (one class of which would voice its final obstruent when preceding a case suffix, and another class which would not), in spite of the fact
that a natural phonetic contrast (final voiced versus final voiceless
obstruent) is available to differentiate the two types of stems.
The Lardil data discussed in Chapter 4 present a much more extreme
•Of course we don't mean strict identity since we wish to allow for the possibility that
the UR may not contain any specification for a nonalternating redundant phonetic property
(such as aspiration in English) that is entirely predictable from the phonetic context. Thus
this· constraint would not be violated by a UR for cab in which the initial consonant is
unspecified for aspiration and hence not literally identical with any of its phonetic realizations. What we are concemed with here as well as in all later constraints discussed in this
section is the UR for features that alter'nate or nonaltemating features that are not predictable from phonetic context.