1. what are prosodic templates · requirement on its input or its output. not part of a larger,...

Morphophonology 07/17/2017

1

Lecture 4: Templates 1. WHAT ARE PROSODIC TEMPLATES?

• Prosodic templates: posited when morphological constructions directly constrain the phonological shape of the resulting stem.

(1) Typical units of templatic form prosodic word foot (bimoraic or disyllabic) syllable (bimoraic or unrestricted) mora

• Templates have played a highly significant role in theories of phonology and morphology (McCarthy 1979, 1981; McCarthy & Prince 1990, 1995, 1996, 1999; and Downing 2006)

• Famous example: Classical Arabic verb paradigm (McCarthy 1979, 1981). o Verb roots are purely consonantal in form; thus the root for ‘write’ is /ktb/, often

represented as !"#. o All derived and inflected verb forms based on this root share these three

consonants, but their prosodic shape is determined by a morphological category-specific template.

§ Basic perfective verbs: [CV][CVC] (e.g. katab ‘write’), § Causatives: [CVCi][CiVC] (kattab ‘make write’) § Reciprocals: [CVV][CVC] (kaatab ‘correspond’).

o McCarthy 1979, 1981: templates consists of CV skeletal units o McCarthy & Prince 1990, 1999[1986] showed that prosodic units (as in (1)) are a

better match for the observed properties of templates (hence the term ‘prosodic morphology’)


2

2. WHAT DISTINGUISHES TEMPLATES FROM MORPHOLOGICALLY CONDITIONED PHONOLOGY OR PROCESS MORPHOLOGY?

Flack 2007: Dinka 3rd person singular agreement (1a) and ‘centrifugal’ (signalling movement away) (1b) suffixes are mora-adding process morphology (or morphologically conditioned phonology): (2) gloss root 3SG CF “ADD µ” a. ‘kick’ wèc wè ː c wé ː c ‘dust’ tèŋ tè ː ŋ tê ː ŋ ‘roll’ lè ː r lè ː ːr lê ː ːr ‘pull’ mì ː t mì ː ːt mî ː ːt

Dinka benefactives show templatic behavior: they must be bimoraic. This requirement induces lengthening (3a) but also prevents bimoraic benefactives from undergoing 3rd singular lengthening (b-d):

(3) gloss root BENEFACTIVE “BE µµ” a. ‘kick’ wèc wé ː c ‘dust’ tèŋ tê ː ŋ ‘roll’ lè ː r lê ː r ‘pull’ mì ː t mî ː t (4) gloss root BENEFACTIVE + 3SG “BE µµ” a. ‘kick’ wèc wé ː c (no change) ‘dust’ tèŋ tê ː ŋ (no change) ‘roll’ lè ː r lê ː r (no change) ‘pull’ mì ː t mî ː t (no change) ∴ Templates are shape constraints, rather than processes. (But is this a real formal distinction, in constraint-based approaches like Optimality Theory?)

3. WHY STUDY TEMPLATES?

• Templates illuminate the nature of phonological representations (CV units? prosodic units?)

• Templates shed light on item vs. process morphology o Are templates morphological items or morphological processes? o Are templates just elaborate instances of morphologically conditioned phonology?

• Is templaticity a typological category, or do all languages have it, to varying degrees?

Road map: • Isolated templaticity • Systematic stem templaticity • Pervasive templaticity

• The phonological analysis of templates


3

4. ISOLATED TEMPLATICITY Isolated templaticity: a single construction within a language imposes a prosodic shape requirement on its input or its output. Not part of a larger, systematic pattern of templaticity across the grammar.

4.1 ENGLISH COMPARATIVES English: a case of isolated tempaticity with common prosodic shape

(5) Comparative -er and superlative -est combine only with bases which are monosyllabic (5a) or whose second syllable is very short (5b). (There is some interspeaker variation on this point.)

a. σ fine finer finest sad sadder saddest strange stranger strangest b. σ + C little littler littlest common commoner commonest crazy crazier craziest c. σ σ+ vacant *vacanter *vacanter (cf. empty, emptier, emptiest) affable *affabler *affabler (cf. nice, nicer, nicest) gigantic *giganticer *giganticest (cf. huge, huger, hugest)

• Stems which do not conform to the templatic requirements of the comparative and superlative suffixation constructions instead use an alternative periphrastic construction, ‘more/most ___’

• This is isolated templaticity: in general, English suffixes are not limited to monosyllabic bases


4

4.2 CUPEÑO HABILITATIVES Cupeño: a case of isolated tempaticity with unusual prosodic shape

(6) Cupeño habilitative must have antepenultimate stress, which induces lengthening (via reduplication, epenthesis) in case input < 3 syllables (Hill 1970; McCarthy 1979, McCarthy 2000; McCarthy and Prince 1990; Crowhurst 1994).

gloss Plain stem Habilitative a. ‘leach acorns’ páčik páčiɁik ‘be angry’ čáŋnəw čáŋnəɁəw ‘joke’ čəkúkʷily čəkúkʷiɁily b. ‘husk’ čál čáɁaɁal ‘see’ təw təɁəɁəw ‘gather wood’ kəláw kəláɁaɁaw c. ‘sing enemy songs’ pínəɁwəx pínəɁwəx ‘fall’ xáləyəw xáləyəw

• Note: the Cupeño habilitative is not a mora, syllable or binary foot • McCarthy and Prince (1990) propose a ternary foot • Crowhurst 1994, McCarthy 2000 propose two feet: one for the stressed syllable and one

following • Itô & Mester 2003: trimoraic loanword clippings in Japanese could be analyzed as a

“loose minimal word”, i.e. bimoraic foot + extra syllable (7) Loose minimal words in Japanese: [[µµ]Ft µ]Wd ‘diamond’ daiyamoNdo → daiya σµµσµ ‘combination’ koubineesyoN → koubi σµµσµ ‘Appendizitis’ (< German) appeNdizitisu → appe σµµσµ ‘basket’ basuketto → basuke σµσµσµ ‘animation’ animeesyoN → anime σµσµσµ


5

4.3 NOISE WORDS IN GUARANI Guarani: a case of isolated tempaticity with unusual prosodic shape and segmental components

(8) Langdon 1994: noise words in Guarani all have the shape CVrVrV. • The three vowels are identical to one another • the medial consonants are [r] • the initial consonant must be an obstruent or /w/

piriri ‘fire burning dry grass; crackle of new money’ xiriri ‘water coming out of faucet’ perere ‘chicken flapping wings; lumpy things in box’ tarara ‘chattering teeth; shivering; pecking’ mbarara ‘loud, deep; big drum; heavy books falling’ pororo ‘popcorn; sparks’ wyryry ‘crumpled paper; ferreting through box’ sururu ‘tight-fitting parts; forcing into tight slot’ parara ‘rocks in tin can’ to ro ro ‘monumental water fall’ kiriri ‘quietly’ pyry ry ‘jumping, spinning top’ puru ru ‘biting a ripe grape; cherry tomato; starched petticoat’

• Noise words in Guarani behave syntactically like (intransitive) verbs. • They conform to Guarani phonotactics, obeying nasal harmony and having open syllables • They just obey more restrictions than other Guarani verbs. • Other Guarani verbs can be be vowel-initial, can contain different vowels (e.g. puka ‘laugh’,

hendu ‘hear’, purahei ‘sing’, ipota ‘want’; Langdon 1994:100-101), and don’t restrict consonants.

4.4 HAUSA V-X → N COMPOUNDS Hausa: isolated templaticity with unusual prosodic shape and featural components

(9) Hausa (Chadic): noun-forming constuction consists of monosyllabic verb whose vowel lengthens and is changed to L(ow) tone, and a noun whose final vowel is short(ened) (Newman 2000):

a. /ʧí + fàːráː/ → [ʧìː-fàːrá] ‘eat-locust =type of bird’ b. /bí + bángòː/ → [bìː-bángò] ‘follow-wall = leakage from roof along wall; wall ivy’ c. /gàː + rúwáː/ → [gàː-rúwá] ‘here_is-water = selling water in jerry cans’ Short vowels, L tone, and monosyllabicity are not general concomitants of Hausa compounding constructions, which preserve lexical vowel length, tone, and syllable count (Newman 2000:115-119): (10) Adj-N: bák’í-n + ʧíkìː ‘black-belly = sadness, jealousy’ N-N: sáːráː + súːkàː ‘slashing-stabbing = thuggery’ ʧî-n + fúskàː ‘eating-face = humiliation, insult’ V-X: ʧí + kár -kà-mútù ‘eat-don’t-you-die = tasteless food’


6

5. SYSTEMATIC STEM TEMPLATICITY Systematic templatic requirements hold across more than one construction in a language, rather than being specific to a particular affixation or compounding construction.

5.1 ROOT SHAPE TEMPLATICITY IN YOWLUMNE Yowlumne: a case of systematic tempaticity with standard prosodic shapes (11) Yowlumne (Yokuts, Penutian; aka Yawelmani; Newman 1944) restricts verb stem shapes

to three possibilities (as analyzed by Archangeli 1983, 1984, 1991; Noske 1985; Zoll 1993, among others)

σµ (=CVC) σµµ (=CVVC) σµσµµ (=CVCVVC)

(12) Yowlumne roots consist of one distinctive vowel and 2 or 3 consonants. Each root is lexically associated with a template. Root segments map to the template in a predictable, left-to-right manner (Archangeli 1983, 1984, 1991). (Under pressure to syllabify with a suffix, epenthesis and/or closed syllable vowel shortening may apply, obscuring the templatic form slightly)

Root Template Root + aorist /-hin/ a. ‘shout’ caw σµ caw-hin ‘float’ hogn σµ hogin-hin (< |hogn-hin|) b. ‘devour’ cum σµµ c’om-hun (< |c’oom-hin|) ‘consent’ cupn σµµ coopun-hun (< |cuupun-hun|) c. ‘become quiet’ ni σµσµµ ninee-hin (< |ninii-hin|) ‘follow’ ywl σµσµµ yawaal-hin


7

Some Yowlumne suffixes are also lexically associated with one of the three templates in (11). When a root combines with a template-selecting suffix, the root conforms to the template associated with the suffix, rather than to the template associated lexically with the root.

(13) Iambic suffix template imposed on root: a. t′ul t’uloo-Ɂuy lit ‘burn-CONS.ADJ’ (< |t’uloo-Ɂuy|) (cf. lexical monomoraic root template, t’ul-) b. tan tanaa-Ɂeːy lit. ‘go-CONS.ADJ’ = ‘footprint’ (cf. lexical bimoraic root template, taan-) c. c′uy c’uyoo-Ɂoy-nu lit. ‘urinate-CONS.ADJ-IND.OBJ’ (<|c’uyoo-Ɂoy-nu|) (cf. lexical iambic root template, c’uyoo-)

(14) Moraic suffix template imposed on root a. linc′ linc’-atin ‘speak-DESID’ (cf. lexical monomoraic root template, linc’-) b. wuʔy wuɁy-atin ‘go to sleep-DESID’ (cf. lexical bimoraic root template,wooɁy-) c. liʔ liɁ-hatin ‘sink-DESID’ (cf. lexical iambic root template, liɁee-)

(15) Bimoraic suffix template imposed on root: a. linc′ lenc’-aa ‘speak-CONT’ (< |liinc’-aa|) (cf. lexical monomoraic root template, linc’-) b. hewt hewt’-aa ‘walk-DESID’ (< |heewt’-aa|) (cf. lexical iambic root template, hiweet-)

Yowlumne is an interesting case for at least three reasons. • Phonological opacity • Lexical association of templates with specific morphemes. • Conflict produced when a root and an affix are associated with conflicting templates

which cannot both be satisfied (the principle is simple: the affix template always wins.)


8

5.2 TIENE Tiene: a case of systematic templaticity with standard prosodic shape but many segmental components. Bantu verb structure below, from Downing 1999: (16)

(17) Tiene (Bantu, B.81; Ellington 1977) templates are imposed on all verbal D(erivational)

stems, i.e. root + (optional) derivational suffixes (Hyman & Inkelas 1997, Hyman 2010).

a. Prosodic shape: bimoraic, either CVVC- or CVCVC- b. Place of articulation: in CVCVC- stems, C2 must be coronal, C3 must be grave

(labial/velar) c. Nasality: in CVCVC- stems, C2 and C3 must agree in nasality

(18) Coronal suffixation in the Tiene Dstem: causative /s/ (i) and applicative /l/ (ii)

a. i. ‘eat’ lɛ lee-s- ‘feed’ Vowel lengthens (15a) ‘fall’ vu vuu-s- ‘cause to fall’ ii. ‘throw,

strike’ tá tée-l- ‘throw to/for’

‘wrap’ día díi-l- ‘wrap for’ b. i. ‘bathe’ yↄb-ↄ yↄ-l-ↄb- ‘bathe for’ Coronal suffix

infixes (15b) (with epenthesis)

‘reach’ bák-a bá-l-ak- ‘reach for’ ii. ‘borrow’ suↄm-ↄ sↄ-s-ↄb- ‘lend’ ‘hear’ yók-a yó-l-

ek- ‘listen to’

iii. ‘be extinguished’

dim- di-s-eb- ‘extinguish’ + nas harmony (15c)

c. i. ‘get thin’ taan-a taa-s- ‘cause to get thin’

Coronal suffix fuses with stem coronal (15b); V lengthening (15a)

‘arrive’ pal-a paa-s- ‘cause to arrive’

ii. ‘give birth’ bót-a bóo-t- ‘give birth for’ ‘spread’ yal-a yaa-l- ‘spread for’

(19) Stative suffix allomorphy: /-k/ suffix on coronal-final stems, /l/ infix elsewhere a. i. ‘break’ ból- ból-ek- ‘be broken’ suffixation of k (15b) (with

epenthesis) ‘tie’ kót- kót-ek- ‘be untied’ ‘split’ yaat- yat-ak- ‘be split’ ‘drive faas- fas-ak- ‘be driven

3

(9) Identification of subconstituents and their canonical and non-canonical shapes

canonical non-canonicala . pre-stem subj, neg, tense, asp, obj prefixes CV- V-, N-, (C)VV-?

b. radical verb root ≠CV(N)C- ≠CV, ≠CVVC-, ≠VC-

c. extensions expansions/derivational suffixes -VC- -V-, -VNC-, -C-

d. FV inflectional final suffix -V -VV, (-VC-V)

(10) Canonical shapes define an alternating CVCV structure

a . prefixes are canonically C-initial, while suffixes are canonically V-initialb. prefixes are canonically V-final, while (non-final) suffixes are canonically C-finalc. roots are canonically -CV(N)C-, i.e. C-initial and C-final

(11) Elaborate Kinande example (Ngessimo Mutaka, cited in Nurse & Philippson 2003b:9)

tu-né-mu-ndi-syá-tá-sya-ya-ba ≠king-ul-ir-an-is-i ¶-á =ki-ô (≠ stem; = clitic)‘we will make it possible one more time for them to open it for each other’

(12) Elaboration of Bantu verb structure (Downing 1999:75)

verb word5

INFL V’Stem (macrostem)5

OP V°Stem (compound stem)5

RED Inflected Stem5

Extended DStem Inflectional Final Suffix (IFS)5

Minimal DStem (Root) (Extensions)

(13) Order of prefixal “INFL” elements (PI = “pre-initial”), said to be of slot-filler type (Stump 1997,Güldeman 1999)

PI - Subj - Neg - Tense - Aspect - Obj - VERB STEM

a . t i - bá- l ì - k ì - gul-a ‘they will not buy it’ (Luganda)

a - bá- tà- lì- k ì - gul-a ‘they who will not buy it’

b. si- ti- dzá- ngo- mú- ményá ‘we will not just hit him’ (Chichewa)

t i - sa- dzá- ngo- mú- ményá (= subordinate clause)

(14) Bantu extension system = impressively uniform, reconstructable (Meeussen 1967, Schadeberg 2003)

a . frozen, mostly unidentifiable -VC- expansions

i . *-u-, *-im-, *-un-, *-ing- i i i . *-Im-, *-çm-, *-çng- (but only after CV-)i i . *-ang-, *-ab-, *-ag-, *-ak- iv. *-Ut -

b. unproductive extensions often restricted to post-radical position or specific combinations

i . *-Ik - ‘impositive’ iv. *-ad- ‘extensive’i i . *-am- ‘positional’ v. *-at- ‘tentive’ (contactive)i i i . *-a(n)g- ‘repetitive’ vi . *-Ud-/*-Uk- ‘reversive/separative’ (tr/intr)

c. productive extensions

i . * - i - ‘causative’ iv. *-Ik - ‘neuter/stative’i i . *-Ic-i- ‘causative’ v. *-an- ‘reciprocal/associative’i i i . *-Id- ‘applicative’ vi . *(-IC-)-U- ‘passive’


9

through’ through’ ii. ‘mix’ vwuny- vwunye-ŋ- ‘be mixed’ +nas harmony (15c) b. i. ‘divide’ kab- ka-l-ab- ‘be divided’ infixation of l, per (15b)

(with epenthesis) ‘put in’ sook- so-l-ek- ‘take out’ ‘tear’ nyak- nya-l-ak- ‘be torn’ ii. ‘twist’ kam- ka-n-am- ‘be turned

over’ +nasal harmony (15c)

Note that nasal harmony and fusion of adjacent coronal suffixes occur in Bantu languages independently of prosodic templaticity. Here, all three converge.

6. PERVASIVE TEMPLATICITY Pervasive templaticity: the same template is imposed not on a single morphological construction, or just within verb stems as in Arabic, Yowlumne or Tiene, but on so many unrelated constructions in the same language that it verges on having the status of a general stem or word template in the language. Typically involves minimal word size.

6.1 MINIMALITY IN LARDIL

• Lardil actively enforces a minimal size condition on content words (verbs and nouns): two short vowels or one long vowel (Hale 1973 and Klokeid 1974; see McCarthy and Prince 1996, 1999; Wilkinson 1988).

• This condition can induce epenthesis in monomoraic words (a-c), and it can block an otherwise general apocope rule from applying to bimoraic words (d-e).

(20) Underlying Plain Suffixed gloss [Lardil] a. /wik/ wika wik-in ‘shade(-ACC)’ /wun/ wunta wun-in ‘rain(-ACC)’ /teř/ teřa teř-uṛ ‘thigh-FUT’ /wik/ wika wik-uṛ ‘shade-FUT’ b. /peṯ/ peṯa peṯ-uṛ ‘bite(-FUT)’ /neṯ/ neṯa neṯ-uṛ ‘hit(-FUT)’ c. /peer/ peer peerin ‘ti-tree sp(-NONFUT).’ /maan/ maan maanin ‘spear gen.(-NONFUT)’ /kentapal/ kentapal kentapalin ‘dugong(-NONFUT)’ d. /yiliyili/ yiliyil yiliyilin ‘oyster’ /yukarpa/ yukar yukarpan ‘husband’ e. /parŋa/ parŋa parŋan ‘stone’ /kela/ kela kelan ‘beach’


10

6.2 MINIMALITY IN JAPANESE Japanese enforces a bimoraic minimality condition through the lexicon (e.g., Itô 1990, Poser 1990)

(21) The bimoraic “foot”:

[CV]σ[CV]σ [CVV]σ [CVC]σ Itô (1990): the bimoraic size requirement is imposed on various morphologically derived stems

(22) Loanword clipping a. amachua → ama ‘amateur’ herikoputaa → heri ‘helicopter’ terorizumu → tero ‘terrorism’ chokoreeto → choko ‘chocolate’ b. furasutoreeshoN → furasuto ‘frustration’ asuparagasu → asupara ‘asparagus’ iNtorodakushoN → iNtoro ‘introduction’ c. waado purosessaa → waa puro ‘word processor’ hebii metaru → hebi meta ‘heavy metal’ rajio kasetto rekoodaa → raji kase ‘radio cassette recorder’ paasonaru koNpyuutaa → paso koN ‘personal computer’ jiiNzu paNtsu → jii paN ‘jeans pants’ (23) Nickname ‘truncation’ (creation of bimoraic base for suffix to attach to) a. akira → aki-tyan megumi → megu-tyan wa-sabu-roo → wasa-tyan b. syuusuke → syuu-tyan taizoo → tai-tyan kinsuke → kin-tyan c. midori → mii-tyan, mit-tyan, mido-tyan kiyoko → kii-tyan, kit-tyan, kiyo-tyan d. ti → tii-tyan (24) Compounding a. ‘look’ mi → mii-mii ‘while looking’ ‘sleep’ ne → nee-nee ‘while dozing’ ‘do’ sh(i) → shii-shii ‘while doing’ b. ‘eat’ tabe → tabe-tabe ‘while eating’ ‘cry’ nak(i) → naki-naki ‘while crying’ ‘dance’ odor(i) → odori-odori ‘while dancing’ c. ‘2’ ni → nii-shii-goo ‘2-4-5’ ‘4’ shi ‘5’ go


11

(25) Monomorphemic words in Japanese do not lengthen: ki ‘tree’ e ‘picture’ no ‘field’ na ‘name’ su ‘vinegar’

7. THE PHONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF TEMPLATES DIRECT REPRESENTATIONAL (McCarthy 1979, 1981 and McCarthy and Prince 1996, 1999b; see also McCarthy, Kimper & Mullin 2012):

• templates are pieces of representation, an empty skeletal frame into which the vowels and consonants of a given morpheme or stem or word must fit.

• templates exist in the lexical representations of morphemes and combine in a principled manner with the consonants and vowels that exist in the representations of those or other morphemes.

• Lexical entry for Yowlumne ‘walk’ consists of the prosodic template σµσµµ and the consonants /h,w,t/ and the vowel /i/.

• Lexical entry for Yowlumne desiderative suffix, -’aa, consists of the suffix and the empty structure σµµ, to which the root consonants and vowel associate.

• Has difficulty encoding templates with segmental restrictions, as in Tiene DIRECT CONSTRAINT model: constraint-based implementation of DIRECT REPRESENTATIONAL. Each prosodic template is a single shape constraint on the output form of a stem or word.

• Yowlumne grammar contain constraints like ‘Root shape = σµσµµ”, “Root shape = σµσµµ”.

• Each root and templatic suffix is indexed to one of these constraints • All markedness constraints indexed to affixes outrank all markedness constraints indexed

to roots (Zoll 1993). • Has difficulty encoding templates with segmental restrictions, as in Tiene

EMERGENTIST approach: derives templates from the interaction of general markedness constraints, rather than stipulating the template as a representation or a single constraint (McCarthy and Prince (1994b), and has been further elaborated by Urbanczyk 2006 and Downing 2006)

• The bimoraic template would emerge from the interaction of FTBIN and *STRUC. • Applied by Hyman and Inkelas (1997) and Hyman (2006) to the Tiene data in section 5.2. • Can deal straightforwardly with templates that comprise both prosodic and segmental

characteristics, as in Tiene (5.2) • Deals straightforwardly with contextual variation in templates, as in Tiene, where the

“template” does not assume a fixed shape but simply narrows down the class of possible stems.

• EMERGENTIST approach essentially treats templates as an instance of morphologically conditioned phonology involving conditions on output size.

Why are monomorphemic words exempted? This is a species of derived environment effect, in which phonological alternations apply only in morphologically derived environments


12

7.1 ROOT TEMPLATICITY IN SIERRA MIWOK: AN EMERGENTIST APPROACH Sierra Miwok: each verb root occurs in four different shapes (‘First Stem’, ‘Second Stem’, etc.), illustrated in (26). Stem shape is imposed by the adjacent suffix, as in Yowlumne. These data are fromBye & Svenonius 2012, citing Freeland 1951, and represent the Central variety of Sierra Miwok (Freeland 1951, Freeland & Broadbent 1960). (26) Stem # /hame/

‘bury’ /lot/

‘catch’ /tuyaŋ/ ‘jump’

/koypa/ ‘suck’

Example selector suffixes:

1 hámme lóot tuyáaŋ kóypa Present 1sg -m, Present 1+2 -tìi, Present 3sg -Ø

2 haméʔʔ lótt tuyáŋŋ kóyapp Recent Past -e, Future -ik 3 hámmeʔ lóttuʔ túyyaŋ kóyyap Iterative -ɨː, Continuative -puttu 4 hámʔe lótʔu túyŋa kóypa Desiderative -ksɨ, Infinitive -Ø

Bye and Svenonius: stem templates not needed.

• Stem-forming suffixes apply to roots to derive the four attested stem shapes. • This explains why most of the variation in stem shape is at the right edge, involving the

order of the final V and C or the length of the rightmost C. biconsonantalroot triconsonantalroot (27) Stem # Stem-forming suffix(es) /hame/ /lot/ /tuyaŋ/ /koypa / 1 (V-final) -µC- hámme kóypa 1 (C-final) -µV- lóot tuyáaŋ 2 -µC haméʔʔ lótt tuyáŋŋ kóyapp 3 -µC- + -C hámmeʔ lóttuʔ túyyaŋ kóyyap (ʔisepenthetic,

makes2Crootinto3C) 4 Stem3 + -V hámʔe lótʔu túyŋa kóypa

• Take-away point: it is possible to use a combination of affixation and morphologically

conditioned phonology (stem-forming changes) to derive apparently templatic shapes. • Value in doing this lies in whether the phonological alternations (stem-shape formatives)

required to convert inputs to the observed templatic shape are independently attested in the language.

• If the phonological analysis required to convert an input to the output templatic shape is specific to that construction, then there is little insight to be gained by deconstructing a template into its component parts.

• In Sierra Miwok, the affixation + phonology analysis captures the generalization that most stem shape variation involves the right edge of the stem.

• In Tiene, as seen in the next section, a deconstruction of templates into a conspiracy of individual phonological constraints captures the relationship across coexisting templates in the same system.


13

7.2 ILLUSTRATION OF EMERGENT TEMPLATES: TIENE Hyman and Inkelas (1997): emergentist analysis of the Tiene templatic system in which each component of the D(erivational) stem template in (17) is analyzed as a violable constraint. Recall the descriptive templates: (28) a. Prosodic shape: bimoraic, either CVVC- or CVCVC- b. Place of articulation: in CVCVC- stems, C2 must be coronal, C3 must be grave

(labial/velar) c. Nasality: in CVCVC- stems, C2 and C3 must agree in nasality (29) Markedness constraints from which templates emerge:

BIMORAIC MAX: A string contains no more than two vocalic moras BIMORAIC MIN: A string contains no fewer than two vocalic moras ONSET: A syllable must begin with a consonant FINALC: A string must end in a consonant NADIR: An intervocalic C must be coronal OCP[Cor]: No two adjacent coronals in the trough (i.e. outside the 1st syllable) NASAL.HARMONY: Consonants in the trough must agree in nasality

(30) Faithfulness constraints that interact with above:

ALIGN(SUFFIX, R, STEM, R) (violated by infixation) IDENT-C (violated by nasalization, oralization) MAX-C (violated by fusion) DEP-µ (violated by vowel lengthening, epenthesis)

/yↄb-/, /-l/ MAX-C NADIR FINALC ALIGN-R DEP-µ a. yↄbↄl- *! *

? b. yↄlↄb- * * c. yↄblↄ- *! * * d. yↄb- *!

Virtue of capturing the featural conditions on the template by means of constraints: the analysis can more elegantly capture the relationship between the Dstem template and a variant which is applicable only in the Definitive Aspect. (31) Definitive Aspect: creates CVCVC Dstems; C2 and C3 must be identical (Hyman 2006).

a. ‘bathe’ yↄb- yↄb-ↄb- ‘go away’ mat- mat-at- ‘dance’ kén- kén-en- b. ‘sweep’ kↄↄm- kↄm-ↄm- ‘cause to go away’ maas- mas-as- c. ‘fasten’ ka- ka-lal- Notetheepenthesisof/l/toprovideonset ‘ripen’ bɛ- bɛ-lɛl- ‘crush’ tu- tú-lel- ‘hate’ sí- sí-lel-


14

• NADIR is demoted; a total agreement constraints (more stringent than just NASAL.HARMONY) is imposed in the trough. Otherwise, the constraint set is similar

• Roots or Dstems which are CVCVC in shape, e.g. kótob- ‘chase’, cannot combine with either allomorph of the Definitive Aspect suffix (Hyman 2006:154, Ellington 1977:93), because such combinations would not obey the templatic size constraints.

• Treating templates as emergent allows resemblances to be captured • A similar approach is standard in the analysis of reduplication

7.3 GENERALIZED TEMPLATE THEORY AND TEMPLATIC SIZE Morpheme-Based Generalized Template Theory (MBGTT; Downing 2006): branching morphological constituent, should correspond to a branching (i.e. minimally binary) prosodic constituent.

(32) Javanese: ‘Active’ nasal prefix fuses with stem-initial C in disyllabic roots (32a), heads

its own syllable when combining with monosyllabic roots (32b) (Downing 2006, citing Uhrbach 1987):

a. cukur ɲukur ‘shave someone’ bali mbaleni ‘return something’ tulis nulis ‘to write’ dudut ndudut ‘pull/interesting’ sapu ɲapu ‘broom/to sweep’ b. cet ŋəcet ‘(to) print’ bom ŋəbom ‘(to) bomb' dol ŋədol ‘(to) sell’ tik ŋətik ‘typewrite/to type’ Classic Generalized Template Theory (GTT; McCarthy & Prince 1994, McCarthy & Prince 1995;McCarthy 2000; Urbanczyk 2006, Urbanczyk 2011): each template is classified as either an Affix or a Stem. These constituent types are associated universally with different prosodic shapes:

(33) Affix = Syllable Stem = Foot (34) Lushootseed reduplication (Urbanczyk 2006, citing Bates, Hess & Hilbert 1994) a. Diminutives (reduplicant = type “Affix”) ‘foot’ ǰəsəd → ǰí-ǰəsəd ‘little foot’ ‘animal hide’ s-kʷəbšəd → s- kʷí-kʷəbšəd ‘small hide’ b. Distributives (reduplicant = type “Root”) ‘foot’ ǰəsəd → ǰəs-ǰəsəd ‘feet’ ‘bear’ s-čətxʷəd → s-čət-čətxʷəd ‘bears’ Prediction of (MB)GTT:

• templates will be bimoraic or disyllabic, for constituents classified as Stems • templates can be monomoraic for constituents classified as Affixes.


15

But: • ternary templates (Cupeño, Japanese)? • root truncation to single mora?

(35) Truncation to CV in Zuni compounds and under suffixation (McCarthy and Prince 1996,

1999, citing Newman 1965): a. tukni tu-mokʷkʷ’anne ‘toe-shoe = stocking’ melika me-Ɂoše ‘Non-Indian-be:hungry = hobo’ b. kʷ’alasi kʷ’a-mme ‘Crow’ suski su-mme ‘coyote’

• GTT is formulated within Optimality Theory, in which all constraints are in principle defeasible.

• The most important insight behind GTT is that templates are the result of constraint interaction

• Decomposing templates providing the theory with a means to model the language-internal and cross-linguistic variation seen in templatic systems and across languages

8. CONCLUSION On EMERGENTIST view, templaticity is a special case of morphologically conditioned phonology or process morphology, and is best understood in the context of the phenomena discussed in lectures 1 and 3


16

9. TEMPLATES IN CHILD PHONOLOGY See, e.g., Vihman & Croft 2007, Vihman 2014. (36) From Vihman 2014:

(37) Christopher (1;10-2;1; Priestly 1977) (Vihman 1992:222-23) Medial C in bisyllabic words → [j]

[bɛjas] ‘berries’ [rajap] ‘rabbit’ [wijas] ‘whistle’ [fajam] ‘farmer’ [tajak] ‘tiger’

References Archangeli, Diana. 1983. The root CV-template as a property of the affix: evidence from Yawelmani. Natural

Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 348–384. Archangeli, Diana. 1984. Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. Massachusetts Institute of

Technology,.

18

i. Prosodic shape. Deborah’s word forms are, on the whole, quite ‘accurate’ – if

we make allowance for the lack of codas, which are consistently omitted from the

nine ‘selected’ words which have them – and for the sporadic omission of glottals

and glides at onset (initial /h/ in hello [!wo] and /w/ in what’s that? [!sQ]).

Altogether, 27 (73%) of the different word types produced in the session can be

considered to be ‘selected’. Eighteen of these are open monosyllables, eight of

them of the shape (C)VV, the rest CV. The remaining ‘selected’ words are either

fully or partially reduplicated (harmony forms) or VCV, namely, hello, what’s

that, and uh-oh.

As was the case with Tomos, the front rising diphthong is an ‘attractor’, or a

shape that attracts child production even for non-matching target words. Whereas

in Tomos’ case it led sporadically to adaptation even in the case of longer words,

Deborah adapts only monosyllables (and the imitated form, bunny) to the <CVI>

template, while longer targets (plus bus) are fitted into the harmony template. The

vowels in these words are largely taken from the target. In addition, [w] serves as

the basis for CH in cracker, presumably inspired by the /r/ of the onset cluster of

the target form, while giraffe is the only form besides (cock-a-)doodle-do to be

produced with /d/ - with harmony again spreading from the onset (where [d] for

/dZ/ is a common substitution) to the medial position. Finally, spaghetti, one of

only three long forms attempted (with kitty-cat and around-and-around), shows

what looks like metathesis, with the onset harmonizing to the medial velar stop

but the stressed syllable taking its vowel from the omitted final syllable.

Table 9. Deborah (English/US child). Later words, age 17 months. N word

shapes in session = 37.

selected adapted adaptation

<CVI>

target word child form target word child form

A [eI] bunny (im.) [baI)˘I] Replace V(C) by

VI

bye [baI] car [kwaI], [ka˘i]

Replace V(C) by

VI

eye [aI] one (im.) [waI] (x2) Replace V(C) by

VI

hi [haI]

my, mine [maI]

<C1VC1V>

around-&-

around

[waUwaU] bagel (im.) [b!bu] Harmonise C2

baby [bebi] bus [b!b!] Reduplicate

(cock-a-)doodle-

do

[d!/du] cracker

(im.)

[wQw´] Harmonise C2

kittycat (im.) [kikQ] giraffe (im.) [dIdQ] Harmonise C2

mama [m!ma] pickle (im.) [baba] Harmonise C2


17

Archangeli, Diana. 1991. Syllabification and prosodic templates in Yawelmani. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9(2). 231–283.

Bates, Dawn, Thom Hess & Vi Hilbert. 1994. Lushootseed dictionary. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Bye, Patrik & Peter Svenonius. 2012. Non-concatenative Morphology as Epiphenomenon. The morphology and

phonology of exponence, 427–495. (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 41). Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press.

Crowhurst, Megan. 1994. Foot extrametricality and template mapping in Cupeño. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12. 177–201.

Downing, Laura. 2006. Canonical forms in prosodic morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellington, John. 1977. Aspects of the Tiene language. University of Wisconsin, Madison. Flack, Kathryn. 2007. Templatic morphology and indexed markedness constraints. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 749–758. Freeland, Lynn. 1951. Language of the Sierra Miwok. (Supplement to International Journal of American Linguistics,

Vol. 17, No. 1. Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics Memoir 6.). Bloomington: Waverley Press.

Freeland, Lynn & Sylvia Broadbent. Central Sierra Miwok Dictionary, with texts. . Vol. 23. (University of California Publications in Linguistics). 1960: University of California Press.

Hale, Kenneth. 1973. Deep-surface canonical disparities in relation to analysis and change: an Australian example. In T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Linguistics in Oceania, 401–58. (Current Trends in Linguistics 11). The Hague: Mouton.

Hill, Jane. 1970. A peeking rule in Cupeño. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 534–539. Hyman, Larry M. 2010. Affixation by place of articulation: the strange case of Tiene. In Jan Wohlgemuth &

Michael Cysouw (eds.), Proceedings of the Rara and Rarissima Conference. Mouton de Gruyter. Hyman, Larry M. & Sharon Inkelas. 1997. Emergent templates: the unusual case of Tiene. In Viola Miglio & Bruce

Moren (eds.), University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics: selected phonology papers from the Johns Hopkins Optimality Theory Workshop/Maryland Mayfest, 92–116. Baltimore: Department of Linguistics, University of Maryland.

Itô, Junko. 1990. Prosodic minimality in Japanese. In Michael Ziolkowski, Manuela Noske & Karen Deaton (eds.), Papers from the twenty-sixth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Volume 2: the parasession on the syllable in phonetics and phonology., 213–239. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.

Itô, Junko & Armin Mester. 2003. Weak Layering and Word Binarity. In Shin-ichi Tanaka Takeru Honma, Masao Okazaki, Toshiyuki Tabata (ed.), A new century of phonology and phonological theory: a festschrift for Professor Shosuke Haraguchi on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, 26–65.

Langdon, Margaret. 1994. Noise words in Guarani. In John J. Ohala Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols (ed.), Sound symbolism, 94–103. Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, John. 1979. Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. MIT Ph.D. dissertation. McCarthy, John. 1981. A Prosodic Theory of Non-concatenative Morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 373–418. McCarthy, John. 2000. Faithfulness and prosodic circumscription. In J Dekkers, F van der Leeuw & J van de Weijer

(eds.), Optimality Theory: phonology, syntax, and acquisition, 151–189. New York: Oxford University Press.

McCarthy, John, Wendell Kimper & Kevin Mullin. 2012. Reduplication in harmonic serialism. Morphology 22. 173–232.

McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1990. Foot and word in Prosodic Morphology: the Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8(2). 209–282.

McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1994. Prosodic morphology I: constraint interaction and satisfaction. Utrecht University. http://works.bepress.com/john_j_mccarthy/58.

McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1995a. Prosodic morphology. In John Goldsmith (ed.), Handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1995b. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Jill Beckman, Laura Dickey & Suzanne Urbanczyk (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, 249–384. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1996. Prosodic Morphology 1986. Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science. McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1999. Prosodic Morphology (1986). In John Goldsmith (ed.), Phonological theory:

the essential readings, 238–288. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Newman, Paul. 2000. The Hausa language: an encyclopedic reference grammar. New Haven: Yale University Press. Newman, Stanley. 1944. Yokuts Language of California. New York: Viking Fund Publications.


18

Newman, Stanley. 1965. Zuni grammar. (University of New Mexico Publications in Anthropology 14). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.

Noske, Roland. 1985. Syllabification and syllable-changing processes in Yawelmani. In Harry van der Hulst & Norval Smith (eds.), Advances in nonlinear phonology, 335–361. Dordrecht: Foris.

Poser, William J. 1990. Evidence for foot structure in Japanese. Language 66. 78–105. Uhrbach, Amy. 1987. A Formal Analysis of reduplication and its Interaction with Phonological and Morphological

Processes. University of Texas, Austin Ph.D. dissertation. Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 2006. Reduplicative form and the root-affix asymmetry. Natural Language and Linguistic

Theory 24. 179–240. Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 2011. Root-affix asymmetries. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume &

Keren Rice (eds.), Blackwell Companion to Phonology, vol. IV: Phonological interfaces, 2490–2515. Blackwell.

Vihman, Marilyn. 2014. Phonological development: the first two years. Wiley Blackwell. Vihman, Marilyn & William Croft. 2007. Phonological development: toward a “radical” templatic phonology.

Linguistics 45(4). 683–725. Wilkinson, Karina. 1988. Prosodic structure and Lardil phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 19(2). 325–334. Zoll, Cheryl. 1993. Ghost segments and optimality. In Philip Spaelti (ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL 12. Stanford,

CA: CSLI Publications.

1. what are prosodic templates · requirement on its input or its output. not part of a larger,...

Documents