Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Productivity in phonology
Winter 2011
LING 451/551
“Generative model”
• Rules generate representations from more
abstract ones
• Top-down, decompositional model
• Works pretty well for syntax
– NP (Det) (Adj) N (PP)
• Seems to work pretty well for phonology
– Turkish /sebeb/ [sebep]
Generative morphology?
• washable, lovable, thinkable
• Hayes: –able Affixation (p. 109)
– Verb + ǝbǝl Adj
– Verb + ǝbǝl means “able to be verbed”
• Bottom-up, formative model
2 problems with this approach
• –ize Affixation
– ǝ(C) ]{N,Adj} + ajz V
– {N,Adj} + ajz means „cause to become imbued with
{N,Adj}‟
– terror, terrorize; feudal, feudalize
• Can‟t be added to all Adj or N
– horror, *horrorize; futile, *futilize
• Derived words don‟t always mean what they‟re
supposed to
– real, realize „cause to become real‟?
• I realized I was wrong.
• („came to understand‟)
Productivity
• “Rules of derivational morphology commonly
differ in their productivity, which may be defined
as their capacity to apply in novel
circumstances” (Hayes p. 113)
• 5.9: -ical vs. -like
– -ical • alphabetical, farcical, quizzical, paradoxical
• but ??attitudical, porchical, breezical, Rolodexical, violinical.
“Evidently, words like alphabetical...are memorized entities”
• “Affixation does not by itself license the existence of a word.”
– cf. –like “applies open-endedly”
Derivation vs. inflection
• Hayes‟ approach to inflection
• Bottom-up, spell-out of inflectional features
• X Xz
[V, +pres, +3, +sg]
• runs [rʌnz], brings [brɪŋz] • what about
– say [seɪ], says [sɛz], *[seɪz]
– do [du], does [dʌz], *[duz]
– have, has [hæz], *[hævz]
• Blocking: lexically listed forms block synonymous
derived form
Derivation vs. inflection
• Derivation generally less productive – Adj + ity abstract N „having Adj quality‟
• stupidity, scarcity
• *wickedity, *hoarsity
• but productive with –al adjectives: grammaticality,
nationality
• Degrees of productivity among derivation – cf. Adj + nəs abstract N „having Adj quality‟
• redness, fearfulness, sugariness, slap-happiness
• But disagreement about criteria for inflection vs.
derivation
Productivity in morphology
• A central issue
• Interacts with assumptions about
– nature of morphological rules (bottom-up, top-down)
– function (create words, analyze existing words)
– what‟s in the lexicon
• Evidence for productivity in morphology
– “nonce formations” (application of rule to new forms)
• “In the description of a language‟s
morphological system, there is good
reason to include even the non-productive
rules. Even though they cannot be used
to derive novel words, they do
characterize a systematic relationship
among existing words, one which is
apprehended by speakers of the
language. Thus, even though –ical is not
productive, speakers of English plainly
recognize alphabetical as an adjective
based on alphabet.” p. 114
Productivity in syntax
• Productivity generally not an issue in syntax
– No exceptions to wh-movement
• Sentences are not stored
– created “on the fly”
– pieces like idioms are stored
• But Dative Shift lexically idiosyncratic – I gave the present to my brother.
– I gave my brother the present.
– I delivered the present to my brother.
– *I delivered my brother the present.
• So far in this class, no doubts about rule
productivity
– but with small problem sets, can‟t really tell
– in real life, productivity may be an issue
• „the question of how to judge formal word-
relatedness remains controversial to this day,
and with it, many issues pertaining to
phonological abstractness‟ (Odden 2005: 273)
– is a word‟s structure memorized (and also its
phonology)?
– or is it actively derived?
Productivity in phonology
Hayes‟ approach
• Productivity continuum in phonology, like
morphology
– Fully productive
– Less productive
• lexical exceptions
– small number
– moderate number
• morphological conditions in context
– Morpheme-specific alternation
– Lexicalized/lexically listed
Fully productive rules
• Hayes: Vowel nasalization
– V [+nasal] / ___ [+nasal]
– pen [pɛn]
– mountain [mãʊnʔn ] ~ [mãʊʔn ] • Aspiration
• /h/ deletion
– vehicle [|viǝkl ], vehicular [vi|hɩkjǝlr ]
“An almost fully productive rule”
• Postnasal /t/ Deletion
• t 0 / n ___ V
[-stress]
• winter, winner – careful (optional) [|wɪntɹ], [|wɪnɹ] – casual (obligatory) [|wɪnɹ] ([|wɪɾɹ]), [|wɪnɹ] ([|wɪɾɹ])
• intellectual – BH, SH: [nt], [n]
• intonation, cf. intone, antonym – BH, SH: [nt], *[n]
• intuition – BH: [nt], [n]
– SH: [nt], *[n] (cf. intuit)
Handling exceptions to rules
• intonation an exception to Postnasal /t/ Deletion?
• The rule may not be correctly formulated – Postnasal /t/ Deletion only applies before [ə]?
• Another rule may be obscuring
– Grimm‟s Law and Verner‟s Law
• Shorter, related forms somehow to blame
– intuit, intone
• The rule may not be productive
• “opinions in this area differ” (p. 194)
Major vs. minor rules
• Hayes‟ solution to exceptions
– Major rules can be blocked by [-R] • intonation, [-Postnasal t deletion]
– Minor rules triggered by [+R] • /loʊf/, [+/f/ Voicing]
“Lesser degrees of productivity”
• A minor rule
• /f/ Voicing
– /f/ [+voice] / ___ z]N, +pl
Need for morphological conditions
• Non-applicability in verbs
– loafs around, *loa[v]es around
• Non-applicability even in possessive
nouns
– loaf’s ([fs], *[vz]) wrapper
Exceptions to /f/ Voicing
Rule approach to /f/ Voicing
• /f/ Voicing as a minor rule
– applies only when triggered by [+R] in UR
– loaf
• /loʊf/, [+/f/ Voicing]
– oaf
• /oʊf/
– Numbers of undergoers/exceptions?
Lexical approach to /f/ Voicing
• “An alternative hypothesis would be to say
that we simply memorize all the plurals
that change /f/ to /v/ and store them in the
mental lexicon.” (p. 194)
Hayes‟ opinion
• “a phonological analysis is called for when the
alternation is productively extended to new
morphemes” (p. 203)
– historically, extended to dwarves (replacing earlier
plural dwarrows)
• Collect judgements from speakers via nonce-
probe study (or wug-test)
– [v] acceptable to some in: gulfs, chiefs, epitaphs
• Grammars may differ
Haspelmath and Sims‟ opinion
• 2 types of alternations
• Morphophonological (morphophonemic) alternations
„behave in ways that are typical of morphological
structure more generally‟
• Polish “First Palatalization”
• -yć (forms verbs), -ny (forms adj), -ek, -ka dim
• back-formed augmentatives
• back-formed augmentatives, undoing 1st Pal
ʃk
ʧk
x
• Haspelmath and Sims
• Variation in productivity „is a typical property of
affixes, but not of phonological rules‟
– „many linguists would say that only automatic
alternations are truly phonological, whereas
morphophonological alternations are really
morphological in nature‟
• Hayes ch. 8: „Morphophonemic analysis‟
Morpheme-specific alternation
• Hayes‟ example: Yidiny –du/ŋgu ergative
– -du / C___
– -ŋgu / V___
– wagal-du „wife‟
– mulari-ŋgu „initiated man‟
• Korean -i/ka nominative/subject
– -i / C___
– -ka / V___
– snsɛ-i „teacher‟ (nom.)
– kyosu-ka „professor‟ (nom.)
Approaches to morpheme-specific
alternation
• Hayes
– Yidiny ergative inflection
– X [+ergative] {XC XCdu
XV XVŋgu}
Another approach to morpheme-
specific alternation
• Kager 1996
• Multiple URs
– -/du/ [+ergative], -/ŋgu/ [+ergative]
• Phonology chooses
– [wa.gal.du] vs. [wa.gal.ŋgu] • choose [wa.gal.du] because no C clusters
– [mu.la.ri.du] vs. [mu.la.riŋ.gu] • choose [mu.la.riŋ.gu] because -/ŋgu/ is the
preferred ergative allomorph (because longer?)
Fully lexicalized alternations
• goose, geese
– moose, moose(s); noose, nooses; deuce,
deuces; use, uses
• mouse, mice; louse, lice
– grouse, grouses
Summary of approaches
Hayes Kager Haspelmath
and Sims
fully productive P P P (“automatic”)
exceptions,
morphological
conditions
P P M (“morpho-
phonemic”
morpheme-
specific
alternation
M P M
lexicalized M M M
And grammars may differ: /f/ Voicing may be a productive rule for some
speakers, lexicalized for others.