Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T03:46:00.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Templates as the interaction of recursive word structure and prosodic well-formedness*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2017

Peter Ara Guekguezian
Peter Ara Guekguezian*
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
*
E-mail: guekguez@usc.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Templatic morphology involves the appearance of a fixed shape on a morpheme in a specific morphological context. This paper makes two claims: the morphological context of a template is syntactically cyclic, resulting in recursive prosodic word structure, and the shape of a template results from prosodic well-formedness conditions on the internal prosodic word. Templatic morphology in Chukchansi Yokuts illustrates these claims: affixes that trigger templates transfer the root to the phonology before other material is transferred, so that the root forms a prosodic word which is internal to the whole word. Roots with one underlying vowel are augmented to meet a disyllabic minimality requirement on prosodic words; the resulting disyllable forms a light–heavy iamb, to optimally satisfy Chukchansi parsing requirements. Templatic morphology falls out from the predictable interaction of the syntax–phonology interface and general phonological properties of a language, and needs no special apparatus or diacritics.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , May 2017 , pp. 81 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would first and foremost like to thank my Chukchansi consultant, Holly Wyatt. Her knowledge of her mother tongue is formidable and her dedication to it inspiring. She has put up with years of my pesky linguistic inquiries with good humour, without which none of this paper would exist. My advisor, Karen Jesney, has provided feedback on every aspect of this paper from inception to completion, as well as constant encouragement and focus. Many other linguists gave input on different parts of this work, including Niken Adisasmito-Smith, Brian Agbayani, Chris Golston, Roumyana Pancheva, Rachel Walker and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta. I also acknowledge the valuable input on previous incarnations of parts of this analysis from audiences at the University of Southern California, AMP 2014, NELS 45, the 2016 LSA Annual Meeting and WAIL 19. Any errors in this work are completely my own.

References

REFERENCES

Adger, David (2006). Stress and phasal syntax. Ms, Queen Mary University of London. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000255.Google Scholar
Adisasmito-Smith, Niken (2016). Chukchansi–English dictionary. 5th edn. Ms, California State University, Fresno. Available (February 2017) at https://www.fresnostate.edu/artshum/linguistics/documents/chukchansi-english%20bilingual%20dictionary%205th%20edition.pdf Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arad, Maya (2003). Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: the case of Hebrew denominal verbs. NLLT 21. 737–778.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana (1983). The root CV-template as a property of the affix: evidence from Yawelmani. NLLT 1. 347–384.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana (1991). Syllabification and prosodic templates in Yawelmani. NLLT 9. 231–283.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark (1986). The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. LI 16. 373–415.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. (1986). Stress and non-stress accent. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko (2014). Now I'm a phase, now I'm not a phase: on the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. LI 45. 27–89.Google Scholar
Broadbent, Sylvia M. (1958). Chukchansi vocabulary. Ms, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Broadbent, Sylvia M. (1964). The Southern Sierra Miwok language. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi (1986). Italian syntax: a government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Bye, Patrik & Svenonius, Peter (2010). Exponence, phonology and non-concatenative morphology. Ms, University of Tromsø. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001099.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Downing, Laura (2016). Phasal syntax = cyclic phonology? Syntax 19. 156–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale & Keyser (1993). 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.) Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 89–155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.) Ken Hale: a life in language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Collord, Thomas (1968). Yokuts grammar: Chukchansi. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2002). The formal expression of markedness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J. (2006). Canonical forms in prosodic morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily (2012). Syntax–prosody interactions in Irish. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily (2015). Recursion in prosodic phrasing: evidence from Connemara Irish. NLLT 33. 1169–1208.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily (2016). Stress–epenthesis interactions in Harmonic Serialism. In McCarthy, John J. & Pater, Joe (eds.) Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism. London: Equinox. 261–300.Google Scholar
Embick, David (2010). Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fry, D. B. (1955). Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. JASA 27. 765–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamble, Geoffrey (1978). Wikchamni grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, Edward (1999). Minimal words aren't minimal feet. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 1 : Papers in Phonology 2. 68–105.Google Scholar
Guekguezian, Peter (2011). Topics in Chukchansi Yokuts phonology and morphology. MA thesis, California State University, Fresno.Google Scholar
Guekguezian, Peter (2016). Acoustic evidence for multiple, quantity-sensitive stress in Chukchansi Yokuts. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Workshop on American Indigenous Languages, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Guekguezian, Peter (in preparation). Prosodic recursion and syntactic cyclicity inside the word. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R. (1940). Ablaut and its function in Muskogee. Lg 16. 141–150.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R. (1977). Tonal accent in Creek. In Hyman, Larry M. (ed.) Studies in stress and accent. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California. 195–208.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.) (1993). The view from building 20: essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Nancy (2006). Cross-linguistic patterns of vowel intrusion. Phonology 23. 387–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec (1993). Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale & Keyser (1993). 111–176.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Howe, Darin & Pulleyblank, Douglas (2001). Patterns and timing of glottalisation. Phonology 18. 45–80.Google Scholar
Hyde, Brett (2007). Non-finality and weight-sensitivity. Phonology 24. 287–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2003). Weak layering and word binarity. In Honma, Takeru, Okazaki, Masao, Tabata, Toshiyuki & Tanaka, Shin'ichi (eds.) A new century of phonology and phonological theory: a Festschrift for Professor Shosuke Haraguchi on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. 26–65.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2012). Recursive prosodic phrasing in Japanese. In Borowsky, Toni, Kawahara, Shigeto, Shinya, Takahito & Sugahara, Mariko (eds.) Prosody matters: essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk. London: Equinox. 280–303.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2013). Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124. 20–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René (1993). Alternatives to the iambic-trochaic law. NLLT 11. 381–432.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1996). Stem disyllabicity in Guugu Yimidhirr. In Nespor, Marina & Smith, Norval (eds.) Dam phonology: HIL phonology papers II. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. 59–101.Google Scholar
Kastner, Itamar (2016). Form and meaning in the Hebrew verb. PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Keer, Edward (1999). Geminates, the OCP and the nature of Con . PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Kisseberth, Charles (1979). Generative phonology: description and theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2000). Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351–365.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W. (1970). On the functional unity of phonological rules. LI 1. 291–306.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.) Phrase structure and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 109–137.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika & Selkirk, Elisabeth (2007). Phase theory and prosodic spell-out: the case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24. 93–135.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1967). Yawelmani phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1993). Template form in prosodic morphology. In Stvan, Laurel Smith, Ryberg, Stephen, Olsen, Mari Broman, Macfarland, Talke, DiDesidero, Linda, Bertram, Anne & Adams, Larin (eds.) Papers from the 3rd Annual Formal Linguistics Society of Midamerica Conference. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 187–218.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003). OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20. 75–138.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2007). Hidden generalizations: phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. Sheffield & Bristol, Conn.: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2008). The serial interaction of stress and syncope. NLLT 26. 499–546.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1986). Prosodic morphology. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Brandeis University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993). Prosodic morphology I: constraint interaction and satisfaction. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Rutgers University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1994). The emergence of the unmarked: optimality in prosodic morphology. NELS 24. 333–379.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 249–384.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec (2001). Words and things. Handout, MIT. Available (February 2017) at web.mit.edu/marantz/Public/ALI/Handouts/ALIThird.pdf.Google Scholar
Martin, Jack B. (2011). A grammar of Creek (Muskogee) . Lincoln & London: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Marvin, Tatjana (2002). Topics in the stress and syntax of words. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Mello, Daniel (2012). The stress system of Chukchansi Yokuts. MA thesis, California State University, Fresno.Google Scholar
Michelson, Karin (1989). Invisibility: vowels without a timing slot in Mohawk. In Gerdts, Donna B. & Michelson, Karin (eds.) Theoretical perspectives on native American languages. Albany: State University of New York Press. 38–69.Google Scholar
Morén, Bruce (1999). Distinctiveness, coercion and sonority: a unified theory of weight. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Myler, Neil (to appear). Exceptions to the ‘Mirror Principle’ and morphophonological ‘action at a distance’: the role of ‘word’-internal Phrasal Movement and Spell Out. In Newell, Heather, Noonan, Máire, Piggott, Glyne & Travis, Lisa (eds.) The structure of words at the interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newell, Heather (2008). Aspects of the morphology and phonology of phases. PhD dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Newell, Heather & Piggott, Glyne (2014). Interactions at the syntax–phonology interface: evidence from Ojibwe. Lingua 150. 332–362.Google Scholar
Newman, Stanley (1944). Yokuts language of California. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo (2004). Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne (ms). On the emergence of words at the PF interface: evidence from minimality.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (1990). Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. CLS 26:2. 355–398.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (2002). Arguing optimality. In Carpenter, Angela C., Coetzee, Andries W. & de Lacy, Paul (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory II. Amherst: GLSA. 269–304.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Russell, Kevin (1999). MOT: sketch of an OT approach to morphology. Ms, University of Manitoba. Available as ROA-352 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Samuels, Bridget (2010). Phonological derivation by phase: evidence from Basque. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 16:1. 166–175.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1996). The prosodic structure of function words. In Morgan, James L. & Demuth, Katherine (eds.) Signal to syntax: bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 187–213.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2009). On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: the syntactic grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyu 136. 35–73.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2011). The syntax–phonology interface. In Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory. 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 435–484.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. (2001). Lexical category and phonological contrast. In Kirchner, Robert, Pater, Joe & Wikely, Wolf (eds.) PETL 6: Workshop on the Lexicon in Phonetics and Phonology. Edmonton: University of Alberta. 61–72.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa (2000). Event structure in syntax. In Tenny, Carol & Pustejovsky, James (eds.) Events as grammatical objects: the converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax. Stanford: CSLI. 145–185.Google Scholar
Tucker, Matthew A. (2010). Roots and prosody: the Iraqi Arabic derivational verb. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 39. 31–68.Google Scholar
Ussishkin, Adam (2000). The emergence of fixed prosody. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew (2008). Optimal interleaving: serial phonology–morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl (1993). Directionless syllabification and ghosts in Yawelmani. Ms, University of California, Berkeley. Available as ROA-28 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar