Download - Productivity Phonol
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
1/32
Productivity in phonology
Winter 2011
LING 451/551
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
2/32
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]
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
3/32
Generative morphology?
washable, lovable, thinkable Hayes:able Affixation(p. 109)
Verb + blAdj
Verb + bl means able to be verbed Bottom-up, formative model
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
4/32
2 problems with this approach
izeAffixation
(C) ]{N,Adj}+ ajzV
{N,Adj} + ajz meanscause to become imbued with
{N,Adj}
terror, terrorize; feudal, feudalize Cant be added to all Adj or N
horror, *horrorize; futile, *futilize
Derived words dont always mean what theyre
supposed to real, realize cause to become real?
I realized I was wrong.
(came to understand)
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
5/32
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: -icalvs. -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.likeapplies open-endedly
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
6/32
Derivation vs. inflection
Hayes approach to inflection
Bottom-up, spell-out of inflectional features
X Xz
[V, +pres, +3, +sg]
runs[rnz], brings[brz]
what about
say[se], says[sz], *[sez]
do[du], does[dz], *[duz] have, has[hz], *[hvz]
Blocking: lexically listed forms block synonymous
derived form
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
7/32
Derivation vs. inflection
Derivation generally less productive Adj + ityabstract N having Adj quality
stupidity, scarcity
*wickedity, *hoarsity but productive withaladjectives: grammaticality,
nationality
Degrees of productivity among derivation
cf. Adj + nsabstract N having Adj quality
redness, fearfulness, sugariness, slap-happiness
But disagreement about criteria for inflection vs.
derivation
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
8/32
Productivity in morphology
A central issue
Interacts with assumptions about
nature of morphological rules (bottom-up, top-down)
function (create words, analyze existing words)
whats in the lexicon
Evidence for productivity in morphology
nonce formations (application of rule to new forms)
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
9/32
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
10/32
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.
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
11/32
So far in this class, no doubts about ruleproductivity
but with small problem sets, cant 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 words structure memorized (and also its
phonology)?
or is it actively derived?
Productivity in phonology
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
12/32
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
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
13/32
Fully productive rules
Hayes: Vowel nasalization
V[+nasal] / ___ [+nasal]
pen[pn]
mountain[mnn] ~ [mn]
Aspiration
/h/ deletion
vehicle[|vikl], vehicular[vi|hkjlr]
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
14/32
An almost fully productive rule
Postnasal /t/ Deletion
t0 / n ___ V
[-stress]
winter, winner
careful (optional) [|wnt], [|wn] casual (obligatory) [|wn] ([|w]), [|wn] ([|w])
intellectual BH, SH: [nt], [n]
intonation, cf. intone, antonym
BH, SH: [nt], *[n] intuition
BH: [nt], [n]
SH: [nt], *[n] (cf. intuit)
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
15/32
Handling exceptions to rules
intonation an exception to Postnasal /t/Deletion?
The rule may not be correctly formulated
Postnasal /t/ Deletion only applies before []? Another rule may be obscuring
Grimms Law and Verners Law
Shorter, related forms somehow to blame intuit, intone
The rule may not be productive
opinions in this area differ (p. 194)
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
16/32
Major vs. minor rules
Hayes solution to exceptions
Major rules can be blocked by [-R] intonation, [-Postnasal t deletion]
Minor rules triggered by [+R] /lof/, [+/f/ Voicing]
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
17/32
Lesser degrees of productivity
A minor rule
/f/ Voicing
/f/[+voice] / ___ z]N, +pl
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
18/32
Need for morphological conditions
Non-applicability in verbs
loafs around, *loa[v]es around
Non-applicability even in possessivenouns
loafs ([fs], *[vz]) wrapper
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
19/32
Exceptions to /f/ Voicing
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
20/32
Rule approach to /f/ Voicing
/f/ Voicing as a minor rule
applies only when triggered by [+R] in UR
loaf
/lof/, [+/f/ Voicing]
oaf
/of/
Numbers of undergoers/exceptions?
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
21/32
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)
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
22/32
Hayes opinion
a phonological analysis is called for when the
alternation is productively extended to new
morphemes (p. 203)
historically, extended to dwarves (replacing earlierplural dwarrows)
Collect judgements from speakers via nonce-
probe study (or wug-test)
[v] acceptable to some in: gulfs, chiefs, epitaphs
Grammars may differ
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
23/32
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
24/32
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
25/32
Haspelmath and Sims opinion
2 types of alternations
Morphophonological (morphophonemic) alternations
behave in ways that are typical of morphological
structure more generally
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
26/32
Polish First Palatalization
-y(forms verbs), -ny(forms adj), -ek, -kadim
back-formed augmentatives
back-formed augmentatives, undoing 1st
Palk
k
x
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
27/32
Haspelmath and Sims
Variation in productivity is a typical property of
affixes, but not of phonological rules
many linguists would say that only automaticalternations are truly phonological, whereas
morphophonological alternations are really
morphological in nature
Hayes ch. 8: Morphophonemic analysis
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
28/32
Morpheme-specific alternation
Hayes example: Yidinydu/gu ergative
-du / C___
-gu / V___
wagal-du wife mulari-gu initiated man
Korean -i/kanominative/subject
-i / C___
-ka / V___
sns-i teacher (nom.)
kyosu-ka professor (nom.)
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
29/32
Approaches to morpheme-specific
alternation
Hayes
Yidiny ergative inflection
X [+ergative]{XCXCdu
XVXVgu}
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
30/32
Another approach to morpheme-
specific alternation
Kager 1996
Multiple URs
-/du/ [+ergative], -/gu/ [+ergative]
Phonology chooses [wa.gal.du] vs. [wa.gal.gu]
choose [wa.gal.du] because no C clusters
[mu.la.ri.du] vs. [mu.la.ri.gu] choose [mu.la.ri.gu] because -/gu/ is the
preferred ergative allomorph (because longer?)
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
31/32
Fully lexicalized alternations
goose, geese
moose, moose(s); noose, nooses; deuce,
deuces; use, uses
mouse, mice; louse, lice
grouse, grouses
-
8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol
32/32
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