productivity phonol

8/12/2019 Productivity Phonol

1/32

Productivity in phonology

Winter 2011

LING 451/551


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]


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


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)


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


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


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


8/32

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)


9/32


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.


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


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


13/32

Fully productive rules

Hayes: Vowel nasalization

V[+nasal] / ___ [+nasal]

pen[pn]

mountain[mnn] ~ [mn]

Aspiration

/h/ deletion

vehicle[|vikl], vehicular[vi|hkjlr]


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)


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)


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]


17/32

Lesser degrees of productivity

A minor rule

/f/ Voicing

/f/[+voice] / ___ z]N, +pl


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


19/32

Exceptions to /f/ Voicing


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?


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)


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


23/32


24/32


25/32

Haspelmath and Sims opinion

2 types of alternations

Morphophonological (morphophonemic) alternations

behave in ways that are typical of morphological

structure more generally


26/32

Polish First Palatalization

-y(forms verbs), -ny(forms adj), -ek, -kadim

back-formed augmentatives

back-formed augmentatives, undoing 1st

Palk

k

x


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


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.)


29/32

Approaches to morpheme-specific

alternation

Hayes

Yidiny ergative inflection

X [+ergative]{XCXCdu

XVXVgu}


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?)


31/32

Fully lexicalized alternations

goose, geese

moose, moose(s); noose, nooses; deuce,

deuces; use, uses

mouse, mice; louse, lice

grouse, grouses


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

productivity phonol

Documents