1. Li8 Structure of English Lexical phonology and morphology

2. Today’s topics Phonology-morphology interactions LPM: a model for said interactions with many interesting results Some key data:  singer vs younger  damn vs damnation  mice catcher vs *rats catcher  atómic vs. átomy  innate vs unnatural

3. M-P interactions I We have already seen several cases where morphological rules make reference to phonological information:  Comparative and superlative formation  Ass-affixation  Indefinite article allomorphy  Definite article allomorphy? Is there a larger system governing these interactions?  Can phonological processes refer to morphological structure?  Can any morphological process refer to any phonological structure, or are there limits?

4. M-P interactions II In order to address these questions, let’s look at a number of striking properties of M-P interactions in English:  Phonological influence of affixes on stems  Morpheme order

5. P effects in affixation Affixes fall into two categories wrt their phonological effects on the stem to which they’re added:  Those which influence the phonology of the stem (“Level I affixes”) -ic, -al, -ate, -ion, -ity; sub-, de-, in- Typically Latinate  Those which do not (“Level II affixes”) -less, -ness, -y, -ing, -ly, -ful, -some; re-, un-, non- Typically Germanic

6. Levels of affixation We have already seen that affixes appear in a certain order:  [inflection[derivation[root]derivation]inflection]  nation-al-s, not *nation-s-al  Note also that Level II affixes occur outside Level I affixes: linguist-ic(k)-y, refus-al-less… Does this follow from some principle of grammar, or is it chance?  Probably not chance—all languages seem to act this way

7. LPM To account for these patterns, Paul Kiparsky developed a model of Lexical Phonology and Morphology (LPM), in which morphology and phonology are interleaved:  Some morphology applies (level I affixation), then lexical phonological rules get a chance to apply to these structures.  After this some more morphology applies (level II affixation), then the phonological rules get another chance to apply.  After all of these levels of affixation + phonology have been completed (there may be more than two), the post-lexical phonology applies Applies to whole words and phrases Automatic Regular

8. LPM model of English Underlying Representation Level 1 derivation, irregular inflectionstress, shortening… Level 2 secondary derivation and compoundingcpd stress… Level 3regular inflectionlaxing… Syntaxpost-lexical phonological rules lexicon

9. Properties of lexical and post-lexical rules Lexical rules … Post-lexical rules … Apply only within words.Apply within words or across word boundaries. Typically have exceptions.Do not have exceptions. Morphologically conditioned.Not conditioned. Structure-preserving.Not necessarily structure-preserving. Apply first.Apply later. ConsciousSubconscious Don’t normally transfer in SLA.Typically transfer in SLA.

10. Post-nasal drop I singer : younger (vs. young) URs: /sIng/, /j  ng/ comparative -er: Level 1 agent -er: Level 2 is post-nasal drop lexical or postlexical?  Lexical (has exceptions)  Which lexical level, though?...

11. UR/j  ng//sIng/ Level 1cpv. -erj  ng - r  — nasal place assim. j  Ng - r  sINg post-nasal drop — sIN Level 2agent -er — sIN - r  SR [ j  Ngr  ] [ sINr  ] Post-nasal drop II

12. Other interesting results Latinate vs Germanic r-insertion Trisyllabic laxing Nasal place assimilation Stress shift n-deletion Irregular plurals in compounds

13. Latinate vs Germanic Recall that Latinate affixation is normally Level I, whereas Germanic affixation is Level II. Now consider un-natur-al vs in-nate.  Are un- and in- Latinate, or Germanic?  How do these words behave wrt the English rule of degemination?  Is degemination lexical or postlexical?

14. Latinate vs Germanic UR/nate//natur/ Level 1in-, -alin-natenatur-al degemination inate — Level 2un-—un-natur-al SRi[n]ate[u[n:]atural]

15. r-insertion algebraic (*algebraric) vs Homeric drawring, pizzarish, data-r-y, Brendar and Eddie) Rule  insert r / {  aA  } _ V Assume that r-insertion is post-lexical  Reasonable, since it has no exceptions for many speakers (pizza-y?)

16. r-insertion UR/algebra//pizza/ Level 1-ic, stress, lengthalgebrá:icpízza Level 2-ish, -y, -ing, —pízza-y unstressed V reduction —pízzə-y Post-lexr-insertion—pízzə[r]-y SRalgebrá:ic pízzəry

17. Trisyllabic Laxing vile : vilify; profane : profanity V:  V / _ CV 1 CV 2  where V 1 is unstressed might : mightily; brave : bravery

18. Nasal place assimilation impotent, illegal unpopular, unlawful  *umpopular, *ullawful Which level is each affix? Which level is the assimilation rule?

19. Stress shift pyramidal, homonymous, atomic partisanship, atomy Which level is each affix? Which level is the stress rule?

20. n-deletion condemn : condemnation : condemning Which level is each affix? Which level is the rule of n-deletion?

21. Compounds Underlying Representation Level 1 derivation, irregular inflectionstress, shortening… Level 2 secondary derivation and compoundingcpd stress… Level 3regular inflectionlaxing… Syntaxpost-lexical phonological rules lexicon mice mice catch-er, rat catch-er can’t insert -s inside cpd rat catch-er

22. Conclusions A large number of surprising properties of phonology, morphology, and their interactions can be accounted for by postulating a model of the grammar in which affixation and phonology apply outward from the root of a word.