Contextual allomorphy

Bonet, Eulàlia; Harbour, Daniel

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573721.003.0007

Cited by 141 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 513 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Suppletion is argued to be a property only of functional projections (Marantz 1993(Marantz , 1997bsee 8 also :Harley 2011b, Bonet and Harbour 2012, Haugen and Siddiqi 2013, Harley 2014 Either of these views is more or less compatible with the analysis provided here.…”

Section: Regularity In Distributed Morphologysupporting

confidence: 53%

Cyclicity versus movement: English nominalization and syntactic approaches to morpho-phonological regularity

Punske¹

2016

The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de li

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I show that Embick's (2010) cyclic head approach to regular morphology alone cannot account for the freely available variations in the realization of nominalizers in English nominalizations involving overt verbalizers. Instead, I offer an account of the regularity effects using the technology of Local Dislocation (Embick and Noyer 2001, Embick and Marantz 2008, Embick 2007a, 2007b. Using this analysis, I derive both the variable nominalization patterns and the restrictions on particles and results in derived nominals from Sichel (2010). By treating regularity as the by-product of extant morphosyntatic operations, we can better explain the distribution of regular and irregular nominalizers and account for particle/result restrictions in English derived nominals.

show abstract

Section: Regularity In Distributed Morphologysupporting

confidence: 53%

Cyclicity versus movement: English nominalization and syntactic approaches to morpho-phonological regularity

Punske¹

2016

The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de li

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, Baerman (2014:11) distinguishes what is 'phonologically motivated' from what is 'phonologically predictable'; for discussion see Anderson 2011 andNevins 2011. Specifically with regard to allomorphy, Bonet and Harbour (2012) discuss the continuum between fully systematic phonological rules and wholly unsystematic allomorphy, a discussion prefigured in Dressler 1985. For the unmotivated instances, it is worth recalling Aronoff's recent reminder (2012:43) that phonological readjustment rules allow the rewriting of any string as any other string, as established by Johnson (1972).…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits

Corbett¹

2015

lan

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A key notion in understanding language is 'possible word (lexeme)'. While there are lexemes that are internally homogeneous and externally consistent, we find others with splits in their internal structure (morphological paradigm) and inconsistencies in their external behavior (syntactic requirements). I first explore the characteristics of the most straightforward lexemes, in order to establish a point in the theoretical space from which we can calibrate the real examples we find. I then schematize the interesting phenomena that deviate from this idealization, including suppletion, syncretism, deponency, and defectiveness. Next I analyze the different ways in which lexemes are 'split' by such phenomena. I set out a typology of possible splits, along four dimensions: splits that are (i) based on the composition/feature signature of the paradigm versus those based solely on morphological form; (ii) motivated (following a boundary motivated from outside the paradigm) versus purely morphology-internal ('morphomic'); (iii) regular (extending across the lexicon) versus irregular (lexically specified); (iv) externally relevant versus irrelevant: we expect splits to be internal to the lexeme, but some have external relevance (they require different syntactic behaviors).I identify instances of these four dimensions separately: they are orthogonal, and therefore not dependent on each other. Their interaction gives a substantial typology, and it proves to be surprisingly complete: the possibilities specified are all attested. The typology also allows for the unexpected patterns of behavior to overlap in particular lexemes, producing some remarkable examples. Such examples show that the notion 'possible word' is more challenging than many linguists have realized.*

show abstract

“…Bonet and Harbour 2012), where F is a list of minimal featural entities and φ a phonological specification:…”

Section: Vocabulary Items and The Procedural Implementation Of The Sumentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuation as deletion: inverse in Jemez and Kiowa

Watanabe

2014

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article proposes a new theory of agreement that carries out valuation by means of deletion. This new theory makes possible unification of inverse in Jemez and Kiowa with the help of an impoverishment operation, improving on Harbour's (2011) original account and reinstating the intuitive notion of inverse. The motivation for the new theory largely comes from examination of morpho-syntactic details in Jemez, which have not received enough theoretical attention before.

show abstract

Contextual allomorphy

Cited by 141 publications

References 513 publications

Cyclicity versus movement: English nominalization and syntactic approaches to morpho-phonological regularity

Cyclicity versus movement: English nominalization and syntactic approaches to morpho-phonological regularity

Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits

Valuation as deletion: inverse in Jemez and Kiowa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About