Scope, phonology and morphology in an agglutinating language: Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) variable suffix ordering

Caballero, Gabriela Dalla-Corte

doi:10.1007/s11525-010-9147-4

Cited by 24 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The revised analysis presented here changes Huave's place in the typology: it is now a variant of the type where affixspecific subcategorization frames require an affix to be placed in specific phonological environments, e.g. Chintang (Bickel et al 2007) and Choguita Rarámuri (Caballero 2010); in Huave, the relevant environment is defined both morphologically and phonologically. Conversely, in Moro (Rose and Jenks 2013) and the Kim (2010) analysis of Huave, the placement of an individual affix is driven by phonological requirements independent of the affix itself; and in Athabaskan (Rice 2011: 183), a set of multiple affixes is ordered along a single phonologically defined scale.…”

Section: <1> 5 Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobile Affixation Within a Modular Approach to the Morphology–Phonology Interface

Kim¹

2015

Affix Ordering Across Languages and Frameworks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Keywords: phonologically conditioned morphology, architecture of grammar, affix order, Huave <1> 1 IntroductionThe phonological conditioning of mobile affix placement in Huave, as analyzed in Noyer (1994) and Kim (2010), appears to be problematic for a modular feed-forward architecture of grammar in which all morphological operations precede all phonological operations. Following McCarthy & Prince's (1993) approach to phonologically conditioned morphology, the analyses implement a "P >> M" strategy within Optimality Theory where phonological (P) and morphological (M) constraints are evaluated in parallel. Mobile affix positioning then results from a global optimization of phonological structure, at the expense of morphological preferences and defaults. In other words, the outcome of phonological processes such as epenthesis and syllabification must be evaluated in order to determine whether the mobile affix surfaces as a prefix or a suffix, and this type of analysis is incompatible with an ordered separation of the two modules.On the other hand, Paster (2009) argues that "true" cases of phonological affix order do not exist. In an extensive survey of putative cases of phonological affix order, she finds that nearly all of them are better analyzed as cases of purely phonological operations taking place after affixation, of phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy, or of phonological subcategorization (where phonological underlying forms are visible to the morphology, but not touched by it; cf. Bermúdez-Otero's 2012 "insect trapped in amber" analogy), all of which are compatible with a modular feed-forward architecture. Huave is the only case that is not reanalyzed (although a potential direction for reanalysis is suggested), and so the question remains of whether any strictly modular analysis is possible. If so, this is consistent with Paster (2006aPaster ( , 2009 and Yu (2007)'s arguments against the P >> M model of phonologically conditioned morphology. If not, we are left in the uncomfortable position of having very few counterexamples to the claim that phonologically driven affix ordering does not exist. Aside from Huave, these include Athabaskan (Rice 2011:183) and Moro (Jenks and Rose 2013).In this chapter I make three points. The first is that Paster's (2009: 34) tentative reanalysis of Huave mobile affix placement, as a phonologically predictable procedure of associating floating features to skeletal positions (cf. Rose 1995), is not compatible with the data. The second is that Huave mobile affixation is compatible with a modular feed-forward architecture and the subcategorization-based approach, if we pursue an alternative generalization that allows us to follow Paster's (2009: 35) reanalysis of Afar mobile affixes and view the Huave case as a type of phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy. The P >> M architecture is thus no longer strictly needed. The third point, however, is that the suppletion analysis is potentially powerful enough to generate the type of data predicted b...

show abstract

Section: <1> 5 Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobile Affixation Within a Modular Approach to the Morphology–Phonology Interface

Kim¹

2015

Affix Ordering Across Languages and Frameworks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hay and Plag 2004;Plag and Baayen 2009;Talamo 2015;Manova 2010b;2011;Manova and Aronoff 2010a;Manova and Aronoff 2010b). Traditionally, combination of affixes has been explained by stratum-oriented models (Siegel 1974;Allen 1978;Kiparsky 1982;Giegerich 1999), by selectional restrictions of each particular affix (Fabb 1988;Plag 1999;Talamo 2010;Rodrigues 2015), by the interaction of selectional restrictions and processing constraints, by what is called the Complexity-Based Ordering hypothesis (formulated by Hay [2002] and applied, with different results, by Hay [2003] Saarinen and Hay [2014]), and by the interaction between scope, phonological subcategorization and morphotactic constraints (Caballero 2010), under the view of Optimality Theory (cf. also Ryan (2010).…”

Section: Affix Combinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…also Ryan (2010). The evaluation of the balance between universal and language-specific factors that determine affix ordering has been the matter of debate for studies such as Sims and Parker (2015), Caballero (2010), Ryan (2010), among others.…”

Section: Affix Combinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This relation makes affixal combination predictable. Taking the approach of Optimality Theory, Caballero (2010) analyses if affix ordering is language-specific or dependent on cross-linguistic principles by proposing that affix ordering arises from an interaction between scope, phonological subcategorization and morphotactic constraints. She proposes that semantically non-compositional sequences of affixes may emerge from priming effects and morphophonologically conditioned multiple exponence.…”

Section: Affix Combinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Cf. Caballero (2010) who reports that in Choguita Rarámuri, a Uto-Aztecan language, during informant sessions, due to priming effects, some affix orderings become fixed, serving as bases for other constructions, even when those affix orderings were not expected, since they do not reflect the intended semantics. )…”

Section: Comparison Between Non-frequent or Created Evaluative Words mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Limits on the extension of affixal combination: structural restrictions and processing conditions

Rodrigues¹

2017

suvlin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limits on the extension of affixal combination: structural restrictions and processing conditions The study of the mental lexicon has been fostered by the analysis of the way complex words are mentally represented and processed. This paper concerns the syntagmatic extension of multiple affixation; specifically, the processing of complex words that contain four suffixes that operate in word-formation patterns of Portuguese. Although the individual addition of suffixes obeys structural constraints, the multiple combination results in complex words with low frequency and low expectedness by the speaker, which contribute to the lack of semantic transparency and of affixal salience of the combination. Our study demonstrates a relation between these factors and the experience of the speaker with the affixal combination, which determines the pattern character of the combination. We suggest that a suffix exerts the prediction of other suffixes as long as the combination is expected. Non-frequent heterocategorial complex words with a combination of four suffixes are contrasted with non-frequent words containing pleonastic affixation. In the latter type of words, the redundancy of semantic structures increases the semantic transparency of the word, which suggests a prediction effect operating on the semantic level of the affixal combination. Processing of complex words is dependent on the level of expectedness of the speaker towards the affix combination, which constrains the level of word acceptance by speakers.

show abstract

Order of Valency‐Changing Morphemes

Alsina

2023

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Valency‐changing morphemes, in those languages that allow more than one in the same word, show ordering restrictions and effects of syntactic and semantic scope. In some languages, a given pair of valency‐changing morphemes (e.g. causative and passive) may be restricted to appearing in a fixed order. When both orders of a given pair of morphemes are attested, often the syntax and semantics associated with one of the orders are different from those associated with the other order. Three different approaches to explaining the constraints on the ordering of valency‐changing morphemes are considered. One line of research assumes that scope is not the primary force at play, but rather a template is, and that scope is stipulated as a constraint that interacts with the template. Another line of research assumes that words with valency‐changing morphemes are derived through syntactic movement and that scope effects (or the mirror principle) follow from the syntactic principles involved in the derivation. The third line of research discussed here assumes that all words, including those with valency‐changing affixes, are formed in the lexicon and that scope effects are derived from the idea that, within a layered morphology, stems are formed through the pairwise combination of a stem with an affix and every such operation implies simultaneously a concatenation of morphs and a composition of syntactic and semantic information. Problems with and advantages of each approach are presented.

show abstract

Scope, phonology and morphology in an agglutinating language: Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) variable suffix ordering

Cited by 24 publications

References 27 publications

Mobile Affixation Within a Modular Approach to the Morphology–Phonology Interface

Mobile Affixation Within a Modular Approach to the Morphology–Phonology Interface

Limits on the extension of affixal combination: structural restrictions and processing conditions

Order of Valency‐Changing Morphemes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About