Paradigm Uniformity is not part of Phonology Noam Faust Université Paris 8 Architecture Word formation UR formation UR Phonetic form phonology has a say inside here ID: 763722
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Paradigm Uniformity is not part of “P..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Paradigm Uniformity is not part of “Phonology” Noam Faust Université Paris 8
ArchitectureWord formation ( UR formation ) /UR/Phonetic form phonology has a say inside here Phonology has a say in this process Is it the same Phonology ? Possibly not!
Paradigm uniformity« a phonological process is triggered or blocked throughout the word-forms of a paradigm if it is triggered or blocked only in one » (my definition)
Paradigm uniformity« a phonological process is triggered or blocked throughout the word-forms of a paradigm if it is triggered or blocked only in one » Raffelsiefen (1995): Schwa economy in German /tʁɔkən / ‘dry’ /tʁɔkənə/ ‘dry (fem.acc)’ /tʁɔkənən/ ‘dry (ms.acc)’
Paradigm uniformity « a phonological process is triggered or blocked throughout the word-forms of a paradigm if it is triggered or blocked only in one » Raffelsiefen (1995): Schwa economy in German /tʁɔk ən/ ‘dry’ /tʁɔkənə / ‘dry (fem.acc)’ /tʁɔkənən/ ‘dry (ms.acc)’ The occurence of these schwas is determined by PU
Paradigm uniformity « a phonological process is triggered or blocked throughout the word-forms of a paradigm if it is triggered or blocked only in one » Raffelsiefen (1995): Schwa economy in German /tʁɔkən/ ‘dry’ /tʁɔk ənə/ ‘dry (fem.acc)’ /tʁɔkənən/ ‘dry (ms.acc)’ phonologically unnecessary here:/tʁɔknə/ is fine.
Paradigm uniformity « a phonological process is triggered or blocked throughout the word-forms of a paradigm if it is triggered or blocked only in one » Raffelsiefen (1995): Schwa economy in German /tʁɔkən/ ‘dry’ /tʁɔkə nə/ ‘dry (fem.acc)’ /tʁɔkənən/ ‘ dry (ms.acc)’ phonologically unnecessary here:/tʁɔknə/ is fine. phonologically necessary here :*/tʁɔknən/ is impossible.
Paradigm uniformity « a phonological process is triggered or blocked throughout the word-forms of a paradigm if it is triggered or blocked only in one » Raffelsiefen (1995): Schwa economy in German /tʁɔkən/ ‘dry’ /tʁɔkə nə/ ‘dry (fem.acc)’ /tʁɔkənən/ ‘dry (ms.acc)’ Phonologically (??) unnecessary here phonologically necessary here:*/tʁɔknən/ is impossible. and therefore
Paradigm uniformity« a phonological process is triggered or blocked throughout the word-forms of a paradigm if it is triggered or blocked only in one »Raffelsiefen (1995): Schwa economy in German /tʁɔkən/ ‘dry’ /tʁɔkənə/ ‘dry (fem.acc)’ /tʁɔkənən/ ‘dry (ms.acc)’
Paradigm uniformity « a phonological process is triggered or blocked throughout the word-forms of a paradigm if it is triggered or blocked only in one » Raffelsiefen (1995): Schwa economy in German /tʁɔkən/ ‘dry’ /tʁɔkə nə/ ‘dry (fem.acc)’ /tʁɔkənən/ ‘dry (ms.acc)’ « SHELL »a sequence CLiəLi is out if C>L and L=L in sonority (L=sonorant) phonologically necessary here:*/tʁɔknən/ is impossible.
Paradigm uniformity « a phonological process is triggered or blocked throughout the word-forms of a paradigm if it is triggered or blocked only in one » Raffelsiefen (1995): Schwa economy in German /dʊnkəl/ ‘dark’ /dʊnklə/ ‘dark (fem.acc)’ */dʊŋkə lə/ /dʊnklən/ ‘dark (ms.acc)’ */dʊŋkələn/ when SHELL is not violated in the paradigm, [ə] is not inserted.
(Raffelsiefen 1995 in fact claims, as I will claim here, that paradigm uniformity operates at the phonemic level, where no C is syllabic in German, and yields): /tʁɔk ən, tʁɔkənə, tʁɔkənən../ /dʊnkəl, dʊnk_lə, dʊnk_lən…/ For this reason, Raffelsiefen must say that Unsuffixed base must not be part of the paradigm…
(Raffelsiefen 1995 in fact claims, as I will claim here, that paradigm uniformity operates at the phonemic level, where no C is syllabic in German, and yields): / tʁɔkən, tʁɔkənə, tʁɔkənən../ /dʊnkəl, dʊnk_lə, dʊnk _lən…/ For this reason, Raffelsiefen must say that Unsuffixed base must not be part of the paradigm…
Paradigm uniformityMeanwhile, in Standard Yiddish Same impossibility as German [ofn̩ ] ‘open’ [ofənə] ‘open.pl’ [ofnə] unattested adj. but
Paradigm uniformity Meanwhile, in Standard Yiddish Same impossibility as German [ofn̩] ‘open’ [ofənə] ‘open.pl’ [ofnə] unattested adj. buta) the suffix /-n/ surfaces as [m] after [n] [ofənə m] (Cnəm not a SHELL violation!)
Paradigm uniformity Meanwhile, in Standard Yiddish Same impossibility as German [ofn̩] ‘open’ [ofənə] ‘open.pl’ [ofnə] unattested adj. buta) the suffix /-n/ surfaces as [m] after [n] [ofənə m] (Cnəm not a SHELL violation!)b) [Cnəm] is phonologically OK if [ə] is in base: [modnə] ‘strange’ [modnəm] ‘ms.dat’, [modənəm] unattested
Paradigm uniformity Meanwhile, in Standard Yiddish Same impossibility as German [ofn̩] ‘open’ [ofənə] ‘open.pl’ [ofnə] unattested adj. buta) the suffix /-n/ surfaces as [m] after [n] [ofənə m] (Cnəm not a SHELL violation!)b) [Cnəm] is phonologically OK if [ə] is in base : [modnə] ‘strange’ [modnəm] ‘ms.dat’, [modənəm] unattested The base must be important
Proposal Given the phonetic form of the bases [ofn̩] ‘open’ [modnə] ‘strange’ Language seeks tostabilize one underlying form for the entire paradigm. For [ofn̩] there are two candidates: /ofn/ => [ofn̩] /ofən/ => [ofn̩] (CəL# is generally ruled out in Yiddish)
Proposal For [ofn̩] there are two candidates: /ofn/ = > [ofn̩] /ofən/ => [ofn̩] (CəL# is generally ruled out in Yiddish) These two candidates are confronted with the set of suffixes /ə/ and /-N, -ʁ/ (without /ə/): /ofn, ofn-ə, ofn-N, ofn-ʁ/ vs. /ofən, ofən-ə, ofən-N, ofən-ʁ/
Proposal For [ofn̩] there are two candidates: /ofn/ = > [ofn̩] /ofən/ => [ofn̩] (CəL# is generally ruled out in Yiddish) These two candidates are confronted with the set of suffixes /ə/ and /-N, -ʁ/ (without /ə/): /ofn, ofn-ə, ofn-N, ofn-ʁ/ vs. /ofən, ofən-ə, ofən-N, ofən-ʁ/ A bad UR, n cannot be the nucleus of N#
Proposal The selected base being /ofən/ The lexicon therefore delivers /ofən, ofən-ə, of ən-N, ofən-ʁ/The phonology gives [ofn̩, ofən-ə, ofən-əm, ofən-əʁ]
Proposal For [modnə] there is only one candidate /modnə/ (As we already saw /modənə/ will give unattested [modənə]) Thes lexicon therefore delivers /modnə, modnə-ə, modnə-N, modnə-ʁ/ And phonology gives [modnə, modnə, modnə m, modnəʁ]
Crucially Language seeks to stabilize one underlying form for the entire paradigm=Lexicon-optimization, rather than phonology=Paradigm Uniformity as an anti-allomorphy force (Raffelsiefen 2016)
ArchitectureWord formation ( UR formation ) /UR/Phonetic form phonology has a say inside here Phonology has a say in this process Is it the same Phonology ? Apparently not! PU effects belong here
More about Proposal Joins the view that PU happens in learning: Speakers learn that stems ending in /Cn̩/ are illicit adjectival stems. In other words, in order to enter the verbal system of Yiddish, there are phonological requirements (see appendix for Modern Hebrew analogue).Prediction: these requirements will not necessarily hold for /Cl̩/ (appendix abour [ejdl̩] ‘genteel’)
Thank you!
Yiddish [ejdl̩] ‘genteel’ Adj verb (+[zix]) ‘play it genteel’ [ejdələ] [ejdl̩] [ejd əln̩] [ejdl̩t] [ejdələʁ] [ejdl̩st] [ejdlən] COMPARE!!
Yiddish [ejdl̩] ‘genteel’ Adj verb (+[zix]) ‘play it genteel’ [ejdələ] [ejdl̩] [ejd əln̩] [ejdl̩t] [ejdələʁ] [ejdl̩st] [ejdlən] COMPARE!! no -ʁ in the verbal paradigm!
Yiddish [ejdl̩] ‘genteel’ Adj verb (+[zix]) ‘play it genteel’ [ejdələ] [ejdl̩] [ejd əln̩] [ejdl̩t] [ejdələʁ] [ejdl̩st] [ejdlən] adj: /ejdl/ or /ejdəl/ given /ejdl-n, ejdl-ə, ejdl-ʁ/ no -ʁ in the verbal paradigm!
Yiddish [ejdl̩] ‘genteel’ Adj verb (+[zix]) ‘play it genteel’ [ejdələ] [ejdl̩] [ejd əln̩] [ejdl̩t] [ejdələʁ] [ejdl̩st] [ejdlən] adj: /ejdl/ or /ejdəl/ given /ejdl-n, ejdl-ə, *ejdl-ʁ/ no -ʁ in the verbal paradigm! A bad UR, l cannot be the nucleus of ʁ#
Yiddish [ejdl̩] ‘genteel’ Adj verb (+[zix]) ‘play it genteel’ [ejdələ] [ejdl̩] [ejd əln̩] [ejdl̩t] [ejdələʁ] [ejdl̩st] [ejdlən] verb: /ejdl/ or /ejdəl/ given /ejdl-t, ejdl-st, ejdl-n/ no -ʁ in the verbal paradigm!
Yiddish [ejdl̩] ‘genteel’ Adj verb (+[zix]) ‘play it genteel’ [ejdələ] [ejdl̩] [ejd əln̩] [ejdl̩t] [ejdələʁ] [ejdl̩st] [ejdlən] verb: /ejdl/ or /ejdəl/ given /ejdl-t, ejdl-st, ejdl-n/ no -ʁ in the verbal paradigm! no problem, no need to insert schwa for now
Yiddish [ejdl̩] ‘genteel’ Adj verb (+[zix]) ‘play it genteel’ /ejdəl/ /ejdl//ejdəl+ə/ => [ejdələ] /ejdl+ø/ => [ejdl̩] /ejdəl+n/ => [ejd əln̩] /ejdl+t/ => [ejdl̩t]/ ejdəl+ʁ/ =>[ejdələʁ] /ejdl+t/ => [ejdl̩st] /ejdl+n/ =>[ejdl ən]
Two underlying forms for the same morpheme? adj verb /ejdəl/ /ejdl//ejdəl+ə/ => [ejd ələ] /ejdl+ø/ => [ejdl̩] /ejdəl+n/ => [ejdəln̩] /ejdl+t/ => [ ejdl̩t]/ejdəl+ʁ/ =>[ejdələʁ] /ejdl+t/ => [ejdl̩st] /ejdl+n/ =>[ejdl ən] Same item, two different URs? ?????
Two underlying forms for the same morpheme? √ejdl adj verb /ejdəl/ /ejdl//ejdəl+ə/ => [ejd ələ] /ejdl+ø/ => [ejdl̩] /ejdəl+n/ => [ejdəln̩] /ejdl+t/ => [ ejdl̩t]/ejdəl+ʁ/ =>[ejdələʁ] /ejdl+t/ => [ejdl̩st] /ejdl+n/ =>[ejdl ən] Phonological Index ≠ UR
Noun => Verb in Modern HebrewNoun Verb Katalog + e i
Noun => Verb in Modern HebrewNoun Verb Katalog + => [kitleg]e i
Noun => Verb in Modern HebrewNoun Verb Katalog e i
Noun => Verb in Modern HebrewNoun Verb K ta l g e i
Noun => Verb in Modern HebrewNoun Verb K t l g e i
Noun => Verb in Modern HebrewNoun Verb xantariʃ + => [xintreʃ]‘charlatan’ ‘charlatanize’ e i
Noun => Verb in Modern HebrewNoun Verb xantariʃ e i
Noun => Verb in Modern HebrewNoun Verb x ntar ʃ e i
Noun => Verb in Modern HebrewNoun Verb x nt r ʃ e i
Noun => Verb in Modern HebrewNoun Verb x nt r ʃ e i The derivation may create a novel branching onset
Noun => Verb in Modern HebrewNoun Verb ramatkal + => ???‘chief of army’ ‘act as CoA” e i
Noun => Verb in Modern HebrewNoun Verb ramatkal + => *** (*rimtkel) e i Not everything is possible: phonology blocks some stem formations.
ArchitectureWord formation ( UR formation ) /UR/Phonetic form phonology has a say Phonology has a say in this process Is it the same Phonology ? Apparently not! Stem formation
Inflection cannot create branching onsetsg. pl. kiteʁ kitʁu ‘complain incessantly’ kinter kinteʁu, *kintʁu ‘taunt’
Inflection cannot create branching onsetsg. pl. kiteʁ kitʁu ‘complain incessantly’ kinter kinteʁu, *kintʁu ‘taunt’ syncope Phonological rules cannot create branching onsets.
Inflection cannot create branching onsetsg. pl. kiteʁ kitʁu ‘complain incessantly’ kinter kinteʁu, *kintʁu ‘taunt’ syncope Phonological rules cannot create branching onsets. Unlike UR-formation
Architecture Word formation (UR formation) /UR/Phonetic form phonology has a say inside here Phonology has a say in this process Is it the same Phonology ? Apparently not! This phonology cannot create branching onsets PU effects belong here