Productivity in phonology

Winter 2011 LING 451/551

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]

Generative morphology?
washable, lovable, thinkable Hayes: able Affixation (p. 109)
Verb + bl Adj Verb + bl means able to be verbed

Bottom-up, formative model

2 problems with this approach

ize Affixation
(C) ]{N,Adj} + ajz V {N,Adj} + ajz means cause 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)

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: -ical vs. -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. like applies open-endedly

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

Derivation vs. inflection

Derivation generally less productive
Adj + ity abstract N having Adj quality

stupidity, scarcity *wickedity, *hoarsity but productive with al adjectives: grammaticality, nationality

Degrees of productivity among derivation

cf. Adj + ns abstract N having Adj quality

redness, fearfulness, sugariness, slap-happiness

But disagreement about criteria for inflection vs. derivation

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)

 In the description of a languages morphological system, there is good reason to include even the non-productive rules. Even though they cannot be used to derive novel words, they do characterize a systematic relationship among existing words, one which is apprehended by speakers of the language. Thus, even though ical is not productive, speakers of English plainly recognize alphabetical as an adjective based on alphabet. p. 114

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.

Productivity in phonology
So far in this class, no doubts about rule productivity
but with small problem sets, cant really tell in real life, productivity may be an issue

the question of how to judge formal wordrelatedness 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?

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

Fully productive rules

Hayes: Vowel nasalization
V [+nasal] / ___ [+nasal] pen [pn] mountain [mnn] ~ [mn]

Aspiration /h/ deletion

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

An almost fully productive rule

Postnasal /t/ Deletion t 0 / n ___ V [-stress] winter, winner
intellectual

careful (optional) [|wnt], [|wn] casual (obligatory) [|wn] ([|w] ), [|wn] ([|w] )
BH, SH: [nt], [n]

intonation, cf. intone, antonym

BH, SH: [nt], *[n]

intuition
BH: [nt], [n] SH: [nt], *[n] (cf. intuit)

Handling exceptions to rules

intonation an exception to Postnasal /t/ Deletion? The rule may not be correctly formulated
Another rule may be obscuring
Grimms Law and Verners Law

Postnasal /t/ Deletion only applies before []?

Shorter, related forms somehow to blame

intuit, intone

The rule may not be productive opinions in this area differ (p. 194)

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]

Lesser degrees of productivity

A minor rule
/f/ Voicing
/f/ [+voice] / ___ z]N, +pl

Need for morphological conditions

Non-applicability in verbs
loafs around, *loa[v]es around

Non-applicability even in possessive nouns

loafs ([fs], *[vz]) wrapper

Exceptions to /f/ Voicing

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?

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)

Hayes opinion
a phonological analysis is called for when the alternation is productively extended to new morphemes (p. 203)
historically, extended to dwarves (replacing earlier plural dwarrows)

Collect judgements from speakers via nonceprobe study (or wug-test)

[v] acceptable to some in: gulfs, chiefs, epitaphs

Grammars may differ

Haspelmath and Sims opinion

2 types of alternations

Morphophonological (morphophonemic) alternations behave in ways that are typical of morphological structure more generally

 Polish First Palatalization

-y (forms verbs), -ny (forms adj), -ek, -ka dim

back-formed augmentatives back-formed augmentatives, undoing 1st Pal

k x

 Haspelmath and Sims

Variation in productivity is a typical property of affixes, but not of phonological rules many linguists would say that only automatic alternations are truly phonological, whereas morphophonological alternations are really morphological in nature

Hayes ch. 8: Morphophonemic analysis

Morpheme-specific alternation
Hayes example: Yidiny du/gu ergative
-du / C___ -gu / V___ wagal-du wife mulari-gu initiated man

Korean -i/ka nominative/subject

-i / C___ -ka / V___ sns-i teacher (nom.) kyosu-ka professor (nom.)

Approaches to morpheme-specific alternation

Hayes
Yidiny ergative inflection X [+ergative] {XC XCdu XV XVgu}

Another approach to morphemespecific 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?)

Fully lexicalized alternations

goose, geese
moose, moose(s); noose, nooses; deuce, deuces; use, uses

mouse, mice; louse, lice

grouse, grouses

Summary of approaches
Hayes
fully productive exceptions, morphological conditions morphemespecific alternation lexicalized P P

Kager
P P

Haspelmath and Sims

P (automatic) M (morphophonemic M

And grammars may differ: /f/ Voicing may be a productive rule for some speakers, lexicalized for others.