LINGUIST List 2.116

Thursday, 4 Apr 1991

Disc: Morphophonology

Editor for this issue: <>


  1. Joe Salmons, root structure constraints
  2. Harry Bochner, Morphological Juncture; Morphophonology
  3. Phil Bralich, Re: Morphological Juncture; Morphophonology

Message 1: root structure constraints

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 91 11:30:18 EST
From: Joe Salmons <>
Subject: root structure constraints
We would like to thank everybody who responded to our query about
about root structure constraints. The many examples we got supported
our suspicion that RSCs on consonants all appear to involve identity,
either mandating or forbidding it.

Thanks again,

joe salmons & Greg Iverson 
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: Morphological Juncture; Morphophonology

Date: Wed, 03 Apr 91 19:12:32 -0500
From: Harry Bochner <>
Subject: Morphological Juncture; Morphophonology
Phil Bralich <bralichuhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> writes in Vol. 2, No. 110
> I have just finished a dissertation which proposes a new theory of
> morphological juncture to replace the theories of word boundaries (Chomsky and
> Halle 1968 et alia) and Lexical phonology (Mohanan 1986 et alia). ...
> I am specifically looking for discussion and commetary on this project.

Well, let me see to it that the opposite end of the theoretical spectrum is
represented: In my 1988 dissertation (available from UMI; a substantially
revised version has recently been accepted for publication by Foris) I argue
that an insightful account of certain 'junctural' phenomena, in particular
Derived Environment effects, can be given in a word-based theory that does
not have any notion of word-internal boundaries.
The theory I develop is based on a radical reconsideration of the notion of
morphological simplicity and the Evaluation Metric, and a full discussion of
the issues would be rather long for this list. Here's a start ...

Rick Wojcik's line of discussion (Vol. 2, No. 113) becomes relevant here:
> SPE effectively threw out the baby with the bathwater when it
> trashed the Scherbeme level of phonemic representation without considering
> the Baudouin/Sapir/Moscow level as a possible alternative. The result was the
> mistaken position that there was no basic difference between morphonology
> and phonology.
I point out (along with Matthews, and maybe some others) that Halle's classic
argument against Structuralist Phonemics is NOT an argument against the
notion of a phonemic level, as it has commonly been taken to be: it is,
rather, an argument (convincing, I think) that Structuralist Phonemics placed
the boundary between Phonology and Morphophonology in the wrong place.

I argue, on morphological grounds, for a revised Evaluation Metric which, as
a side effect, makes it possible to build 'phonological' alternations
directly into morphological rules. This leads to a theory of Morphophonology
rather different both from the Structuralist position, and from modern
reinterpretations of it. I show that if we take the class of phenomena that
should be integrated into the Morphology to be roughly the class that Lexical
Phonology handles with lexical 'phonological' rules, Derived Environment
effects and certain kinds of 'cyclic' effects fall out automatically from the
structure of the morphological theory I develop.

-- Harry Bochner

Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 3: Re: Morphological Juncture; Morphophonology

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 91 19:39:25 -1000
From: Phil Bralich <bralichuhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>
Subject: Re: Morphological Juncture; Morphophonology
Your dissertation/upcoming publication sounds like something I would like
to read. Is the Forris publication coming out soon? If you can account
for these phenomena without any junctures, that would be very impressive.
I need to know your version of the Evaluation Metric before I can think about
this more accuarately. Also what phenomena do you account for?

Strictly speaking the thoery I propose does not actually posit internal bound
aries or juncture of any sort. The theory I propose merely claims that 
speakers are aware of the cateogies of the items involved in word formation. 
However, in the framework I propose the categories are enhanced with the the
bar levels proivided by the X-bar theory. The notion juncture falls out from
the fact that speakers consider the categories and bar levels of the items
involved in word foramtion. 

The phenomena I use to demonstrate the proposal are the morphophonemic rules
of SPE and Mohanan (1986). However, the stress phenomena I account for our
limited. I only demonstrate that the theory I propose can account for the
same facts that SPE used boundaries for. The later developments in stress
will be investigated at another time.

In any case if I could know when your book is coming out (I'd rather have
that if it is substantially revised). At the very least I would like to 
know more about your version of the Evaluation Metric.


[End Linguist List, Vol. 2, No. 116]
There is no active message.
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue