LINGUIST List 19.151: Morphology: Xu: ' Inflectional Morphology in Optimality Theory'

LINGUIST List 19.151

Mon Jan 14 2008

Diss: Morphology: Xu: ' Inflectional Morphology in Optimality Theory'

Editor for this issue: Luiza Newlin Lukowicz <luizalinguistlist.org>

1. Zheng Xu, Inflectional Morphology in Optimality Theory

Message 1: Inflectional Morphology in Optimality Theory
Date: 11-Jan-2008
From: Zheng Xu <chsxznus.edu.sg>
Subject: Inflectional Morphology in Optimality Theory
E-mail this message to a friend

Institution: State University of New York at Stony Brook Program: Department of Linguistics Dissertation Status: Completed Degree Date: 2007

Author: Zheng Xu

Dissertation Title: Inflectional Morphology in Optimality Theory

Dissertation URL: http://profile.nus.edu.sg/fass/chsxz/Inflectional%20Morphology%20in%20Optimality%20Theory.pdf

Linguistic Field(s): Morphology
Dissertation Director:
Mark Aronoff James P. Blevins Alice C. Harris Robert D. Hoberman
Dissertation Abstract:

This dissertation proposes an inferential-realizational model ofinflectional morphology (Matthews 1972, Zwicky 1985, Anderson 1992, Aronoff1994, Stump 2001) within the framework of Optimality Theory (Prince andSmolensky 1993). Following Russell 1995, Yip 1998, Hyman 2003, MacBride2004, I assume that the phonological information of inflectional affixes isintroduced through realization constraints (RC) which associate abstractmorphosyntactic or semantic feature values with phonological forms. Ipropose that rankings of realization constraints conform to the specificitycondition, i.e. a constraint realizing a more specific morphosyntacticfeature value set outranks a less specific realization constraint. I alsopropose that the unmarked situation in which one feature value is realizedby one form (Wurzel 1989) is encoded in two universal and violablemarkedness constraints, *FEATURE SPLIT which bans the realization of afeature value by more than one form and *FEATURE FUSION which bans a formrealizing more than one feature value.

Based on this model, I examine language phenomena such as OCP-triggeredselection of phonologically unrelated (allo)morphs in Greek, Hungarian,Tswana, and Spanish, ordering of inflectional affixes in Lezgian, blockingof inflectional affixes and extended morphological exponence in languageslike Tamazight Berber, and directional syncretism in languages like Latin.

I show that this model has advantages over other morphological models inseveral ways. (1) It readily captures cases in which a default markeremerges to replace a morphosyntactically more specific marker which isexpected to be adjacent to a phonologically similar form (OCP >> RCspecific>> RCless specific). By contrast, the relation between a more specificmarker and a less specific one needs to be stipulated in the input in amodel which introduces phonological information through inputs (e.g. Bonet2004). (2) It readily captures universal generalizations on affix order(Greenberg 1963, Bybee 1985), e.g. a number exponent cannot be farther awayfrom a nominal stem than a case exponent because case scopes over number.Such generalizations are missed in Paradigm Function Morphology (Stump2001) without extraordinary machinery. (3) Based on rankings of *FEATURESPLIT and constraints realizing the same morphosyntactic feature value(s),it provides a unified account of both blocking and extended exponencewithout recourse to either a distinction between primary and secondaryexponents (Noyer 1992) or multiple rule blocks (Stump 2001). (4) Based onoutput-to-output correspondence constraints (Benua 1995, McCarthy andPrince 1995), it readily captures cases of divergent bidirectionalsyncretism (Baerman 2004) in which syncretism brings about both marked andunmarked forms, a problem for Noyer 1998, which claims that syncretismalways moves from a more marked to a less marked state.