Allomorph selection and lexical preferences: Two case studies

Bonet, Eulàlia; Lloret, María-Rosa; Mascaró, Joan

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2006.04.009

Cited by 60 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This information is expressed by just two universal constraints, PRIORITY and RESPECT, which interact with other universal constraints in the JS grammar. On the issue of theoretical restrictiveness, we agree with Bonet, Lloret & Mascaró (2007), who maintain that "a universal grammar with PRIORITY [and RESPECT] adds [two constraints] to the set, but morphemes introduced through constraints leave open the possibility of adding as many constraints as morphemes. Enlarging the lexicon, on the other hand, increases the number of outputs of a grammar but leaves the class of grammars unchanged" (p.915).…”

Section: Theoretical Comparison and Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

“…Our analysis of diminutive formation makes use of an ordered set of diminutive allomorphs, as well as a subcategorization requirement limiting the attachment of the allomorph /zik/. Building on proposals by Bonet, Lloret & Mascaró (2007) and Mascaró (2007), we have shown how faithfulness to lexical ordering and subcategorization interacts with other faithfulness and markedness constraints to generate the patterns of diminutivization that are attested in JS. Our analysis has the advantage of avoiding the proliferation of language-and morpheme-specific constraints, and it can be extended with minimal modification to account for diminutive formation in other Spanish varieties.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The question remains, however, why we chose to pursue an analysis incorporating faithfulness to lexical ordering of allomorphs (PRIORITY) and to lexically encoded subcategorization requirements (RESPECT), following recent work by , Bonet, Lloret & Mascaró (2007), and Mascaró (2007). That is to ask, what motivates a lexical ordering and subcategorization approach to Spanish diminutives over the approaches taken in previous studies?…”

Section: Theoretical Comparison and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent work, , Bonet, Lloret & Mascaró (2007), and Mascaró (2007) have proposed that the set of input allomorphs may be ordered, either partially or fully, and that the grammar contains a constraint requiring faithfulness to the lexical ordering: (10) PRIORITY (Bonet, Lloret & Mascaró 2007, p.906, Mascaró 2007 Respect lexical priority (ordering) of allomorphs. Given an input containing allomorphs m 1 , m 2 , ... m n , a candidate m i ′, where m i ′ is in correspondence with m i , PRIORITY assigns as many violation marks as the depth of ordering between m i and the highest dominating morph(s).…”

Section: Lexical Ordering and Class Marker Allomorphy In Spanishmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These properties show an interaction of morphological and phonological properties, which is a recognized hallmark of diminutive formation in Spanish more generally. Our theoretical contribution is a formal analysis of this interaction, couched within recent work on allomorph selection by , Bonet, Lloret & Mascaró (2007), and Mascaró (2007). In our analysis, the JS diminutive suffix is represented lexically as a partially ordered set of allomorphs, {(zik, ik) > it}, in which /zik/ and /ik/ both have priority over /it/ but are unordered with respect to each other.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Phonology-Morphology Interface in Judeo-Spanish Diminutive Formation: A Lexical Ordering and Subcategorization Approach

Bradley

Smith

2011

Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we examine diminutive formation in Judeo-Spanish, which has not been treated before in the generative literature. The distribution of diminutive suffixes is shown to be predictable based on an interaction of morphological and phonological properties, which is a recognized hallmark of diminutive formation in Spanish more generally. Judeo-Spanish also presents some interesting twists not commonly found in other varieties of Spanish. A formal analysis is developed in Optimality Theory that builds upon recent work on allomorph selection involving lexical ordering and subcategorization. A comparison with previous analyses of other Spanish varieties shows that our approach can account for the behavior of nominal class markers in diminutivization, as well as the alternation of diminutive allomorphs, while avoiding the proliferation of language-and morpheme-specific constraints. Furthermore, our account sheds new light on the moraic status of glides in rising and falling diphthongs and of the trill in word-medial intervocalic position.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Comparison and Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Theoretical Comparison and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lexical Ordering and Class Marker Allomorphy In Spanishmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Phonology-Morphology Interface in Judeo-Spanish Diminutive Formation: A Lexical Ordering and Subcategorization Approach

Bradley

Smith

2011

Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Phonologically Conditioned Allomorphy

Bonet

2023

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Underlying allomorphy poses a challenge to theories of the morphology–phonology interface when the conditioning factors include phonological information. Three basic types of cases are identified with respect to the nature of allomorph selection: (i) phonologically fully optimizing selection; (ii) phonologically partially optimizing selection; and (iii) phonologically arbitrary selection. The approaches that cover these three cases fall into two groups, ones where the selection is left completely to the morphology, with Vocabulary Insertion (in Distributed Morphology terms), and ones where the selection is left to the phonology (within some version of Optimality Theory), for at least fully optimizing and partially optimizing patterns; argumentation is given in favour of the latter approach. A discussion is also included on when and how cases of alleged underlying allomorphy can be reduced to surface‐only allomorphy and hence be assimilated to the regular phonological alternations of the language. For the cases discussed, it is shown that capturing the differences between the alternants in terms of a single representation that includes floating segments is feasible especially when one of the alternants surfaces with a subset of the segments of the other alternant, not with most instances of suppletion. One of the examples of suppletion is still reanalysed as a case of surface‐only allomorphy with the inclusion of a restricted version of the constraint OCP.

show abstract

Phonologically Conditioned Allomorph Selection

Nevins¹

2011

The Blackwell Companion to Phonology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since Jakobson's (1948) analysis of Russian verbs as having one stem rather than two, it has been an attempt of generative phonology to minimize distinctly listed allomorphs in favor of phonological rules, some of which may be morphologically specific. Nonetheless there are certain allomorphs that cannot be derived one from the other, leading to “multiple URs” for the same morphemic category, such as the Moroccan 3rd person object clitic, which varies between the allomorphs ‐ h (chosen after vowel‐final stems) and ‐ u (chosen after consonant‐final stems), as will be discussed in §1.3 below. Such cases require distinct suppletive allomorphs, whose distribution is determined according to their phonological environments. The division of labor in dealing with allomorphy, then, is taken up both by purely phonological rules (such as those responsible for the voicing alternations of the English plural morpheme) and by morphological selection among separately listed allomorphs competing for insertion. In this chapter, we focus on the latter type of alternation between morphemes, while emphasizing that many cases of allomorphy not included in the present discussion are still best handled by phonological derivations from a single underlying form.

show abstract

Allomorph selection and lexical preferences: Two case studies

Cited by 60 publications

References 20 publications

The Phonology-Morphology Interface in Judeo-Spanish Diminutive Formation: A Lexical Ordering and Subcategorization Approach

The Phonology-Morphology Interface in Judeo-Spanish Diminutive Formation: A Lexical Ordering and Subcategorization Approach

Phonologically Conditioned Allomorphy

Phonologically Conditioned Allomorph Selection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About