Stem Storage? Not Proven: A Reply to Bermúdez-Otero 2013

Abstract

Bermúdez-Otero (2013) argues that the Spanish lexicon stores whole stems complete with their theme vowels, rather than storing roots whose inflectional class features condition the insertion of particular theme vowels (as argued for in much Distributed Morphology work on Romance, such as Oltra-Massuet 1999; Oltra-Massuet & Arregi 2005). The argument turns on an apparent cyclicity paradox which Bermúdez-Otero (2013:65, 71) dubs the problem of the missing cycle. Bermúdez-Otero argues that this problem cannot be avoided if roots and categorizing heads are held to be atoms stored in the Spanish lexicon. The paradox can be circumvented only by embracing the notion of 'stem' and taking the stem to be the unit stored as a lexical primitive. This conclusion, if correct, would have far-reaching implications for the theory of the architecture of the grammar, since the notion of stem does not and cannot have any status as a primitive in a theory that is committed to the ideas of syntactic hierarchical structure all the way down and the strictly local determination of conditioned allomorphy (such as Distributed Morphology)-see Embick & Halle (2005). The notion that a morphologically complex unit like a stem could be stored, and behave as a unit with respect to conditioned allomorphy, is not compatible with either of these tenets. Therefore, if Bermúdez-Otero's argument is right, it follows that some of the fundamental architectural claims of Distributed Morphology are wrong.

We do not need structuralist morphemes, but we do need constituent structure

“…Bermúdez-Otero 2012: 66-67). In this section I examine the alternative strategy pursued by Myler (2015): his solution to the problem of the missing cycle in Spanish is to assert that stemlevel phonological rules do not apply in spell-out cycles triggered by verb stems. In section 2.3.1 I show that this proposal fails for empirical reasons: it relies on incorrect claims about the cyclic transmission of stress-induced hiatus in Spanish denominal derivation, and it overgenerates hiatus in inflected verbs and deverbal derivatives.…”

“…Marvin 2002: 31-32, Marantz 2007: §1). Myler's (2015) response to the problem of the missing cycle in Spanish is to take it at face value: his contention is that the first cycle of derivations like (20) fails to produce the expected morphophonological effects simply because the phonology is turned off during that cycle. In more technical terms, he stipulates that, in Spanish, the rules of the cyclic phonology apply during a spell-out cycle only if the cyclic domain is headed by n or a, but not if it is headed by v. Myler's proposal, designed to deal with the diphthongal alternation, dispatches the difficulties raised by the third-conjugation alternation too: derivation ( 20) is replaced with (24).…”

“…We must therefore conclude that derivation ( 24) is incorrect because Spanish verb stems do trigger cycles of the stem-level phonology, as shown in ( 26). Myler (2015) attempts to rebut this objection by adopting a different analysis of contrasts like [p o.nun̪ .θjá.mos] vs [te.le.γ a.fi.á.mos]. 21 The key component of this analysis is a rule of gliding that desyllabifies an unstressed high vocoid before another vowel (Myler 2015: 184).…”

“…In section 2.2 I show that the Embick's (2012) alternative analysis fails because it weakens inward cyclic locality in empirically unwarranted ways. In section 2.3 I go on to consider Myler's (2015) counterproposals, and I show that they undermine another of DM's programmatic goals: to explain the parallel cyclic transmission of allomorphy and allosemy (e.g. Marvin 2002: 31ff).…”

Exceptionality in Spanish Stress

“…of (7f), the final u of the derivational stem is high and can thus be glided instead. An anonymous reviewer helpfully points me to Bermúdez-Otero (2006 for a different morphophonological analysis of stem-final vowel deletion, based on a very different morphological analysis of derivational affixation; see now also Myler (2015) for arguments against this morphological analysis.…”