Piotr Banski: phonological arguments for late insertion? (reply to Martha McGinnis)

[Martha McGinnis]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Martha McGinnis wrote:

> I'm looking for references to anything that gives phonological
> arguments <italic>for</italic> late insertion or, specifically,
> <italic>against</italic> Lexical Phonology.

How about looking at clitic constructions which undergo 'lexical'
processes, although they are created *after* syntax?

Obviously, you can postulate that some lexical rules reapply *in the very
same fashion* in *restricted contexts* in the postsyntactic component, or
postulate some kind of equivalent of the late Clitic Group in order to
make such contexts appear less restricted (and hence more natural for
postsyntactic application), but this looks exactly like patching the
theory in order to accomodate such paradoxical constructions. So if you
don't decide to patch Lexical Phonology, then Late Insertion and its
consequence: 'lexical' phonological applying exclusively postsyntactically
seem to be a nice solution to the above-mentioned paradox.

(I'm unable to attribute this idea to any particular work; I used it in my
diss with a feeling that it 'has been around' for a while.)

Wondering if this can be of use to you,

Piotr

--
Piotr Banski
University of Warsaw
bansp at bigfoot.com