From gstump at UKY.EDU Mon Nov 2 14:26:26 2009 From: gstump at UKY.EDU (Stump, Greg) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 09:26:26 -0500 Subject: back online In-Reply-To: <6939483EA0E7574D9BE975D31D3E5937013997DF@ucexchange2.canterbury.ac.nz> Message-ID: Hi folks, As a follow-up to Andrew's message, I'd like to add that the credibility of any further discussion of the issue of blur avoidance will rest on its capacity to address the issues raised by Finkel & Stump (2009): Finkel, Raphael, and Gregory Stump. 2009.'Principal parts and degrees of paradigmatic transparency', Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, ed. by James P. Blevins and Juliette Blevins, pp.13-53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yours truly, Greg -----Original Message----- From: The Distributed Morphology List [mailto:DM-LIST at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 7:03 PM To: DM-LIST at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG Subject: Re: back online Hi Martha Thanks for reviving the DM List. (Not having seen it for months, or even years, I assumed I might have been dropped off it because of morphological incorrectness.) To get the ball rolling, here's some news of another instalment in an exciting debate about Polish morphophonology. Back in the last century, I published some proposals about inflection class organization and the respective roles of affixal and nonaffixal inflection (Carstairs-McCarthy 1994). This was followed by a discussion of Polish masculine nouns (Carstairs-McCarthy & Cameron-Faulkner 2000). Thea Cameron-Faulkner and I argued that, although Polish nouns at first sight violated the predictions of Carstairs-McCarthy 1994 seriously, they turned out to comply perfectly, given a proper understanding of the interaction between affixes and stem alternants. Halle & Marantz (2008) criticize our analysis from a DM point of view. However, in my book _The Evolution of Morphology_ (due out early in 2010), I answer Halle & Marantz's critique. I argue that C-McC & C-F's analysis not only fits the facts better but is also psycholinguistically more plausible (it renders unnecessary H & M's suggestion that Polish children use the vocative form of inanimate nouns as a basis for predicting the locative!), as well as fitting nicely into my broader account of how the capacity for morphology came into existence as part of the human linguistic endowment. Don't miss this new thrilling instalment! Order your copy of Carstairs-McCarthy (2010) now! Cameron-Faulkner, Thea and Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew (2000). Stem alternants as morphological signata: evidence from blur avoidance in Polish nouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 813-35. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew (1994). Inflection classes, gender and the Principle of Contrast. Language 70: 737-88. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew (2010). The Evolution of Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec 2008). Clarifying 'blur': paradigms, defaults, and inflectional classes. In Bachrach, Asaf and Nevins, Andrew (eds.), Inflectional Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 55-72. Best regards Andrew Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy Emeritus Professor School of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140; 4 Fendalton Road, Fendalton, Christchurch 8014, New Zealand home phone (+64 3) 741 1161 -----Original Message----- From: The Distributed Morphology List on behalf of Martha McGinnis Sent: Fri 30/10/2009 06:34 To: DM-LIST at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG Subject: back online Dear subscribers, The DM-List has been on an extended break, mainly due to my mat leave in 2008-09. After months of endless spam, I have finally changed the moderation settings so that posters must confirm their postings before they are submitted to me. This should make the list functional again. So please, feel free to send the List your latest ideas, questions, and announcements about Distributed Morphology. Best regards, Martha McGinnis DM-List Moderator This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message and any attachments. Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more information. From sasson at LIVE.COM Wed Nov 4 14:45:38 2009 From: sasson at LIVE.COM (Sasson Margaliot) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:45:38 -0500 Subject: DM and John J. McCarthy Message-ID: DM and OT are not Usually going together. Interestingly, in th erecent article called "Pausal Phonology and Morpheme Realization", John McCarthy is taking OUTPUT of Distributed Morphology to be INPUT to OT phonology. Quotation from McCarthy's article : " Realizational theories of morphology, such as Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993), assume that the phonological forms of morphemes are the result of processes that spell-out morphosyntactic features. " In the article, McCarthuy is trying to explore how a version of OT known as "Harmonic Serialism" can work with DM, suggesting (folowing Wolf's 2008 dissertation) that DM's Vocabulary Insertion is actually being performed by Phonology module. They call it "Optimal Interleaving". Each time a Vocabulary Item needs to be inserted instead of a morpheme, the Items compete in and the "optimal" Item is the one resembling the morpheme' features the most. Then phonology "harmonizes" the intermediate result before adding the next Vocabulary Item, etc. Sasson Margaliot From hharley at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU Thu Nov 5 18:28:02 2009 From: hharley at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU (Heidi Harley) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:28:02 -0700 Subject: DM and John J. McCarthy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi all! Just a quick note w/r to Sasson's remarks about McCarthy's thoughts on DM as the input to OT phonology -- My student Jason Haugen a few (ok, well, 9) years ago wrote one of his prelim papers on precisely this topic, making a convincing (to me) case that treating DM outputs as OT inputs was a plausible approach to the morphology/phonology interface; especially if you're in an OT world with co-phonologies for subpatterns in the lexicon, etc. Not sure about how it would work with prosodic phonolgoy, though. And he didn't assume that VI insertion was accomplished by an OT mechanism. Jason, are you out there on this list? You might think about making that paper available on lingbuzz or similar for interested parties to have a look at. and thanks to Martha for reviving the list! all the best, hh You wrote: > DM and OT are not Usually going together. Interestingly, in th erecent > article called "Pausal Phonology and Morpheme Realization", John McCarthy is > taking OUTPUT of Distributed Morphology to be INPUT to OT phonology. > > Quotation from McCarthy's article : > > " Realizational theories of morphology, > such as Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993), > assume that the phonological forms of morphemes are > the result of processes that spell-out morphosyntactic features. " > > > In the article, McCarthuy is trying to explore how a version of OT known as > "Harmonic Serialism" can work with DM, suggesting (folowing Wolf's 2008 > dissertation) that DM's Vocabulary Insertion is actually being performed by > Phonology module. They call it "Optimal Interleaving". > > Each time a Vocabulary Item needs to be inserted instead of a morpheme, the > Items compete in and the "optimal" Item is the one resembling the morpheme' > features the most. Then phonology "harmonizes" the intermediate result > before adding the next Vocabulary Item, etc. > > > > Sasson Margaliot -- Heidi Harley University of Arizona Department of Linguistics Douglass 200E Tucson, AZ 85721-0028 tel. 520-820-7875 (c) tel. 520-626-3554 (o) fax. 520-626-9014 http://linguistics.arizona.edu/~hharley/ From sasson at LIVE.COM Sun Nov 8 13:24:02 2009 From: sasson at LIVE.COM (Sasson Margaliot) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:24:02 -0500 Subject: Residue of Subset Principle Message-ID: OK, the only Vocabulary Items allowed to participate in "competition" are the ones whose features are a "subset" of the features of the morpheme. And "the item matching the greatest number of features" is the winner. But what happens is there are two "winners" matching the SAME number of features? Say, we have two features: "IncludingSpeaker" and "ParticipantsOnly" 1st person <-> [ +IncludingSpeaker ] 2nd person <-> [ +ParticipantsOnly ] 3rd person <-> [ ] otherwise If a morpheme has, for example, [ +IncludingSpeaker +ParticipantsOnly +dual ] ( Russian "my-s-toboi" = "you-and-I" ) then there is no clear winner - there are two winners ! Just an Example. Natural solution would be some kind of Hierarchy of Features IncludingSpeaker > ParticipantsOnly The idea of such an Hierarchy is briefly mentioned in literature from time to time, but is there some kind of consensus forming about this issue? Alternatively, is there evidence AGAINST Hierarchy of Features? Also, if present, would such Hierarchy be universal or language specific? From jh0267 at GMAIL.COM Fri Nov 6 21:48:25 2009 From: jh0267 at GMAIL.COM (J. Haugen) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:48:25 -0500 Subject: DM and John J. McCarthy In-Reply-To: <20091105112802.fa1xs8ggk4s0kkk8@www.email.arizona.edu> Message-ID: Hi Everybody, Yes, I tried to combine a DM-style morpho-syntax with an OT-style morpho-phonology, but in my model DM builds the syntax in the standard way and then the Vocabulary Items are inserted at Morphological Structure, which then serve as the inputs for the OT (Correspondence Theoretic) phonology. In my dissertation I was treating reduplicants (RED morphemes) as VI’s inserted into syntax in order to spell out syntacticosemantic features, but RED VIs must get their phonological identity from base-reduplicant correspondence, as per CT. So, as Heidi said, in my version DM outputs were OT inputs. (If anybody is curious, the revised version of my dissertation was published in 2008 as volume 117 in John Benjamins’ Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today series: *Morphology at the Interfaces: Reduplication and Noun Incorporation in Uto-Aztecan *). I’ll be very interested to check out McCarthy’s discussion, thanks to Sasson for the heads-up! best, Jason -------- Jason D. Haugen Department of Anthropology Oberlin College Oberlin, OH 44074 jhaugen at oberlin.edu On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Heidi Harley wrote: > Hi all! > > Just a quick note w/r to Sasson's remarks about McCarthy's thoughts on > DM as the input to OT phonology -- My student Jason Haugen a few (ok, > well, 9) years ago wrote one of his prelim papers on precisely this > topic, making a convincing (to me) case that treating DM outputs as OT > inputs was a plausible approach to the morphology/phonology interface; > especially if you're in an OT world with co-phonologies for subpatterns > in the lexicon, etc. Not sure about how it would work with prosodic > phonolgoy, though. And he didn't assume that VI insertion was > accomplished by an OT mechanism. > > Jason, are you out there on this list? You might think about making that > paper available on lingbuzz or similar for interested parties to have a > look at. > > and thanks to Martha for reviving the list! > > all the best, hh > > > You wrote: > > DM and OT are not Usually going together. Interestingly, in th erecent >> article called "Pausal Phonology and Morpheme Realization", John McCarthy >> is >> taking OUTPUT of Distributed Morphology to be INPUT to OT phonology. >> >> Quotation from McCarthy's article : >> >> " Realizational theories of morphology, >> such as Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993), >> assume that the phonological forms of morphemes are >> the result of processes that spell-out morphosyntactic features. " >> >> >> In the article, McCarthuy is trying to explore how a version of OT known >> as >> "Harmonic Serialism" can work with DM, suggesting (folowing Wolf's 2008 >> dissertation) that DM's Vocabulary Insertion is actually being performed >> by >> Phonology module. They call it "Optimal Interleaving". >> >> Each time a Vocabulary Item needs to be inserted instead of a morpheme, >> the >> Items compete in and the "optimal" Item is the one resembling the >> morpheme' >> features the most. Then phonology "harmonizes" the intermediate result >> before adding the next Vocabulary Item, etc. >> >> >> >> Sasson Margaliot >> > > > > -- > Heidi Harley > University of Arizona > Department of Linguistics > Douglass 200E > Tucson, AZ 85721-0028 > tel. 520-820-7875 (c) > tel. 520-626-3554 (o) > fax. 520-626-9014 > http://linguistics.arizona.edu/~hharley/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcginnis at UCALGARY.CA Mon Nov 9 23:45:38 2009 From: mcginnis at UCALGARY.CA (Martha McGinnis) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:45:38 -0700 Subject: Residue of Subset Principle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Natural solution would be some kind of Hierarchy of Features > > IncludingSpeaker > ParticipantsOnly > > The idea of such an Hierarchy is briefly mentioned in literature from > time > to time, but is there some kind of consensus forming about this issue? > Alternatively, is there evidence AGAINST Hierarchy of Features? > > Also, if present, would such Hierarchy be universal or language specific? There is indeed some literature on this. Harley & Ritter have a 2002 paper in Language proposing a universal feature geometry. I later published a proposal (also in Language) to fine-tune their treatment of person in particular, by which the underlying geometry is universal, but features are activated by contrasts in the input (Noyer's 1992 dissertation has a different approach involving the activation of filters). I worked out a specific analysis of the type you describe in a chapter of a 2008 Oxford volume called "Phi-Theory", edited by Adger, Harbour & Béjar. The logic is straightforward, as you point out: Since the feature [speaker] depends on [participant] in the geometry, [speaker] is more specific than [participant], so by Paninian disjunctivity, a vocabulary item with [speaker] only ranks higher than an item with [participant] only. However, systems with an inclusive/exclusive 1 pl distinction also have the feature [addressee], and in such systems a vocabulary item can be specified just for [addressee] instead. Examples: English has we <-> [speaker, group], I <-> [speaker], you <-> [participant], they <-> [group], etc. (I've argued that 3-way person systems like English actually lack the [addressee] feature altogether.) But Ojibwa prefixal agreement has k- <-> [addressee], n- <-> [participant], and w- <-> elsewhere, which means that inclusives have 2nd person k-, not 1st person n-. It's hard to get a sense of "consensus". Harley & Ritter's proposal has been quite influential, partly in laying the groundwork for debate (e.g. my work and that of Cowper and Hall, Nevins, and others), and partly in giving people something to assume (e.g. Béjar's fascinating dissertation). I wouldn't say a full consensus has emerged about the details of the geometry, but I would hazard a guess that most people working in this area from a generative perspective do assume some sort of geometry. See also Bobaljik's relevant recent paper on morphological universals, I believe written for a special issue of The Linguistic Review. Cheers, Martha From gstump at UKY.EDU Mon Nov 2 14:26:26 2009 From: gstump at UKY.EDU (Stump, Greg) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 09:26:26 -0500 Subject: back online In-Reply-To: <6939483EA0E7574D9BE975D31D3E5937013997DF@ucexchange2.canterbury.ac.nz> Message-ID: Hi folks, As a follow-up to Andrew's message, I'd like to add that the credibility of any further discussion of the issue of blur avoidance will rest on its capacity to address the issues raised by Finkel & Stump (2009): Finkel, Raphael, and Gregory Stump. 2009.'Principal parts and degrees of paradigmatic transparency', Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, ed. by James P. Blevins and Juliette Blevins, pp.13-53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yours truly, Greg -----Original Message----- From: The Distributed Morphology List [mailto:DM-LIST at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 7:03 PM To: DM-LIST at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG Subject: Re: back online Hi Martha Thanks for reviving the DM List. (Not having seen it for months, or even years, I assumed I might have been dropped off it because of morphological incorrectness.) To get the ball rolling, here's some news of another instalment in an exciting debate about Polish morphophonology. Back in the last century, I published some proposals about inflection class organization and the respective roles of affixal and nonaffixal inflection (Carstairs-McCarthy 1994). This was followed by a discussion of Polish masculine nouns (Carstairs-McCarthy & Cameron-Faulkner 2000). Thea Cameron-Faulkner and I argued that, although Polish nouns at first sight violated the predictions of Carstairs-McCarthy 1994 seriously, they turned out to comply perfectly, given a proper understanding of the interaction between affixes and stem alternants. Halle & Marantz (2008) criticize our analysis from a DM point of view. However, in my book _The Evolution of Morphology_ (due out early in 2010), I answer Halle & Marantz's critique. I argue that C-McC & C-F's analysis not only fits the facts better but is also psycholinguistically more plausible (it renders unnecessary H & M's suggestion that Polish children use the vocative form of inanimate nouns as a basis for predicting the locative!), as well as fitting nicely into my broader account of how the capacity for morphology came into existence as part of the human linguistic endowment. Don't miss this new thrilling instalment! Order your copy of Carstairs-McCarthy (2010) now! Cameron-Faulkner, Thea and Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew (2000). Stem alternants as morphological signata: evidence from blur avoidance in Polish nouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 813-35. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew (1994). Inflection classes, gender and the Principle of Contrast. Language 70: 737-88. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew (2010). The Evolution of Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec 2008). Clarifying 'blur': paradigms, defaults, and inflectional classes. In Bachrach, Asaf and Nevins, Andrew (eds.), Inflectional Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 55-72. Best regards Andrew Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy Emeritus Professor School of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140; 4 Fendalton Road, Fendalton, Christchurch 8014, New Zealand home phone (+64 3) 741 1161 -----Original Message----- From: The Distributed Morphology List on behalf of Martha McGinnis Sent: Fri 30/10/2009 06:34 To: DM-LIST at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG Subject: back online Dear subscribers, The DM-List has been on an extended break, mainly due to my mat leave in 2008-09. After months of endless spam, I have finally changed the moderation settings so that posters must confirm their postings before they are submitted to me. This should make the list functional again. So please, feel free to send the List your latest ideas, questions, and announcements about Distributed Morphology. Best regards, Martha McGinnis DM-List Moderator This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message and any attachments. Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclaimer for more information. From sasson at LIVE.COM Wed Nov 4 14:45:38 2009 From: sasson at LIVE.COM (Sasson Margaliot) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:45:38 -0500 Subject: DM and John J. McCarthy Message-ID: DM and OT are not Usually going together. Interestingly, in th erecent article called "Pausal Phonology and Morpheme Realization", John McCarthy is taking OUTPUT of Distributed Morphology to be INPUT to OT phonology. Quotation from McCarthy's article : " Realizational theories of morphology, such as Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993), assume that the phonological forms of morphemes are the result of processes that spell-out morphosyntactic features. " In the article, McCarthuy is trying to explore how a version of OT known as "Harmonic Serialism" can work with DM, suggesting (folowing Wolf's 2008 dissertation) that DM's Vocabulary Insertion is actually being performed by Phonology module. They call it "Optimal Interleaving". Each time a Vocabulary Item needs to be inserted instead of a morpheme, the Items compete in and the "optimal" Item is the one resembling the morpheme' features the most. Then phonology "harmonizes" the intermediate result before adding the next Vocabulary Item, etc. Sasson Margaliot From hharley at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU Thu Nov 5 18:28:02 2009 From: hharley at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU (Heidi Harley) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:28:02 -0700 Subject: DM and John J. McCarthy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi all! Just a quick note w/r to Sasson's remarks about McCarthy's thoughts on DM as the input to OT phonology -- My student Jason Haugen a few (ok, well, 9) years ago wrote one of his prelim papers on precisely this topic, making a convincing (to me) case that treating DM outputs as OT inputs was a plausible approach to the morphology/phonology interface; especially if you're in an OT world with co-phonologies for subpatterns in the lexicon, etc. Not sure about how it would work with prosodic phonolgoy, though. And he didn't assume that VI insertion was accomplished by an OT mechanism. Jason, are you out there on this list? You might think about making that paper available on lingbuzz or similar for interested parties to have a look at. and thanks to Martha for reviving the list! all the best, hh You wrote: > DM and OT are not Usually going together. Interestingly, in th erecent > article called "Pausal Phonology and Morpheme Realization", John McCarthy is > taking OUTPUT of Distributed Morphology to be INPUT to OT phonology. > > Quotation from McCarthy's article : > > " Realizational theories of morphology, > such as Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993), > assume that the phonological forms of morphemes are > the result of processes that spell-out morphosyntactic features. " > > > In the article, McCarthuy is trying to explore how a version of OT known as > "Harmonic Serialism" can work with DM, suggesting (folowing Wolf's 2008 > dissertation) that DM's Vocabulary Insertion is actually being performed by > Phonology module. They call it "Optimal Interleaving". > > Each time a Vocabulary Item needs to be inserted instead of a morpheme, the > Items compete in and the "optimal" Item is the one resembling the morpheme' > features the most. Then phonology "harmonizes" the intermediate result > before adding the next Vocabulary Item, etc. > > > > Sasson Margaliot -- Heidi Harley University of Arizona Department of Linguistics Douglass 200E Tucson, AZ 85721-0028 tel. 520-820-7875 (c) tel. 520-626-3554 (o) fax. 520-626-9014 http://linguistics.arizona.edu/~hharley/ From sasson at LIVE.COM Sun Nov 8 13:24:02 2009 From: sasson at LIVE.COM (Sasson Margaliot) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:24:02 -0500 Subject: Residue of Subset Principle Message-ID: OK, the only Vocabulary Items allowed to participate in "competition" are the ones whose features are a "subset" of the features of the morpheme. And "the item matching the greatest number of features" is the winner. But what happens is there are two "winners" matching the SAME number of features? Say, we have two features: "IncludingSpeaker" and "ParticipantsOnly" 1st person <-> [ +IncludingSpeaker ] 2nd person <-> [ +ParticipantsOnly ] 3rd person <-> [ ] otherwise If a morpheme has, for example, [ +IncludingSpeaker +ParticipantsOnly +dual ] ( Russian "my-s-toboi" = "you-and-I" ) then there is no clear winner - there are two winners ! Just an Example. Natural solution would be some kind of Hierarchy of Features IncludingSpeaker > ParticipantsOnly The idea of such an Hierarchy is briefly mentioned in literature from time to time, but is there some kind of consensus forming about this issue? Alternatively, is there evidence AGAINST Hierarchy of Features? Also, if present, would such Hierarchy be universal or language specific? From jh0267 at GMAIL.COM Fri Nov 6 21:48:25 2009 From: jh0267 at GMAIL.COM (J. Haugen) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:48:25 -0500 Subject: DM and John J. McCarthy In-Reply-To: <20091105112802.fa1xs8ggk4s0kkk8@www.email.arizona.edu> Message-ID: Hi Everybody, Yes, I tried to combine a DM-style morpho-syntax with an OT-style morpho-phonology, but in my model DM builds the syntax in the standard way and then the Vocabulary Items are inserted at Morphological Structure, which then serve as the inputs for the OT (Correspondence Theoretic) phonology. In my dissertation I was treating reduplicants (RED morphemes) as VI?s inserted into syntax in order to spell out syntacticosemantic features, but RED VIs must get their phonological identity from base-reduplicant correspondence, as per CT. So, as Heidi said, in my version DM outputs were OT inputs. (If anybody is curious, the revised version of my dissertation was published in 2008 as volume 117 in John Benjamins? Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today series: *Morphology at the Interfaces: Reduplication and Noun Incorporation in Uto-Aztecan *). I?ll be very interested to check out McCarthy?s discussion, thanks to Sasson for the heads-up! best, Jason -------- Jason D. Haugen Department of Anthropology Oberlin College Oberlin, OH 44074 jhaugen at oberlin.edu On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Heidi Harley wrote: > Hi all! > > Just a quick note w/r to Sasson's remarks about McCarthy's thoughts on > DM as the input to OT phonology -- My student Jason Haugen a few (ok, > well, 9) years ago wrote one of his prelim papers on precisely this > topic, making a convincing (to me) case that treating DM outputs as OT > inputs was a plausible approach to the morphology/phonology interface; > especially if you're in an OT world with co-phonologies for subpatterns > in the lexicon, etc. Not sure about how it would work with prosodic > phonolgoy, though. And he didn't assume that VI insertion was > accomplished by an OT mechanism. > > Jason, are you out there on this list? You might think about making that > paper available on lingbuzz or similar for interested parties to have a > look at. > > and thanks to Martha for reviving the list! > > all the best, hh > > > You wrote: > > DM and OT are not Usually going together. Interestingly, in th erecent >> article called "Pausal Phonology and Morpheme Realization", John McCarthy >> is >> taking OUTPUT of Distributed Morphology to be INPUT to OT phonology. >> >> Quotation from McCarthy's article : >> >> " Realizational theories of morphology, >> such as Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993), >> assume that the phonological forms of morphemes are >> the result of processes that spell-out morphosyntactic features. " >> >> >> In the article, McCarthuy is trying to explore how a version of OT known >> as >> "Harmonic Serialism" can work with DM, suggesting (folowing Wolf's 2008 >> dissertation) that DM's Vocabulary Insertion is actually being performed >> by >> Phonology module. They call it "Optimal Interleaving". >> >> Each time a Vocabulary Item needs to be inserted instead of a morpheme, >> the >> Items compete in and the "optimal" Item is the one resembling the >> morpheme' >> features the most. Then phonology "harmonizes" the intermediate result >> before adding the next Vocabulary Item, etc. >> >> >> >> Sasson Margaliot >> > > > > -- > Heidi Harley > University of Arizona > Department of Linguistics > Douglass 200E > Tucson, AZ 85721-0028 > tel. 520-820-7875 (c) > tel. 520-626-3554 (o) > fax. 520-626-9014 > http://linguistics.arizona.edu/~hharley/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcginnis at UCALGARY.CA Mon Nov 9 23:45:38 2009 From: mcginnis at UCALGARY.CA (Martha McGinnis) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:45:38 -0700 Subject: Residue of Subset Principle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Natural solution would be some kind of Hierarchy of Features > > IncludingSpeaker > ParticipantsOnly > > The idea of such an Hierarchy is briefly mentioned in literature from > time > to time, but is there some kind of consensus forming about this issue? > Alternatively, is there evidence AGAINST Hierarchy of Features? > > Also, if present, would such Hierarchy be universal or language specific? There is indeed some literature on this. Harley & Ritter have a 2002 paper in Language proposing a universal feature geometry. I later published a proposal (also in Language) to fine-tune their treatment of person in particular, by which the underlying geometry is universal, but features are activated by contrasts in the input (Noyer's 1992 dissertation has a different approach involving the activation of filters). I worked out a specific analysis of the type you describe in a chapter of a 2008 Oxford volume called "Phi-Theory", edited by Adger, Harbour & B?jar. The logic is straightforward, as you point out: Since the feature [speaker] depends on [participant] in the geometry, [speaker] is more specific than [participant], so by Paninian disjunctivity, a vocabulary item with [speaker] only ranks higher than an item with [participant] only. However, systems with an inclusive/exclusive 1 pl distinction also have the feature [addressee], and in such systems a vocabulary item can be specified just for [addressee] instead. Examples: English has we <-> [speaker, group], I <-> [speaker], you <-> [participant], they <-> [group], etc. (I've argued that 3-way person systems like English actually lack the [addressee] feature altogether.) But Ojibwa prefixal agreement has k- <-> [addressee], n- <-> [participant], and w- <-> elsewhere, which means that inclusives have 2nd person k-, not 1st person n-. It's hard to get a sense of "consensus". Harley & Ritter's proposal has been quite influential, partly in laying the groundwork for debate (e.g. my work and that of Cowper and Hall, Nevins, and others), and partly in giving people something to assume (e.g. B?jar's fascinating dissertation). I wouldn't say a full consensus has emerged about the details of the geometry, but I would hazard a guess that most people working in this area from a generative perspective do assume some sort of geometry. See also Bobaljik's relevant recent paper on morphological universals, I believe written for a special issue of The Linguistic Review. Cheers, Martha