DM and John J. McCarthy

[J. Haugen]

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 <hharley at email.arizona.edu>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/<http://linguistics.arizona.edu/%7Ehharley/>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/dm-list/attachments/20091106/5f5a1722/attachment.htm>