Jeanne Wellnitz

Morphology at the Interface

17.03.2008

The Interface between Morphology and Phonology

A comment on Ellen Kaisse:

Word-formation and Phonology

Contents

1. Introduction: English Phonology-Morphology Relationships

2

2. Phonology limited by Morphology

3

The Influence of Morphology on the English Stress System

2.1 The Lexical Category 3

2.2 The Relevance of the Type of Affix 4

Cohering and Non-Cohering Affixes

3. Morphology limited by Phonology

6

3.1. Interactionist versus Non-Interactionist Approaches 6

3.2. Optimality Theory 7

3.3 Three General Constraints on English Stress 8

4. The Level Ordering Hypothesis

9

4.1. The Rejection of the Level Ordering Hypothesis 10

4.2. Approaches on the Cyclic and Transderivational 11

Influence of Related Words

5. Raffelsiefen′s critique of the Level Ordering Hypothesis

13

Bibliography

17

1

1. Introduction: English Phonology-Morphology Relationships

Since decades, the interplay of word-formation with disciplines of linguistics like phonology,

morphology and syntax has occupied a considerable range of scholars. Especially the role of

phonology in English word-formation processes has given rise to many theoretical

approaches, which is additionally an indicator for the complexity of this interface. Consonant

clusters that have the same appearance but a different effect on stress, equal syllable strings

with different stress forms or the fact that preantepenultimately stressed adverbs

(

signíficantly

) derive from antepenultimately stressed adjectives (

signíficant

) (cf. Kaisse 25),

are just some instances that reveal the interaction of the morphological structure of a word

and its phonological realization.

In her study

Word-formation and Phonology

Ellen Kaisse elaborates on the many interfaces

phonology and morphology can have and concludes that

Word-formation, in particular, has strong effects on English phonology...There is, therefore, an

inherent tension between the goals of the morphology and the phonology. (26-27)

In summary, morphology sometimes interferes phonological processes but it can also aid

phonology. It is furthermore the same for phonology; it can obstruct word-formation

processes but it can also be of help.

After a short revision of the general English Stress Rules, two major influences will be

presented. On the one hand, the influence of the

lexical category

on phonology and on the

other hand, the

type of affix

involved. Due to this, Kaisse′s dichotomy

non-cohering

versus

cohering

affixes should serve as useful background information for understanding the

following debate on whether it is possible to categorize affixes or not. This categorization is

the ground for the

Level Ordering Hypothesis

(LOH) put forward by

Lexical Phonology and

Morphology

(LPM) scholars. The LOH is a kind of rule that regulates morpheme

concatenation in the lexicon and subdivides affixes into two classes, level 1 (cohering) and

level 2 (non-cohering) affixes. The ordering of affixes would make a prediction of the

phonological behaviour of affixes possible.

But not only the type of affix is influential on the phonological make-up of a word. It is also

possible that the stress pattern of a word can choose the affix. In order to throw light on the

character of the phonological and morphological operations a word can undergo, two major

2

approaches will be discussed. Kaisse refers to

The Sound Pattern of English

(SPE) as the

non-interactionist approach and the Lexical

Phonology and Morphology

(LPM) as well as the

Optimality Theory

(OT) approach as the interactionist model. These models deal with the

question in how far the input (base) and output (derivative) are related to each other. While

the traditional SPE relation between words is linear, the OT approach advocates the thesis

that constraints and their ranking are responsible for the manner in which morphemes are

concatenated and assigned with stress. Kaisse illustrates this with the help of Renate

Raffelsiefen′s work, which says that different suffixes inflict different constraint rankings.

This will be explained with the example of the suffixes -

ee, -ese

and -

eer

. Raffelsiefen

obviously rejects the LOH and proposes a

grouping

of affixes according to different

constraint rankings. This claim will be substantiated with the example of the suffixes

­ize

and

­ify

. Raffelsiefen′s major intention is to reveal in how far these suffixes are dependent on a

related word (source).

In the end, Kaisse juxtaposes this view with that of Donca Steriade in order to clear up the

question

which

underlying form is the base that influences the derivative. Finally, Kaisse

concludes that the MP interface is seemingly too complex to be captured in one theory and

admits implicitly that her study can just give an overview about the many different

approaches but no solution.

2. Phonology limited by Morphology

The Influence of Morphology on the English Stress System

There are four major morphological criteria stress is responsive to: the lexical category of a

word, the morphological structure of a word, the type of affix as such and the phenomenon of

cylicity. (cf. Kaisse 26)

2.1. The Lexical Category

In general, the basic metrical system of English prefers an alternation of strong and weak

syllables. Put differently, the system favours

moraic trochees

. (cf. Kaisse 26) To create

alternate stress, either the last (the ultima) or the second to last syllable (the penult) has to

3