In simplest terms, Morphophonology is the branch of linguistic theory which studies how allomorphs are phonologically represented. The question whether this particular subject should best be analysed as part of phonological or morphological theory seems in this respect irrelevant, as Morphophonology can be regarded as an interface between these two branches of linguistics and thus, regarding informative value, can be viewed equally well from either perspective (Kortmann 2005: 89). Later, I will address the issue of congruency, i.e. whether Morphophonology can be regarded as a separate sub-field of linguistics with independent theoretical properties and rules or rather as a merger between phonology and morphology. The latter point of view obviously begs the question whether morphological rules subsequently affect pronounciation or whether phonological properties determine not only the use of, but what is more, the need for allomorphs or in other words, whether, in terms of allomorphy, morphology precedes phonology or the other way around.
The aim of this paper is to present the different approaches to allomorphy as regards its phonological implications. After introducing the most important morphophonological rules of the English language, I will proceed to analysing the “Underlying Representations” on which these rules are based. Thus, following the theories first presented by Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle , I will focus on the psycholinguistic aspect of the URs as well as certain phenomena such as the so called “Trisyllabic Laxing” and sound changes or stress shifts conditioned by certain suffixes. The gigantic scope of Chomsky’s work on Universal Grammar makes it impossible to cover all of the aspects of URs as described in SPE, thus I will restrict my description of URs to only a few morphophonological phenomena that I find most fitting for this topic. Lastly, you will be presented with an alternating theory concerning the relation between allomorphy and phonology, namely Paul Kiparsky’s theory of Lexical Phonology , which postulates that an allomorph whose pronounciation in a certain morphological environment cannot be phonologically defined must be listed lexically (Spencer 1991: 118).
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Morphophonology
1. The Morphophonological Rules of the English Language
2. Underlying Representations
3. Lexical Phonology
III. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the interface between morphology and phonology, specifically exploring how allomorphs are represented and governed by linguistic rules. The central research question investigates whether morphological rules precede phonology or if phonological properties dictate morphological structures.
- The role and identification of Underlying Representations (URs) in Generative Phonology.
- Phonologically conditioned sound changes and assimilation processes in English.
- The application of "Trisyllabic Laxing" (TSL) and stress shifts in derived lexemes.
- A comparative analysis of Class I and Class II suffixes and their impact on phonological structure.
- The alternative theoretical framework of Lexical Phonology (LP) and its critique of the SPE model.
Excerpt from the Book
c) Suffix Conditioning and Trysillabic Laxing
Before we analyse how words are changed in their sound structure by suffixation, we must first define two different kinds of suffixes: i) Class I suffixes are suffixes that can change either the phonem structure or the stress distribution of a lexeme it is attached to, e.g. {-ity}, {-ic} or {-y}. ii) Class II suffixes do not change the phonological structure of lexemes, e.g. {-ness}, {-ment} or {-less} (Carstairs-McCarthy 1992: 61).
In the previous chapter we have established the fact that the allomorph of free lexemes after suffixation is the UR of this particular lexeme. It now seems appropriate to analyse a number of lexemes that are suffixated with the Class I suffixes {-ity} and {-ic} in order to identify the URs of these lexemes and to find regularities.
i) {AUDACIOUS}: in isolation /O;"deIS@s/ ; + {-ity} /O;"d&s@tI/. A vowel change from /eI/ to /&/ can be identified, as well as a consonant change from /S/ to /s/. The vowel change is in accordance with Chomsky’s rule discussed in 2b. We can safely define the form /O;"d&s/ as the UR of {AUDACIOUS}.
ii) {LIQUID}: in isolation /"lIkwId/ ; + {-ity} /lI"kwId@tI/. We can identify a stress shift from the first to the second (or antepenultimate) syllable. We can safely assume that the UR of {LIQUID} is /lI"kwId/.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: Outlines the scope of morphophonology as an interface between phonology and morphology and introduces the central debate between universal grammar and lexical phonological theories.
II. Morphophonology: Examines phonological rules of the English language, identifies Underlying Representations, and differentiates between Class I and Class II suffixes regarding their phonological impact.
1. The Morphophonological Rules of the English Language: Explores articulatory-based assimilation processes, focusing on plural and past tense markers and the phonological conditioning of prefix variants.
2. Underlying Representations: Discusses the theoretical framework established by Chomsky and Halle in the SPE and the challenge of identifying URs in complex lexemes.
3. Lexical Phonology: Presents Paul Kiparsky’s critique of the SPE model, arguing that lexemes with irregular phonological properties should be handled lexically rather than via universal exception rules.
III. Conclusion: Summarizes the duality between the generative approach and the theory of Lexical Phonology, ultimately favoring a more flexible model for irregular lexemes.
Keywords
Morphophonology, Allomorphs, Underlying Representations, Generative Phonology, Lexical Phonology, Suffixation, Trisyllabic Laxing, Phonological Assimilation, Noam Chomsky, Paul Kiparsky, Morphology, Phonology, SPE Model, Linguistic Theory, Stress Shift
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental subject of this paper?
The paper explores morphophonology, specifically focusing on how allomorphs are phonologically represented and the theoretical debate regarding the relationship between morphological and phonological rules.
What are the central thematic fields?
The core themes include the identification of Underlying Representations, the impact of suffixation on word structure, assimilation processes, and the comparison between Generative Phonology and Lexical Phonology.
What is the primary research goal?
The aim is to determine if morphology precedes phonology (as suggested by the SPE model) or if phonology dictates morphological boundaries, as argued by proponents of Lexical Phonology.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The work utilizes theoretical analysis of existing linguistic models (SPE vs. LP) combined with empirical observation of English allomorphic distributions and word-formation patterns.
What is the focus of the main body?
The main body details the rules governing morphophonological behavior, identifies URs through assimilation and suffixation, and contrasts universalist rule-based theories with lexicalist approaches.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key concepts include Allomorphy, Underlying Representations (UR), Generative Phonology, Trisyllabic Laxing (TSL), Class I/II suffixes, and Lexical Phonology.
How does Trisyllabic Laxing affect English words?
Trisyllabic Laxing is a rule where stressed tense vowels (diphthongs or long vowels) are converted into lax counterparts when certain suffixes are added, effectively reverting the morpheme to its underlying representation.
What is the primary critique of the SPE model regarding {RIGHTEOUS}?
Kiparsky argues that the SPE model is forced to invent "exception rules" and "pre-x lengthening" to account for irregular lexemes like {RIGHTEOUS}, which he deems redundant and pedagogically unrealistic, suggesting these should be listed lexically instead.
- Quote paper
- Johannes Mürter (Author), 2009, Morphophonology, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/140228
