Lampitelli – Intro to Interface theories (phonology – morpho-syntax)

This course revolves around the following question: how is morpho-syntactic information represented (and computed) in phonology? More specifically, it aims at introducing the most important proposals on how to deal with morpho-syntactic information within a theory of phonology. Each day we treat a distinct topic focusing on well-known analyses, and highlight both their strengths and weaknesses.

Day 1. SPE, Lexical Phonology: the cycle. Kiparsky (1982), Vaux (2008), Bermúdez-Otero (2011).

Day 2. The prosodic hierarchy and morphology: Libermann & Prince (1977), Selkirk (1981), McCarthy & Prince (1996).

Day 3. Doing morphology within OT: Raffelsiefen (1999), Burzio (1998), Mascarò (2007)

Day 4. GP and CVCV-phonology: Kaye (1995), Lowenstamm (1999), Scheer (2014).

Day 5. DM-inspired approaches: Lowenstamm (2014), Newell (2016), Faust (2014).

 

Reading

Some items are here, links to those which are not will be added (when I have a minute…)

Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2011. Cyclicity. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, (eds) M. van Oostendorp, C. Ewen, E. Hume & K. Rice, 2019-2048. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Burzio, L. 1998. Multiple Correspondence. Lingua, 104: 79-109.

Faust, N. 2014. Where it’s [at]: A phonological effect of phasal boundaries in the construct state of Modern Hebrew. Lingua 150: 315-331.

Kaye, J. 1995. Derivations and Interfaces. In Frontiers of Phonology, (eds) J. Durand & F. Katamba, 289-332. London & New York: Longman.

Kiparsky, P. 1982. From Cyclic phonology to Lexical phonology. In The Structure of Phonological Representations. (eds) H. van der Hulst and N. Smith. Dordrecht: Foris.

Liberman, M & A. Prince 1977. On Stress and Linguistic Rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 249-336.

Lowenstamm, J. 1999. The beginning of the word. In Phonologica 1996, (eds) J. Rennison and K. Kühnhammer, 153-166. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.

Lowenstamm, J. 2014. Derivational affixes as roots, no exponence: Phasal spellout meets English stress shift. In The Syntax of Roots, the Roots of Syntax, (eds) A. Alexiadou, H. Borer and F. Schäfer. Oxford: OUP.

Mascarò, J. 2007. External Allomorphy and Lexical Representation. Linguistic Inquiry, 38,4:715-735.

McCarthy, J. J. & A. Prince. 1996. Prosodic Morphology. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory. (ed) J. Goldsmith. pp. 318-366.

Newell, H. 2016. English Lexical Levels are not Lexical. Ms. UQAM.

Raffelsiefen, R. 1999. Phonological constraints on English word formation. In Yearbook of Morphology 1998, (eds) G. Booij & J. van Marle, pp. 225–287. (Yearbook of Morphology 8). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Selkirk, Elisabeth 1981. On the nature of phonological representation. The cognitive representation of speech, edited by J. Anderson, J. Laver & T. Meyers, 379-388. Amsterdam: North Holland.

Scheer, T. 2011. A guide to morphosyntax-phonology interface theories : how extra-phonological information is treated in phonology since Trubetzkoy’s Grenzsignale (Part I, chap. 1 to 12, with special focus on chapters 5/6 and 11/12)

Scheer, T. 2014. The initial CV: Herald of a non-diacritic interface theory. In The Form of Structure, the Structure of Form. Essays in Honor of Jean Lowenstamm, (eds) S. Bendjaballah, N. Faust, M. Lahrouchi & N. Lampitelli, 315-330. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

[SPE] Chomsky, N. & M. Halle 1968. The Sound Patterns of English. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Chapters 3 and 8.)

Vaux, B. 2008. Why the Phonological Component must be Serial and Rule-Based. In Rules, Constraints, and Phonological Phenomena. (eds) B. Vaux and A. Nevins, Oxford: OUP. pp. 20-60.