We do not need structuralist morphemes, but we do need constituent structure
Ricardo Bermudez-Otero
July 2016

In the prethematic high~mid alternation of Spanish third-conjugation verbs, allomorph selection by phonological subcategorization in the morphology interacts with allomorph selection by phonotactic optimization in the phonology, pace Paster (2015). The cyclic locality conditions on this alternation support frameworks with stem storage (Bermúdez-Otero 2013a) or spanning (Svenonius and Haugen & Siddiqi in this volume), and challenge single-terminal insertion. Embick’s (2012) alternative analysis weakens inward cyclic locality excessively. Myler’s (2015) counterproposal overgenerates and undermines the explanation of the parallel cyclic transmission of allomorphy and allosemy. Allomorphy-allosemy mismatches do occur: e.g. when English _trànsp[ə]rtátion_ preserves the argument structure of _trànspórt_ but not its bipedality. However, such mismatches are not generated computationally; they arise diachronically through the interplay of computation and storage (Bermúdez-Otero 2012). Theories asserting that words lack constituent structure cannot explain this fact, pace Blevins, Ackerman & Malouf (this volume).
Format: [ pdf ]
Reference: lingbuzz/002774
(please use that when you cite this article)
Published in: In Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds), 2016, Morphological metatheory (Linguistics Today 229), 387-430. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
keywords: single-terminal insertion, stem storage, spanning, locality, allomorphy, allosemy, zero morph, phonologically driven allomorph selection, subcategorization, optimization, distributed morphology, stratal optimality theory, word-and-paradigm morphology, morphology, phonology
previous versions: v2 [January 2016]
v1 [November 2015]
Downloaded:1842 times


[ edit this article | back to article list ]