Transparent consonants

Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 2014

The relation of phonology to other components of the grammar has been a topic of considerable discussion (e.g. Inkelas and Zec 1990, Kaye 1995, Kula 2002. In this paper, we are approaching this general topic with reference to Bantu languages. We first show how several phonological processes in the Bantu verb can be seen as indicating morphological boundaries, in particular the distinction between verbal roots, a derivational domain, and inflectional information. The theoretical perspective underlying our discussion is that of Government Phonology, in particular the claim -associated with this framework -that phonology can be characterized as a parsing device. According to this view, phonological processes typically guide the hearer in establishing domain boundaries relevant to the further processing of the linguistic input, thus facilitating lexical access and the establishment of a semantic representation corresponding to the intended message communicated (Kaye 1995, Ploch 1996. The phonological distinction of morphological boundaries is, from this perspective, semantically motivated: roots induce a lexical search, derivational information aids the hearer in the establishment of the utterance-specific detailed lexical representation, and inflectional information is related to propositional construal such as the relation of the event to the time of utterance, or the propositional attitude of the speaker. To show that the relevant level of explanation is indeed semantic, rather than morphological, we will discuss the perfect suffix in Bemba, which seems to blur the derivation-inflection distinction. The solution to the perfect-problem, which has been noted more widely in Bantu, becomes, we claim, more transparent when looking at another phonological process, namely vowel copying in Dciriku, which we discuss in some detail. The Dciriku data show that the relevant phonological processes do not indicate the morphological distinction between derivation and inflection, but rather the semantic distinction between telic and atelic. This distinction transcends

ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, 1994

ZAS Papers in Linguistics

As work like McCarthy (2002: 128) notes, pre-Optimality Theory (OT) phonology was primarily concerned with representations and theories of subsegmental structure. In contrast, the role of representations and choice of structural models has received little attention in OT. Some central representational issues of the pre-OT era have, in fact, become moot in OT (McCarthy 2002: 128). Further, as work like Baković (2007) notes, even for assimilatory processes where representation played a central role in the pre-OT era, constraint interaction now carries the main explanatory burden. Indeed, relatively few studies in OT (e.g., Rose 2000; Hargus & Beavert 2006; Huffmann 2005, 2007; Morén 2006) have argued for the importance of phonological representations. This paper intends to contribute to this work by reanalyzing a set of processes related to vowel harmony in Shimakonde, a Bantu language spoken in Mozambique and Tanzania. These processes are of particular interest, as Liphola’s (2001) s...

2003

Phonology, 2012

Goldsmith's (1995) Handbook of phonological theory provided an influential overview of the field in the mid-90s, earning a well-deserved place on the shelf of practising phonologists. The volume under review is not the first to attempt to update this classic work. Two other recent handbooks of comparable length and scope are the second edition of Goldsmith (Goldsmith et al. 2011), and de Lacy's (2007) well-received Cambridge handbook of phonology. Besides evaluating how well the current work meets the general expectations that readers have for a handbook, this review must necessarily also address the inevitable questions : why yet another handbook of phonology just now ? ; how does this volume distinguish itself from its competitors ? ; does this work fill a gap that is not met by the other handbooks ? The names of the editors and authors provide the first clue to what makes this volume distinctive. Almost all contributors work and/or received their PhDs in Europe, whereas North American phonologists dominate the other handbooks. The European perspective is felt in several of the core chapters in the second and longest part of the volume, ' Research issues ', which discuss certain approaches-such as Element Theory, Government Phonology and CV theory-that tend to be less well known in North America. The chapter by Botma, Kula & Nasukawa on ' Features' has a comprehensive discussion of the phonetic motivation for different feature theories in early generative phonology, followed by a clear introduction to Element Theory. One of the distinctive properties of Element Theory is that the same feature can have different phonetic realisations, depending on the featural configuration (in particular, which other feature is the head of the configuration). The advantages of representing voicing and nasality with a single feature are exemplified with a detailed analysis of alternations involving nasal prefixes in Zoque. Péter Szigetvári's chapter on ' Syllables ' follows a critical historical survey of motivations for syllable structure with an exceptionally clear introduction to CV theory, a theory which essentially dispenses with the syllable as a constituent. As someone who was not trained in this approach, I read the chapter with scepticism. However, by the end of it I felt I had an appreciative understanding of how strict CV licensing can account for classic problems like restrictions on consonant and vowel clusters which are usually considered motivations for syllable structure. Both this chapter and the one on features will be read with interest by phonologists wishing to understand the highlighted theories better. They will surely be recommended to students as useful introductory chapters by phonologists working in the theories presented. However, as the focus in these chapters is on the particular theories under discussion, they are not intended to provide a useful guide to current research and issues in other frameworks.

Linguistics in the Netherlands, 2000

Workshop organized within 22nd International Morphology Meeting : Atypical Morphology Budapest, Hungary, May 28th - 31st, 2026, 2026

Rationale The interaction between phonology and morphology has been at the heart of generative and post-generative linguistics since the inception of both fields. Despite recurring claims about the autonomy of morphology (Aronoff 1994; Booij 2018) and the modularity of phonology (Kiparsky 1982, 1985; Zwicky & Pullum (1986; Scheer 2012), recent work across language families shows that many morphological phenomena cannot be properly understood without considering their phonological embedding. Conversely, phonological processes often reveal morphological triggers that challenge a strict separation between the two components. This workshop proposes to revisit the phonomorphological interface in light of opaque processes, floating morphemes, and doubling phenomena, addressing the central questions: • To what extent can morphology be considered autonomous if many of its realizations are contingent on phonological structure (as in French liaison, cliticization, or Italian syntactic doubling)? • Are there phonological processes—such as metaphony, apophony, or sandhi—that can only be accounted for via morphosyntactic features? • How do opaque alternations, such as vowel harmony/metaphony across unrelated families (Romance, Semitic, Altaic), challenge modular architectures of grammar? • What role do “floating” or “defective” morphemes play in testing the boundaries between abstract phonological representations and morphological content? We aim to create a forum that bridges descriptive data (from Romance, Germanic, Semitic, Bantu, Japonic, and beyond) and theoretical frameworks (Lexical Phonology, Prosodic Morphology, Stratal OT, Distributed Morphology, and representational approaches). Empirical Anchors • Floating morphemes and defective segments (French liaison, floating tones in Bantu, nasal mutation in Celtic) show phonological processes activated by non-phonetic morphological material. • Syntactic Doubling in Southern Italian dialects demonstrates how phonological realization is sensitive to morphosyntactic boundary conditions, raising questions about prosodic recursion and modular interaction. • Metaphony and apophony across Romance, Germanic, and Semitic reveal opaque phonological alternations driven by morphological categories, often defying neat modular separation. • Opacity in the interface (stress-conditioned allomorphy, morphological blocking of otherwise general phonological processes) highlights the theoretical tension between modular architectures and emergentist/non-modular views. Goals The workshop will bring together phonologists and morphologists to: 1. Compare case studies of phono-morphological interaction across families. 2. Evaluate the evidence for and against autonomy/modularity. 3. Reassess whether the concept of “phonomorphology” requires dedicated theoretical status. References (indicative) • Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by Itself. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press. • Booij, G. (2017). The construction of words. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 229-245. • Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2017). Stratal Phonology. In S. J. Hannahs, & A. R. K. Bosch (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of phonological theory (pp. 100-134). (Routledge Handbooks in Linguistics). Routledge. Cabredo & Zribi-Hertz (2014). Morphology-Phonology Interface in Romance. • Kiparsky, P. (1982). ‘Lexical Morphology and Phonology’, in In-Seok Yang for the Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm: selected papers from SICOL-1981 (vol. 1). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company, 3-91. • Kiparsky, P. (1985). ‘Some consequences of Lexical Phonology’, Phonology Yearbook 2: 85-138. • Zwicky, Arnold M. and Geoffrey K. Pullum (1986). The Principle of Phonology-Free Syntax: Introductory remarks. Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 63–91. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. • Tobias Scheer (2012). Direct Interface and One-Channel Translation. Vol.2 of A Lateral Theory of phonology. de Gruyter, 2012. Draft Schedule (Full Day Workshop) Morning (9:00 – 13:30) • 9:00–9:15 – Opening remarks (organizers) • 9:15–9:45 – Invited Talk 1 (Keynote: Floating morphemes and opacity in Romance) • 9:45–10:15 – Talk 1 (20 min + 10 min discussion) • 10:15–10:45 – Talk 2 (20+10) • 10:45–11:15 – Coffee break • 11:15–11:45 – Talk 3 (20+10) • 11:45–12:15 – Talk 4 (20+10) • 12:15–12:45 – Talk 5 (20+10) • 12:45–13:30 – General discussion Afternoon (14:30 – 18:00) • 14:30–15:00 – Invited Talk 2 (Keynote: Modularity vs. Emergentist Approaches) • 15:00–15:30 – Talk 6 (20+10) • 15:30–16:00 – Talk 7 (20+10) • 16:00–16:30 – Coffee break • 16:30–17:00 – Talk 8 (20+10) • 17:00–17:30 – Talk 9 (20+10) • 17:30–18:00 – Roundtable discussion and closing Abstract Submissions If you wish to contribute, please send an abstract to mrusso@univ-paris8.fr according to the following instructions: Deadline: November 30, 2025 Length: 2 pages max. Font: Times New Roman 12 References: on a separate page

1992

Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, 2003