Flapometry and palatography: An argument for surface identity - PDF document

Adam Albright WOTM 4 albright@mit.edu 21 Jun 2008 Flapometry and palatography: An argument for surface identity between derived forms? 1 Introduction Berm´ (1) udez-Otero (2008): the swingometer conundrum • Learned affixes such as -ometer , -ology , -ograph , - ocrat , -ectom(y) (etc.) behave in most respects like “classic” level 1 affixes ◦ Attach to bound bases: therm´ ometer , hydr´ ometer ◦ Occur inside other level 1 affixes -ic , -y : ph` otogr´ aphic , phot´ ography ◦ Attract main stress: speed´ ometer , osc´ ıllograph , phot´ ography ◦ Can condition stress-induced segmental changes to realization of stem: speed [sp i: d] ometer [sp @ d] (Am.Eng.) ∼ speed´ ography [ f@"t h A ] oto [ "foURou ] ph´ ∼ phot´ omic [ @"t h Am ] atom [ "æR@m ] cf. ´ ∼ at´ ute [ k h @mp h ju:t ] ation [ k h Ampj@t h ] comp´ ∼ c` omput´ • However, unlike other stress-shifting affixes, they trigger nasal cluster simplification o [ Ně ] al , elo [ Ng ] ´ ◦ Usual case: i´ a [mb] ic , diphth´ ation ometer 1 ◦ But compare: (nonce) swi [ N ] ´ ometer , diphtho [ N ] ´ • Such affixes show mixed behavior with respect to stem alternations Attract stress Preserve clusters Level 1 � � -ometer * � Level 2 * * ◦ These affixes “count” for (at least some aspects of) stress assignment, but seem to be invisible for purposes of cluster simplification (2) Why can’t -´ ometer save the /g/? • Morphological difference ◦ Berm´ udez-Otero: root- vs. stem-level affixation, with stem-final simplification Stem-level: [ e -[ lo N g ] Root - ate ] Stem , [[ lond Z ] Root - itude ] Stem Word-level: [[[ lo N � g ] Root ] Stem - ´ ocracy ] Stem ◦ Stem-final cluster simplification occurs in first cycle, and is carried forward to subsequent cycles • Closely related idea: syntactic difference (Marvin 2003; Marantz, to appear) ◦ Structure of -´ ometer words is such that some (but not all) phonological evalua- tion applies cyclically to inner constituent, without -ometer 1 Some English dialects retain surface [ Ng ] in some or all positions, at least optionally. The discussion here concerns only those dialects in which swing is obligatorily pronounced [ swIN ].

Flapometry and palatography: An argument for surface identity between derived forms? 2 • Prosodic difference (Raffelsiefen 2005) ◦ Affixes like -´ ometer involve a different prosodic structure (e.g., something like a compound boundary?), which conditions post-nasal deletion • Output-output correspondence (Burzio 1996; Kenstowicz 1997; Benua 1997; and many others) ◦ Affixes like -´ ometer invoke high-ranking OO-D EP ◦ Causes overapplication of deletion, but allows stress shift, reduction, aspiration, etc. Base: s w I N ∅ | | | | | s w I N *g "Am@Rô Derived: " (3) Testing these approaches, part 1: empirical adequacy • A desirable goal: reduce phonological differences between affixes to other indepen- dently motivated differences ◦ Affixation creates limited set of syntactic, morphological, or prosodic structures ◦ Parsimonious/satisfying if uniformity effects can be derived from these • Output-output correspondence provides many more degrees of freedom ◦ In principle, Base-I DENT (stress), Base-I DENT ( ± back), etc., can be ranked sep- arately with respect to markedness constraints on stress, vowel reduction, etc. (Benua 1997; Raffelsiefen 1999) ◦ No inherent mechanism for relating to the meaning or function of the affix (though see Burzio 2005) (4) Testing these approaches, part 2: predictions for learnability • If behavior of affix follows from independent syntactic/morphological classifica- tion, then learning = recovering hidden structure ◦ In principle, multiple sources of evidence (meaning, affix ordering, interaction with other phonological processes) ◦ Learning challenges: figure out set of available structures, figure out any differences in how phonology applies to different structures ◦ Lacking decisive evidence about a particular affix, assign a default structure (?) • If alternations must be learned independently, on an affix-by-affix basis, then learning = observing surface alternations ◦ Initial state: OO constraints ranked high, learners assume that derived forms must preserve all base properties (McCarthy 1998) ◦ Positive evidence from alternating pairs (e.g., ph´ oto ∼ phot´ ography ) compels learner to demote OO- F constraints for the relevant affix ◦ In absence of evidence, speakers assume that uniformity holds (5) Goals of this paper • Compare these approaches on their predictions for realization of stops before affixes like -´ ometer , -´ ographer

3 Adam Albright Claim: lack of [g] in swi [ N (*g)] ´ • ometer is part of a broader range of unexpected phonology surrounding these affixes, at least in some varieties of American English • Surprising segment-by-segment, affix-by-affix, and speaker-by-speaker differences ◦ Difficult to derive from any independently motivated structural difference ◦ Correspond fairly well with set of forms available to the average learner • Data appear to require surface conditions on base-derivative identity 2 Diphthongometry, flapology and palatography The data: many cyclic effects (6) Overapplication of nasal cluster simplification before “ -´ ometer affixes” • As noted by Berm´ udez-Otero (2008), affixes like -ometer , -ography , -ology regularly condition nasal cluster simplification Base Root affixation (with cluster) Nonce -ometer affixation [ dIpTON ] [ dIpTONg@l ] [ dIpTON(*g)Am@Rô diphthong diphth´ ongal diphthong´ ometer ] " [ bAm ] [ b@mbArd ] [ bAm(*b)Al@dZi ] bomb bomb´ ard bomb´ ology [ T2m ] [ TImbl [ T2m(*b)Ekt@mi ] thumb ( thimble ??) ] thumb´ ectomy " This is unexpected, given that English normally bans medial V N V, except at level 2 • affix and word boundaries: singer [ "sIN@ô ]; sing out [ sIN"aUt ] 2 (7) Underapplication of vowel reduction, and misapplication of stress • As with level 1 affixes, vowel reduction may be blocked in low-frequency -´ ometer derivations Classic example: cond [ ´ E ] nse ∼ c` ond [ E ] ns´ ◦ ation (full vowel in unstressed syllable) ometer : p [ E ] d´ ◦ With -´ ometer , t [æ] ch´ ometer • In other cases, it’s not clear whether secondary stress remains behind, or whether residual vowel quality leads speakers to mark secondary stress Base Derived Merriam-Webster Ninth New Collegiate [ r` ıfl` Ekt´ Am@R@ô ] refl´ ect reflect´ ometer [ r` ıfr` ækt´ Am@R@ô ] refr´ act refract´ ometer • In productive formations, my intuition is clear that there must be secondary stress with clash ◦ r` ed-´ ometer : “I can’t pull out a redometer and say it has 14 militomatoes of redness” 3 ◦ obsc` ene-´ ometer : “You can’t point an obscenometer at a movie and say ‘oh this has 50 chambers of obscenity...’ ” 4 2 There are a few lexical exceptions, such as hangar , dinghy , gingham ; these are, in fact, the focus of Berm´ udez- Otero’s paper. 3 http://www.rantsnraves.org/archive/index.php/t-3942.html (Accessed 6/16/08) 4 http://www.theroc.org/roc-mag/textarch/roc-08/roc08-20.htm (Accessed 6/16/08)