Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton August 3, 2021

Phonology to the rescue: Nez Perce morphology revisited

  • Paul Kiparsky EMAIL logo
From the journal The Linguistic Review

Abstract

Minimalist Morphology predicts that allomorphy is conditioned inward and locally, and that the domains of morphosyntactically and phonologically conditioned allomorphy selection are identical. Amy Rose Deal and Matthew Wolf have put forward two cases of allomorphy in Nez Perce that appear to be conditioned by an outward phonological context. I present an analysis of Nez Perce morphology and phonology which supports the conclusion that the first case is not outward-conditioned, and the second case is not allomorphy but phonology.


Corresponding author: Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University, Stanford, USA, E-mail:

My thanks to Amy Rose Deal and to two referees for their very useful comments on an early draft, which both forced and enabled me to sharpen the argumentation, turning it into an entirely new paper. This work is greatly indebted to the thorough documentation and analysis of Nez Perce by Haruo Aoki and Harold Crook.


Acknowledgments

My thanks to Amy Rose Deal and to two referees for their very useful comments on an early draft, which both forced and enabled me to sharpen the argumentation, turning it into an entirely new paper. This work is greatly indebted to the thorough documentation and analysis of Nez Perce by Haruo Aoki and Harold Crook. Thanks also to Chris Golston for queries and corrections to the final version.

References

Alderete, John. 2001. Morphologically governed accent in optimality theory. New York & London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou Elena & Florian Schäfer. 2015. External arguments in transitivity alternations: A layering approach. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571949.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Allen, Margaret R. 1978. Morphological investigations. Storrs, Connecticut: University of Connecticut PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Aoki, Haruo. 1970. Nez Perce grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Aoki, Haruo. 1979. Nez Perce texts. Volume 90 of University of California Publications in Linguistics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Aoki, Haruo. 1994. Nez Perce dictionary. Berkeley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Aoki, Haruo & Edward E. Walker. 1988. Nez Perce oral narratives. Berkeley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Arregi, Karlos & Andrew Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-3889-8Search in Google Scholar

Bar-el, Leora & Linda Tamburri Watt. 1998. What determines stress in Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish)? In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Salishan and Neighboring Languages, 407–427. Seattle: University of Washington.Search in Google Scholar

Bat-El, Outi. 1996. Selecting the best of the worst: The grammar of Hebrew blends. Phonology 13. 283–328. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675700002657.Search in Google Scholar

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2012. The architecture of grammar and the division of labour in exponence. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence, 8–83. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573721.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2013. The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional features. Probus 25(3-103). https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2013-0009.Search in Google Scholar

Bjorkman, Bronwyn M. 2010. Morphology and stress in Nez Perce verbs. In Beth Rogers & Anita Szakay (eds.), Workshop on structure and constituency in the languages of the Americas (WSCLA), 15, vol. 29, 70–84. Available at: http://lingserver.arts.ubc.ca/linguistics/sites/default/files/UBCWPL29-WSCLA15-Bjorkman_0.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10. 35–71.Search in Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2007. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Software version 4.6.09.Search in Google Scholar

Bogomolets, Ksenia. 2020. Lexical Accent in Languages with Complex Morphology. Storrs, Connecticut: University of Connecticut PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Bonet, Eulalia & Daniel Harbour. 2012. Contextual allomorphy. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence, 195–235. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573721.003.0007Search in Google Scholar

Bowman, Sam. 2012. Building OT grammars in PyPhon. Unpublished Tutorial.Search in Google Scholar

Božič, Jurij. 2019. Constraining long-distance allomorphy. The Linguistic Review 36(3). 485–505.10.1515/tlr-2019-2031Search in Google Scholar

Bye, Patrik & Peter Svenonius. 2012. Non-concatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence, 427–495. OUP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573721.003.0013Search in Google Scholar

Carstairs, Andrew. 1980. Constraints on allomorphy in inflexion. London: University of London PhD thesis. Reprinted IULC 1981.Search in Google Scholar

Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in inflexion. Beckenham: Croom Helm.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Search in Google Scholar

Christopoulos, Christos & Roberto Petrosino. 2018. Greek root-allomorphy without spans. In Wm. G. Bennett, Lindsay Hracs & Dennis Ryan Storoshenko (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Search in Google Scholar

Coelho, Gail. 2002. Conflicting directionality in Thompson River Salish. Rutgers Optimality Archive 569. Available at: http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/569-1202/569-1202-COELHO-0-0.PDF.Search in Google Scholar

Coetzee, Andries. 2006. Variation as accessing ‘non-optimal’ candidates. Phonology 23. 337–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675706000984.Search in Google Scholar

Crook, Harold. 1999. The Phonology and Morphology of Nez Perce Stress. Los Angeles: UCLA PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 1993. Cyclicity and stress in Moses-Columbia Salish (Nxaamxcin). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11. 197–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00992914.Search in Google Scholar

de Lacy, Paul. 2002. The formal expression of markedness. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Deal, Amy Rose & Matthew Wolf. 2017. Outward-sensitive phonologically conditioned allomorphy in Nez Perce. In Vera Gribanova & Stephanie Shih (eds.), The morphosyntax-phonology connection: Locality and directionality at the interface, 29–60. New York: OUP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210304.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Dybo, Vladimir. 2011. Značenie zapadnokavkazskoj akcentnoj sistemy dlja izučenija balto-slavjanskoj i japonskix akcentnyx sistem. [The significance of the West Caucasian accent system for the study of the Balto-Slavic and Japanese accent systems]. In Tijmen Pronk & Rick Derksen (eds.), Accent matters: Papers on Balto-Slavic accentology. New York: Rodopi.Search in Google Scholar

Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262014229.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Embick, David. 2015. The morpheme. Boston/Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9781501502569Search in Google Scholar

Embick, David. 2017. On the targets of phonological realization. In Vera Gribanova & Stephanie Shih (eds.), The morphosyntax-phonology connection: Locality and directionality at the interface. New York: OUP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210304.003.0010Search in Google Scholar

Embick, David & Morris Halle. 2005. On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Twan Geerts, Ivo von Ginneken & Haike Jacobs (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003, vol. 37–62, 37–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.270.03embSearch in Google Scholar

Enguehard, Emile, Edward Flemming & Giorgio Magri. 2018. Statistical learning theory and linguistic typology: A learnability perspective on OT’s strict domination. In Gaja Jarosz, Brendan O’Connor & Pater Joe (eds.), Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Society for Computation in Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Golston, Chris. 1996. Direct Optimality Theory: Representation as pure markedness. Language 72(4). 713–748. https://doi.org/10.2307/416100.Search in Google Scholar

Halle, Morris. 2001. On accent, stress, and quantity in West Slavic. Lingua 111. 791–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0024-3841(00)00050-4.Search in Google Scholar

Halle, Morris & Paul Kiparsky. 1977. Towards a reconstruction of the Indo-European accent. In Larry Hyman (ed.), Studies in Stress and Accent, University of Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 209–238. University fo Southern California.Search in Google Scholar

Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale & S. Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hargus, Sharon. 1993. Modeling the phonology-morphology interface. In Sharon Hargus & Sharon Inkelas (eds.), Studies in Lexical Phonology, 45–71. San Diego: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-325071-1.50008-XSearch in Google Scholar

Hargus, Sharon, Noel Rude & Virginia Beavert. 2015. Obviative allomorphy in Nez Perce. In Eulàlia Bonet, Maria-Rosa Lloret & Joan Mascaró (eds.), Understanding allomorphy: Perspectives from optimality theory. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar

Harley, Heidi. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40. 225–276. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0010.Search in Google Scholar

Harrison, Carl H. 1971. The morphophonology of Asurini words. In David Bendor-Samuel (ed.), Tupi Studies, vol. I, 21–71. Norman, Oklahoma: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Haugen, Jason. 2016. Readjustment: Rejected? In Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds.), Morphological metatheory, 303–342. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/la.229.11hauSearch in Google Scholar

Hayes, Bruce. 1986. Inalterability in CV phonology. Language 62(2). 321–251. https://doi.org/10.2307/414676.Search in Google Scholar

Hayes, Bruce, Bruce Tesar & Kie Zuraw. 2017. OTSoft: Optimality theory software 2.5. Available at: https://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/.Search in Google Scholar

Hill, Jane H. & Kenneth C. Hill. 1968. Stress in the Cupan (Uto-Aztecan) languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 34(4). 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1086/465023.Search in Google Scholar

Hume, Elizabeth, Jennifer Muller & Aone van Engelenhoven. 1997. Nonmoraic geminates in Leti. Phonology 14(3). 371–402.10.1017/S0952675798003467Search in Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. & C. Orhan Orgun. 2005. Endocyclicity and paradigm non-uniformity. In C. Orhan Orgun & Sells Peter (eds.), Morphology and the web of grammar: Essays in memory of Steven G. Lapointe. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Inkelas, Sharon. 2017. The directionality and locality of allomorphic conditioning in Optimal Construction Morphology. In Vera Gribanova & Stephanie Shih (eds.), The morphosyntax-phonology connection: Locality and directionality at the interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210304.003.0011Search in Google Scholar

Itô, Junko, Armin Mester & Jaye Padgett. 1995. Licensing and underspecification in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 26(4). 571–613.Search in Google Scholar

Kallulli, Dalina. 2007. Rethinking the passive/anticausative distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 770–780. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.770.Search in Google Scholar

Kilbourn-Ceron, Oriana, Heather Newell, Máire Noonan & Lisa Travis. 2016. Phase domains at PF: Root suppletion and its implications. In Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds.), Morphological metatheory, 121–161. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/la.229.05kilSearch in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In In-Sook Yang (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin.Search in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1984. Lexical phonology of Sanskrit word accent. In Amrtādhāra: R.N. Dandekar felicitation volume, 201–210. Delhi: Ajanta Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1996. Allomorphy and morphophonology. In Raj Singh (ed.), Trubetzkoy’s orphan. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.144.06kipSearch in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Aspect and event structure in Vedic. In Raj Singh (ed.), Yearbook of South Asian Studies, Vol. 1, 29–61. London: Sage Publications.10.1515/9783110245233.29Search in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2010. Compositional vs. paradigmatic approaches to accent and ablaut. In Stephanie W. Jamison, H.Melchert Craig & Vine Brent (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st UCLA Indo-European Conference, 137–82. Bremen: Hempen.Search in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2020. Morphological units: Stems. In Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.542Search in Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1995. “Cat” as a phrasal idiom: Consequences of late insertion in Distributed Morphology. Unpublished manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 2013. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In O. Matushansky & A. Marantz (eds.), Distributed morphology today. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262019675.003.0006Search in Google Scholar

McCarthy, John J. 2000. Harmonic Serialism and parallelism. In NELS 30. North East Linguistics Society.Search in Google Scholar

McCarthy, John J. & Alan S. Prince. 1993. Prosodic morphology I, constraint interaction and satisfaction. To appear, MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

McCawley, James. 1968. The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Melvold, Janis. 1990. Structure and stress in the phonology of Russian. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Merchant, Jason. 2015. How much context is enough? Two cases of span-conditioned allomorphy. Linguistic Inquiry 46(2). 273–303. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00182.Search in Google Scholar

Mohanan, K. P. 1986. The theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-3719-2Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Gereon. 2020. Inflectional morphology in Harmonic Serialism. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar

Myers, Scott. 1997. OCP effects in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15(4). 847–892.10.1002/9780470756171.ch13Search in Google Scholar

Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Phonologically conditioned allomorph selection. In Marc van Oostendorp, Keren Rice Colin Ewen & Elizabeth Hume (ed.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, vol. 4, chapter 99. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0099Search in Google Scholar

Ostrove, Jason. 2020. Adjacency and case morphology in Scottish Gaelic. Linguistic Inquiry 51(3). 521–552.10.1162/ling_a_00344Search in Google Scholar

Paster, Mary. 2005. Subcategorization vs. output optimization in syllable-counting allomorphy. In Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 326–333.Search in Google Scholar

Perry, J. Joseph & Bert Vaux. 2018. Vedic Sanskrit accentuation and readjustment rules. In Roberto Petrosino, Pietro Cerrone & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), From sounds to structures: Beyond the veil of Maya, 266–294. de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781501506734-009Search in Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 1979. Russian morphology and lexical theory. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Russian-morphology-and-lexical-theory-Pesetsky/2db387af28cf356d6fc525e7e99872929197f910.Search in Google Scholar

Poser, William. 1985. The phonetics and phonology of tone and intonation in Japanese. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Potts, Christopher & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. Model theory and the content of OT constraints. Phonology 19(3). 361–393. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675703004408.Search in Google Scholar

Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993/2004. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Piscateway, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science. Revised version published 2004 by Blackwell. Page references to the 2004 version.Search in Google Scholar

Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Arnold M. Zwicky. 1992. A misconceived approach to morphology. Proceedings of WCCFL 10. 387–98.Search in Google Scholar

Revithiadou, Anthi, Giorgos Markopoulos & Vassilios Spyropoulos. 2019. Changing shape according to strength: Evidence from root allomorphy in Greek. The Linguistic Review 36(3). 553–574. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2019-2029.Search in Google Scholar

Riggle, Jason. 2009. The complexity of ranking hypotheses in Optimality Theory. Computational Linguistics 35(1). 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.07-031-r2-06-98.Search in Google Scholar

Riggle, Jason, Max Bane & Samuel R. Bowman. 2011. PyPhon: Software for implementing optimization-based models of grammar.Search in Google Scholar

Rivero, María-Luisa. 1990. The location of nonactive voice in Albanian and modern Greek. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 135–146.Search in Google Scholar

Rude, Noel. 1985. Studies in Nez Perce grammar and discourse. Eugene: University of Oregon PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Schein, Barry & Donca Steriade. 1986. On geminates. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 691–744.Search in Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Shaw, Patricia A., Susan J. Blake, Jill Campbell & Cody Shepherd. 1999. Stress in Heemie (Musqueam) Salish. In M. Caldecott, S. Gessner & E. Kim (eds.), Proceedings of WSCLA 4 1999. Vancouver: UBCWPL 2.Search in Google Scholar

Siddiqi, Daniel. 2009. Syntax within the word: Economy, allomorphy, and argument selection in distributed morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/la.138Search in Google Scholar

Siegel, Dorothy. 1974. Topics in English morphology. Cambridge, MA: Garland Press, New York 1979 PhD thesis, MIT.Search in Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2016. How are words related? In Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds.), Morphological metatheory, 1–26. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/la.229.01speSearch in Google Scholar

Staubs, Robert, Michael Becker, Christopher Potts, Patrick Pratt, John J. McCarthy & Pater Joe. 2010. OT-Help 2.0.Search in Google Scholar

Stiebels, Barbara. 2006. Agent focus in Mayan languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24. 501–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-005-0539-9.Search in Google Scholar

Strauss, Steven. 1982. Lexicalist phonology of English and German. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110846287Search in Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. 2001. Inflectional morphology. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486333Search in Google Scholar

Svenonius, Peter. 2016. Spans and words. In Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds.), Morphological metatheory, 201–222. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/la.229.07sveSearch in Google Scholar

Tesar, Bruce & Paul Smolensky. 1998. Learnability in optimality theory. Linguistic Inquiry 29. 229–268. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553734.Search in Google Scholar

Tesar, Bruce & Paul Smolensky. 2000. Learnability in optimality theory. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4159.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Trigo, Lauren. 1992. Abkhaz stress shift. In Caucasian perspectives. Munich: Lincom Europa.Search in Google Scholar

Trommer, Jochen. 2011. Phonological aspects of Western Nilotic mutation morphology. Leipzig: University of Leipzig PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Trommer, Jochen. 2015a. Lexical insertion occurs in the phonological component. In Eulàlia Bonet, Maria-Rosa Lloret & Joan Mascaró (eds.), Syllable-counting allomorphy by prosodic templates. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar

Trommer, Jochen. 2015b. Moraic affixes and morphological colors in Dinka. Linguistic Inquiry 46. 77–112. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00176.Search in Google Scholar

Tsimpli, Ianthi M. 2006. The acquisition of voice and transitivity alternations in Greek as native and second language. In Antonella Sorace Sharon Unsworth, Teresa Parodi & Martha Young-Scholten (eds.), Paths of development in L1 and L2 acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/lald.39.03tsiSearch in Google Scholar

Veselinova, Ljuba. 2006. Suppletion in verb paradigms: Bits and pieces of the puzzle. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.67Search in Google Scholar

Wolf, Matthew. 2013. Candidate chains, unfaithful spell-out, and outwards-looking phonologically-conditioned allomorphy. Morphology 23. 145–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-013-9219-3.Search in Google Scholar

Wunderlich, Dieter. 1996. Minimalist Morphology: The role of paradigms. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-017-3716-6_6Search in Google Scholar

Wunderlich, Dieter. 2001. How gaps and substitutions can become optimal: The pronominal affix paradigms of Yimas. Transactions of the Philological Society 99(2). 315–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968x.00084.Search in Google Scholar

Wunderlich, Dieter & Ray Fabri. 1994. Minimalist Morphology: An approach to inflection. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 20. 236–294.10.1515/zfsw.1995.14.2.236Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2021-08-03
Published in Print: 2021-09-27

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 9.2.2023 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/tlr-2021-2071/html
Scroll Up Arrow