| ROA: | 272 |
|---|---|
| Title: | Prosodic Morphology in Spanish: Constraint Interaction in Word-Formation |
| Authors: | Carlos-Eduardo Pineros |
| Comment: | OSU dissertation in 13 files. |
| Length: | 289 |
| Abstract: | Prosodic Morphology in Spanish: Constraint Interaction in Word-Formation Carlos Eduardo Piñeros, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1998 Professor, Fernando Martínez-Gil, Adviser This dissertation explores a domain of Spanish morphology that is phonologically-conditioned. Dominant phonological constraints may cause word-formation processes to depart from the unmarked conca- tenative pattern. I examine a set of marginal word-formation processes where different alternatives to concatenative morphology are exploited in order to generate new lexical forms. The language game Jerigonza, word-blending, truncatory morphology and playful- wording are all processes whereby an alternate lexical item is created without morpheme concatenation. On the basis that the new output form (NWO) reproduces derived properties of the source form (SF), such as syllable and foot structures, it is argued that SF is not an abstract input form but a fully-fledged output form. This approach is in line with recent proposals within Optimality and Correspondence Theories claiming that certain processes obey a correspondence relationship whereby two output forms are forced to retain a degree of resemblance that depends on the ranking of faithfulness constraints with respect to other active constraints. Consistent with the findings within Prosodic Morphology Theory, it is also shown that phonology and morphology interact through constraints that are defined in terms of phonological and morphological units. Alignment between the edges of these constituents is often a factor that determines NWO. In word-blending, the sequential order of morphemes is broken when one of the SF's overlaps upon the other one. In order to satisfy an alignment condition, NWO must contain some segments with multiple correspondents in SF, which do not have to be featurally identical. In Jerigonza, the contiguity of SF is altered by the intrusion of epenthetic syllables that help NWO meet a prosodic configuration where the correspondent of every syllable in SF heads a disyllabic foot. In truncatory morphology, SF is minimized in favor of prosodic unmarked- ness that is reflected at the prosodic-word level but also at the foot and syllable levels since NWO corresponds to a single binary foot projected on minimally-marked syllables. In playful-wording, SF is lengthened at its right edge through the introduction of an epenthetic syllable that helps avoid a word-final main-stressed foot. TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Vita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Chapters: 1. Non-concatenative morphology in Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Spanish concatenative and non-concatenative morphology . . . . 2 1.2 Alternatives to concatenative morphology . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.3 Theoretical background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1.3.1 Prosodic and morphological constituents . . . . . . . 20 1.3.2 Prosodic morphology theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1.3.3 Optimality theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 1.3.4 Correspondence theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 1.4 Output-to-output correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 1.5 Various instances of OO-correspondence in Spanish . . . . . . 43 2. Discontinuous morphemes in Jerigonza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 2.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 2.1 Characterizing ludlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 2.2 Jerigonza as infixing morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 2.2.1 Infixation and spreading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 2.2.2 Objections against the infixation/spreading analysis . 57 2.3 The properties of Jerigonza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 2.4 Jerigonza as an instance of phonologically-conditioned morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 2.4.1 Prosodic dependence on the source form . . . . . . . . 73 2.4.2 Intrusive elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 2.4.3 The make-up of epenthetic syllables . . . . . . . . . 81 2.4.4 Featural unfaithfulness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 3. Morpheme overlapping in word-blending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 3.0. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 3.1 The properties of blending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 3.2 Previous approaches to morphological blending . . . . . . . . 106 3.2.1 Blending as shortening and concatenation . . . . . . 106 3.2.2 Blending as an instance of morpheme overlapping . . . 110 3.3 Morphological blending as prosodically-governed compounding . 115 3.3.1 Compounding without recursion of prosodic words . . . 117 3.3.2 Output-to-output correspondence in morphological blending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 3.3.3 Preservation of (SF-B)-Identity . . . . . . . . . . . 139 3.3.3.1 Ambimorphemic segments . . . . . . . . . . . 140 3.3.3.2 Non-preservation of the word-marker . . . . . . . . . 147 3.4 Determination of the precise locus of blending . . . . . . . 149 3.5 Morpheme overlapping upon non-identical segments . . . . . . 153 3.6 A continuous segmental string . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 3.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 4. Word minimization in clippings and hypocoristics . . . . . . . . . . . 169 4.0. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 4.1 Spanish truncatory morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 4.1.1 A syllabic trochee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 4.1.2 Successive applications of prosodic-circumscription . 176 4.2 Word minimization in Spanish truncation processes . . . . . . 186 4.2.1 A constraint-based account of Type-A truncated forms . 190 4.2.2 A constraint-based account of Type-B truncated forms . 207 4.2.2.1 Type-B TF's from ante-penultimately-stressed SF's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 4.2.2.2 Type-A TF's from ultimately-stressed SF's . . 235 4.2.2.3 Contrastive Type-A and Type-B properties . . . 237 4.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 5. Lengthening in playful-words . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 5.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 5.1 Suffixation vs. Epenthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 5.2 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 |
| Type: | Dissertation |
| Area/Keywords: | Phonology, Morphology |
| Article: | Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9 Part 10 Part 11 Part 12 Part 13 |