Phonological Conditions on Affixation

In chapter 5, I situate the findings of the present study within the larger context of
phonological conditions on affixation. In that chapter, I lay out the range of predictions
that are made by the P >> M approach for all aspects of affixation, and where possible, I
compare these predictions with cross-linguistic survey data. As will be seen, the
predictions generally do not match up well with the survey data. This provides another
argument against the use of P >> M, and by extension, an argument in favor of the
alternative, subcategorization-based approach that I advocate.
Finally, in chapter 6, I conclude by summarizing the typological generalizations
about PCSA and the implications of the survey results for the two competing models. I
consider (and ultimately reject) a ‘hybrid’ approach that distinguishes two types of PCSA
and uses both the subcategorization and P >> M models, and I conclude with some
further remarks on strategies for modeling phonological conditions on affixation.
1.1 <strong>Phonological</strong> conditions on affixation
The study of the phonology-morphology interface has relatively old roots in the
theoretical literature, particularly in the formal analysis of morphologically conditioned
phonology (see especially Kiparsky 1982a, b and Mohanan 1986 on Lexical Phonology).
However, only within the last decade has there been a push towards the study of
phonological effects in morphology, and more specifically, phonological conditions on
affixation. This dissertation is intended to contribute to this previously neglected area of
the literature.
Subcategorization-based models of affixation have been proposed in various
forms over the course of many years; see, for example, Lieber 1980, Kiparsky 1982b,
Selkirk 1982, Orgun 1996, and Yu 2003. Orgun 1996 makes explicit the idea of
3