Phonological Conditions on Affixation

present the details of this model, and in §1.1.1.2, I discuss the predictions that this model
makes for PCSA.
1.1.1.1 Description of the model
As mentioned above, the term ‘P >> M’ refers to the fact that this approach
involves ranking some P constraint over some M constraint, with the result that the
phonology has an effect on a morphological process. This constraint ranking schema was
first proposed by McCarthy and Prince (1993a, b). 2 Perhaps the most important evidence
for the P >> M proposal was in the domain of infix placement (to be discussed further in
chapter 5). A classic example of a P >> M analysis of infix placement is the Ulwa
example from McCarthy and Prince (1993a). In Ulwa (Misumalpan, Nicaragua; Hale and
Lacayo Blanco 1989), possessive markers occur immediately after the head foot (main
stress) of the word, as shown below (head feet are in parentheses; examples are from
McCarthy and Prince 1993a: 79, 109-110).
(2) (bas)-ka ‘his/her hair’ (siwa)-ka-nak ‘his/her root’
(su:)-ka-lu ‘his/her dog’ (ki:)-ka ‘his/her stone’
(as)-ka-na ‘his/her clothes’ (sana)-ka ‘his/her deer’
(sapa:)-ka ‘his/her forehead’ (ana:)-ka-la:ka ‘his/her chin’
McCarthy and Prince (1993a: 110) propose a P constraint to account for this
(where Ft' is the head foot), shown below. 3
(3) ALIGN-TO-FOOT (Ulwa): Align([POSS]Af, L, Ft', R)
2 In fact, it was originally claimed that prosodically conditioned morphology is always
driven by P >> M. McCarthy and Prince assert (1993a: 24) that ‘[f]or morphology to be
prosodic at all within OT, the ranking schema P >> M must be obeyed, in that at least
some phonological constraint must dominate some constraint of the morphology’. A
similar statement is made in McCarthy and Prince 1993b.
3 I assume that a given constraint is a P constraint if it makes reference to a phonological
element. This is following McCarthy and Prince: ‘…AFX-TO-FT is a P-constraint, because
it crucially refers to a prosodic notion, the foot…’ (1993b: 114).
7