Phonological Conditions on Affixation

two models in terms of how well they match up with the survey results to be presented in
chapters 2-4. In chapter 6 (§6.3), I contrast the two models in terms of the accuracy of
their respective predictions. As in the discussion of the predictions of P >> M in §1.1.1.2,
the predictions to be discussed here are general. In each of chapters 2-4, more specific
predictions for particular types of PCSA will be discussed where relevant.
One prediction made by the subcategorization approach is that PCSA is not
necessarily phonologically optimizing, and that there should exist cases in which no
plausible phonological well-formedness constraint can be written to account for the
pattern of allomorphy. This is because in the subcategorization approach, phonological
constraints play no role in determining the distribution of allomorphs. The phonological
conditions on affixation are simply stated in the lexical entry for each affix, so the
relationship between the condition on allomorphy and the shape of the affix is arbitrary.
It should be stressed that this does not mean that PCSA never has an optimizing
character. To the contrary, it has already been established (prior to the present survey)
that many examples of PCSA look as if they maximize the well-formedness of words.
This is not necessarily problematic for the subcategorization approach; since PCSA
probably originates in many cases from the loss of a regular rule, it should not be
surprising that many cases appear to be phonologically optimizing. In this approach it
would be surprising, and problematic, if there were no examples of arbitrary, non-
optimizing examples of PCSA. This is the type of example that would be problematic for
P >> M, since PCSA is driven in that approach by phonological well-formedness.
13