Phonological Conditions on Affixation

phonological processes but also lack some of those properties. Fortunately, the distinction
between suppletive and non-suppletive allomorphy is not crucial to the argument made in
this dissertation. Since the P >> M mechanism in effect extends a phonological model to
handle some morphological processes, we expect that the mechanism should handle the
purely phonological (i.e., non-suppletive) examples well and that the problematic cases
(if any) should be the suppletive ones. This means that if anything, if we admit any cases
of rule-derived allomorphy into our discussion of suppletive allomorphy, we will err on
the side of including too many examples that favor the P >> M approach. To offset any
such bias, in making generalizations about PCSA I will focus on the clearest cases of
suppletive allomorphy and not rely too heavily on examples that fall into the gray area.
2.1.2 Examples
2.1.2.1 Assimilation/harmony
Given that the P >> M mechanism accounts for suppletive allomorphy using the
same phonological constraints that drive purely phonological processes, this model
predicts that every phonological constraint can show effects in morphology. That is,
constraints that commonly drive phonological processes in the world’s languages should
also condition suppletive allomorph selection. Assimilation is a very common type of
phonological process with roots in coarticulation, and the P >> M model therefore leads
us to expect assimilation to condition suppletive allomorphy. Several constraints have
been proposed to drive harmony and other assimilation of various types, including
AGREE, SPREAD, and ALIGN (see Pulleyblank 2002 for a summary of approaches to
31