5. Morphology in Relation to Phonology

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Handout Latex 2$

F. Plank, Morphology I: 5. Morphology in Relation to Phonology 18 adhere – adhes-ion, Aberdeen – Aberdon-ian, approve – approb-ation, where the alternations are specific to individual morphemes (/taIm/ ~ /tEmp/, etc.), regardless of whether there are partial phonological similarities between the alternants (e.g., /tVm/ in the case of /taIm/ ~ /tEmp/) or the alternants approach prototypical suppletion (= wholly different stems). This is morphology, where you may want to describe the difference between the respective alternants in phonological terms: but it would be futile to formulate phonological rules for these purposes – they would be hopelessly ad hoc, designed for just this particular pair. (Well, you never know ...)
F. Plank, Morphology I: 5. Morphology in Relation to Phonology 19 Below, by contrast, we list word pairs where the morphology creates conditions under which phonological (well, “mor(pho)phonological”) rules apply which are not morpheme-specific. However, the line between morpheme-specificity and generality is not always easy to draw. For instance, in some examples given above the vowel alternations do follow more general phonological patterns. The following examples are culled from Chomsky & Halle’s Sound Pattern of English, with additional exemplification primarily from Marchand’s handbook and Bauer’s textbook of English word formation. The relevant theoretical literature is substantial: further references upon request, or in Phonology or Morphology II. English historical phonology (s.v. Great Vowel Shift, Trisyllabic Shortening, Open Syllable Lengthening) often gives clues to what’s going on and why.
Page 1 and 2: F. Plank, Morphology I: 5. Morpholo
Page 17: F. Plank, Morphology I: 5. Morpholo
Page 61: F. Plank, Morphology I: 5. Morpholo

5. Morphology in Relation to Phonology

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?