here - Linguistic Society of America

ForumFriday, 4 JanuaryNeil Myler (New York University)Violations of the Mirror Principle and morphophonological “action at a distance”: the role of “word”-internal phrasalmovement and Spell OutThis study uncovers the novel empirical generalization that Mirror-Principle-violating morpheme orders can give rise to non-localmorphophonological effects (see Kiparsky 2011 for an independent formulation of this generalization). In other words, antiscopalmorpheme orders can allow for usually local morphophonological processes to apply “at a distance”, as if an interveningMirror-Principle-violating morpheme were not present. For time reasons, the generalization will be illustrated with a single casestudy from Quechua, although others from Bantu (Hyman 2002; Skinner 2009) and Sanskrit (Kiparsky 2011) will be brieflyalluded to. I show that this generalization is explained if Mirror-Principle-violating orders are derived by phrasal movement of acategory containing the lexical root stranding one or more affixes (Koopman 2005) and Vocabulary Insertion proceeds from themost deeply embedded constituent outwards (Bobaljik 2000). Thus, the generalization identified supports the key DM tenets ofSyntactic Hierarchical Structure All the Way Down and Late Insertion.Roland Pfau (University of Amsterdam)Distributed Morphology as a production model: focus on derivational morphologyIn serial, modular models of language production (Garrett 1980; Levelt 1989), grammatical encoding precedes phonologicalencoding. Similarly, in Distributed Morphology (DM), grammatical operations are taken to precede phonological operations.I will first sketch why the sequence of operations assumed in DM allows a straightforward account of complex spontaneousspeech errors, in particular, errors that seem to involve a repair process bringing the utterance in line with some grammaticalconstraint. I show that, with DM machinery, apparent ‘repairs’ come for free as they involve processes that apply in the course ofthe derivation anyway (e.g. phonological readjustment, spell-out of features).Secondly, I focus on errors involving derivational morphology. Based on German slips, I argue (i) that derivational morphemesare not present during the computation but are inserted at Morphological Structure based on the licensing environment of a root,and (ii) that insertion must precede feature copy, i.e. it cannot apply at PF.99