[Author Login]
[Home]
ROA:272
Title:Prosodic Morphology in Spanish: Constraint Interaction in Word-Formation
Authors:Carlos-Eduardo Pineros
Comment:OSU dissertation in 13 files.
Length:289
Abstract:Prosodic Morphology in Spanish:

Constraint Interaction in Word-Formation



Carlos Eduardo Piñeros, Ph.D.

The Ohio State University, 1998

Professor, Fernando Martínez-Gil, Adviser





This dissertation explores a domain of Spanish morphology that is

phonologically-conditioned. Dominant phonological constraints may

cause word-formation processes to depart from the unmarked conca-

tenative pattern. I examine a set of marginal word-formation

processes where different alternatives to concatenative morphology

are exploited in order to generate new lexical forms. The language

game Jerigonza, word-blending, truncatory morphology and playful-

wording are all processes whereby an alternate lexical item is created

without morpheme concatenation.



On the basis that the new output form (NWO) reproduces derived

properties of the source form (SF), such as syllable and foot

structures, it is argued that SF is not an abstract input form but

a fully-fledged output form. This approach is in line with recent

proposals within Optimality and Correspondence Theories claiming that

certain processes obey a correspondence relationship whereby two

output forms are forced to retain a degree of resemblance that depends

on the ranking of faithfulness constraints with respect to other active

constraints. Consistent with the findings within Prosodic Morphology

Theory, it is also shown that phonology and morphology interact through

constraints that are defined in terms of phonological and morphological

units. Alignment between the edges of these constituents is often a

factor that determines NWO.



In word-blending, the sequential order of morphemes is broken when one

of the SF's overlaps upon the other one. In order to satisfy an

alignment condition, NWO must contain some segments with multiple

correspondents in SF, which do not have to be featurally identical.

In Jerigonza, the contiguity of SF is altered by the intrusion of

epenthetic syllables that help NWO meet a prosodic configuration where

the correspondent of every syllable in SF heads a disyllabic foot. In

truncatory morphology, SF is minimized in favor of prosodic unmarked-

ness that is reflected at the prosodic-word level but also at the foot

and syllable levels since NWO corresponds to a single binary foot

projected on minimally-marked syllables. In playful-wording, SF is

lengthened at its right edge through the introduction of an epenthetic

syllable that helps avoid a word-final main-stressed foot.



TABLE OF CONTENTS



Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Vita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi



Chapters:

1. Non-concatenative morphology in Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Spanish concatenative and non-concatenative morphology . . . . 2

1.2 Alternatives to concatenative morphology . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.3 Theoretical background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

1.3.1 Prosodic and morphological constituents . . . . . . . 20

1.3.2 Prosodic morphology theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1.3.3 Optimality theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1.3.4 Correspondence theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

1.4 Output-to-output correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

1.5 Various instances of OO-correspondence in Spanish . . . . . . 43

2. Discontinuous morphemes in Jerigonza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

2.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

2.1 Characterizing ludlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

2.2 Jerigonza as infixing morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

2.2.1 Infixation and spreading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

2.2.2 Objections against the infixation/spreading analysis . 57

2.3 The properties of Jerigonza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

2.4 Jerigonza as an instance of phonologically-conditioned

morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

2.4.1 Prosodic dependence on the source form . . . . . . . . 73

2.4.2 Intrusive elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

2.4.3 The make-up of epenthetic syllables . . . . . . . . . 81

2.4.4 Featural unfaithfulness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

3. Morpheme overlapping in word-blending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

3.0. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

3.1 The properties of blending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

3.2 Previous approaches to morphological blending . . . . . . . . 106

3.2.1 Blending as shortening and concatenation . . . . . . 106

3.2.2 Blending as an instance of morpheme overlapping . . . 110

3.3 Morphological blending as prosodically-governed compounding . 115

3.3.1 Compounding without recursion of prosodic words . . . 117

3.3.2 Output-to-output correspondence in morphological

blending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

3.3.3 Preservation of (SF-B)-Identity . . . . . . . . . . . 139

3.3.3.1 Ambimorphemic segments . . . . . . . . . . . 140

3.3.3.2 Non-preservation of the word-marker . . . . . . . . . 147

3.4 Determination of the precise locus of blending . . . . . . . 149

3.5 Morpheme overlapping upon non-identical segments . . . . . . 153

3.6 A continuous segmental string . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

3.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

4. Word minimization in clippings and hypocoristics . . . . . . . . . . . 169

4.0. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

4.1 Spanish truncatory morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

4.1.1 A syllabic trochee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

4.1.2 Successive applications of prosodic-circumscription . 176

4.2 Word minimization in Spanish truncation processes . . . . . . 186

4.2.1 A constraint-based account of Type-A truncated forms . 190

4.2.2 A constraint-based account of Type-B truncated forms . 207

4.2.2.1 Type-B TF's from ante-penultimately-stressed

SF's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

4.2.2.2 Type-A TF's from ultimately-stressed SF's . . 235

4.2.2.3 Contrastive Type-A and Type-B properties . . . 237

4.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

5. Lengthening in playful-words . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

5.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

5.1 Suffixation vs. Epenthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

5.2 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259



Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
Type:Dissertation
Area/Keywords:Phonology, Morphology
Article:Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11
Part 12
Part 13