Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T19:35:17.952Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What the Schwartzes Told Me about Allomorph Priority

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2024

Noam Faust
Noam Faust*
Affiliation:
Université Paris 8, CNRS SFL, 59-61 Rue Pouchet, 75017 Paris, France
*
Email: noam.faust@univ-paris8.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Standard Yiddish, -s and -ən are used as default allomorphs for plural word formation. It is argued here that the choice is left to the phonology, with -s acting as a default within a default. This status is used to explain the exclusive use of -s in the pluralization of proper names, which are claimed to be formed with no sensitivity to the phonological form of the base.

Keywords

allomorphypluralpriorityproper namesYiddish
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , March 2024 , pp. 32 - 46
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Germanic Linguistics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abugov, Netta & Gillis, Steven. 2016. Nominal plurals in Antwerp Hasidic Yiddish: An empirical study. Linguistics 54(6), 1397–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abugov, Netta & Ravid, Dorit. 2014a. The impact of Israeli Hebrew on Yiddish: Noun plurals in Sanz Ultra Orthodox Yiddish. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 226, 190–211.Google Scholar
Abugov, Netta & Ravid, Dorit. 2014b. Noun plurals in Israeli ultra-orthodox Yiddish: A psycholinguistic perspective. In Aptroot, Marion & Hansen, Björn (eds.), Yiddish language structures, 9–39. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Allen, George D. & Hawkins, Sarah. 1978. The development of phonological rhythm. In Bell, A. & Hooper, J. (eds.), Syllables and segments, 173–185. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto. 1997. Deriving variation from grammar. In Hinskens, Frans, van Hout, Roeland, & Leo Wetzels, W. (eds.), Variation, change and phonological theory, 35–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bat-El, Outi. 2018. Hebrew stress: Back to the future. Acta Linguistica Academica 65, 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berko, Jean. 1958. The child’s learning of English morphology. WORD 14(2–3), 150–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1998. Phonological output constraints in morphology. In Kehrein, Wolfgang & Wiese, Richard (eds.), Phonology and morphology of the Germanic languages, 143–163. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia, Lloret, Maria-Rosa, & Mascaró, Joan. 2007. Allomorph selection and lexical preferences: Two case studies. Lingua 117(6), 903–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth & Jay Keyser, Samuel (eds.), The view from building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Neil. 2005. Yiddish: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25(4), 609–665.Google Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean. 2007. On little n, ROOT, and types of nouns. In Jutta Hartmann, Veronika Hegedus, & Henk van Riemsdjik (eds.), The sounds of silence: Empty elements in syntax and phonology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Marcus, Gary F., Ursula Brinkmann, Harald Clahsen, Wiese, Richard, & Pinker, Steven. 1995. German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology 29, 189–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mark, Yudl. 1954–1956. Mertsol fun Zachverter. Yidishe Shprach: A journal devoted to the problems of Standard Yiddish 14–16.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Why Rose is the Rose: On the use of definite articles in proper names. Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6, 285–307.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 24, 333–379.Google Scholar
Niborski, Yitskhok. 2012. Verterbuch fun Loshn-Koydesh-Shtamike Verter in Yidish (in Yiddish). With the help of Shimon Neuberg, Eliezer Niborski, & Natalje Krinitska. Paris: Bibliothèque MEDEM.Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 2017. The growing distance between proper names and common nouns in German: On the way to onymic schema constancy. Folia Linguistica 51(2), 341–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nübling, Damaris & Schmuck, Mirjam. 2010. Die Entstehung des s-Plurals bei Eigennamen als Reanalyse vom Kasus-zum Numerusmarker. Evidenzen aus der deutschen und niederländischen Dialektologie. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 77(2), 145-182.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1988. The Split Morphology Hypothesis: Evidence from Yiddish. In Hammond, Michael & Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, 79–99. San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993/2004 Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Raffelsiefen, Renate. 1995. Conditions for stability: The case of schwa in German. Arbeiten des Sonderforschungsbereichs 282, 69.Google Scholar
Roehrs, Dorian. 2020. The morpho-syntax of phrasal proper names in German. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1), 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. On the major class features and syllable theory. In Mark Oehrle, Aronoff, R. T., & Halle, Morris (eds.), Language sound and structure: Studies in phonology presented to Morris Halle by his teacher and students, 107–136. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2012. Direct Interface and One-Channel Translation. Vol. 2 of A lateral theory of phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlücker, Barbara & Ackermann, Tanja. 2017. The morphosyntax of proper names: An overview. Folia Linguistica 51(2), 309–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Laura Catharine. 2020. The role of foot structure in Germanic. In Putnam, Michael T. & Richard Page, B. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Germanic linguistics, 49–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trommer, Jochen. 2021. The subsegmental structure of German plural allomorphy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 39, 601–656.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry & Kooij, Jan G.. 1998. Prosodic choices and the Dutch nominal plural. In Kehrein, Wolfgang & Wiese, Richard (eds.), Phonology and morphology of the Germanic languages, 187–197. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Wijk, Judith. 2002. The Dutch plural landscape. In Broekhuis, Hans & Fikkert, Paula (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2002, 211–221. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996. The phonology of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 2009. The grammar and typology of plural noun inflection in varieties of German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12, 137–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar