Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 31
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Bennett, Ryan 2018. Recursive prosodic words in Kaqchikel (Mayan). Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, Vol. 3, Issue. 1,

    Fábregas, Antonio Krämer, Martin and Vulāne, Anna 2018. On exceptional stress assignment in Latvian: the case of prefixes. Journal of Baltic Studies, Vol. 49, Issue. 4, p. 529.

    Brown, Jason 2017. Non-adjacent reduplication requires spellout in parallel. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 35, Issue. 4, p. 955.

    Shuster, Victoria P. and Miozzo, Michele 2017. A selective morpho-phonological deficit?. Cognitive Neuropsychology, Vol. 34, Issue. 1-2, p. 52.

    Yildiz, Yasemin 2017. Explaining the orthography–phonology interface in written corpora: an Optimality–Theoretic approach. Corpora, Vol. 12, Issue. 2, p. 181.

    Blumenfeld, Lev 2016. Generative Metrics: An Overview. Language and Linguistics Compass, Vol. 10, Issue. 9, p. 413.

    Eide, Kristin Melum 2016. Finiteness Matters. Vol. 231, Issue. , p. 121.

    Downing, Laura J. and Inkelas, Sharon 2015. What is Reduplication? Typology and Analysis Part 2/2: The Analysis of Reduplication. Language and Linguistics Compass, Vol. 9, Issue. 12, p. 516.

    Blumenfeld, Lev 2015. Meter as faithfulness. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 33, Issue. 1, p. 79.

    Shaw, Jason A. Han, Chong and Ma, Yuan 2014. Surviving truncation: informativity at the interface of morphology and phonology. Morphology, Vol. 24, Issue. 4, p. 407.

    González, Carolina 2014. Variation within and across Romance Languages. Vol. 333, Issue. , p. 277.

    de Lacy, Paul and Kingston, John 2013. Synchronic explanation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 31, Issue. 2, p. 287.

    Saba Kirchner, Jesse 2013. Minimal reduplication and reduplicative exponence. Morphology, Vol. 23, Issue. 2, p. 227.

    McCarthy, John J. Kimper, Wendell and Mullin, Kevin 2012. Reduplication in Harmonic Serialism. Morphology, Vol. 22, Issue. 2, p. 173.

    2011. The Handbook of Phonological Theory. p. 779.

    Kennedy, Robert 2011. The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. p. 1.

    Becker, Michael and Potts, Kathryn Flack 2011. The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. p. 1.

    Tak, Jin-young 2011. Universals of Prenasalized Consonants: Phonemic or Derived, Single or Complex?. Journal of Universal Language, Vol. 12, Issue. 2, p. 127.

    Zimmermann, Eva and Trommer, Jochen 2011. Overwriting as optimization. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 29, Issue. 2, p. 561.

    McCarthy, John J. 2010. An Introduction to Harmonic Serialism. Language and Linguistics Compass, Vol. 4, Issue. 10, p. 1001.

    ×
  • Print publication year: 1999
  • Online publication date: January 2010

7 - Faithfulness and identity in Prosodic Morphology

Summary

Introduction

The theory of Prosodic Morphology (PM) addresses a range of empirical problems lying at the phonology-morphology interface: reduplication, infixation, root-and-pattern morphology, and canonical shape requirements (such as word minimality). Its goal is to explain the properties of these phenomena in terms of general, independently motivated principles of morphology, of phonology, and of their interface. If the enterprise is fully successful, then these principles alone will suffice, and there will be no PM-specific principles or apparatus lurking anywhere in linguistic theory. Put in this way, the goal of PM is the same as the rest of linguistic theory: to achieve greater empirical coverage and deeper explanation with fewer resources – in the happiest case, with no resources at all that are specific to the domain under investigation.

This program was initiated by identifying templates with prosodic categories, eliminating the freedom to stipulate the form of templates independent of the theory of prosodic forms. This is the Prosodic Morphology Hypothesis of McCarthy and Prince (1986). The successor to the Prosodic Morphology Hypothesis is Generalized Template Theory (McCarthy and Prince 1994a, b), which carries the explanatory goals of PM up to the next level: the elimination of templates per se in favor of widely applicable constraints on prosody, morphology, and their interface. In this view, typical templatic categories like the “Minimal Word” are given no independent status, but rather emerge in reduplicative contexts through appropriate ranking of constraints on foot parsing and grammar → prosody mapping (see section 4.3 below for discussion and illustration).

Another line of development in PM has been the study of infixation and related phenomena.

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

The Prosody-Morphology Interface
  • Online ISBN: 9780511627729
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627729
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×