{"id":90,"date":"2022-06-18T07:40:11","date_gmt":"2022-06-18T07:40:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/glowlinguistics.org\/46\/?page_id=90"},"modified":"2022-09-28T07:12:11","modified_gmt":"2022-09-28T07:12:11","slug":"phonology","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/glowlinguistics.org\/46\/phonology\/","title":{"rendered":"Non-automatic alternations in phonology"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><mark style=\"background-color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)\" class=\"has-inline-color has-dark-red-color\">April 15, 2023 &#8211; University of Vienna<\/mark><\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Invited speaker<\/strong>: Sabrina Bendjaballah (CNRS &amp; Universit\u00e9 de Nantes)<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Description:<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>Natural languages offer many examples of phenomena that eschew the extraction of a generalisation, but rather call for lexical storage, such as classic examples of suppletion (<em>go<\/em>\/<em>went<\/em>, <em>I<\/em>\/<em>me<\/em>, <em>good<\/em>\/<em>better<\/em> etc.). On the other hand we find alternations that are completely general and invite a treatment in terms of principles\/rules\/constraints: tapping in English, phrase-final devoicing of Turkish <em>r<\/em>, vowel reduction in Brazilian Portuguese etc. As soon as we come to less clear-cut cases, however, we enter a battle field \u2014 the question of what to do with phenomena such as English Velar Softening (<em>electric<\/em>\/<em>electricity<\/em>), German Umlaut (<em>Wolf<\/em>\/<em>W\u00f6lfe<\/em>) or the various Polish palatalisations (<em>noga<\/em>\/<em>nodze<\/em>) has occupied generations of linguists and prompted the development of various solutions: the birth of morphonology (Trubetzkoy 1931); the subsumption of all such phenomena under phonology (Halle 1959, Chomsky &amp; Halle 1968) with the option of having different strata (as in Lexical Phonology, Kiparsky 1982), indexed constraints (Alderete 1999, Ito &amp; Mester 1999), or co-phonologies (Orgun 1996, Inkelas and Zoll 2005); making those phenomena a part of morphology (Ford &amp; Singh 1983), or the lexicon (many versions of Government Phonology, e.g. Kaye 1995); combining insights from different models of storage and computation (e.g. the stratal approach in Berm\u00fadez-Otero 2012), to only name a few. Furthermore, the boundaries between the various components (phonology, morphology, lexicon) are sometimes argued to be fuzzy (Dressler 1985).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The arguments in favour of one or the other solution revolve around questions like these:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>What is the function of the phenomenon in question? In particular, does it signal a morphological category? Do we lose a generalisation if we relegate the phenomenon in question to the lexicon?<\/li><li>Can a phonological phenomenon refer to morphological properties and if yes, which ones?<\/li><li>Does a phonological phenomenon have to be exceptionless\/automatic? Does it have to be (fully) productive? Does it have to apply in loanwords? Does it have to be carried over to L2-acquisition?<\/li><li>Does the phenomenon in question have to be natural? Does there have to be a connection between target and trigger?<\/li><li>Are there different components\/strata, and if so, what is their architecture? Are they strictly separated from each other or do they shade off into each other?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Obviously, all those questions refer back to a more fundamental issue: What is the role and purview of phonology, and (how) does it differ from other areas of our linguistic competence?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Today, despite decades of scholarly research, the issue is far from resolved. This workshop focuses on the discussion of the above-mentioned questions; its goal is to evaluate the state of affairs, and to identify possible directions for future research that may help to get closer to a consensus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>We welcome two types of contributions: on the one hand, presentations may discuss how specific non-automatic alternations in a certain language (such as, for example, German Umlaut) can (or cannot) be treated in different phonological theories, and whether this presents evidence in favour of a specific approach. On the other hand, we also invite contributions that evaluate different theories\/models that have been proposed in the literature to deal with non-automatic alternations, preferably in the light of broader discussions on the structure of grammar (e.g. by comparing them to current theories of other components or of a general architecture of grammar).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Alderete, John. 1999. Morphologically governed accent in Optimality Theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Berm\u00fadez-Otero, Ricardo. 2012. The architecture of grammar and the division of labour in exponence. In: Trommer, Jochen (ed.). The morphology and phonology of exponence: the state of the art. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 8-83.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Chomsky, Noam &amp; Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York, Evanston, London: Harper &amp; Row.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Dressler, Wolfgang. 1985. Morphonology: the dynamics of derivation. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Ford, Alan &amp; Rajendra Singh. 1983. On the status of morphophonology. In: Richardson, John F. , Mitchell Marks &amp; Amy Chukerman (eds.). Papers from the parasession on \u2018The Interplay of Phonology, Morphology and Syntax\u2019. Chicago, 22\u201323 April 1983. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 63\u201378.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Halle, Morris. 1959. The Sound Pattern of Russian. A Linguistic and Acoustical Investigation. The Hague: Mouton.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Inkelas, Sharon &amp; Cheryl Zoll. Reduplication: doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It\u00f4, Junko &amp; Armin Mester. 1999. The Phonological Lexicon. In: Natsuko Tsujimura (ed.). The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 62-100.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Kaye, Jonathan. 1995. Derivations and interfaces. In: Jacques Durand &amp; Francis&nbsp; Katamba (eds.). Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations. London, New York: Longman. 289\u2013332.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology, in: Hulst, H. van der and N. Smith (eds.). The Structure of Phonological Representations (I). Dordrecht: Foris. 131-175.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1996. Sign-based morphology and phonology: with special attention to Optimality Theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley..<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Trubetzkoy, Nikolaj S. 1931. Gedanken \u00fcber Morphonologie. Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague. 4. 160\u2013163.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>April 15, 2023 &#8211; University of Vienna Invited speaker: Sabrina Bendjaballah (CNRS &amp; Universit\u00e9 de Nantes) Description: Natural languages offer many examples of phenomena that eschew the extraction of a generalisation, but rather call for lexical storage, such as classic examples of suppletion (go\/went, I\/me, good\/better etc.). On the other hand we find alternations that &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/glowlinguistics.org\/46\/phonology\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Non-automatic alternations in phonology&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-90","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/glowlinguistics.org\/46\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/90","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/glowlinguistics.org\/46\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/glowlinguistics.org\/46\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/glowlinguistics.org\/46\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/19"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/glowlinguistics.org\/46\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=90"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/glowlinguistics.org\/46\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/90\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":188,"href":"https:\/\/glowlinguistics.org\/46\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/90\/revisions\/188"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/glowlinguistics.org\/46\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=90"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}