Abstract
<p>Many theories of phonology use some notion of ``word'' as a unit of representation or as a domain for application of phonological processes. However, the determination of when a phonological unit counts as a word is not tied to any outside structure or definition, it is simply assumed as a primitive unit of the calculation. The assumption that the word is a primitive unit, however, is questioned by the theory of Distributed Morphology (Halle &amp; Marantz 1993, et seq.). If the word is not a unit on the syntactic side of the derivation, however, then there is the question of where the unit of the phonological word comes from.</p><p>The goal of this paper is to present an overview of a theory which calculates the correspondences between the information from the morphosyntax and the phonological domain of the word. This paper highlights a number of correspondences between morphosyntactic structures and phonological words and posits some possible operations on the PF derivation for creating phonological words from these structures.</p>
Highlights
Many theories of phonology use some notion of “word” as a unit of representation or as a domain for application of phonological processes
One version of this type of theory involves structures such as the Morphosyntactic Word (M-Word), which is a particular relationship between morphemes, as shown in (1): (1) Morphosyntactic Word (M-Word): (Embick & Noyer, 2001)
The examples shown in (4) and (5) demonstrate that ř-Level phonology applies within the bounds of an M-Word, but not between neighboring M-Word structures
Summary
Many theories of phonology use some notion of “word” as a unit of representation or as a domain for application of phonological processes. Theories of the Prosodic Hierarchy (Selkirk 1978, 1984; Nespor & Vogel 1986; Inkelas 1989), have a notion of word (called Prosodic Word), that is the unit of prosody smaller than a phrase In both these types of theories, the determination of when a phonological unit counts as a word is not tied to any outside structure or definition, it is assumed as a primitive unit of the calculation. The domains for meaning storage and interpretation (for example, of idioms) are clearly larger than the phonological word (see Marantz 1997) All of this taken together, it appears that there is no need for the unit of the word on the syntactic side of the derivational model. This paper is not meant to be a comprehensive defense of this theory, rather a number of structure-to-phonology relations will be sketched out as an overview and introduction to this sort of research program
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
