Speaker Series: Dr. David Embick, Thursday 11/5, 11:30

Speaker Series: Dr. David Embick, Thursday 11/5, 11:30 - 1:0

Schedule information
Event	Speaker Series: Dr. David Embick, Thursday 11/5, 11:30 - 1:0
When	Thursday, November 5, 2009 from 11:30am to 1:00pm
Where	ICC 450
Event details
Details	Limits on stem alternation This talk looks at the status of alternations in the grammar, and, in particular, at what evidence there is for treating certain alternations as 'morphological', and others as 'phonological'. It is generally agreed that some alternations in the form of a morpheme involve suppletive allomorphy, part of the morphology. So, for example, 2s agreement in Latin is realized a _-isti_ with perfect forms of the verb, but _-s_ elsewhere. On the other hand, other alternations are treated as part of the phonology. So, for instance, the different pronuncations of the English plural affix in the words _cat-s_, _dog-s_, and _church-es_ is not suppletive allomorphy like that found with Latin 2s agreement. Rather, there is an underlying /z/ that is changed by the phonology to yield the attested surface forms. Moving beyond these types of examples, I examine cases that have a sort of intermediate property: specifically, cases of _stem alternation_ that are (i) not part of the 'normal' phonology in any obvious sense, but (ii) not obviously suppletive either. The alternation between simple vowels and diphthongs in Spanish verbs like _pensar_ `think' is one such case: this verb shows e.g. 1s _pienso_, with a diphthong, but 1pl _pensamos_, with a simple vowel. Diphthongization is not part of the normal phonology; it is applies to some Roots (like _pensar_), but not to others (e.g. _tensar_ `tauten') that look like they could undergo it. What is the status of such alternations? Are they cases of (suppletive) contextual allomorphy, or the result of (morpho)phonological operations? I bring evidence from locality considerations to bear on stem alternations, and argue that a 'morphophonological' treatment superior to a morphological alternative that lists stems as contextual allomorphs. Three main points are discussed. First when the locality conditions on contextual allomorphy for elements other than stems (see Embick 2010) are taken into account, stem alternation does not behave like the contextual allomorphy that is seen with other types of morphemes. This is an argument for treating such alternations as non-suppletive, i.e., a morphophonological. Second, cases of stem alternation that really are suppletive (e.g. Italian _va(d)-_ and _and-_ for `go') must obey the locality conditions on contextual allomorphy. Third, there appear to be some differences between the alternations that occur under strict adjacency, and those that do not; some comments regarding the importance of such patterns are offered in conclusion.
Access	» This event has not been marked as open to the public.
Contact	Jennifer Brusstar, Department of Linguistics, brusstaj@georgetown.edu, 202.687.5956
Sponsors	Department of Linguistics
Web site	For more information, see http://linguistics.georgetown.edu/
Calendar	Linguistics, Speaker Series » Information about this calendar » Other events on this calendar » All events on the Master Calendar