Rules in A-Morphous and Realizational Pair Morphology

The format proposed in A-Morphous Morphology (AMM; Anderson 1992) differs from the format proposed in Matthews (1991) by extracting the stem variable ‘X’ from the feature bundle of a rule and placing it within a separate spell-out operation under the feature bundle. In this formalism, the Slovene 1st declension genitive plural rule in Figure 6.19 is expressed as in Figure 6.26.

The rule in Figure 6.26 illustrates a pair of other notational conventions adopted by Anderson (1992) in AMM. The first is that AMM just uses juxtaposition to represent concatenation in outputs like ‘Xov’. The second is that properties such as plural number and genitive case, and even declension class, are expressed by the binary features +plu, +gen, and +DC1, rather than by privative features like plu and gen. These binary features explicitly constrain the distribution of some

Slovene genitive plural rule (cf. Anderson 1992)

Figure 6.26 Slovene genitive plural rule (cf. Anderson 1992)

feature pairs that are implicitly constrained by feature co-occurrence conditions in analyses that use privative features. However, the choice between binary and privative features has no effect on the applicability of exponence rules. Given that spell-out rules are triggered by the presence of features, conflicting features are not needed to block rule ‘overapplication’.

The realization pair format proposed by Aronoff (1994) expresses exactly the same separation of features and operations in a more compact format. The rule in

  • (6.4) again corresponds to the rule in Figure 6.19.
  • (6.4) Slovene genitive plural exponence rule (cf. Aronoff 1994)
  • ([plu, gen, DC1], (X ^ Xov)}

The more intricate realization rule format proposed in Paradigm Function Morphology (PFM; Stump 2001) is again intertranslatable, though this is best discussed in the context of the other rule types in PFM in Section 6.4.3.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >