The role of heads and cyclicity in bracketing paradoxes in Armenian compounds
- PDF / 1,451,912 Bytes
- 43 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 98 Downloads / 150 Views
The role of heads and cyclicity in bracketing paradoxes in Armenian compounds Hossep Dolatian1
Received: 26 October 2019 / Accepted: 8 September 2020 © Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Abstract It is often argued that words have complex internal structure in terms of their morphology, phonology, and semantics. On the surface, Armenian compounds present a bracketing paradox between their morphological and phonological structure. I argue that this bracketing paradox simultaneously references endocentricity, strata, and prosody. I use Armenian as a case study to argue for the use of cyclic approaches to bracketing paradoxes over the more common counter-cyclic approaches. I analyze the bracketing paradox using cyclic Head-Operations (Hoeksema 1985) and Prosodic Phonology (Nespor and Vogel 1986), specifically the Prosodic Stem (Downing 1999a). I argue that the interaction between the bracketing paradox and the rest of compound phonology requires the use of stratal levels and cyclicity. I argue that counter-cyclic approaches like Morphological Merger (Marantz 1988) or Morphological Rebracketing (Sproat 1985) are inadequate because they make incorrect predictions about Armenian phonology.
1 Introduction A common idea in generative linguistics is that words have both morphosyntactic and prosodic structure (Booij and Lieber 1993). However, these structures can be non-isomorphic, mismatching, or paradoxical, i.e., a bracketing paradox (Pesetsky 1979; Williams 1981). Armenian compounds present one such bracketing paradox which simultaneously references endocentricity, strata, and prosody. I use Armenian as a case study to argue for the use of cyclic approaches to bracketing paradoxes over the more common counter-cyclic approaches. I analyze the bracketing paradox using cyclic Head-Operations (Hoeksema 1985) and Prosodic Phonology (Nespor and
B H. Dolatian
[email protected]
1
Stony Brook University, New York, USA
H. Dolatian
Vogel 1986), specifically the Prosodic Stem (Downing 1999a). I argue that the interaction between the bracketing paradox and the rest of compound phonology requires the use of stratal levels and cyclicity. I argue that counter-cyclic approaches like Morphological Merger (Marantz 1988) and Morphological Rebracketing (Sproat 1985) are inadequate because they make incorrect predictions about Armenian phonology. Armenian is an Indo-European isolate. Armenian has two standard dialects: Western and Eastern Armenian. The bracketing paradox is virtually the same in both dialects. I transcribe the data based on Western Armenian pronunciation.1 I give a brief preview of the data. In simplex nouns, the plural suffix is -er after monosyllabic bases (1a-i), -ner after polysyllabic bases (1a-ii). But plural formation creates a bracketing paradox in compounds. Compounds are formed by concatenating two stems, S TEM 1 and S TEM 2, normally with a linking vowel -a-. In some cases, the plural counts the number of syllables in the entire polysyllabic compound and surfaces as -ner (1b-ii). But in other compounds, the plural
Data Loading...
