Historical Morphology / Phonology Flashcards

Question

GL1 and exceptionless hypothesis

Answer 1

**Exceptionless / Regularity Hypothesis**: Phonological changes occur without lexical exemption. Problematic correspondences in Latin (retains PIE stops) and OE (underwent GL). /t/ - /t/ (no change) /t/ - /d/ (expected θ) These are **not random failure of GL1** (not exceptions) Moving forth: * may not have properly described the change involved * other changes may have intervened

Answer 2

When the segment is preceded by a stop, the segment does not change as per GL1. This suggests that GL1 was a conditioned change: p,t,k > f,θ,x / ¬C__ (¬C meaning 'not an obstruent') This seems to account for the first "exception": /t/ - /t/ (no change)

Answer 3

Recall: If a word is retained in two daughter languages, then we expect the segments to be inherited as the same in both languages, unless there has been change. Second hypothesis for /t/ - /d/: Some other changes must have intervened. VL: [obstruent -voice] > [obstruent +voice] /σ(unstressed) _ VL fundamentally affect medial segments, but not if the **preceding syllable was stressed in PIE** Discovery of VL led to the development that **exceptionless hypothesis is not false**

Answer 4

1. Rule addition 2. Rule change 3. Simple rule loss 4. Rule loss with lexicalisation (=restructuring)

Answer 5

Case study: Rhoticity in EngEng Original state -> r-ful Rule added: r --> Ø/ __(rhyme) Result: r-lessness When the rule of r-deletion was first added to Eng, it was **variable** * rules can remain variable indefinitely * over time rules stop being variable and become obligatory Even with the rule of r-deletion, the linking r can still arise in some phonological conditions.

Answer 6

Case study: l-vocalisation Original rule: /l/ --> [ɫ] / __ (rhyme) Rule change: /l/ -->[ɫ] / __ (rhyme) > /l/ --> [w] / __ (rhyme) Output of the rule has been changed (loss of occlusion)

Answer 7

Rule disappears, removing all its effects. eg: NYC r-fulness If the increase in r-ful forms continues, it could become categorical (i.e., only r-ful forms are used) which would mean that the rule would be lost

Answer 8

A rule can disappear from a language but the **derived allophones it created remain** * involves a change at the phonemic level * segments that were allophones "become" phonemes Case study: French Nasal Vowels Stage 1: Nasalisation Rule V --> ṽ / __ N Stage 2: Rule Addition of Nasal-Deletion rule V --> ṽ / __ N N --> Ø / __ # Stage 3: Restructuring * Stage 2 rule is **variable** * Learners assume there is no nasal in the phonemic form * Both rules are thus lost + **phonemic form changes** * **Restructuring** of phonemic form Something that is predictable (allophonic) has now become unpredictable (phonemic)

Answer 9

Stage 1: PIE /pods/ --> [pods] 'foot' Stage 2: Rule addition of spirantisation p, t, k --> f, θ, x / ¬C __ (variable: learners know there is a stop in the phonemic form) /pods/ --> [fods] 'foot' Stage 3: Later pre-PGmc GL1 stops being variable, learners assume there is no stop in the phonemic form * **lexicalisation + restructuring**: rule is lost and the phonemic form changes /fods/ --> [fods] 'foot'

Answer 10

cf: Rule loss with lexicalisation > What happens if the lexicalisation happenes differently to different members of a morphological paradigm? Leads to **morphologisation** --> emergence of **irregular morphology**

Answer 11

Most PDE plurals are created by the affixing an <-s> or some variety. In irregular plurals, plurality is indicated by the use of a different vowel to the singular. * Plurality used to be expressed by suffixation in OE. * Phonological rule was innovated: i-umlaut a --> e/ __N i,j This environment was not common in nouns (eg mann had it, but only in the plural). * Another rule innovated: apocope (deleted /i/ and /u/ following heavy syllables) i,u --> Ø / σ[H] __# apocope stops being variable, learners assume vowel alternation is the phonemic form. **Lexicalisation + Restructuring** leads to the rise of irregular morphology

Answer 12

Morphologisation (structures that arose in other domains of linguistics enacting morphological changes) * the rule only applied to the plural morphology * when the rule disappears, vowel change becomes the morphological marker of plurality * this leaves a morpheme with more than one phonemic / underlying form *PDE also shows vowel alternation in verb paradigms

Answer 13

cf: morphemes with >1 underlying form is difficult for learners. Analogical levelling simplifies the paradigm to remove the extra stored information. eg: help used to be an irregular verb but has now been levelled. * INF, PST and PST-PRT are all (was assumed by learners to be the same vowel in all forms) * began using regular -ed tense inflection as well

Answer 14

Analogy typically functions to **remove morphological irregularity** cf: phonological changes cann create morphological irregularity Levelling is a kind of morphological change. > Unlike phonological change, morph change is **not expected to be exceptionless** > analogy can be **unpredictable** (eg: consonant in INF 'freeze' levelled to sibilant in OE but levelled to the rhotic in OHG)

Answer 15

Reduction > tends to affect segments at the end of words > change is quite common in the 'final position' > OE stress patterns led to final syllables being unstressed (change is common in unstressed positions) NB: Even if change is common in any given environment, that does not mean that change is guaranteed to happen Changes that count as reduction: 1. weak positions (final + unstressed) 2. involve some kind of loss (loss of difference between segments, loss of segments and even entire loss of syllables) Loss of difference between segments can occur in some forms of **mergers** >in weak positions segments can merge to become unmarked segments > schwa claimed to be unmarked vowel, coronal claimed to be unmarked place of articulation Examples of reduction in weak positions: 1. vowels > schwa 2. loss of final vowels 3. labials / velars > coronals 4. loss of final consonants

Answer 16

eg: collapse of case system > led to erosion of inflection > inflections were mostly vowel differences and consonants in **final unstressed syllables** eg: collapse of adjectival inflection > presence of syncretism (conducive for merger) > many of the distinctions that are expressed clearly are carried by a final vowel > these final syllables were unstressed

Answer 17

Stage 1: ME unstressed codas m>n * loss of difference due to a **merger to the unmarked coronal /n/** Stage 2: ME unstressed syllables i,e,u,o,a>ə * merger to unmarked vowel * loss of differences --> fewer vowels can occur in unstressed syllables Stage 3: ME unstressed final syllables ə>Ø * Segmental loss

Answer 18

Phonological reduction led to mergers in the forms of the case inflections. Effected **erosion** of the inflections