The Morphology and Phonology of Infixation by Alan Chi Lun Yu The dissertation of Alan Chi Lun Yu is approved: B.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 1998 M.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 1999 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Chair Date Doctor of Philosophy in the Date GRADUATE DIVISION of the Date UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Date Committee in charge: Professor Sharon Inkelas, Chair Professor Andrew Garrett Professor Johanna Nichols Professor Juliette Blevins Fall 2003 University of California, Berkeley Fall 2003 ABSTRACT The Morphology and Phonology of Infixation by Alan Chi Lun Yu The Morphology and Phonology of Infixation Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Copyright 2003 Professor Sharon Inkelas (Chair) by The subject matter of this study is the formalproperties of infixes. This study begins with a catalogue of the placement properties of infixation in Chapter 1, showing that there is a Alan Chi Lun Yu bias for infixes to target edge constituents. This edge bias is explained in Chapter 4 in terms of the Exogenesis Theory of Infixation, which advocates the view that edge infixes originate from historical prefixes and suffixes; an infix’s original peripheral position is reflected in its edge profile today. A synchronic theory of infixation, Generalized Phonological Subcategorization (GPS), which allows non-prosodic units to enter into subcategorization relations, is proposed in Chapter 2 to encode the subcategorization requirement of an infix. Past theories of infixation are reviewed also in Chapter 2, with particular attention focused on the Hybrid Models which account for the prominence- driven infixes in terms of Prosodic Subcategorization while promoting Displacement Theory (DT) as a mean to explain the distribution of the edge-oriented infixes. Arguments on both theoretical and empirical grounds are summoned against DT’s view - 1 - that edge infixes result from the movementof an underlying prefix or suffix acquiescing to certain phonological or morphological constraints. I advance the Subcategorization Non-violability Hypothesis, epitomized in the universal constraint ranking schema, MALIGN >> P, in Chapter 3 to supplement GPS by restricting the way morphological subcategorization requirement interacts with phonological constraints in the grammar; coerced affix movement (i.e. DT) is ruled out by virtue of the fact that constraints on To my parents morphological subcategorization must outrank all phonological constraints. Other typological aspects of infixation are reviewed in Chapter 5. - 2 - i Table of Contents 2.2.2.1.1 The case against Strong Explanatory Hypothesis……………. 82 2.2.2.1.2 The case against the Weak Explanatory Hypothesis………… 86 Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………… 1 2.2.2.2 Under-generation: Empirical inadequacy of DT…………………… 93 1.1 Locating the infixes: A typology of infix position……………………………...5 2.2.2.3 Hyperinfixation: a problem of over-generation……………………. 103 1.2 Introductory exemplification…………………………………………………...9 2.3 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………... 106 1.2.1 First consonant…………………………………………………………… 12 1.2.2 First vowel……………………………………………………………….. 19 Chapter 3: Case studies……………………………………………………………… 108 1.2.3 Final syllable……………………………………………………………... 32 3.1 Atayal active indicative infixation……………………………………………... 109 1.2.4 Final vowel………………………………………………………………..35 3.1.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………. 110 1.2.5 Stress and related metrical units…………………………………………. 40 3.1.2 Analysis………………………………………………………………….. 113 1.2.6 Other potential pivots…………………………………………………….. 45 3.1.3 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….. 120 1.2.7 Infixation in word games…………………………………………………50 3.2 Homeric infixation in English………………………………………………….. 120 1.3 Summary………………………………………………………………………..54 3.2.1 The basic pattern…………………………………………………………. 121 3.2.2 Non-peripherality of Homeric infixation………………………………… 125 Chapter 2: Theoretical approaches to infixation………………………………….. 58 3.2.3 Reduplication in Homeric infixation…………………………………….. 134 2.1 Infixation as Phonological Subcategorization…………………………………. 60 3.2.3.1 On the nature of the reduplicant……………………………………. 135 2.1.1 GPS as a unified account of infixation…………………………………... 62 3.2.3.2 Why reduplication? ……………………………………………….. 140 2.1.2 Evidence of non-prosodic units in phonology…………………………… 66 3.2.3.3 Variation in the reduplicant………………………………………... 143 2.1.3 Pivot peripherality………………………………………………………... 71 3.2.4 Variable infixation……………………………………………………….. 145 2.1.4 P-affixation vs. Genuine Infixation………………………………………. 73 3.2.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………...... 150 2.2 Displacement Theory: A critical analysis……………………………………… 78 3.3 Washo plural reduplication…………………………………………………….. 150 2.2.1 Derivational DT…………………………………………………………. 79 3.3.1 Washo: The basics……………………………………………………….. 152 2.2.2 Optimality Theoretic DT………………………………………………… 81 3.3.2 Plural reduplication in Washo…………………………………………….153 2.2.2.1 On the explanatory value of Displacement Theory………………...82 ii iii 3.3.3 Analysis………………………………………………………………….. 156 4.2.2.2 Haiman 1977 on Hua………………………………………………. 209 3.3.3.1 Stress assignment in Washo………………………………………...156 4.2.2.3 Predictions of entrapment…………………………………………..213 3.3.3.2 Infixing reduplication by way of Prosodic Alignment……………..159 4.2.3 Metathesis………………………………………………………………... 217 3.3.3.3 Reduplication and weight………………………………………….. 167 4.2.3.1 Metathesis as a source of infixation………………………………... 219 3.3.3.4 Vowel alternation in reduplication…………………………………. 171 4.2.3.2 Typology of metathesis-induced infixation………………………... 220 3.3.3.5 Vowel-initial stems…………………………………………………172 4.2.4 Reduplication mutation…………………………………………………...226 3.3.3.6 Reduplication of monosyllabic stems………………………………176 4.2.4.1 Hausa pluractionals………………………………………………… 226 3.3.3.6.1 E-plurals ………………………………………………………176 4.2.4.2 Trukese durative -ikk- ………………………………………………230 3.3.3.6.2 VC stems……………………………………………………...183 4.2.4.3 Yurok intensive -eg-……………………………………………….. 232 3.3.4 Previous analyses………………………………………………………… 185 4.2.4.4 Northern Interior Salish diminutives……………………………….237 3.3.4.1 VCV-reduplication…………………………………………………. 185 4.2.5 Prosodic stem association………………………………………………... 247 3.3.4.2 Urbanczyk 1993: Moraic circumscription………………………….187 4.2.5.1 Homeric infixation in English……………………………………… 249 3.3.5 Residue problems: the recalcitrant cases………………………………… 189 4.2.5.2 The emergence of -ma-…………………………………………….. 250 3.3.6 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….. 191 4.2.6 Discussion: ‘An apple never falls far from the tree’……………………... 254 4.3 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………... 256 Chapter 4: Explaining the typology…………………………………………………. 193 4.1 The role of acquisition in morphological change……………………………… 194 Chapter :5 Epilogue …………………………………………………………………. 260 4.2 Exogenesis Theory of Infixation: Toward a diachronic typology……………... 198 5.1 The phonology of infixation…………………………………………………… 262 4.2.1 Past efforts in understanding the origins of infixation…………………… 199 5.2 Semantic bias toward pluractionality…………………………………………... 264 4.2.2 Entrapment………………………………………………………………..201 5.3 Infixation as an areal feature? …………………………………………………. 267 4.2.2.1 Case study: Muskogean infixation…………………………………. 201 5.4 Formal similarity between infixes and endoclisis……………………………… 270 4.2.2.1.1 Subject pronominal morphologyin Muskogean languages….. 202 4.2.2.1.2 Entrapment in Proto-Muskogean…………………………….. 205 iv v Appendix I…………………………………………………………………………... 279 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Appendix II: Database of iFxed Segment Infixation ……………………………... 282 The process of writing a dissertation is never an individual enterprise; this dissertation is Appendix III: Database of Internal reduplication………………………………… 294 no exception. Thus it is with my deepest regret that I will not be able to thank every References…………………………………………………………………………… 301 single individual who has contributed, directly, unintentionally or perhaps even unwillingly, to the ideas presented in this dissertation. I thank them collectively. That said, a few individuals truly warrant special mention. To this end, none deserves my gratitude more than Sharon Inkelas and Andrew Garrett. Sharon first introduced me to the joy of working on morpho-phonology during my undergraduate years at Berkeley. This interest has ultimately culminated in this dissertation. Her intelligence and her penetrating insights on phonological and morphological issues have consistently served as a source of inspiration in my own work and as a phonologist. Her influence on this study and much of my other work, while not visible to the naked eye, is considerable. Much of the ideas presented in this work originated in discussions with her. Naturally, she should not be blame for any shortcomings that finds their ways into this study. On a more practical note, one could not ask for a better advisor than Sharon. Her patient and nurturing personality has made graduate school and the arduous dissertation-writing process a much more enjoyable experience than it would have been otherwise. Andrew Garrett, without a doubt, has to be one of the most didactic and multi- talented linguists alive. He exemplifies the type of scholar I aspire to become. His presentations, whether in writing or in lecture, are always thorough, meticulous, yet never seem to lose sight of the big picture. I hope that this dissertation approximates the standard he embodies. vi vii Most people would consider themselves lucky to have just one mentor whom they Finally, I must credit Charles Reiss for indirectly responsible for my moving to can go into a meeting and come out much energized and inspired. I considered myself Montreal during the last year of my dissertation-writing. Few people knew that, had it not luckiest to have two. Thank you, Sharon and Andrew! been for NAPhC 1 and 2, two of the most worthwhile conferences I have had the John Ohala showed me how linguistics, and phonology in particular, can be a privilege of attending, I would never have considered movingacross the continent, living laboratory science. While this dissertation ultimately focuses on the interaction of in the land of Canadian-raising, let alone applying for a visiting position at McGill. My phonology and morphology, John’s theory of sound change and his philosophy of science short-stay in Montreal has been a real time of growth. Thanks, Charles, for the many have guided me throughout the writing of this dissertation. Of course, no one who knows debates we had on the nature of phonological inquiry and all the parties and Ping-Pong John can miss his love of humor and jokes. I have learnt much fromhim in this respect. tournaments at your house! English being my adopted tongue, the nuances of jokes often elude me. But after years of My years at Berkeley would be much less interesting had it not been a few very exposure, all thanks to John, I am happy to report that I have acquired a healthy appetite special friends: (in alphabetical order) Ashlee Bailey for tolerating me as your roommate! for good jokes. Belen Flores for all the help in paperwork, Jeff Good for the many interesting Larry Hyman has also been a constant inspiration. His energy and his encyclopedic conversations about little things about the world that I didn’t know before, Julie Larson & knowledge on phonology and anything African (esp. Bantu) are enormous. I have Mary Paster for all the coffee hours we spent together, Mischa Park-Doob for all the benefited much from his advice and encouragement. Of course, I must also thank him for lovely picnics and for brightening my days in general, Darya Kavitskaya unknowingly all the splendid parties at his house and for introducing me to the enjoyment of a bottle of for being the model graduate student, Ruth Rouvier for being a good friend in general, fine wine. Ron Sprouse for all the stimulating discussions on phonology, the much needed I have learned much about doing fieldwork from Johanna Nichols, both inside and computing help and finally the excellent editing of my dissertation(!), Tess Wood for outside of the classroom. I am especially thankful for her encouragement to me to sparking my interests in semantics, and Esther Weiss for always being there to cheer me continue my studies of the Caucasian languages. Juliette Blevins, whom I met relatively on. Also, my year at McGill would not have been the same without the company of three late during my tenure at Berkeley, has much positive influence on the ultimate shape of special individuals: Lotus Goldberg, Ingrid Leung, and Naoko Tomioka. Thanks y’all! this dissertation. I am particular grateful for her agreeing to be on my dissertation My thanks also go to Glyne Piggot and Jonathan Bobaljik at McGill for welcoming committee even though she was residing at Cambridge, England at the time. me into the department and the many interesting discussions on linguistics in general and Lydia White for giving me the opportunity to spend the year working at McGill. viii ix I am fortunate, from a Chinese perspective, to have the support of my parents to pursue something as esoteric as linguistics.I thank them wholeheartedly for believing in my choice of study and profession and for their, sometimes much needed, encouragements. Chapter 1: Introduction Of course, my years at Berkeley would have been much less enjoyable had it not been the generous financial support from the Graduate Opportunity Program at Berkeley and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship program. This work is The subject matter of this study is the formal properties of infixes, morphs such as those also partially supported by the Valorisation Rechereche Quebec Project Le traitement de highlighted in(1)-(3), in the languages of the world. langue naturelle, A.M. di Sciullo (UQAM), P.I. (1) English expletive infixation (McCarthy 1982) together to-bloody-gether advance ad-bloody-vance enough e-bloody-nough important im-fuckin-portant Tatamagouchee Tatama-fuckin-gouchee (2) Atayal animate actor focus (Egerod 1965:263-6) qul qmul ‘snatch’ kat kmat ‘bite’ kuu kmuu ‘too tired, not in the mood’ h(cid:49)u(cid:18) hm(cid:49)u(cid:18) ‘soak’ skziap kmziap ‘catch’ sbil smbil ‘leavebehind’ x - 1 - within a stressed domain. For example, Samoan has a plural reduplicant that lodges (3) Koasati punctual reduplication (Kimball 1991:325) before the stressed foot (e.g., to(cid:18)úlu/to(cid:18)u(cid:18)úlu ‘fall, drop’). aló(cid:219)tkan alotló(cid:219)kan ‘to be full’ Chapter 2 offers a comprehensive overview of the main theoretical debates copóksin copokcó(cid:219)sin ‘to be a hill’ concerning the placement properties of infixation. Two frameworks of infix placement, Phonological Subcategorization and Displacement Theory, are reviewed in detail. I argue lapátkin lapatló(cid:219)kin ‘to be narrow’ for the theory ofGeneralizedPhonological Subcategorization, which sees infixation as a polóhkin polohpó(cid:219)kin ‘to be circular’ matter of a morph aligning with respect to some phonological unit, including CV units, talásban talastó(cid:219)ban ‘tobethin’ and conclude that Displacement Theory is inadequate on both theoretical and empirical grounds. A proper theory of infixation must also distinguish between two types of The termINFIX is defined as an overt continuous morph that appears within a derived infixes. I argue that while all infixes have subcategorization frames that target some discontinuous morph that exists in a continuous form independent of the infixed form, and phonological unit, a GENUINE INFIX has an additional requirement of non- the individual parts of this resultant discontinuous morph must not be continuous morphs peripherality, which prevents it from ever being realized at the periphery of a stem. For themselves. This study is dedicated to exemplifying, clarifying and explaining this instance, the English Homeric infix -ma- generally appears after a trochaic disyllabic foot morphological phenomenon. The main original contributions are a large-scale cross- (e.g.,saxophone(cid:111)saxo-ma-phone). However, if the word is disyllabic, -ma- does not linguistic study of infixation and a detailed investigation of the diachronic sources of appear as a suffix; the word is expanded so that -ma- appears as an infix on the surface. infixes. This rich factual material is brought to bear on significant issues of considerable (e.g.,oboe(cid:111)oba-ma-boe never *oboe-ma). By contrast, a PHONOLOGICAL AFFIX debate. The new generalizations that emerge from the typological and diachronic study does not have such a requirement and may surface at the periphery, thus giving an are discussed and explanations are provided. impression of being prefixing or suffixing. For example, in Kugu Nganhcara, the plural In this chapter, I map out the formal variation found in infixation, identifying seven VC(C) reduplicant appears before the first vowel of the stem (e.g., pukpe ‘child’ (cid:111) pivots, the reference points of infixation, that cluster in two locations. Most infixes are pukukpe). When the stem is vowel-initial, the reduplicant appears ‘prefixing’ (e.g., iiru- edge-oriented, appearing near the beginning or the end of a stem. For instance, Chamorro ma ‘here-EMPH’(cid:111)iiriiru-ma). has an actor focus marker that appears before the first vowel (e.g., tristi ‘sad’/ trumisti Chapter 3 follows up on the theory advanced in Chapter 2, proposing a model of ‘becomes sad’), and an intensive reduplicant that appears after the final vowel (métgot morpho-phonological interaction where morphological alignment is never violated. I ‘strong’ / métgogot ‘very strong’). Others are prominence-driven, congregating near or - 2 - - 3 - offer three case studies to illustrate the viability of this non-Displacement approach. The first study deals with the case of Atayal actor focus -m- infixation, focusing on the 1.1 Locating the infixes: A typology of infix position intricacies of alignment evaluation. A study of English ma-infixation follows, illustrating Since this work is a study of infixation from a typological perspective, a well-constructed how the non-peripherality of a genuine infix is handled using bidirectional typological database is needed; a theory of infixation is empirically vulnerable without a subcategorization. The final study deals with a case of internal reduplication in Washo, map of what types of infixation exist in the world’s languages. The typology presented in arguing that the placement of the reduplicant is intimately connected to the property of this work relies heavily on the notion of the PIVOT. The term PIVOT refers to the stress assignment in the language. morphological and/or phonological unit to which an infix attaches.1 There are several Chapter 4 deals with the problem of explaining the synchronic typology of infixation, descriptive advantages in adopting the notion of pivot. Take, for example, the particularly, the fact that infixes are predominately edge-oriented. I first explore the role prominence pivot, the stressed foot. In the case of English expletive infixation, the that acquisition plays in the emerged typology of infix, showing that the set of infixal expletive appears to the left of a stressed foot. pivots coincides with the set of psycholinguistically prominent positions. However, I argue that this convergence is the result of the historical development of infixes, rather (4) English expletive infixation (McCarthy 1982) than an intrinsic property of infixation per se. A theory, called Exogenesis Theory of togéther to-bloody-gether Infixation, is advanced, arguing that edge-oriented infixes originate from historical advánce ad-bloody-vance adfixes. To support this theory, an overview of the diachronic typology is presented. Four Bhowáni Bho-bloody-wani pathways are identified: entrapment, reduplication mutation, phonetic metathesis, and perháps per-bloody-haps prosodic stem association. The diachronic typology shows that infixes are predominately enóugh e-bloody-nough edge-oriented since they were historical prefixes and suffixes. This chapter ends with a impórtant im-fuckin-portant discussion on the relation between the results of the diachronic typology and the formal Kalamazóo Kalama-fuckin-zoo theory proposed in Chapter 2. Tatamagóuchee Tatama-fuckin-gouchee Chapter 5 concludes with discussions on other typological aspects of infixation, Winnipesáukee Winnipe-fuckin-saukee focusing particularly on several additional asymmetries in the phonology and meaning of 1 Kiparsky1986 uses the term ‘pivot’ to refer to the portion of a root over which an infix‘skips’.The Kiparskyan understandingof the pivot is analogous to that of negative circumscription (McCarthy and infixation. Prince1990a).Apivot is treated as a unit ignoredfor the purposeof affixation. The notionofpivot adopted here is similar to that of positive circumscription.A pivot is treated as the circumscribed constituentto which an affixattaches. - 4 - - 5 -